OT. I thought PMQ's were interesting. I'm not sure that attacks on Sunak's wealth are a good idea. It suggested a thought out attack line which under the circumstances seemed unnecessary.
Starmer's got so much material using things Sunak's screwed up on he doesn't need to go after the personal stuff. I also think the kind of voters who might be impressed by this line of attack are ones that I'm hoping Labour can live without.
Red Wall Brexiteers.
The impossible dream, Roger. Regaining the "Red Wall" is at the heart of Starmer's path to power. It's all plotted out. Do not offend floating voters generally but above all make sure those seats lost in 2019 come back.
Roger is probably right about ad hominem attacks on Rishi's wealth. Labour should have learned that similar attacks on posh boy Boris and multi-millionaire smoothiechops Cameron did not further their cause. Voters expect Prime Ministers to be a bit superior.
Boris is worth just £2 million, Cameron worth £38 million. Neither are super rich ie £100 million + and in Sunak's league given Rishi is worth £730 million with his wife despite their shared elite education
Do you think someone worth £2 million or £38 million has to worry about the heating bill or the cost of a pint of milk any more than someone worth £730 million? If the attack has any value at all it is that they are divorced from the realities of daily life on the bread line. Something that applies to all 3 equally but also probably applies just as much to Starmer.
Rishi Sunak is surprisingly rubbish at PMQs. It’s almost a cruel sport.
"if he can't stand up to a cartoon bully with a pet spider"
That made me actually LOL.
It’s interesting watch Starmer systematically insert and test specific words and phrases. This week ‘Weak was the anchor and it stuck. The gags are good. He’s clearly very well supported at PMQs. There’s a professional operation at Labour now. They were instrumental in the day of chaos that finished Truss. It’s refreshing.
You overestimate the role Labour played in disposing of Truss.
That was a Tory hit job. It needed no help.
Labour chose the motion on fracking with precision. It was very well judged. They deserve real credit for that. I’ve rarely seen Parliament used so effectively.
If Bercow had done his job properly, they would never have been able to table such a motion.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
Laxalt sounds like an alternative remedy for constipation.
OT. I thought PMQ's were interesting. I'm not sure that attacks on Sunak's wealth are a good idea. It suggested a thought out attack line which under the circumstances seemed unnecessary.
Starmer's got so much material using things Sunak's screwed up on he doesn't need to go after the personal stuff. I also think the kind of voters who might be impressed by this line of attack are ones that I'm hoping Labour can live without.
Red Wall Brexiteers.
The impossible dream, Roger. Regaining the "Red Wall" is at the heart of Starmer's path to power. It's all plotted out. Do not offend floating voters generally but above all make sure those seats lost in 2019 come back.
Roger is probably right about ad hominem attacks on Rishi's wealth. Labour should have learned that similar attacks on posh boy Boris and multi-millionaire smoothiechops Cameron did not further their cause. Voters expect Prime Ministers to be a bit superior.
Boris is worth just £2 million, Cameron worth £38 million. Neither are super rich ie £100 million + and in Sunak's league given Rishi is worth £730 million with his wife despite their shared elite education
Do you think someone worth £2 million or £38 million has to worry about the heating bill or the cost of a pint of milk any more than someone worth £730 million? If the attack has any value at all it is that they are divorced from the realities of daily life on the bread line. Something that applies to all 3 equally but also probably applies just as much to Starmer.
It is relative, certainly more voters interviewed raised Sunak's wealth, his multiple homes in Kensington, mansion in Yorkshire, property in California etc than the other 3 simply because it is a different scale of wealth than theirs.
Sunak is also elitist super rich like say Romney or Kerry than populist super rich like Trump or Berlusconi
Rishi Sunak is surprisingly rubbish at PMQs. It’s almost a cruel sport.
"if he can't stand up to a cartoon bully with a pet spider"
That made me actually LOL.
It’s interesting watch Starmer systematically insert and test specific words and phrases. This week ‘Weak was the anchor and it stuck. The gags are good. He’s clearly very well supported at PMQs. There’s a professional operation at Labour now. They were instrumental in the day of chaos that finished Truss. It’s refreshing.
You overestimate the role Labour played in disposing of Truss.
That was a Tory hit job. It needed no help.
Labour chose the motion on fracking with precision. It was very well judged. They deserve real credit for that. I’ve rarely seen Parliament used so effectively.
If Bercow had done his job properly, they would never have been able to table such a motion.
Bercow? I’m curious.
He allowed the "make a named MP pseudo-PM" nonsense for the Benn Act.
Rishi Sunak is surprisingly rubbish at PMQs. It’s almost a cruel sport.
"if he can't stand up to a cartoon bully with a pet spider"
That made me actually LOL.
It’s interesting watch Starmer systematically insert and test specific words and phrases. This week ‘Weak was the anchor and it stuck. The gags are good. He’s clearly very well supported at PMQs. There’s a professional operation at Labour now. They were instrumental in the day of chaos that finished Truss. It’s refreshing.
You overestimate the role Labour played in disposing of Truss.
That was a Tory hit job. It needed no help.
Labour chose the motion on fracking with precision. It was very well judged. They deserve real credit for that. I’ve rarely seen Parliament used so effectively.
Truss was holed under the waterline before that. She and her Chancellor went full steam ahead through a mine-field. Marked on the charts as "MINE FIELD".
Fracking has now disappeared off the political agenda. Defused.
.. with cross-party support, with some exceptions:
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
42+ years ago - you can spin out a generation even longer than HYUFD!
Actually there is a semi-serious point here, which is that Sturgeon and other SNP figures try to portray Scotland as intrinsically more 'progressive' than England in its political traditions. But 'tain't necessarily so, as that example shows.
OT. I thought PMQ's were interesting. I'm not sure that attacks on Sunak's wealth are a good idea. It suggested a thought out attack line which under the circumstances seemed unnecessary.
Starmer's got so much material using things Sunak's screwed up on he doesn't need to go after the personal stuff. I also think the kind of voters who might be impressed by this line of attack are ones that I'm hoping Labour can live without.
Red Wall Brexiteers.
The impossible dream, Roger. Regaining the "Red Wall" is at the heart of Starmer's path to power. It's all plotted out. Do not offend floating voters generally but above all make sure those seats lost in 2019 come back.
Roger is probably right about ad hominem attacks on Rishi's wealth. Labour should have learned that similar attacks on posh boy Boris and multi-millionaire smoothiechops Cameron did not further their cause. Voters expect Prime Ministers to be a bit superior.
Boris is worth just £2 million, Cameron worth £38 million. Neither are super rich ie £100 million + and in Sunak's league given Rishi is worth £730 million with his wife despite their shared elite education
Do you think someone worth £2 million or £38 million has to worry about the heating bill or the cost of a pint of milk any more than someone worth £730 million? If the attack has any value at all it is that they are divorced from the realities of daily life on the bread line. Something that applies to all 3 equally but also probably applies just as much to Starmer.
And approximately 640 other MPs.
The average MP on £80k a year is only just about in the top 10% of earners, not even the top 1% of earners let alone the top 0.01% richest like Sunak
.. with cross-party support, with some exceptions:
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
LOL, even funnier when saddo Tories are reduced to dragging up rubbish from almost 50 years ago.
Well, it's only 42 years ago, not "almost 50". And Gordon Wilson was leader of the SNP until 32 years ago, and a candidate as late as 1999. He was still active in politics in 2016.
CNN's Winners & Losers list makes for interesting reading. This one in the winning camp should make all of us punters sit up:
* Simon Rosenberg: Rosenberg, a longtime Democratic strategist, was telling anyone who would listen that the seeming movement to Republicans in the final weeks of the race was misleading – fueled by a series of Republican-sponsored polls that moved polling averages in a more favorable direction for the GOP. He was right. Period.
Quite right too. If Opinion polls are biased it can be used to distort democratic elections. But if you are going to have rules, then you are going down the road of monitoring and policing.
Are the rules, and monitoring and policing, across the pond robust enough? Put another way, are views and political bets being shaped by tracking successive polls from more highly and trusted pollsters, or is the head being turned by “interesting” polls from less highly and trusted and experienced pollsters? I’m suspicious of the small amount of polling in these mid terms from respected pollsters, and the large amount from, ahem, can we call them cowboys?
On this basis I have a feeling the current balance in the Senate won’t go anywhere - 1 pick up for each side. Nor will the defeat for Democrats in the house be a large one - if red wave was ever on, Roe v Wade announcement in June aborted it prematurely.
Despite the no change senate, I’m also predicting, because of so many obvious close races, another bout of the old Red Mirage - red leads with blue votes counted later.
This is not to say it won’t be a concerning night for the democrats - Stacey Abrams has crashed and burned in her own fight, and Latino voting GOP will again be a thing - this will have to be analysed and correct lessons learned.
And then the big one in two years. Should we presume the Republican Nomination is Trumps for the taking? With ever decreasing circles of problematic expensive legal proceedings getting closer to Trump, what about strong, ambitious challengers appealing to primary voters for a fresh start from it all?
Nikki Haley. If she ran against him, how exactly would Trump and his fan club tackle her? She sounds like him, only without his baggage.
Rishi Sunak is surprisingly rubbish at PMQs. It’s almost a cruel sport.
"if he can't stand up to a cartoon bully with a pet spider"
That made me actually LOL.
It’s interesting watch Starmer systematically insert and test specific words and phrases. This week ‘Weak was the anchor and it stuck. The gags are good. He’s clearly very well supported at PMQs. There’s a professional operation at Labour now. They were instrumental in the day of chaos that finished Truss. It’s refreshing.
You overestimate the role Labour played in disposing of Truss.
That was a Tory hit job. It needed no help.
Labour chose the motion on fracking with precision. It was very well judged. They deserve real credit for that. I’ve rarely seen Parliament used so effectively.
If Bercow had done his job properly, they would never have been able to table such a motion.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
OT. I thought PMQ's were interesting. I'm not sure that attacks on Sunak's wealth are a good idea. It suggested a thought out attack line which under the circumstances seemed unnecessary.
Starmer's got so much material using things Sunak's screwed up on he doesn't need to go after the personal stuff. I also think the kind of voters who might be impressed by this line of attack are ones that I'm hoping Labour can live without.
Red Wall Brexiteers.
The impossible dream, Roger. Regaining the "Red Wall" is at the heart of Starmer's path to power. It's all plotted out. Do not offend floating voters generally but above all make sure those seats lost in 2019 come back.
Roger is probably right about ad hominem attacks on Rishi's wealth. Labour should have learned that similar attacks on posh boy Boris and multi-millionaire smoothiechops Cameron did not further their cause. Voters expect Prime Ministers to be a bit superior.
Boris is worth just £2 million, Cameron worth £38 million. Neither are super rich ie £100 million + and in Sunak's league given Rishi is worth £730 million with his wife despite their shared elite education
If Boris Johnson has net debt-free assets of £2m, I'm a Dutchman. Come back and tell me that this time next year and you will probably be correct.
OT. I thought PMQ's were interesting. I'm not sure that attacks on Sunak's wealth are a good idea. It suggested a thought out attack line which under the circumstances seemed unnecessary.
Starmer's got so much material using things Sunak's screwed up on he doesn't need to go after the personal stuff. I also think the kind of voters who might be impressed by this line of attack are ones that I'm hoping Labour can live without.
Red Wall Brexiteers.
The impossible dream, Roger. Regaining the "Red Wall" is at the heart of Starmer's path to power. It's all plotted out. Do not offend floating voters generally but above all make sure those seats lost in 2019 come back.
Roger is probably right about ad hominem attacks on Rishi's wealth. Labour should have learned that similar attacks on posh boy Boris and multi-millionaire smoothiechops Cameron did not further their cause. Voters expect Prime Ministers to be a bit superior.
Boris is worth just £2 million, Cameron worth £38 million. Neither are super rich ie £100 million + and in Sunak's league given Rishi is worth £730 million with his wife despite their shared elite education
Do you think someone worth £2 million or £38 million has to worry about the heating bill or the cost of a pint of milk any more than someone worth £730 million? If the attack has any value at all it is that they are divorced from the realities of daily life on the bread line. Something that applies to all 3 equally but also probably applies just as much to Starmer.
And approximately 640 other MPs.
The average MP on £80k a year is only just about in the top 10% of earners, not even the top 1% of earners let alone the top 0.01% richest like Sunak
Still far removed from the average person, albeit possibly not the average PB poster.
Obviously, I am biased, but Sunak just doesn't look like a leader to me. He looks far more like a second-in-command: very good on detail and someone you can delegate to without any worries at all, but not a driving force. For good or ill, Starmer has made it his Labour party. I cannot see Sunak doing the same for the Tories or the government.
He reminds me very much of the numbers guy the person leading the acquisition hands over to in a meeting after the five-minute, big-picture introduction.
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill does not solve existing tensions (which remain unresolved in the courts) between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) and the Equality Act 2010 (“the EqA”), writes barrister Amanda Jones.
The bill will introduce new conflicts with the EqA. The bill will also create a tangle of conflicts and anomalies between Scotland and the rest of the UK:
1. The EqA itself is a reserved matter; it cannot be amended or replaced by Scottish legislation; 2. The lawful sex of a person will be different in different parts of the UK; a person’s legal change of sex in Scotland will not be recognised in England, Wales or Northern Ireland; 3. A Scottish GRC will be inferior to a UK one. People might well need to obtain both; 4. The proposed amendments do not solve the above issues.
Instead of clarifying the law, the bill will create constitutional and legal complications that will not benefit trans people, and which will inevitably generate litigation.
Hardly new. The various constituents of the UK were quite happy to legalise matters relating to (say) homosexuality, or civil partnerships, at different times, some in advance of others.
Yes. Notably, homosexuality was legalised later in Scotland.
You are aware this was before we had a devolved parliament?
Oh, yes. With a devolved Parliament, it would've been even later!
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill does not solve existing tensions (which remain unresolved in the courts) between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) and the Equality Act 2010 (“the EqA”), writes barrister Amanda Jones.
The bill will introduce new conflicts with the EqA. The bill will also create a tangle of conflicts and anomalies between Scotland and the rest of the UK:
1. The EqA itself is a reserved matter; it cannot be amended or replaced by Scottish legislation; 2. The lawful sex of a person will be different in different parts of the UK; a person’s legal change of sex in Scotland will not be recognised in England, Wales or Northern Ireland; 3. A Scottish GRC will be inferior to a UK one. People might well need to obtain both; 4. The proposed amendments do not solve the above issues.
Instead of clarifying the law, the bill will create constitutional and legal complications that will not benefit trans people, and which will inevitably generate litigation.
Hardly new. The various constituents of the UK were quite happy to legalise matters relating to (say) homosexuality, or civil partnerships, at different times, some in advance of others.
Yes. Notably, homosexuality was legalised later in Scotland.
You are aware this was before we had a devolved parliament?
And when Westminster on a cross party basis chose to legalise it SNP MPs voted against, as Mr Navabi pointed out up thread.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Arizona are talking about working 'till Thanksgiving' to get all votes counted. Nevada may well also take considerable time. We probably will not know the fate of the senate for a considerable time. Maricopa has 275,000 signatures to verify then count for example. We might know the House fate later today though
Rishi Sunak is surprisingly rubbish at PMQs. It’s almost a cruel sport.
"if he can't stand up to a cartoon bully with a pet spider"
That made me actually LOL.
It’s interesting watch Starmer systematically insert and test specific words and phrases. This week ‘Weak was the anchor and it stuck. The gags are good. He’s clearly very well supported at PMQs. There’s a professional operation at Labour now. They were instrumental in the day of chaos that finished Truss. It’s refreshing.
You overestimate the role Labour played in disposing of Truss.
That was a Tory hit job. It needed no help.
Labour chose the motion on fracking with precision. It was very well judged. They deserve real credit for that. I’ve rarely seen Parliament used so effectively.
Truss was holed under the waterline before that. She and her Chancellor went full steam ahead through a mine-field. Marked on the charts as "MINE FIELD".
Fracking has now disappeared off the political agenda. Defused.
As I said, impact way overestimated.
No, no - fracking will be going ahead at full speed. In the US. To supply us with LNG.
I will repeat the statement from a fracking conference some years ago: "The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG from the US."
Obviously, I am biased, but Sunak just doesn't look like a leader to me. He looks far more like a second-in-command: very good on detail and someone you can delegate to without any worries at all, but not a driving force. For good or ill, Starmer has made it his Labour party. I cannot see Sunak doing the same for the Tories or the government.
He reminds me very much of the numbers guy the person leading the acquisition hands over to in a meeting after the five-minute, big-picture introduction.
Obviously, I am biased, but Sunak just doesn't look like a leader to me. He looks far more like a second-in-command: very good on detail and someone you can delegate to without any worries at all, but not a driving force. For good or ill, Starmer has made it his Labour party. I cannot see Sunak doing the same for the Tories or the government.
He reminds me very much of the numbers guy the person leading the acquisition hands over to in a meeting after the five-minute, big-picture introduction.
Hardly surprising given you have known him as chancellor for two and a half years and PM for two and a half weeks.
Ironically what sinks him is not his personality, but that the numbers won't add up, in the economy generally, specifically for the treasury, and also in terms of managing the various Tory factions whilst trying to hold on to a working majority in parliament.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Lol. It's Nevada. They are probably already on a break.
In practical terms, does the Republicans winning or losing the Senate by one seat make much difference? I guess they get to chair the committees and can veto certain appointments if they all agree. Anything else?
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
It's very definitely a complex argument, and very definitely an on-the-one-hand, on-the-other hand argument. If the abortion argument suffers from one thing it is from an excess of certainty on both sides and a refusal to recognise there is a balance of interests to be struck. And process is important. I favour abortion being legal ip to 24 weeks. But this is a decision whuch must be arrived at democratically, not by some judge citing dubious precedent for political grounds. Because if you favour that route it will make it harder to fight next tine a judge takes a decision which should not be the preserve of judges. And next time the decision of the judge might go against you.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Arizona are talking about working 'till Thanksgiving' to get all votes counted. Nevada may well also take considerable time. We probably will not know the fate of the senate for a considerable time. Maricopa has 275,000 signatures to verify then count for example. We might know the House fate later today though
I guess that is an advantage of our undemocratic electoral system. By breakfast time the day after the election there has been a change of PM.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Arizona are talking about working 'till Thanksgiving' to get all votes counted. Nevada may well also take considerable time. We probably will not know the fate of the senate for a considerable time. Maricopa has 275,000 signatures to verify then count for example. We might know the House fate later today though
I guess that is an advantage of our undemocratic electoral system. By breakfast time the day after the election there has been a change of PM.
In practical terms, does the Republicans winning or losing the Senate by one seat make much difference? I guess they get to chair the committees and can veto certain appointments if they all agree. Anything else?
The vetoing of appointments is the whole ball game.
Biden has confirmed Judges at an unprecedented rate for a Dem president. His team know it is all about the judges.
If the Senate goes to the GOP then that comes to a crashing halt. The GOP have vowed to let et a single Biden appointment though. Ever.
.. with cross-party support, with some exceptions:
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
42+ years ago - you can spin out a generation even longer than HYUFD!
And yet the anti-Tory commentators still bring up Section 28 from 34 years ago to attack the party today.
Personally, I think both examples are past their sell by date and should be consigned to history. The parties are very different today.
There could be a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on whether parties/politicians previously adopted socially conservative positions.
It's worth considering that back in the 70s and 80s Clause 28 in England and outright illegality in Scotland was not really outside of mainstream opinion. We shouldn't judge the past - even what appears to be the relatively recent past - by the standards of the present. Anyone who thinks otherwise should go and watch an old episode of wheeltappers and shunters social club. The 70s were strikingly different to today, striking even to those of us who just about remember them.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Arizona are talking about working 'till Thanksgiving' to get all votes counted. Nevada may well also take considerable time. We probably will not know the fate of the senate for a considerable time. Maricopa has 275,000 signatures to verify then count for example. We might know the House fate later today though
NYT have a note saying in 2020 it took Nevada 3 days to reach 90% reported so I perhaps ought not to hold my breath.
In practical terms, does the Republicans winning or losing the Senate by one seat make much difference? I guess they get to chair the committees and can veto certain appointments if they all agree. Anything else?
They get to decide what gets debated and voted on. When McConnell had that power it meant they were able to avoid seating Obama's pick for the Court by simply refusing to debate or vote on it. That's a massive amount of procedural power.
Obviously, I am biased, but Sunak just doesn't look like a leader to me. He looks far more like a second-in-command: very good on detail and someone you can delegate to without any worries at all, but not a driving force. For good or ill, Starmer has made it his Labour party. I cannot see Sunak doing the same for the Tories or the government.
He reminds me very much of the numbers guy the person leading the acquisition hands over to in a meeting after the five-minute, big-picture introduction.
A bit like Gordon Brown in fact.
Polling like Gordon now too, he is now a slightly more dynamic Brown facing Starmer, a slightly duller Cameron
.. with cross-party support, with some exceptions:
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
42+ years ago - you can spin out a generation even longer than HYUFD!
And yet the anti-Tory commentators still bring up Section 28 from 34 years ago to attack the party today.
Personally, I think both examples are past their sell by date and should be consigned to history. The parties are very different today.
There could be a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on whether parties/politicians previously adopted socially conservative positions.
It's worth considering that back in the 70s and 80s Clause 28 in England and outright illegality in Scotland was not really outside of mainstream opinion. We shouldn't judge the past - even what appears to be the relatively recent past - by the standards of the present. Anyone who thinks otherwise should go and watch an old episode of wheeltappers and shunters social club. The 70s were strikingly different to today, striking even to those of us who just about remember them.
Looking at the house races, the GOP get to 217 on ones they look 99% to win from here so they need 1 of 4 others they currently lead or about 3 the Dems are currently edging. 220 or 221 looks about the money now.
Yitang (Tom) Zhang, a Chinese-American mathematician who recently revealed that he had solved the Landau-Siegel zeros conjecture ... Zhang said, “When the paper was posted online just a few days ago, many people who don’t focus on mathematics didn’t understand it, thinking that it was the Landau-Siegel zeros conjecture solved, and some even thought that it proved the Riemann Hypothesis is wrong. Actually, I don’t have this ability. ..." ... He pointed out that, in essence, he had proved the Landau-Siegel zeros conjecture.
Obviously, I am biased, but Sunak just doesn't look like a leader to me. He looks far more like a second-in-command: very good on detail and someone you can delegate to without any worries at all, but not a driving force. For good or ill, Starmer has made it his Labour party. I cannot see Sunak doing the same for the Tories or the government.
He reminds me very much of the numbers guy the person leading the acquisition hands over to in a meeting after the five-minute, big-picture introduction.
Johnson's big problem was that he wasn't able to command the loyalty of people like Sunak to carry out exactly that role. No doubt his personal failings played a large part in this, but if he had become PM in different circumstances, you could have imagined him leading a cabinet made up of much more heavyweight figures.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
In 2 terms Obama got 2 Supreme Court Judges 55 Appeal Court Judges 268 District Coute Judges
In less than half a term Biden has got 1 Supreme Court Judge 25 Appeal Court Judges with 12 awaiting vote. 58 District Court Judges with 45 awaiting vote
But would also lead to massive retaliation from NATO. This has been made clear. A nuke to generate an EMP is still a nuke.
NATO might fret about nukes in its spare time, but the treaty does not distinguish them from any other form of armed attack. Attack *on a NATO country* is key. Mind you, an EMP which takes out NATO elctronics in NATO countries as overspill might fit the bill.
But would also lead to massive retaliation from NATO. This has been made clear. A nuke to generate an EMP is still a nuke.
NATO might fret about nukes in its spare time, but the treaty does not distinguish them from any other form of armed attack. Attack *on a NATO country* is key. Mind you, an EMP which takes out NATO elctronics in NATO countries as overspill might fit the bill.
Quite - its not easy to keep the EMP to Ukraine airspace.
In practical terms, does the Republicans winning or losing the Senate by one seat make much difference? I guess they get to chair the committees and can veto certain appointments if they all agree. Anything else?
The vetoing of appointments is the whole ball game.
Biden has confirmed Judges at an unprecedented rate for a Dem president. His team know it is all about the judges.
If the Senate goes to the GOP then that comes to a crashing halt. The GOP have vowed to let et a single Biden appointment though. Ever.
Mitt Romney is about to become very powerful indeed.
In 2 terms Obama got 2 Supreme Court Judges 55 Appeal Court Judges 268 District Coute Judges
In less than half a term Biden has got 1 Supreme Court Judge 25 Appeal Court Judges with 12 awaiting vote. 58 District Court Judges with 45 awaiting vote
Is this a lesser known, American Christmas Carol?
More seriously, the very idea of judges being voted on by politicians appalls me.
The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill does not solve existing tensions (which remain unresolved in the courts) between the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) and the Equality Act 2010 (“the EqA”), writes barrister Amanda Jones.
The bill will introduce new conflicts with the EqA. The bill will also create a tangle of conflicts and anomalies between Scotland and the rest of the UK:
1. The EqA itself is a reserved matter; it cannot be amended or replaced by Scottish legislation; 2. The lawful sex of a person will be different in different parts of the UK; a person’s legal change of sex in Scotland will not be recognised in England, Wales or Northern Ireland; 3. A Scottish GRC will be inferior to a UK one. People might well need to obtain both; 4. The proposed amendments do not solve the above issues.
Instead of clarifying the law, the bill will create constitutional and legal complications that will not benefit trans people, and which will inevitably generate litigation.
Hardly new. The various constituents of the UK were quite happy to legalise matters relating to (say) homosexuality, or civil partnerships, at different times, some in advance of others.
Yes. Notably, homosexuality was legalised later in Scotland.
You are aware this was before we had a devolved parliament?
.. with cross-party support, with some exceptions:
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
42+ years ago - you can spin out a generation even longer than HYUFD!
And yet the anti-Tory commentators still bring up Section 28 from 34 years ago to attack the party today.
Personally, I think both examples are past their sell by date and should be consigned to history. The parties are very different today.
There could be a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on whether parties/politicians previously adopted socially conservative positions.
It's worth considering that back in the 70s and 80s Clause 28 in England and outright illegality in Scotland was not really outside of mainstream opinion. We shouldn't judge the past - even what appears to be the relatively recent past - by the standards of the present. Anyone who thinks otherwise should go and watch an old episode of wheeltappers and shunters social club. The 70s were strikingly different to today, striking even to those of us who just about remember them.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Lol. It's Nevada. They are probably already on a break.
Few hands of 'jack in the casino with a breakfast bap
OT. I thought PMQ's were interesting. I'm not sure that attacks on Sunak's wealth are a good idea. It suggested a thought out attack line which under the circumstances seemed unnecessary.
Starmer's got so much material using things Sunak's screwed up on he doesn't need to go after the personal stuff. I also think the kind of voters who might be impressed by this line of attack are ones that I'm hoping Labour can live without.
Red Wall Brexiteers.
The impossible dream, Roger. Regaining the "Red Wall" is at the heart of Starmer's path to power. It's all plotted out. Do not offend floating voters generally but above all make sure those seats lost in 2019 come back.
Roger is probably right about ad hominem attacks on Rishi's wealth. Labour should have learned that similar attacks on posh boy Boris and multi-millionaire smoothiechops Cameron did not further their cause. Voters expect Prime Ministers to be a bit superior.
Boris is worth just £2 million, Cameron worth £38 million. Neither are super rich ie £100 million + and in Sunak's league given Rishi is worth £730 million with his wife despite their shared elite education
Do you think someone worth £2 million or £38 million has to worry about the heating bill or the cost of a pint of milk any more than someone worth £730 million? If the attack has any value at all it is that they are divorced from the realities of daily life on the bread line. Something that applies to all 3 equally but also probably applies just as much to Starmer.
It is relative, certainly more voters interviewed raised Sunak's wealth, his multiple homes in Kensington, mansion in Yorkshire, property in California etc than the other 3 simply because it is a different scale of wealth than theirs.
Sunak is also elitist super rich like say Romney or Kerry than populist super rich like Trump or Berlusconi
Boris was a posho from Central Casting, and also had several homes. Cameron too. The point is, no-one cared; certainly, not enough voters cared to stop these Brideshead Revisited types being swept into Downing Street. It may be that voters respond to the difference in scale with Rishi but I remain sceptical. Either represents several lottery wins. Labour needs to attack Tories on policy and performance, especially after 12 years in office, not for the size of their bank accounts.
Yitang (Tom) Zhang, a Chinese-American mathematician who recently revealed that he had solved the Landau-Siegel zeros conjecture ... Zhang said, “When the paper was posted online just a few days ago, many people who don’t focus on mathematics didn’t understand it, thinking that it was the Landau-Siegel zeros conjecture solved, and some even thought that it proved the Riemann Hypothesis is wrong. Actually, I don’t have this ability. ..." ... He pointed out that, in essence, he had proved the Landau-Siegel zeros conjecture.
It reads as a rough translation, so perhaps the original article was a little clearer. Still, if confirmed, it’s a very significant result.
But would also lead to massive retaliation from NATO. This has been made clear. A nuke to generate an EMP is still a nuke.
NATO might fret about nukes in its spare time, but the treaty does not distinguish them from any other form of armed attack. Attack *on a NATO country* is key. Mind you, an EMP which takes out NATO elctronics in NATO countries as overspill might fit the bill.
And an EMP/armospheric nuke is very likely to overspill Ukraines borders if it is sufficiently large to dusable Kyiv etc
Obviously, I am biased, but Sunak just doesn't look like a leader to me. He looks far more like a second-in-command: very good on detail and someone you can delegate to without any worries at all, but not a driving force. For good or ill, Starmer has made it his Labour party. I cannot see Sunak doing the same for the Tories or the government.
He reminds me very much of the numbers guy the person leading the acquisition hands over to in a meeting after the five-minute, big-picture introduction.
Johnson's big problem was that he wasn't able to command the loyalty of people like Sunak to carry out exactly that role. No doubt his personal failings played a large part in this, but if he had become PM in different circumstances, you could have imagined him leading a cabinet made up of much more heavyweight figures.
Absent a referendum, or following a Remain win, he’d probably have led the Tories back into Government from opposition following an Osborne loss by now.
In the “absent a referendum” scenario, he’d be viewed as “moderate” and “centrist”.
Trump is indeed furious this morning, particularly about Mehmet Oz, and is blaming everyone who advised him to back Oz -- including his wife, describing it as not her best decision, according to people close to him.
There are people pushing Trump to reschedule his announcement next week, and several Rs have texted asking whether he will, but it’s risky and would be acknowledging he’s wounded by yesterday, something that some of his advisers insist is not the case
Worth remembering that Trump is a grown man who endorsed Oz over the objection of some of the people closest to him, and instead went beyond just endorsing and attacked Dave McCormick from the stage at a rally.
I question that grown man part though. The 'Trump as toddler' attacks are closer to the mark than they should be - I don't think I've seen someone in public life with such thin skin, rapid changes of mood and sheer stubborness.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
Depending on what happens it's a small loss up to £140 loss. Fine on the House but shat the bed on the Senate (my original position was fine but ruined it last night by flipping it to back Rep gain and Nevada at short odds).
Got lazy and took it for granted. Not sure why I haven't learned. Making a profit betting is never done on autopilot.
Presidential book looks much better. Will apply the lessons there.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Lol. It's Nevada. They are probably already on a break.
Few hands of 'jack in the casino with a breakfast bap
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
In practical terms, does the Republicans winning or losing the Senate by one seat make much difference? I guess they get to chair the committees and can veto certain appointments if they all agree. Anything else?
The vetoing of appointments is the whole ball game.
Biden has confirmed Judges at an unprecedented rate for a Dem president. His team know it is all about the judges.
If the Senate goes to the GOP then that comes to a crashing halt. The GOP have vowed to let et a single Biden appointment though. Ever.
A lesson they certainly learned from Trump's time in office.
It's a worrying trend that the parties both know and focus on controlling the judges as the most important thing.
Rishi Sunak is surprisingly rubbish at PMQs. It’s almost a cruel sport.
"if he can't stand up to a cartoon bully with a pet spider"
That made me actually LOL.
Simon Carr on Guido of all placesw had an interesting take on that point.
Just as a preliminary note, Gavin Williamson was a terrible bully. Awful. He was just no good at it at all. His one accomplishment was in persuading people he had a talent for it. The spider on his desk. The creepy smile. The dead-fish handshake. The official positions he mysteriously acquired. But the vast majority of his techniques – the ones we saw in text form – were pitiful. Nothing he said or did needed any other reaction than, “Gavin. You’re a nob. Don’t talk to me anymore.’
In a keynote speech on security policy in Toulon, Macron also confirmed that there would be a France-UK summit, mostly on defence cooperation, in the first quarter of next year. Such summits were once annual events. The last was in Sandhurst in Jan 2018
FYI, we've all talked about RDS as the leader for the GOP nom in 2024 but it might be worthwhile taking a look at Greg Abbott here. A number of similar parallels - seen as a fighter, impressive win in his race on a state that was seen as a possible flip back in 2020, ambitious and wants the nomination.
But would also lead to massive retaliation from NATO. This has been made clear. A nuke to generate an EMP is still a nuke.
NATO might fret about nukes in its spare time, but the treaty does not distinguish them from any other form of armed attack. Attack *on a NATO country* is key. Mind you, an EMP which takes out NATO elctronics in NATO countries as overspill might fit the bill.
Quite - its not easy to keep the EMP to Ukraine airspace.
Very likely the only reason it hasn't happened yet.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
It's very definitely a complex argument, and very definitely an on-the-one-hand, on-the-other hand argument. If the abortion argument suffers from one thing it is from an excess of certainty on both sides and a refusal to recognise there is a balance of interests to be struck. And process is important. I favour abortion being legal ip to 24 weeks. But this is a decision whuch must be arrived at democratically, not by some judge citing dubious precedent for political grounds. Because if you favour that route it will make it harder to fight next tine a judge takes a decision which should not be the preserve of judges. And next time the decision of the judge might go against you.
I'm also fine with how we have it. It's a balance. And pre Dobbs the US had a balance. It doesn't now. And the fundamental lack of balance - which absolutely is not complex - is that only the "pro life" movement seek to impose their view by law on everyone else.
Should this fundamental right of women (with constraints) be a matter for politics? Ok, but if so it should imo be enshrined as high up the chain as possible. Eg imagine here if Leeds wished to ban abortion. Great to reply, no because Yorkshire says you can't. Now Yorkshire wants to. No because England says you can't. But England do want to. No because "Europe" says you can't. Etc.
Enshrine via a Constitution, an independent judiciary, and/or at the highest possible political level. The governing principle here for me is, the harder it is to remove this basic human right of women - over their bodies - the better.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Lol. It's Nevada. They are probably already on a break.
Few hands of 'jack in the casino with a breakfast bap
someone's hoovered up the £1k at 3.5 on Laxalt.
Well, if it comes back I'm tempted to shovel some in myself as £50 could dig me out of most of my hole.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
A session of hard labour in the fields during the Cultural Revolution adds to the tale too.
In practical terms, does the Republicans winning or losing the Senate by one seat make much difference? I guess they get to chair the committees and can veto certain appointments if they all agree. Anything else?
The vetoing of appointments is the whole ball game.
Biden has confirmed Judges at an unprecedented rate for a Dem president. His team know it is all about the judges.
If the Senate goes to the GOP then that comes to a crashing halt. The GOP have vowed to let et a single Biden appointment though. Ever.
A lesson they certainly learned from Trump's time in office.
It's a worrying trend that the parties both know and focus on controlling the judges as the most important thing.
Republicans were sorting out judges long before Trump; even before McConnell's GOP effectively vetoed Obama's Supreme Court pick. This is where a lot of never-Trump Republicans came from, a background of down-ticket support so even the local dog-catcher was Republican, vote reform (or gerrymandering and suppression) and packing the lower courts.
CNN's Winners & Losers list makes for interesting reading. This one in the winning camp should make all of us punters sit up:
* Simon Rosenberg: Rosenberg, a longtime Democratic strategist, was telling anyone who would listen that the seeming movement to Republicans in the final weeks of the race was misleading – fueled by a series of Republican-sponsored polls that moved polling averages in a more favorable direction for the GOP. He was right. Period.
Quite right too. If Opinion polls are biased it can be used to distort democratic elections. But if you are going to have rules, then you are going down the road of monitoring and policing.
Are the rules, and monitoring and policing, across the pond robust enough? Put another way, are views and political bets being shaped by tracking successive polls from more highly and trusted pollsters, or is the head being turned by “interesting” polls from less highly and trusted and experienced pollsters? I’m suspicious of the small amount of polling in these mid terms from respected pollsters, and the large amount from, ahem, can we call them cowboys?
On this basis I have a feeling the current balance in the Senate won’t go anywhere - 1 pick up for each side. Nor will the defeat for Democrats in the house be a large one - if red wave was ever on, Roe v Wade announcement in June aborted it prematurely.
Despite the no change senate, I’m also predicting, because of so many obvious close races, another bout of the old Red Mirage - red leads with blue votes counted later.
This is not to say it won’t be a concerning night for the democrats - Stacey Abrams has crashed and burned in her own fight, and Latino voting GOP will again be a thing - this will have to be analysed and correct lessons learned.
And then the big one in two years. Should we presume the Republican Nomination is Trumps for the taking? With ever decreasing circles of problematic expensive legal proceedings getting closer to Trump, what about strong, ambitious challengers appealing to primary voters for a fresh start from it all?
Nikki Haley. If she ran against him, how exactly would Trump and his fan club tackle her? She sounds like him, only without his baggage.
If it looks like the Republicans are going to nick Nevada can someone explain to me why they're still at 3 with the Dems available at 1.45?
Why haven't punters reacted?
NYT and others saying 200K+ votes left to count, most from Clark and Washoe, who they think break to Cortez +40k to overturn the lead. but Laxalt's price has come in a point in last hour or so. Has been some debate on here today as to how many are actually still outstanding. I'm trying to find some timeline of the count in 2020 but even if I could it might not be much use here.
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
LOL, even funnier when saddo Tories are reduced to dragging up rubbish from almost 50 years ago.
Of course it’s always funny to remember that a majority of Tory MPs and MSPs voted against gay marriage much more recently when they and their fanbois start bleating about being a ‘progressive’ party.
Why on earth should a Conservative Party be Progressive? Economic and social liberalism may be the consensus now in the UK on the whole but of course there will be social conservatives in the Conservative Party opposed to social liberalism just as there will be socialists in the Labour Party opposed to capitalism and economic liberalism
Gay marriage as opposed to gay decriminalisation is neither progressive nor unprogressive.
At issue is whether 'marriage' means or should refer only to a particular relationship between one man and one woman or whether it can properly mean something else as well in law and custom. Both views are entirely arguable and rational; progress has nothing to say about it.
Rishi Sunak is surprisingly rubbish at PMQs. It’s almost a cruel sport.
"if he can't stand up to a cartoon bully with a pet spider"
That made me actually LOL.
Simon Carr on Guido of all placesw had an interesting take on that point.
Just as a preliminary note, Gavin Williamson was a terrible bully. Awful. He was just no good at it at all. His one accomplishment was in persuading people he had a talent for it. The spider on his desk. The creepy smile. The dead-fish handshake. The official positions he mysteriously acquired. But the vast majority of his techniques – the ones we saw in text form – were pitiful. Nothing he said or did needed any other reaction than, “Gavin. You’re a nob. Don’t talk to me anymore.’
Gavin Williamson got a series of ministerial appointments from a series of Prime Ministers, despite fouling up, and a CBE and knighthood. He must have been doing something right, even if he was only faking it.
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
A session of hard labour in the fields during the Cultural Revolution adds to the tale too.
Born 1955, so a real stayer. I was expecting him to be about 23.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Arizona are talking about working 'till Thanksgiving' to get all votes counted. Nevada may well also take considerable time. We probably will not know the fate of the senate for a considerable time. Maricopa has 275,000 signatures to verify then count for example. We might know the House fate later today though
I think Arizona is looking pretty good for the Dems: they are well ahead (at this stage of the count) of where they were in 2018 or 2020, and most of what is to come is Maricopa and/or postals which favour them.
Nevada is a much tougher call: the polls had been significantly better for the Republicans there, the Dems are behind by three percentage points, and there are fewer ballots to count.
I get that it's mostly Clark County postals and drop boxes, and that these favor the Dems, but the Dems would have to do pretty well to overturn the gap: I'd make Laxalt the narrow favourite.
I like reading about mathematics on wikipedia as no matter how I try I cannot grasp the fundamental concepts they attempt to describe in plain terms.
You are not alone in that. My son did a maths degree, and refuses to try and explain algebraic geometry to me on the grounds the effort would be a waste of both our time.
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
Nevada looks incredibly close. But the Dems can afford to lose Nevada because they're pretty likely to win Georgia either this time or on December 6th.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
They almost definitely will not get over 50%, it should be something like 49.5 vs 48.5 with 2% Libertarian to share about. A toss up run off. (Edit - its been indeed called as a run off by the looks of things) And Arizona is not yet a lock.
If it looks like the Republicans are going to nick Nevada can someone explain to me why they're still at 3 with the Dems available at 1.45?
Why haven't punters reacted?
NYT and others saying 200K+ votes left to count, most from Clark and Washoe, who they think break to Cortez +40k to overturn the lead. but Laxalt's price has come in a point in last hour or so. Has been some debate on here today as to how many are actually still outstanding. I'm trying to find some timeline of the count in 2020 but even if I could it might not be much use here.
A true gamble then.
I've stuck £30 on Laxalt on the basis no-one knows (so his price might be value) and I'll be equally pissed off by a £150 loss to a £180 loss but will feel mildly pleased if I get it to a £85-90 loss only.
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
LOL, even funnier when saddo Tories are reduced to dragging up rubbish from almost 50 years ago.
Of course it’s always funny to remember that a majority of Tory MPs and MSPs voted against gay marriage much more recently when they and their fanbois start bleating about being a ‘progressive’ party.
Why on earth should a Conservative Party be Progressive? Economic and social liberalism may be the consensus now in the UK on the whole but of course there will be social conservatives in the Conservative Party opposed to social liberalism just as there will be socialists in the Labour Party opposed to capitalism and economic liberalism
Gay marriage as opposed to gay decriminalisation is neither progressive nor unprogressive.
At issue is whether 'marriage' means or should refer only to a particular relationship between one man and one woman or whether it can properly mean something else as well in law and custom. Both views are entirely arguable and rational; progress has nothing to say about it.
Marriage in origin is circularly defined: A marriage is a hetero partnership whose children are legitimate. What is a legitimate child? One born to a married couple. But there is nothing to stop us repurposing the concept once its original use has expired. Which it has, with the sole exception of the inheriting of titles.
This is the same Zhang who a few years ago came from obsurity to "solve" (or at least dramatically advance) the twin primes conjecture, is it not? One senses a Hollywood biopic in the works.
A session of hard labour in the fields during the Cultural Revolution adds to the tale too.
Even in America, at the time of his first breakthrough, Zhang was an untenured lecturer at a second-rate university.
The good people of Wikipedia say Zhang is 67, an emphatic counter-example to the popular notion that mathematicians do their best work by 25 and are burnt out by 40.
I like reading about mathematics on wikipedia as no matter how I try I cannot grasp the fundamental concepts they attempt to describe in plain terms.
The beauty of the 4 colour theorem, and Fermat, is that they are comprehensible. Zeta functions, naaah.
Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality was supposed to be the book that cracks the maths etc of all this for the interested reader. I promise you it doesn't.
Rishi Sunak is surprisingly rubbish at PMQs. It’s almost a cruel sport.
"if he can't stand up to a cartoon bully with a pet spider"
That made me actually LOL.
Simon Carr on Guido of all placesw had an interesting take on that point.
Just as a preliminary note, Gavin Williamson was a terrible bully. Awful. He was just no good at it at all. His one accomplishment was in persuading people he had a talent for it. The spider on his desk. The creepy smile. The dead-fish handshake. The official positions he mysteriously acquired. But the vast majority of his techniques – the ones we saw in text form – were pitiful. Nothing he said or did needed any other reaction than, “Gavin. You’re a nob. Don’t talk to me anymore.’
Gavin Williamson got a series of ministerial appointments from a series of Prime Ministers, despite fouling up, and a CBE and knighthood. He must have been doing something right, even if he was only faking it.
That's just classic con man schtick though. For all we think of ourselves as cynical, if someone acts like they are the bees knees we tend to think there must be something behind it. It's why the confident can rise so high even with little talent.
I like reading about mathematics on wikipedia as no matter how I try I cannot grasp the fundamental concepts they attempt to describe in plain terms.
The beauty of the 4 colour theorem, and Fermat, is that they are comprehensible. Zeta functions, naaah.
Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality was supposed to be the book that cracks the maths etc of all this for the interested reader. I promise you it doesn't.
See also books to help the earnest humanities wannabe polymath to understand quantum physics and Einstein and shit. Any physicist will tell you that it is all in the maths, and the metaphors trying to substitute for the maths are mere gibberish.
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
Laxalt sounds like an alternative remedy for constipation.
A Red Wave with a resurgent Trump would also have a similar effect.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
I don't totally agree with you (and Bart) about zero controls but I almost do. It's a far more reasonable position than a ban. The abortion debate suffers from a surfeit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" false equivalence and pseudy "it's complex" chinstroking imo.
Pre Dobbs, American women had a right to an abortion, subject to certain constraints which could vary by state. There was a balance between the competing rights and all pregnant women were catered for. Women who didn't want the baby weren't forced to have it. No woman who did want the baby was forced to abort it.
It was fine and had been in place for 50 years. Then along comes this softhead "pro life" nonsense and upends it, takes the right away, decides that the rights of the unborn trump those of women unless local politicians are good enough to deem otherwise. Indefensible on every level.
I think the difficulty in the abortion debate is that the extremists on both sides don't appreciate that (a) a line has to be drawn between where abortion is legal/illegal (either explicitly or subject to exceptions), and that (b) where to draw that line is a political question.
Drawing the line at conception or at birth is still drawing the line.
You're kind of doing what I'm complaining about. Falsely presenting the debate as being driven by equal and opposite extremes. It isn't. The pre Dobbs situation was not extreme. It was a pragmatic, long established settlement. Women catered for. The unborn catered for. Local democracy catered for. But the basic right guaranteed.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
Pre-Dobbs wasn't extreme (it just wasn't textually justified - and it didn't cater for local democracy more than post-Dobbs), but "abortion on demand until birth" is.
That phrase is, yes, but "women's right to choose" doesn't map to that in practice. What's most important imo is how it was before in practice vs how it's shaping up now in practice. It's grim on that metric.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
The amendment to legalise homosexual acts was moved by Robin Cook MP. While moving it, he stated "The clause bears the names of hon. Members from all three major parties. I regret that the only party represented among Scottish Members of Parliament from which there has been no support for the clause is the Scottish National Party. I am pleased to see both representatives of that party in their place, and I hope to convert them in the remainder of my remarks."[3] When the amendment came to a vote, the SNP's MPs Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart both voted against the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
It's so funny when the Nats go on about being a 'progessive' party.
LOL, even funnier when saddo Tories are reduced to dragging up rubbish from almost 50 years ago.
Of course it’s always funny to remember that a majority of Tory MPs and MSPs voted against gay marriage much more recently when they and their fanbois start bleating about being a ‘progressive’ party.
Why on earth should a Conservative Party be Progressive? Economic and social liberalism may be the consensus now in the UK on the whole but of course there will be social conservatives in the Conservative Party opposed to social liberalism just as there will be socialists in the Labour Party opposed to capitalism and economic liberalism
Gay marriage as opposed to gay decriminalisation is neither progressive nor unprogressive.
At issue is whether 'marriage' means or should refer only to a particular relationship between one man and one woman or whether it can properly mean something else as well in law and custom. Both views are entirely arguable and rational; progress has nothing to say about it.
Marriage in origin is circularly defined: A marriage is a hetero partnership whose children are legitimate. What is a legitimate child? One born to a married couple. But there is nothing to stop us repurposing the concept once its original use has expired. Which it has, with the sole exception of the inheriting of titles.
Agree, of course, about our power to repurpose. The rest of the argument is a bit thin.
To this day lots of people quite like the idea there is an institution with a name and history which governs relationships characterised by public promise, fidelity and the transmission of life, together with a promise to care for that new life together.
It is central to many lives of progressives and traditionalists and is by no means defunct. Cameron and Rishi; Blair and Starmer......?
From the Washington Post: "According to our model, Cortez Masto is behind in the vote count, but slightly favored to win after all votes are counted. Laxalt still has a chance."
(As I understand it, the Post uses a sample of "representative" precincts to make these predictions. I have seen no data on their accuracy. But at least their models are testable.)
Nevada will be extremely close, and I would probably have Laxalt as very slight favourite.
almost 9am there now so hopefully the count might start moving again soon.
Arizona are talking about working 'till Thanksgiving' to get all votes counted. Nevada may well also take considerable time. We probably will not know the fate of the senate for a considerable time. Maricopa has 275,000 signatures to verify then count for example. We might know the House fate later today though
I think Arizona is looking pretty good for the Dems: they are well ahead (at this stage of the count) of where they were in 2018 or 2020, and most of what is to come is Maricopa and/or postals which favour them.
Nevada is a much tougher call: the polls had been significantly better for the Republicans there, the Dems are behind by three percentage points, and there are fewer ballots to count.
I get that it's mostly Clark County postals and drop boxes, and that these favor the Dems, but the Dems would have to do pretty well to overturn the gap: I'd make Laxalt the narrow favourite.
One factor that may complicate Arizona are how many of the manual count are 'box 3 ballots' from on the day voting in the 20% of precincts that had an issue. These may favour Lake and Masters more
Comments
Sunak is also elitist super rich like say Romney or Kerry than populist super rich like Trump or Berlusconi
This is what Conservative government looks like.
In the same post I linked to Prof Curtice explaining the UK polling council and rules.
Is it that the US needs to copy us and sharpen up, or that the same thing hasn’t been tried here?
To save you looking for it, here’s my unedited early Monday post
“Off topic. But Proper Political Betting Post. I’m going to have a few words and bold predictions on the US elections.
Is polling different in the US? I understand UK polling is governed by a Council, and pollsters sign up agree rules to be followed. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/rules-and-practices-of-political-opinion-polls/
Quite right too. If Opinion polls are biased it can be used to distort democratic elections. But if you are going to have rules, then you are going down the road of monitoring and policing.
Are the rules, and monitoring and policing, across the pond robust enough? Put another way, are views and political bets being shaped by tracking successive polls from more highly and trusted pollsters, or is the head being turned by “interesting” polls from less highly and trusted and experienced pollsters? I’m suspicious of the small amount of polling in these mid terms from respected pollsters, and the large amount from, ahem, can we call them cowboys?
On this basis I have a feeling the current balance in the Senate won’t go anywhere - 1 pick up for each side. Nor will the defeat for Democrats in the house be a large one - if red wave was ever on, Roe v Wade announcement in June aborted it prematurely.
Despite the no change senate, I’m also predicting, because of so many obvious close races, another bout of the old Red Mirage - red leads with blue votes counted later.
This is not to say it won’t be a concerning night for the democrats - Stacey Abrams has crashed and burned in her own fight, and Latino voting GOP will again be a thing - this will have to be analysed and correct lessons learned.
And then the big one in two years. Should we presume the Republican Nomination is Trumps for the taking? With ever decreasing circles of problematic expensive legal proceedings getting closer to Trump, what about strong, ambitious challengers appealing to primary voters for a fresh start from it all?
Nikki Haley. If she ran against him, how exactly would Trump and his fan club tackle her? She sounds like him, only without his baggage.
https://politicalwire.com/2022/11/07/nikki-haley-suggests-deporting-raphael-warnock/ “
Hoyle's the speaker, surely.
He reminds me very much of the numbers guy the person leading the acquisition hands over to in a meeting after the five-minute, big-picture introduction.
We might know the House fate later today though
I will repeat the statement from a fracking conference some years ago: "The cheapest shale gas in the UK will be LNG from the US."
Source 538.
It's a horse race - NAG . Nevada Arizona Georgia
Dem 51 : 49 GOP
Ironically what sinks him is not his personality, but that the numbers won't add up, in the economy generally, specifically for the treasury, and also in terms of managing the various Tory factions whilst trying to hold on to a working majority in parliament.
Launching such a weapon over Ukraine would be lethal to Kyiv’s information warfare systems
https://www.ft.com/content/d6ecbf62-f26d-401f-936b-e5bd85f25c06
Please note that Twitter will do lots of dumb things in coming months.
We will keep what works & change what doesn’t.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1590384919829962752
And process is important. I favour abortion being legal ip to 24 weeks. But this is a decision whuch must be arrived at democratically, not by some judge citing dubious precedent for political grounds. Because if you favour that route it will make it harder to fight next tine a judge takes a decision which should not be the preserve of judges. And next time the decision of the judge might go against you.
Mathematician Yitang Zhang Confirms Partial Solution to Riemann Hypothesis
https://pandaily.com/mathematician-yitang-zhang-confirms-partial-solution-to-riemann-hypothesis/
Biden has confirmed Judges at an unprecedented rate for a Dem president. His team know it is all about the judges.
If the Senate goes to the GOP then that comes to a crashing halt. The GOP have vowed to let et a single Biden appointment though. Ever.
Anyone who thinks otherwise should go and watch an old episode of wheeltappers and shunters social club. The 70s were strikingly different to today, striking even to those of us who just about remember them.
Yitang (Tom) Zhang, a Chinese-American mathematician who recently revealed that he had solved the Landau-Siegel zeros conjecture ...
Zhang said, “When the paper was posted online just a few days ago, many people who don’t focus on mathematics didn’t understand it, thinking that it was the Landau-Siegel zeros conjecture solved, and some even thought that it proved the Riemann Hypothesis is wrong. Actually, I don’t have this ability. ..."
...
He pointed out that, in essence, he had proved the Landau-Siegel zeros conjecture.
For me the big difference is this. Only one side is seeking to impose their moral view on everyone else. Eg I've been married twice, each time to a catholic. Both my wives are opposed to abortion, see it as a sin if you like, and would never (except for compelling medical reasons) abort a baby they were carrying. But not in a million years would they seek to force that choice by law on other women who felt differently.
This is the heart of it for me. A perfectly reasonable balanced compromise, in place since the civil rights era, junked in favour of dogmatic bigotry. That's the practical upshot. It harms many and helps no-one. Sorry but I do feel strongly about this. I think it's dreadful what they've done.
2 Supreme Court Judges
55 Appeal Court Judges
268 District Coute Judges
In less than half a term Biden has got
1 Supreme Court Judge
25 Appeal Court Judges with 12 awaiting vote.
58 District Court Judges with 45 awaiting vote
More seriously, the very idea of judges being voted on by politicians appalls me.
https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1219103831990112256/video/1
Still, if confirmed, it’s a very significant result.
In the “absent a referendum” scenario, he’d be viewed as “moderate” and “centrist”.
I question that grown man part though. The 'Trump as toddler' attacks are closer to the mark than they should be - I don't think I've seen someone in public life with such thin skin, rapid changes of mood and sheer stubborness.
Maybe running the Republican-lite Crist was a massive obvious mistake when it came to voter enthusiasm.
Instead of him, Russia will send Lavrov to the summit.
https://twitter.com/TpyxaNews/status/1590376319464140800
Got lazy and took it for granted. Not sure why I haven't learned. Making a profit betting is never done on autopilot.
Presidential book looks much better. Will apply the lessons there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitang_Zhang
It's a worrying trend that the parties both know and focus on controlling the judges as the most important thing.
Just as a preliminary note, Gavin Williamson was a terrible bully. Awful. He was just no good at it at all. His one accomplishment was in persuading people he had a talent for it. The spider on his desk. The creepy smile. The dead-fish handshake. The official positions he mysteriously acquired. But the vast majority of his techniques – the ones we saw in text form – were pitiful. Nothing he said or did needed any other reaction than, “Gavin. You’re a nob. Don’t talk to me anymore.’
https://order-order.com/2022/11/09/theres-one-good-way-to-defeat-the-forces-of-darkness-bully-them-back/
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1590396799499800576
Why haven't punters reacted?
Should this fundamental right of women (with constraints) be a matter for politics? Ok, but if so it should imo be enshrined as high up the chain as possible. Eg imagine here if Leeds wished to ban abortion. Great to reply, no because Yorkshire says you can't. Now Yorkshire wants to. No because England says you can't. But England do want to. No because "Europe" says you can't. Etc.
Enshrine via a Constitution, an independent judiciary, and/or at the highest possible political level. The governing principle here for me is, the harder it is to remove this basic human right of women - over their bodies - the better.
How sure are we?
Ralston has posited 100k with a 66/33 split which would be enough for the Dem to win.
But we simply do not know. There is a bi question maker over Washoe and also the split there.
@rcs1000 also called this correctly.
Kudos to you both.
At issue is whether 'marriage' means or should refer only to a particular relationship between one man and one woman or whether it can properly mean something else as well in law and custom. Both views are entirely arguable and rational; progress has nothing to say about it.
That would take it to 50:50. Not ideal but if you'd offered them that a week ago they'd have probably snapped your hand off.
Nevada is a much tougher call: the polls had been significantly better for the Republicans there, the Dems are behind by three percentage points, and there are fewer ballots to count.
I get that it's mostly Clark County postals and drop boxes, and that these favor the Dems, but the Dems would have to do pretty well to overturn the gap: I'd make Laxalt the narrow favourite.
My son did a maths degree, and refuses to try and explain algebraic geometry to me on the grounds the effort would be a waste of both our time.
And Arizona is not yet a lock.
I've stuck £30 on Laxalt on the basis no-one knows (so his price might be value) and I'll be equally pissed off by a £150 loss to a £180 loss but will feel mildly pleased if I get it to a £85-90 loss only.
And mentally spending the winnings on a shopping trip.
The good people of Wikipedia say Zhang is 67, an emphatic counter-example to the popular notion that mathematicians do their best work by 25 and are burnt out by 40.
Pre Dobbs catered for local democracy but with the basic right guaranteed. Variations over and above the minimum right according to legislatures. Now the basic right is not guaranteed. The balance has gone.
As for the Constitutional Reasoning behind Roe or Dobbs. I'm no expert and tbh I don't care too much about that. Fwiw I found the logic of Roe superior to that of Dobbs. But wtf does that matter compared to American women losing a fundamental right they've had for 50 years? It really doesn't.
To this day lots of people quite like the idea there is an institution with a name and history which governs relationships characterised by public promise, fidelity and the transmission of life, together with a promise to care for that new life together.
It is central to many lives of progressives and traditionalists and is by no means defunct. Cameron and Rishi; Blair and Starmer......?