I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
The parents are committed Christians and believe life is sacred and are entitled to take whatever legal action they wish to try and keep their son alive, even if they lose the judgements
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Precisely.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course. They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority. Which at root rests on consent.
The greater danger is that they don't overturn a Federal law banning abortion nationwide.
A decision that it is a State not Federal issue would be entirely in keeping AFAIK with precedent and Dobbs.
Yes but there is zero chance of the GOP winning Congress and the White House on a platform of a federal abortion ban, there is a chance the Democrats could win nationwide though on a platform for a Federal law making abortion legal.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Precisely.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course. They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority. Which at root rests on consent.
The greater danger is that they don't overturn a Federal law banning abortion nationwide.
A decision that it is a State not Federal issue would be entirely in keeping AFAIK with precedent and Dobbs.
But there is lots of Federal healthcare law. Why would it be that an abortion law at Federal level wouldn't be constitutional, but all the other Federal healthcare law was constitutional?
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Precisely.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course. They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority. Which at root rests on consent.
The greater danger is that they don't overturn a Federal law banning abortion nationwide.
A decision that it is a State not Federal issue would be entirely in keeping AFAIK with precedent and Dobbs.
But there is lots of Federal healthcare law. Why would it be that an abortion law at Federal level wouldn't be constitutional, but all the other Federal healthcare law was constitutional?
Don't ask awkward questions. In any event, a shadow docket decision could avoid giving anything so grubby as reasons.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Precisely.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course. They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority. Which at root rests on consent.
The greater danger is that they don't overturn a Federal law banning abortion nationwide.
A decision that it is a State not Federal issue would be entirely in keeping AFAIK with precedent and Dobbs.
Yes but there is zero chance of the GOP winning Congress and the White House on a platform of a federal abortion ban, there is a chance the Democrats could win nationwide though on a platform for a Federal law making abortion legal.
Many of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe said that it was settled law. The Republicans don't have to win an election on the policy. They would face pressure from their female-body interfering grassroots to pass such a law as soon as they were able.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Precisely.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course. They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority. Which at root rests on consent.
The greater danger is that they don't overturn a Federal law banning abortion nationwide.
A decision that it is a State not Federal issue would be entirely in keeping AFAIK with precedent and Dobbs.
But there is lots of Federal healthcare law. Why would it be that an abortion law at Federal level wouldn't be constitutional, but all the other Federal healthcare law was constitutional?
As it is a more conservative SC than the one that ruled Obamacare was constitutional 10 years ago
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Precisely.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course. They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority. Which at root rests on consent.
The greater danger is that they don't overturn a Federal law banning abortion nationwide.
A decision that it is a State not Federal issue would be entirely in keeping AFAIK with precedent and Dobbs.
But there is lots of Federal healthcare law. Why would it be that an abortion law at Federal level wouldn't be constitutional, but all the other Federal healthcare law was constitutional?
Healthcare is not in the Federal government's remit so lots of healthcare laws have been struck down over the years.
In order for a Federal law to be legal it must be justified on other grounds. Most common is interstate commerce AFAIK but others exist too.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Precisely.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course. They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority. Which at root rests on consent.
The greater danger is that they don't overturn a Federal law banning abortion nationwide.
A decision that it is a State not Federal issue would be entirely in keeping AFAIK with precedent and Dobbs.
Yes but there is zero chance of the GOP winning Congress and the White House on a platform of a federal abortion ban, there is a chance the Democrats could win nationwide though on a platform for a Federal law making abortion legal.
Many of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe said that it was settled law. The Republicans don't have to win an election on the policy. They would face pressure from their female-body interfering grassroots to pass such a law as soon as they were able.
Then lose the next Presidential and Congressional elections by a landslide to the Democrats and be out of power for a generation. Hence they won't but leave it to the states and try and pass bans where they have state majorities in the state legislature and a GOP governor
So continuity Boris, but substandard continuity Boris.
Danger of using percentages of percentages, actually more would think Truss would be better than think Sunak would be.
76% of 31% = 24% 45% of 69% = 31%
Which matches the fact that Truss beats Sunak in the question, even with Boris included.
Yes but Boris comfortably beats both
Off Topic
I am sat at my desk going through dreary waste management files listening to Adam Fleming's R4 series "Boris" on BBC Sounds. The man is quite frankly unbelievable.
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Precisely.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course. They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority. Which at root rests on consent.
The greater danger is that they don't overturn a Federal law banning abortion nationwide.
A decision that it is a State not Federal issue would be entirely in keeping AFAIK with precedent and Dobbs.
But there is lots of Federal healthcare law. Why would it be that an abortion law at Federal level wouldn't be constitutional, but all the other Federal healthcare law was constitutional?
As it is a more conservative SC than the one that ruled Obamacare was constitutional 10 years ago
The SC ruled on Obamacare most recently in 2021, just last year, so that's not it.
The core component of Obamacare was ruled legal as it was a Federal tax, so legal for Congress to act under federal taxation authority.
Other parts of Obamacare were struck off as unconstitutional already.
Congress would need standing to pass laws on abortion. Since Dobbs says that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, any Federal law would under precedent be unconstitutional unless underpinned by other Federal powers to make it lawful.
Yes, their confidence in that video is not, yet, matched by the counted votes
And yet they ARE supremely confident. Suggests to me they have insider knowledge of which votes are coming from where, and a win is all-but guaranteed. We shall see
Which means that repealing RvW is working as it should do and perhaps not how some of the GOP expected.
Yes, the ruling was correct to leave it to the states.
However for pro life activists even if only 1 or 2 states like Alabama and Mississippi ban abortion that would still be better than the situation under Roe v Wade where abortion on demand was effectively legal US wide.
They don't really care if the GOP fail to retake Congress and the White House and lose some governors races and state legislatures in the process due to the pro choice backlash
They'll certainly care in Congress passes some pro choice legislation in that scenario.
It really is not in the interests of the pro lifers for the GOP to be either obsessional or extreme about abortion.
Congress cannot pass pro choice legislation making abortion legal nationwide again now without this SC striking it down as unconstitutional. Otherwise it requires the Democrats to win the Presidency, 2/3 of both Chambers of Congress and most state legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment for a nationwide right to abortion.
So it very much is in the interests of pro lifers to keep the GOP pro life actually as even if the GOP lost the Presidency and Congress more GOP controlled states would have pro life legislation than when the GOP were in charge in DC and Roe v Wade still stood
Yes they can. Literally the whole point of Dobbs is that the constitution is neutral on Abortion, not that that the constitution forbids a law allowing abortion.
The SC would have to overturn the ruling they just made to strike down a federal law enshrining Roe.
Yes, so GOP controlled states can now ban abortion.
Roe however made abortion legal nationwide so any state ban on abortion would have been unconstitutional. The SC have now said a nationwide constitutional right to abortion does not exist and it will be decided at state level, a nationwide law to make abortion legal would therefore also be unconstitutional
A Federal law legalising abortion would not be unconstitutional by the Dobbs ruling, otherwise you wouldn't have any Federal Law.
There is no Federal law allowed which is not in keeping with the Constitution and how the SC interprets it
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Federal Law concerning healthcare. There are many Federal Laws concerning healthcare. There would be nothing Unconstitutional about a Federal Law concerning abortion, unless and until the Supreme Court were to rule that abortion itself was unconstitutional.
Precisely.
Were the Court to overturn a federal abortion law, they would invite some very complicated consequences, which would likely see their jurisdiction limited in due course. They've already greatly disturbed the balance of powers between federal judiciary and legislature. If they continue with legislation form the bench not just unmoored unmoored from precedent, but in sharp conflict with it, they invite the overthrow of the court's authority. Which at root rests on consent.
The greater danger is that they don't overturn a Federal law banning abortion nationwide.
A decision that it is a State not Federal issue would be entirely in keeping AFAIK with precedent and Dobbs.
Yes but there is zero chance of the GOP winning Congress and the White House on a platform of a federal abortion ban, there is a chance the Democrats could win nationwide though on a platform for a Federal law making abortion legal.
There is a non-zero chance of the GOP winning Congress and the White House then deciding to pass a federal abortion ban, whether elected on that mandate or not.
Afterall all but one of the six SC Justices who overturned Roe had sworn that Roe was settled law, before they chose to unsettle it.
Alex Albon @alex_albon I understand that, with my agreement, Williams Racing have put out a press release this afternoon that I am driving for them next year. This is right and I have signed a contract with Williams for 2023. I will be driving for Williams next year.
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
The parents are committed Christians and believe life is sacred and are entitled to take whatever legal action they wish to try and keep their son alive, even if they lose the judgements
"entitled" seems an entirely accurate choice of word, tbf.
The Federal Government controls vast swathes of laws over states that it "can't" by tying them to Federal Funding.
At the very least a federal law could open abortion clinics on federal land. Imagine, every army base comes with a Roe compliant clinic.
That's clutching at straws, that isn't going to happen.
Do you accept now then that you were wrong to say that SCOTUS would have to overturn Dobbs to overturn a Federal ban/authorisation as unconstitutional?
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
The parents are committed Christians and believe life is sacred and are entitled to take whatever legal action they wish to try and keep their son alive, even if they lose the judgements
Dig further. There is more about the mother on the web that you might want to check out before you beatify her.
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
The parents are committed Christians and believe life is sacred and are entitled to take whatever legal action they wish to try and keep their son alive, even if they lose the judgements
"entitled" seems an entirely accurate choice of word, tbf.
Surely we'll end up with the likes of Richard Littlejohn and Jeremy Clarkson in deradicalisation programmes?
You'd be hard to find a group who spend more time professing hate for this country than middle-aged (or elderly now) male newspaper columnists.
Jeremy Clarkson is barely a year older than me, so let's all laugh at your foolish error in describing him as elderly.
Look in the mirror old man...
62 can't be "elderly", surely?
Nah - it was mostly a joke about just how long they've been complaining about life.
To be fair to Littlejohn he's left the country, but given his ongoing obsession and regularly preaching negatively about Britain, maybe he could be considered radicalised and Rishi could always strip him of his citizenship.
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
The parents are committed Christians and believe life is sacred and are entitled to take whatever legal action they wish to try and keep their son alive, even if they lose the judgements
"entitled" seems an entirely accurate choice of word, tbf.
Only to hardline secular liberals
Like mothers who don't share their surname with their children?
The 3 Polls with most recent fieldwork dates have an average Lab lead of 3
SKS fans please explain
(7+1+3)/3 = 4
Happy to help.
3.75 surely?
/3 = .75 remainder? 🤔
BJO using median, presumably
Not a big SKS fan, but my explanation would be that Labour are currently more popular (or at least, less unpopular) than the Tories. Achieving that seems to be in SKS's job description
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
The parents are committed Christians and believe life is sacred and are entitled to take whatever legal action they wish to try and keep their son alive, even if they lose the judgements
Dig further. There is more about the mother on the web that you might want to check out before you beatify her.
I wouldn't go there.
However much I think their decisions misguided (which I do), every case like this one is not an easy one for either medics or parents. Going ad hominem (or in this case feminam) is, apart from anything else, poor argumentation.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
The parents are committed Christians and believe life is sacred and are entitled to take whatever legal action they wish to try and keep their son alive, even if they lose the judgements
Dig further. There is more about the mother on the web that you might want to check out before you beatify her.
I'd rather not.
Anyone losing a child is an horrific tragedy.
The way the death of this child is being dragged out through the courts is tragic and some of the courts like the ECHR should have dismissed the appeal immediately in my view. But I'd rather not engage in mudslinging over someone who is doing the wrong thing, for whatever reasons, in truly tragic circumstances.
The lawyers or activists piling on to either pursue their agenda or profiteer from this case should be ashamed of themselves.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
The parents are committed Christians and believe life is sacred and are entitled to take whatever legal action they wish to try and keep their son alive, even if they lose the judgements
Dig further. There is more about the mother on the web that you might want to check out before you beatify her.
I'd rather not.
Anyone losing a child is an horrific tragedy.
The way the death of this child is being dragged out through the courts is tragic and some of the courts like the ECHR should have dismissed the appeal immediately in my view. But I'd rather not engage in mudslinging over someone who is doing the wrong thing, for whatever reasons, in truly tragic circumstances.
The lawyers or activists piling on to either pursue their agenda or profiteer from this case should be ashamed of themselves.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of these difficult situations end up in court. For obvious reasons we only tend to hear about the cases which spend time in court.
Why? As I have said many times, it's a genuine hidden gem. He's quite right about how beautiful it is. And I'm not selfish about it. Why shouldn't it get more publicity so more people can come and enjoy it?
I picture a Tory activist on Bulleye, they get Liz Truss as their prize. Jim Bowen now does that dreadful dreadful thing, sheer sadism on early evening prime time tv - "Let's see what you COULD have won."
I picture a Tory activist on Bulleye, they get Liz Truss as their prize. Jim Bowen now does that dreadful dreadful thing, sheer sadism on early evening prime time tv - "Let's see what you COULD have won."
He smirks and unveils ... "Boris"!!
Contestant grimaces and looks sick as a parrot.
Nah, the analogy doesn't work. Boris would have to be the prize they'd gambled away in the end game, and let's have a look at what you could have won would therefore have to be Sunak...
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
The parents are committed Christians and believe life is sacred and are entitled to take whatever legal action they wish to try and keep their son alive, even if they lose the judgements
Dig further. There is more about the mother on the web that you might want to check out before you beatify her.
I'd rather not.
Anyone losing a child is an horrific tragedy.
The way the death of this child is being dragged out through the courts is tragic and some of the courts like the ECHR should have dismissed the appeal immediately in my view. But I'd rather not engage in mudslinging over someone who is doing the wrong thing, for whatever reasons, in truly tragic circumstances.
The lawyers or activists piling on to either pursue their agenda or profiteer from this case should be ashamed of themselves.
I agree with you.
I would only add that I suspect the publicity given to the case, the press intrusion, the turning of their son into a cause celebre, and the concomitant loss of dignity will actually make it harder, not easier, for the parents to cope with their grief once their son dies, as he surely will. The parents are, I think, acting against their own best interests.
Why? As I have said many times, it's a genuine hidden gem. He's quite right about how beautiful it is. And I'm not selfish about it. Why shouldn't it get more publicity so more people can come and enjoy it?
That's very public spirited of you. It's a fairly small hidden gem, so I had (erroneously) imagined you'd be concerned about it being spoiled by too many visitors. Apologies.
I picture a Tory activist on Bulleye, they get Liz Truss as their prize. Jim Bowen now does that dreadful dreadful thing, sheer sadism on early evening prime time tv - "Let's see what you COULD have won."
He smirks and unveils ... "Boris"!!
Contestant grimaces and looks sick as a parrot.
Nah, the analogy doesn't work. Boris would have to be the prize they'd gambled away in the end game, and let's have a look at what you could have won would therefore have to be Sunak...
Why? As I have said many times, it's a genuine hidden gem. He's quite right about how beautiful it is. And I'm not selfish about it. Why shouldn't it get more publicity so more people can come and enjoy it?
That's very public spirited of you. It's a fairly small hidden gem, so I had (erroneously) imagined you'd be concerned about it being spoiled by too many visitors. Apologies.
Plenty of room for us all out there!
(And it wouldn't be me got stuck in any traffic queues, remember!)
More amusingly, I had thought of biking out to watch but eventually I ended up biking too and from the garage to get my car sorted. And in between, as it was a nice hot sunny day, I chopped up a load of wood to burn in the stove.
Edit - also amusingly, at least three of those photos are technically Shoal Hill Common not Cannock Chase. But that's equally lovely and it's literally across a road so let's not be picky.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
When it comes to mass deaths and unparalleled emigration versus swimming championships having only biological women on the podium...I dunno. It's close but maybe climate change just edges it for 'most important'. Tough one mind you. Glad to see Andrew hasn't lost his mind there.
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
The parents are committed Christians and believe life is sacred and are entitled to take whatever legal action they wish to try and keep their son alive, even if they lose the judgements
Dig further. There is more about the mother on the web that you might want to check out before you beatify her.
I'd rather not.
Anyone losing a child is an horrific tragedy.
The way the death of this child is being dragged out through the courts is tragic and some of the courts like the ECHR should have dismissed the appeal immediately in my view. But I'd rather not engage in mudslinging over someone who is doing the wrong thing, for whatever reasons, in truly tragic circumstances.
The lawyers or activists piling on to either pursue their agenda or profiteer from this case should be ashamed of themselves.
I agree with you.
I would only add that I suspect the publicity given to the case, the press intrusion, the turning of their son into a cause celebre, and the concomitant loss of dignity will actually make it harder, not easier, for the parents to cope with their grief once their son dies, as he surely will. The parents are, I think, acting against their own best interests.
The story came on the one o'clock news yesterday as I drove home from swimming. The little 'un was confused, and wanted to know why a court would say a child had to die. It led to an interesting conversation on the nature of death, loss and suffering.
It sort-of came down to sometimes there is no 'good' answer; only better bad ones.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Wokeness is beginning to destroy education, like dry rot in the cellar. It started in America, where it is still the most advanced, and now it is spreading. It will eat away at everything unless it is rooted out
Even if you don't care about Wokeness per se, you should care about its political effects. It provokes right wing backlash, which leads to hard right governments. I presume you don't want that
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Wokeness is beginning to destroy education, like dry rot in the cellar. It started in America, where it is still the most advanced, and now it is spreading. It will eat away at everything unless it is rooted out
Even if you don't care about Wokeness per se, you should care about its political effects. It provokes right wing backlash, which leads to hard right governments. I presume you don't want that
Well she IS in touch with ordinary people. VERY ordinary people.
This question reminds me of the joke about the hikers who come across a bear, and one changes into his running shoes.
Don't leave me hanging ... the punchline?
Two friends are in the woods, having a picnic. They spot a bear running at them. One friend gets up and starts running away from the bear. The other friend opens his backpack, takes out his running shoes, changes out of his hiking boots, and starts stretching.
“Are you crazy?” the first friend shouts, looking over his shoulder as the bear closes in on his friend. “You can’t outrun a bear!”
“I don’t have to outrun the bear,” said the second friend. “I only have to outrun you.”
The choice between who out of Truss and Sunak (and Sir Keir, tbf) is more in touch with ordinary people is very much a "that's not saying very much".
After another awful night for the country club republicans vs the Trumpists, is this now a voter class the Dems might be have half an eye on?
Could the Dems get some cashmere sweater wearing votes if they are aggressive enough with China and Russia??
Is this the agenda behind Pelosi's visit??
Pelosi is a long term and consistent anti-PRC hawk. From well before it was at all fashionable. She unfurled a banner in Tiananmen Square more than 30 years ago, causing quite an incident.
Sorry to lower the tone, but she was quite a looker..
Her eyes look manic.
There's something weird about that photo that makes it look like the lower half of her face does not belong to the upper half. Cover the top, and the mouth and chin look normal, cover the mouth and chin and the nose and eyes look normal.
I guess it is unfortunate make-up and lighting.
(ETA: I was intending to comment on the photography; apologies as I shouldn't be commenting on her appearance, which I realise is the net effect of my post.)
One of the eyes is open far wider than the other. It's probably due to the hair over one. It makes her look insane. She's very pretty though.
After another awful night for the country club republicans vs the Trumpists, is this now a voter class the Dems might be have half an eye on?
Could the Dems get some cashmere sweater wearing votes if they are aggressive enough with China and Russia??
Is this the agenda behind Pelosi's visit??
Pelosi is a long term and consistent anti-PRC hawk. From well before it was at all fashionable. She unfurled a banner in Tiananmen Square more than 30 years ago, causing quite an incident.
Sorry to lower the tone, but she was quite a looker..
Her eyes look manic.
There's something weird about that photo that makes it look like the lower half of her face does not belong to the upper half. Cover the top, and the mouth and chin look normal, cover the mouth and chin and the nose and eyes look normal.
I guess it is unfortunate make-up and lighting.
(ETA: I was intending to comment on the photography; apologies as I shouldn't be commenting on her appearance, which I realise is the net effect of my post.)
Why shouldn't you be commenting on her appearance?
It is, in general, not very kind (and not very productive).
There are many and varied reasons why the culture of commenting on physical appearance is especially detrimental in politics, sport, etc. Even more so when directed at women.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Wokeness is beginning to destroy education, like dry rot in the cellar. It started in America, where it is still the most advanced, and now it is spreading. It will eat away at everything unless it is rooted out
Even if you don't care about Wokeness per se, you should care about its political effects. It provokes right wing backlash, which leads to hard right governments. I presume you don't want that
I agree with Nick. Weird.
Those of a centre left and left wing disposition see no threat in Wokeness at all, because it hasn't - so far - challenged any of their beliefs. It looks like political correctness, perhaps a bit silly at times, but generally a really good thing, hurray for equality and diversity, be nice to minorities, yay for gays, etc
So any harsh critique of it looks "weird". But in the end the slow learners will catch up
There is one area where they are already catching up. The Woke pursuit of trans rights, where the intersectional rights of trans people are deemed more important, because more oppressed, than mere women
Note that many leftwing feminists, from J K Rowling to multiple Guardian journalists, have wised up sharpish, and are fighting back, tho often losing careers in the process. Consider them canaries in the coalmine
Well she IS in touch with ordinary people. VERY ordinary people.
This question reminds me of the joke about the hikers who come across a bear, and one changes into his running shoes.
Don't leave me hanging ... the punchline?
'All I have to do is outrun you!'
There is however a Russian version of this joke that's actually rather better. What I like about it is it sends up positive national stereotypes.
Five men, a Russian, a Ukrainian, a Pole, an Englishman and a German were in a wood in Ukraine when a bear starts stalking them. The German shouts, 'run men! I will hold him off to pay the debt Germany owes you all!' So he turns and fights the bear with his bare [sorry] hands, as the others flee.
But a few minutes later, the bear is pursuing. The Ukrainian turns. 'This is my country. I must fight to defend you all!' So he takes on the bear as the others run.
But a few minutes later, the bear is still pursuing. So the Englishman turns. 'For the regiment!' he shouts as he takes his turn to do battle.
Three minutes later, the bear is still coming, and just the two are left. Suddenly the Russian turns, pulls a revolver out of his right pocket, and shoots the bear dead through the eye at 70 yards. Magnificent shot.
The Pole is stunned. 'But - why didn't you do that earlier?' he shouts.
The Russian shrugs, reaches into his other pocket, and pulls out a bottle of vodka. He knocks the lid off and offers the Pole a drink. 'Five men on one bottle? Too many!'
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Wokeness is beginning to destroy education, like dry rot in the cellar. It started in America, where it is still the most advanced, and now it is spreading. It will eat away at everything unless it is rooted out
Even if you don't care about Wokeness per se, you should care about its political effects. It provokes right wing backlash, which leads to hard right governments. I presume you don't want that
How I yearn for the good old days when righties believed in taking responsibility for their own actions rather than whine about being 'provoked'.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Wokeness is beginning to destroy education, like dry rot in the cellar. It started in America, where it is still the most advanced, and now it is spreading. It will eat away at everything unless it is rooted out
Even if you don't care about Wokeness per se, you should care about its political effects. It provokes right wing backlash, which leads to hard right governments. I presume you don't want that
I agree with Nick. Weird.
Those of a centre left and left wing disposition see no threat in Wokeness at all, because it hasn't - so far - challenged any of their beliefs. It looks like political correctness, perhaps a bit silly at times, but generally a really good thing, hurray for equality and diversity, be nice to minorities, yay for gays, etc
So any harsh critique of it looks "weird". But in the end the slow learners will catch up
There is one area where they are already catching up. The Woke pursuit of trans rights, where the intersectional rights of trans people are deemed more important, because more oppressed, than mere women
Note that many leftwing feminists, from J K Rowling to multiple Guardian journalists, have wised up sharpish, and are fighting back, tho often losing careers in the process. Consider them canaries in the coalmine
No, you still sound as weird as the fringe on the other side of the argument.
I picture a Tory activist on Bulleye, they get Liz Truss as their prize. Jim Bowen now does that dreadful dreadful thing, sheer sadism on early evening prime time tv - "Let's see what you COULD have won."
He smirks and unveils ... "Boris"!!
Contestant grimaces and looks sick as a parrot.
Nah, the analogy doesn't work. Boris would have to be the prize they'd gambled away in the end game, and let's have a look at what you could have won would therefore have to be Sunak...
Ah I defer to the greater Bullseye knowledge. I thought it was 100% accurate. Perhaps I'm getting Bullseye mixed up with Deal or No Deal, or 321. Edmonds and Rogers respectively there, of course, rather than Bowen, so no excuses for doing that if I did.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Wokeness is beginning to destroy education, like dry rot in the cellar. It started in America, where it is still the most advanced, and now it is spreading. It will eat away at everything unless it is rooted out
Even if you don't care about Wokeness per se, you should care about its political effects. It provokes right wing backlash, which leads to hard right governments. I presume you don't want that
How I yearn for the good old days when righties believed in taking responsibility for their own actions rather than whine about being 'provoked'.
If you go around preaching that "all whites are racist", don't be surprised if whites start voting as a racial bloc, in favour of themselves, because: Why not?
This footage is notable not just for the quantity but also the daytime usage of HIMARS. Note the Ukrainian soldier with possible MANPADS to the left.
It's strange. Because the HIMARS can reload anywhere, and the rockets are GPS guided, there's no need to have them in the same place even if they're firing at the same target.
The only reason I can think of is if they were firing at a target right at the limit of their range, and they only had one moderately safe place near the front line to fire from.
Maybe this was striking the railway as far towards Crimea as possible?
It does suggest that they are not exactly running scared of the Russian airforce and are willing to create such a tempting target for the sake of a video. The lack of use of airpower by the Russians in this war for anything other than random bombing of civilian targets is one of its strangest aspects. Suggests to me that the difference between their actual and paper strength is very considerable.
The enemy has completely failed to achieve air superiority. The Ukranians have handheld surface-to-air missiles everywhere, and have shot down a couple of hundred enemy planes so far. Very much the paper bear.
This is one of the perplexing things for me. The Russians should have been able to easily get air superiority by taking out the Uke's high-altitude SAM systems, and then operated above the range of the hand-held SAM systems.
I've seen it claimed that the reason is that the Russian air force is terrible at precision targeting from altitude, meaning the planes need to go low to hit a target - right into SAM range. Possibly because they haven't developed a Litening-style targeting pod - or at least fielded one in quantity.
If so, it is a classic example of going for the sexy things ("Look! We have a 5th Generation Fighter!") whilst missing the unsexy but really important things.
The Russians never developed SEAD as a specialist task. They hang some anti-radiation missiles off their fighters - which is a long way from specialist sensors and weapons US style.
In addition, their PGMs are rare. Which means that their aircraft have to attack at medium level to get hits. Which is right in the SAM sweet spot.
So they are very poor at suppressing SAMs and their aircraft attack right into the heart of medium SAM territory.
Their older naval cruise missiles are huge, but are designed to fly much of the mission at non-wave top height. So they a easy(ish)!targets for an alerted defense. The later ones adopted the western approach of sea skimming. But they are pretty rare. They have big stocks of the old stuff.
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I know many think the parents should give up but I think for them to be able to move on they feel that they have to have exhausted every possibility to save him .
The application to the ECHR is the last chance for them now . It’s likely that even if this succeeds that there will be no miracle but people should not judge the patents for what may seem refusing to accept reality .
A loving parents desperation to save their child against all the odds is something I hope all will empathize with .
It's the groups around the parents I blame, and as I've said before I don't think the ECHR should have juridstiction in and around our courts & doctors on this matter.
I doubt they are motivated by what's best for Archie or his parents, tbh.
The parents are committed Christians and believe life is sacred and are entitled to take whatever legal action they wish to try and keep their son alive, even if they lose the judgements
Dig further. There is more about the mother on the web that you might want to check out before you beatify her.
I wouldn't go there.
However much I think their decisions misguided (which I do), every case like this one is not an easy one for either medics or parents. Going ad hominem (or in this case feminam) is, apart from anything else, poor argumentation.
I've been in a similar position to them. The potential for empathy is there, but their behaviour makes me very cross indeed.
Here are two curious patterns in the Kansas primary election results. First, almost 200K more people voted on the abortion amendment than voted in the two senatorial primaries, combined. Second, incumbent Republican Senator Jerry Moran, who is pro-life, ran far ahead of the combined votes of the Democratic candidates. (I gave only approximate numbers because the counting is not quite finished.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Moran
The results in the gubernatorial primaries were broadly similar, with far more votes in the Repulican primary than the Democratic primary, but far fewer voters total than on the abortion question.
So, support for what I like to call the "Hugh Hefner" position on abortion did not always produce votes for Democratic candidates. And, no, I don't yet have an explanation for that.
The Federal Government controls vast swathes of laws over states that it "can't" by tying them to Federal Funding.
At the very least a federal law could open abortion clinics on federal land. Imagine, every army base comes with a Roe compliant clinic.
Is it wise to opine on what the Federal Government can and can't do, when half an hour ago you didn't know what the Tenth Amendment was?
I had assumed that people on here knew how Federal laws were implemented in practice before they started opining on them which was probably an error.
IIRC there are various laws that have been passed blocking federal money going to abortion provision. Or indeed family planning….
It's fair to say that constitutionally it's easier for Congress to construct barriers for abortion at the state level than it is to prevent states preventing or obstructing abortion access. But it's not a binary issue. And politically, it's the other way around.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Wokeness is beginning to destroy education, like dry rot in the cellar. It started in America, where it is still the most advanced, and now it is spreading. It will eat away at everything unless it is rooted out
Even if you don't care about Wokeness per se, you should care about its political effects. It provokes right wing backlash, which leads to hard right governments. I presume you don't want that
How I yearn for the good old days when righties believed in taking responsibility for their own actions rather than whine about being 'provoked'.
If you go around preaching that "all whites are racist", don't be surprised if whites start voting as a racial bloc, in favour of themselves, because: Why not?
The aversion of white people to having a little think about racism is such that they might regress and go all KKK?
I have a bit more faith in them - sorry in 'us' - than that.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Over the last year or so I’ve read and listened to, probably, hundreds of hours of podcasts, interviews and audiobooks. All of the Brendan O’Neill & Spiked stuff. The TRIGGERnometry guys (and his new book), Douglas Murray’s output etc.
I’ve tried to challenge myself and my assumptions and see if the anti-woke brigade have a point.
And, aside from a few niche cases and examples, they really don’t.
My initial view, was this was just section 28 type phobias re-emerging under a new guise. The kind of crap you get at the fag end of a Tory government. After much research and soul searching, that’s pretty much still my view.
Worth listening, imo, to Adam Fleming’s Antisocial on r4/bbc sounds;
An obvious first step would be to repeal the Hyde Amendment.
Yup, that has to go as a first step to anything enacted by federal government rather than by leaning on states.
On the subject of leaning on states despite the existence of the tenth and twenty-first amendments Reagan was able to pass a national minimum alcohol purchase age that was upheld 7-2 on being taken to the Supreme Court. It is the absolute standard way of the Federal government 'doing things'
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Over the last year or so I’ve read and listened to, probably, hundreds of hours of podcasts, interviews and audiobooks. All of the Brendan O’Neill & Spiked stuff. The TRIGGERnometry guys (and his new book), Douglas Murray’s output etc.
I’ve tried to challenge myself and my assumptions and see if the anti-woke brigade have a point.
And, aside from a few niche cases and examples, they really don’t.
My initial view, was this was just section 28 type phobias re-emerging under a new guise. The kind of crap you get at the fag end of a Tory government. After much research and soul searching, that’s pretty much still my view.
Worth listening, imo, to Adam Fleming’s Antisocial on r4/bbc sounds;
It’s a few hours of listening, but generally quite a good, balanced overview of the woke/antiwoke battlefield.
Good for you for trying, but if you don't get it even now, you are simply too stupid, or too set in your ways and narrow-minded, which is a kind of stupid
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I genuinely think London has an opportunity to become the alternative to the Bay Area for Big Tech.
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
And if you do need to do financial stuff in the US, NYC isn't that much further away by air from London than it is from SF.
Can anyone explain what the Tory grassroots love so much about Boris? Thatcher I could understand. But Johnson only seems to care about Johnson. He didn't even really believe in Brexit and has shown no concern with protecting its legacy, just the continuance of his own time in office. He has lied repeatedly, including in parliament and appears hopelessly disorganised and incapable of getting stuff done. He received credit for 'getting Brexit done' although the situation patently isn't settled. The covid vaccines was hailed as a triumph but I doubt the Tory grassroots approved of all the restrictions, tax and spending. As for Ukraine he continued longstanding UK policy and is that really why they love him?
Just a thought but I understand that the average member is a southern, higher income man. Are these yuppies? The sort who may be on to their third marriage, been taken to the cleaners a couple of times and see something of Boris in themselves, empathising with a kindred spirit locked out of his own home and alienated from the family he provided for? Maybe it's just a silly indulgence.
The Federal Government controls vast swathes of laws over states that it "can't" by tying them to Federal Funding.
At the very least a federal law could open abortion clinics on federal land. Imagine, every army base comes with a Roe compliant clinic.
Is it wise to opine on what the Federal Government can and can't do, when half an hour ago you didn't know what the Tenth Amendment was?
I had assumed that people on here knew how Federal laws were implemented in practice before they started opining on them which was probably an error.
IIRC there are various laws that have been passed blocking federal money going to abortion provision. Or indeed family planning….
Yes, the Hyde amendment is the cornerstone of that. It makes being a on a US military base and being pregnant a very dangerous proposition if there are any complications.
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
And if you do need to do financial stuff in the US, NYC isn't that much further away by air from London than it is from SF.
All we need now is Juxtaposed immigration controls at Heathrow/JFK. Pre-clearance at Heathrow a la Shannon has been mooted for a while, but never seems to happen.
Inflation could reach 15% early next year. I've never had to deal with inflation so high, or anything near it, in my adult life. This is not going to be good.
Here are two curious patterns in the Kansas primary election results. First, almost 200K more people voted on the abortion amendment than voted in the two senatorial primaries, combined. Second, incumbent Republican Senator Jerry Moran, who is pro-life, ran far ahead of the combined votes of the Democratic candidates. (I gave only approximate numbers because the counting is not quite finished.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Moran
The results in the gubernatorial primaries were broadly similar, with far more votes in the Repulican primary than the Democratic primary, but far fewer voters total than on the abortion question.
So, support for what I like to call the "Hugh Hefner" position on abortion did not always produce votes for Democratic candidates. And, no, I don't yet have an explanation for that.
I read somewhere that Independent registered voters can't vote in the party primaries in Kansas, and that was given as the explanation for the discrepancy.
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I saw recently that parts of East London have taken over SF for density of tech startups. Kings cross looks like the choice for established tech so will be another huge draw for startups looking for global locations. I know one SAAS company which is currently HQ'd in SF that's considering moving operationally to London from there and leaving behind a small outpost of sales people in NYC. That's the other one that's coming for SF, operational excellence in development by being based in London and sales/GTM based on the East Coast of the US either in NYC or Miami. It's such a better set of timezones. SF used to have the advantage of crossover with APAC countries but with the ease of remote work and setting up remote workers on a single payroll tech companies are choosing to hire locally in Singapore, Melbourne and Wellington.
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I genuinely think London has an opportunity to become the alternative to the Bay Area for Big Tech.
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
Malmesbury said: "IIRC there are various laws that have been passed blocking federal money going to abortion provision. Or indeed family planning…"
You recall correctly. The best known is probably the Hyde Amendment: "In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.[1][2] Before the Hyde Amendment took effect in 1980, an estimated 300,000 abortions were performed annually using federal funds.[3]
The original Hyde Amendment was passed on September 30, 1976, by the House of Representatives, with a 312–93 vote to override the veto of a funding bill for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).[4][5][6][7] It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois.[3] The measure represented one of the first major legislative gains by the United States anti-abortion movement following the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Over the last year or so I’ve read and listened to, probably, hundreds of hours of podcasts, interviews and audiobooks. All of the Brendan O’Neill & Spiked stuff. The TRIGGERnometry guys (and his new book), Douglas Murray’s output etc.
I’ve tried to challenge myself and my assumptions and see if the anti-woke brigade have a point.
And, aside from a few niche cases and examples, they really don’t.
My initial view, was this was just section 28 type phobias re-emerging under a new guise. The kind of crap you get at the fag end of a Tory government. After much research and soul searching, that’s pretty much still my view.
Worth listening, imo, to Adam Fleming’s Antisocial on r4/bbc sounds;
It’s a few hours of listening, but generally quite a good, balanced overview of the woke/antiwoke battlefield.
Good for you for trying, but if you don't get it even now, you are simply too stupid, or too set in your ways and narrow-minded, which is a kind of stupid
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Wokeness is beginning to destroy education, like dry rot in the cellar. It started in America, where it is still the most advanced, and now it is spreading. It will eat away at everything unless it is rooted out
Even if you don't care about Wokeness per se, you should care about its political effects. It provokes right wing backlash, which leads to hard right governments. I presume you don't want that
Ancient history was never my strong point, but haven't the Tories been in power for over TWELVE years?
Can anyone explain what the Tory grassroots love so much about Boris? Thatcher I could understand. But Johnson only seems to care about Johnson. He didn't even really believe in Brexit and has shown no concern with protecting its legacy, just the continuance of his own time in office. He has lied repeatedly, including in parliament and appears hopelessly disorganised and incapable of getting stuff done. He received credit for 'getting Brexit done' although the situation patently isn't settled. The covid vaccines was hailed as a triumph but I doubt the Tory grassroots approved of all the restrictions, tax and spending. As for Ukraine he continued longstanding UK policy and is that really why they love him?
Just a thought but I understand that the average member is a southern, higher income man. Are these yuppies? The sort who may be on to their third marriage, been taken to the cleaners a couple of times and see something of Boris in themselves, empathising with a kindred spirit locked out of his own home and alienated from the family he provided for? Maybe it's just a silly indulgence.
Happy to be proven wrong.
Boris is a winner. Boris is also very tribalistic. A lot of his method is about building a rapport with his audience, identifying an other, and inviting his audience to feel good about themselves by laughing with him at the other. He's also very optimistic, and people want to believe that there's a happy ending.
I can see why people who think of themselves as on the same side as him would like that.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Over the last year or so I’ve read and listened to, probably, hundreds of hours of podcasts, interviews and audiobooks. All of the Brendan O’Neill & Spiked stuff. The TRIGGERnometry guys (and his new book), Douglas Murray’s output etc.
I’ve tried to challenge myself and my assumptions and see if the anti-woke brigade have a point.
And, aside from a few niche cases and examples, they really don’t.
My initial view, was this was just section 28 type phobias re-emerging under a new guise. The kind of crap you get at the fag end of a Tory government. After much research and soul searching, that’s pretty much still my view.
Worth listening, imo, to Adam Fleming’s Antisocial on r4/bbc sounds;
It’s a few hours of listening, but generally quite a good, balanced overview of the woke/antiwoke battlefield.
Good for you for trying, but if you don't get it even now, you are simply too stupid, or too set in your ways and narrow-minded, which is a kind of stupid
That category being people with a modicum of logic and perspective - as opposed to those fruitiepies who forsake all of that good stuff in favour of regurgitating softhead speccyland obsessions.
C'mon, stage a breakout! Try thinking for yourself for a change rather than being a cliche. I sense you can do it.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 57m The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics: 1) Short-term: Defeating inflation 2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness 3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
Wokeness is beginning to destroy education, like dry rot in the cellar. It started in America, where it is still the most advanced, and now it is spreading. It will eat away at everything unless it is rooted out
Even if you don't care about Wokeness per se, you should care about its political effects. It provokes right wing backlash, which leads to hard right governments. I presume you don't want that
Ancient history was never my strong point, but haven't the Tories been in power for over TWELVE years?
Seven. Coalition before that, which was as good as Tory anyway.
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
I genuinely think London has an opportunity to become the alternative to the Bay Area for Big Tech.
Yes, and more: as NYC sinks into crime, and is menaced by deeper political division, a lot of business in NYC will come here. Remote working suddenly benefits the UK
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
The opportunity is there.
Has been for a while and indeed for a brief moment London was essentially “the” global capital.
Ironically, Ken Livingstone seemed to get this. Sadiq Khan doesn’t have a “Danny”.
There are things London needs to work on to support this; someone upthread mentioned Shannon style facilities at Heathrow. Housing and dare I say it, various forms of access to the Continent would also be on the list.
Can anyone explain what the Tory grassroots love so much about Boris? Thatcher I could understand. But Johnson only seems to care about Johnson. He didn't even really believe in Brexit and has shown no concern with protecting its legacy, just the continuance of his own time in office. He has lied repeatedly, including in parliament and appears hopelessly disorganised and incapable of getting stuff done. He received credit for 'getting Brexit done' although the situation patently isn't settled. The covid vaccines was hailed as a triumph but I doubt the Tory grassroots approved of all the restrictions, tax and spending. As for Ukraine he continued longstanding UK policy and is that really why they love him?
Just a thought but I understand that the average member is a southern, higher income man. Are these yuppies? The sort who may be on to their third marriage, been taken to the cleaners a couple of times and see something of Boris in themselves, empathising with a kindred spirit locked out of his own home and alienated from the family he provided for? Maybe it's just a silly indulgence.
Comments
76% of 31% = 24%
45% of 69% = 31%
Which matches the fact that Truss beats Sunak in the question, even with Boris included.
In any event, a shadow docket decision could avoid giving anything so grubby as reasons.
In order for a Federal law to be legal it must be justified on other grounds. Most common is interstate commerce AFAIK but others exist too.
Brandon Straka
@BrandonStraka
· 5h
I love the sight of happy Republicans!
https://twitter.com/BrandonStraka/status/1554748362208841731?s=20&t=l34H_vZ6P3Stm2Y1JouOTg
I am sat at my desk going through dreary waste management files listening to Adam Fleming's R4 series "Boris" on BBC Sounds. The man is quite frankly unbelievable.
Very much worth a listen.
https://twitter.com/DGlaucomflecken/status/1554821739015680000
The core component of Obamacare was ruled legal as it was a Federal tax, so legal for Congress to act under federal taxation authority.
Other parts of Obamacare were struck off as unconstitutional already.
Congress would need standing to pass laws on abortion. Since Dobbs says that the Constitution says nothing about abortion, any Federal law would under precedent be unconstitutional unless underpinned by other Federal powers to make it lawful.
At the very least a federal law could open abortion clinics on federal land. Imagine, every army base comes with a Roe compliant clinic.
And yet they ARE supremely confident. Suggests to me they have insider knowledge of which votes are coming from where, and a win is all-but guaranteed. We shall see
Afterall all but one of the six SC Justices who overturned Roe had sworn that Roe was settled law, before they chose to unsettle it.
https://twitter.com/alex_albon/status/1554829547006111749
Alex Albon
@alex_albon
I understand that, with my agreement, Williams Racing have put out a press release this afternoon that I am driving for them next year. This is right and I have signed a contract with Williams for 2023. I will be driving for Williams next year.
Do you accept now then that you were wrong to say that SCOTUS would have to overturn Dobbs to overturn a Federal ban/authorisation as unconstitutional?
To be fair to Littlejohn he's left the country, but given his ongoing obsession and regularly preaching negatively about Britain, maybe he could be considered radicalised and Rishi could always strip him of his citizenship.
Not a big SKS fan, but my explanation would be that Labour are currently more popular (or at least, less unpopular) than the Tories. Achieving that seems to be in SKS's job description
However much I think their decisions misguided (which I do), every case like this one is not an easy one for either medics or parents.
Going ad hominem (or in this case feminam) is, apart from anything else, poor argumentation.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
57m
The matters I currently personally regard as the biggest issues in UK politics:
1) Short-term: Defeating inflation
2) Medium-term: Defeating wokeness
3) Long-term: Navigating climate change
Of these, the biggest & most important of the battles - the one where the battle itself will determine things the most - is the defeat of wokeness. The urgency of that fight is the single biggest reason I would consider a Labour govt at present intolerable.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1554821354125373443
Anyone losing a child is an horrific tragedy.
The way the death of this child is being dragged out through the courts is tragic and some of the courts like the ECHR should have dismissed the appeal immediately in my view. But I'd rather not engage in mudslinging over someone who is doing the wrong thing, for whatever reasons, in truly tragic circumstances.
The lawyers or activists piling on to either pursue their agenda or profiteer from this case should be ashamed of themselves.
Wokeness is irrelevant. The other two are essential to tackle. Wokeness few people care about.
He smirks and unveils ... "Boris"!!
Contestant grimaces and looks sick as a parrot.
I would only add that I suspect the publicity given to the case, the press intrusion, the turning of their son into a cause celebre, and the concomitant loss of dignity will actually make it harder, not easier, for the parents to cope with their grief once their son dies, as he surely will. The parents are, I think, acting against their own best interests.
It's a fairly small hidden gem, so I had (erroneously) imagined you'd be concerned about it being spoiled by too many visitors. Apologies.
(And it wouldn't be me got stuck in any traffic queues, remember!)
More amusingly, I had thought of biking out to watch but eventually I ended up biking too and from the garage to get my car sorted. And in between, as it was a nice hot sunny day, I chopped up a load of wood to burn in the stove.
Edit - also amusingly, at least three of those photos are technically Shoal Hill Common not Cannock Chase. But that's equally lovely and it's literally across a road so let's not be picky.
It sort-of came down to sometimes there is no 'good' answer; only better bad ones.
Even if you don't care about Wokeness per se, you should care about its political effects. It provokes right wing backlash, which leads to hard right governments. I presume you don't want that
Weird.
“Are you crazy?” the first friend shouts, looking over his shoulder as the bear closes in on his friend. “You can’t outrun a bear!”
“I don’t have to outrun the bear,” said the second friend. “I only have to outrun you.”
The choice between who out of Truss and Sunak (and Sir Keir, tbf) is more in touch with ordinary people is very much a "that's not saying very much".
So any harsh critique of it looks "weird". But in the end the slow learners will catch up
There is one area where they are already catching up. The Woke pursuit of trans rights, where the intersectional rights of trans people are deemed more important, because more oppressed, than mere women
Note that many leftwing feminists, from J K Rowling to multiple Guardian journalists, have wised up sharpish, and are fighting back, tho often losing careers in the process. Consider them canaries in the coalmine
There is however a Russian version of this joke that's actually rather better. What I like about it is it sends up positive national stereotypes.
Five men, a Russian, a Ukrainian, a Pole, an Englishman and a German were in a wood in Ukraine when a bear starts stalking them. The German shouts, 'run men! I will hold him off to pay the debt Germany owes you all!' So he turns and fights the bear with his bare [sorry] hands, as the others flee.
But a few minutes later, the bear is pursuing. The Ukrainian turns. 'This is my country. I must fight to defend you all!' So he takes on the bear as the others run.
But a few minutes later, the bear is still pursuing. So the Englishman turns. 'For the regiment!' he shouts as he takes his turn to do battle.
Three minutes later, the bear is still coming, and just the two are left. Suddenly the Russian turns, pulls a revolver out of his right pocket, and shoots the bear dead through the eye at 70 yards. Magnificent shot.
The Pole is stunned. 'But - why didn't you do that earlier?' he shouts.
The Russian shrugs, reaches into his other pocket, and pulls out a bottle of vodka. He knocks the lid off and offers the Pole a drink. 'Five men on one bottle? Too many!'
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10787
An obvious first step would be to repeal the Hyde Amendment.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/28f2f03c-1306-11ed-b5dc-213f5c972cc4?shareToken=cb91256f53919399519b38d953342047
Clegg is back, part time…
In addition, their PGMs are rare. Which means that their aircraft have to attack at medium level to get hits. Which is right in the SAM sweet spot.
So they are very poor at suppressing SAMs and their aircraft attack right into the heart of medium SAM territory.
Their older naval cruise missiles are huge, but are designed to fly much of the mission at non-wave top height. So they a easy(ish)!targets for an alerted defense. The later ones adopted the western approach of sea skimming. But they are pretty rare. They have big stocks of the old stuff.
From that thread of articles:
"Hoberman said: “They also move because they see the US so fractionalised. As San Francisco loses its density [of tech headquarters], there’s a chance for London to be the global leader.”"
This is absolutely true. Why step over homeless addict in SF when you can be in glorious sunny London? In King's X? With no threat of Trump? And two hours from all of Europe?
The results in the gubernatorial primaries were broadly similar, with far more votes in the Repulican primary than the Democratic primary, but far fewer voters total than on the abortion question.
So, support for what I like to call the "Hugh Hefner" position on abortion did not always produce votes for Democratic candidates. And, no, I don't yet have an explanation for that.
(I used this site for votes, but you should be able to find a better one, with a little searching: https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article264069346.html )
But it's not a binary issue. And politically, it's the other way around.
I have a bit more faith in them - sorry in 'us' - than that.
I’ve tried to challenge myself and my assumptions and see if the anti-woke brigade have a point.
And, aside from a few niche cases and examples, they really don’t.
My initial view, was this was just section 28 type phobias re-emerging under a new guise. The kind of crap you get at the fag end of a Tory government. After much research and soul searching, that’s pretty much still my view.
Worth listening, imo, to Adam Fleming’s Antisocial on r4/bbc sounds;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/series/m0018h15
It’s a few hours of listening, but generally quite a good, balanced overview of the woke/antiwoke battlefield.
On the subject of leaning on states despite the existence of the tenth and twenty-first amendments Reagan was able to pass a national minimum alcohol purchase age that was upheld 7-2 on being taken to the Supreme Court. It is the absolute standard way of the Federal government 'doing things'
I put you in the same category as @kinabalu
Just a thought but I understand that the average member is a southern, higher income man. Are these yuppies? The sort who may be on to their third marriage, been taken to the cleaners a couple of times and see something of Boris in themselves, empathising with a kindred spirit locked out of his own home and alienated from the family he provided for? Maybe it's just a silly indulgence.
Happy to be proven wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/uk-inflation-could-reach-15-by-start-of-2023-experts-say
Really. Why would you work in NYC or LA or SF if you can work in London?
NYC is a great city and LA is jolly interesting and SF has a certain beauty, but they have grave downsides, and they are all trillions of miles from anywhere else
Fly two hours from NYC and you are in, er, Toronto
Compare that with London, when in 2 hours or less you can be in Paris, Venice, Berlin, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Florence, Edinburgh, Nice... and the Alps, the Balearics, Sicily, western Ireland, Burgundy, the Algarve, the Black Forest, the Dordogne, the Italian lakes, the Dolomites, Tyrol,...
There is no comparison. If your job is no longer quite so tied to the Silicon Valley office, you will move to London
You recall correctly. The best known is probably the Hyde Amendment: "In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.[1][2] Before the Hyde Amendment took effect in 1980, an estimated 300,000 abortions were performed annually using federal funds.[3]
The original Hyde Amendment was passed on September 30, 1976, by the House of Representatives, with a 312–93 vote to override the veto of a funding bill for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).[4][5][6][7] It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois.[3] The measure represented one of the first major legislative gains by the United States anti-abortion movement following the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
There is a similar amendment barring federal funds paying for abortions in foreign nations, which resulted in the Mexico City Policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_policy
This thread has just scored an own goal
I can see why people who think of themselves as on the same side as him would like that.
C'mon, stage a breakout! Try thinking for yourself for a change rather than being a cliche. I sense you can do it.
Has been for a while and indeed for a brief moment London was essentially “the” global capital.
Ironically, Ken Livingstone seemed to get this. Sadiq Khan doesn’t have a “Danny”.
There are things London needs to work on to support this; someone upthread mentioned Shannon style facilities at Heathrow. Housing and dare I say it, various forms of access to the Continent would also be on the list.