Though yes a younger more centrist candidate like Biden's Transport Secretary and 2020 candidate Buttigieg would be the Democrats best bet. Especially if De Santis beats Trump for the GOP nomination, as in 2020 a lot of Biden votes were anti Trump rather than for him
Although I noted your post yesterday saying that 30% of the electorate, inc many Dems and Independents, wouldn't vote for a gay president?
People say all kinds of things to pollsters that they don't follow through with when they actually vote.
Yep. But I'd have thought this would skew the other way and make it worse - ie more people would say they're cool with a gay prez when they aren't than would say they aren't when they are.
That seems a surprisingly high proportion of the electorate but then again we must always remind ourselves that America is a much more religious society than the UK.
We have a higher percentage of Muslims than the US though and many of them would not vote for a gay PM
Also a lot more in the C of E (merely being 'in the Anglican Communion' doesn't count as different A churches have different policies anyway). And you're always going on about how outrageous it would be for the C of E to be made to follow the law of the land and marry gay couples.
To be precise the law of the land is that CoE clergy cannot marry gay couples. It is enshrined in statute.
The law of the English land is that gay couples can be married. Full stop. That the C of E has a letout is an abominable outrage, given the special privileges which it possesses.
Do other churches/religious groups not have the same opt out? Or are you saying that doesn't really matter because they are not 'official' religions.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
No, no, you don’t understand. The EU was always about democracy. Never about stitching up jobs for those who’ve failed in their careers within their own countries.
*Cough* House of Lords *Cough*
Sue*cough*ella Braver*cough*man.
The old unwritten rule that you needed to face the electorate before returning from a ministerial disgrace had quite a lot going for it.
When Brexit apologists moan about lack of democracy in the EU they really highlight how little they understand about our own pseudo-democracy.
I moan about both, thanks. I don’t hold up the U.K. as some bastion of pure democracy. But it is fair to ask how a citizen in the EU can remove UVDL from office. You may detest the current PM. You may not. But you know for certain that no later than early 2025 the entire electorate of the U.K. will get their say.
Technically a citizen of the EU could lobby their MPs to lobby their head of government to vote with other heads of government of the 27 to remove UVDL from office via the Council of Ministers. The current UK PM was voted for by Con MPs. The previous one was voted for by a selectorate of swiveleyed geriatric lunatics. The one before that was essentially voted in by those people who live in marginal constituencies and he in his infinite wisdom is about to make Nadine Dorries a peer of the Realm. Our system of democracy is a pile if shit. It needs root and branch reform, but it will not get it. We are in no position to wave our democratic credentials at UVDL who in reality has very little power because it is almost entirely vested in the Council of Ministers.
For me it was the pointlessness of MEPs. They don’t really seem to have any power or function. At least the U.K. PM is the one who can command the majority of the house. Who is the equivalent in the EU?
I think you will find that they perform a pretty good function in their equivalent of select committees in aligning single market legislation. One good example was on roaming charges on mobiles. Not ground breaking, but useful nonetheless. I suspect you have just chosen to believe they achieve nothing because it suits your prejudice, rather like the poster who slags off parish councils but has probably never done anything useful for his community in his life.
It may surprise you to know that, with a heavy heart, I voted remain. My side lost. I have long despaired of the very politicised nature of what started as an Economic community, and became an attempt to create a United States of Europe. The people I blame most are the cowards in power in the U.K. who consistently failed to give the people a say in how the EEC/EU was changing. Right up to Gordon Brown scuttling through the back door to sign the Lisbon Treaty away from the cameras. They rarely tried to persuade, culminating in the awful lies and mischaracterisation of the referendum campaign itself. Remain were as dishonest as leave. I genuinely believe that the EU was U.K. democratic at heart, and that the bits the public got to cote for had little real power, at least when compared to national members of parliament. I don’t think that’s my prejudice, it’s my observation.
What's with this heavy ♥ business?
I voted Remain with the warm glow of universal liberal values and enlightened internationalism suffusing my very being.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Pope?
Errr, no, the Head of Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury, which matches the way VDL and Michel are chosen.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Prime Minister.
Errr, no, the Prime Minister is an elected Member of Parliament that is then chosen in a method determined by his or her peers of other elected Members of Parliament.
Well, if the PM's position is so unassailably democratic, so is his choice of archbishop, surely? Your starting point is little England good, big Europe bad, and this has really nothing to do with democracy.
The EU is run by its "House of Lords"
By which you mean the elected national governments, some imperfectly democratic of course.
No. Appointees are not elected.
Not getting this whole democracy lark, are you?
Nor are you. If you actually cared from first principles upward about democracy, you would notice that you live in a first past the post elective oligarchy with one chamber a mix of appointees and hereditaries which has almost no democratic credentials at all. You never breathe a word about it; it is pure my country right or wrong, rarara, just like HYUFD defending nonsense about IHT on purely tribal grounds.
We do have parts of our system where there is very little democratic accountability. I'm not too bothered about the HOL, but the Bank of England and who they are accountable to for their decisions is a bigger concern. However, let's not pretend we have anything like the issues of the European Union, with the key roles appointed by political backslapping.
Right, so your objection is that there should be a democracy but it shouldn't have politics?
That's one of the niggles that makes it hard for the UK to work out its post-Brexit relationship with most of the rest of Europe. One one hand, the UK doesn't want to be involved in the politics. On the other, it definitely doesn't want to be accepting decisions where it hasn't had democratic input.
Why do the right-wing fruitcakes on here think that De Santis is the answer? He’s not impressive at all. Trump will make mince-meat of him. Watch this space - Trump will be the GOP candidate.
I’ve never seen him on telly before so can’t comment on his impressiveness. Merely pointing out that his public policy positions do not appear to be extreme but fairly mainstream. And that’s to be celebrated. Whether Trump wins the nom or not will depend almost entirely on the makeup of registered Republicans. You might be right. But I think it’s too early to say what that might look like.
I’ve seen him a few times. He can be brittle and prickly. He’s definitely on the right, which will put many off. He’s a Republican
But he’s bright, cunning, a tad ruthless - also sane, apparently quite honest, family-oriented and basically patriotic. And not 79 years old
He seems to realise that Putin is a baddie which is a good start.
Quite. He’s ex-Navy Seal
If 2024 is a rerun of Trump v Biden that will be utterly toxic - and politically catastrophic for the USA
He never did BUDS so he's not a SEAL. He was a legal advisor to ST1. He's a SEAL in the same way that Bob Dylan's lawyer is a songwriter.
Interesting that there is considerable boosting of the occasionally slender credentials of Ron DeSantis.
SEAL croaking one evident example.
Another is claim that RDS is man of modest means in the Harry Truman tradition. Not hardly!
Interesting - and bemusing - just how much right-wing USA echo chamber effluent gets reverberated here on PB.
De Santis' net worth has increased significantly in the last year but it is still just a fraction of Sunak or Trump's net worth
Why do the right-wing fruitcakes on here think that De Santis is the answer? He’s not impressive at all. Trump will make mince-meat of him. Watch this space - Trump will be the GOP candidate.
I’ve never seen him on telly before so can’t comment on his impressiveness. Merely pointing out that his public policy positions do not appear to be extreme but fairly mainstream. And that’s to be celebrated. Whether Trump wins the nom or not will depend almost entirely on the makeup of registered Republicans. You might be right. But I think it’s too early to say what that might look like.
I’ve seen him a few times. He can be brittle and prickly. He’s definitely on the right, which will put many off. He’s a Republican
But he’s bright, cunning, a tad ruthless - also sane, apparently quite honest, family-oriented and basically patriotic. And not 79 years old
He seems to realise that Putin is a baddie which is a good start.
Quite. He’s ex-Navy Seal
If 2024 is a rerun of Trump v Biden that will be utterly toxic - and politically catastrophic for the USA
He never did BUDS so he's not a SEAL. He was a legal advisor to ST1. He's a SEAL in the same way that Bob Dylan's lawyer is a songwriter.
That would be a good point if Bob Dylan's lawyer was a well known stage artiste
De Santis went to Iraq. To do the job of a military lawyer, admittedly, but he still went to Iraq: as a serving soldier
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So UVDL got fewer votes than my Parish Councillors?
Count yourself lucky if your parish council, pointless as they are, sees much voting happen. Ours falls out of sequence with anything notable so most of them seem to get elected unopposed or get co-opted in between times. It’s all family and friends links. I think disrupting their cosy lifestyle might be a retirement project for me.
Town councils certainly are elected with competing party labels, Parish councils in villages though are normally Independent and elected unopposed
They aren’t really independent though, are they? It’s the most powerful local party in a friendship group. Thankfully they have limited powers (and should be abolished) but they can waste public funds on vanity projects.
They shouldn't, as a town councillor myself Parish and Town councils offer by far the closest council to the local community and know most about it and what it wants.
Councillors all come from and meet in the town or village, whereas district councils are always in the biggest town not a village and unitary and county councils are often in a town or city on the other side of the county
Huge logical fallacy there. You're assuming that the "local community" has to be the smallest possible area. But what about larger areas? You can't run a bus service based solely on Epping Middle Lower Parish Council (formerly Church of England, prop. Henry VIII, as modified by Gladstone WE).
No and where did I ever say Essex county council, which runs bus services, should be abolished?
My argument was simply we need town and parish councils too that know their local communities best
Though yes a younger more centrist candidate like Biden's Transport Secretary and 2020 candidate Buttigieg would be the Democrats best bet. Especially if De Santis beats Trump for the GOP nomination, as in 2020 a lot of Biden votes were anti Trump rather than for him
Although I noted your post yesterday saying that 30% of the electorate, inc many Dems and Independents, wouldn't vote for a gay president?
People say all kinds of things to pollsters that they don't follow through with when they actually vote.
Yep. But I'd have thought this would skew the other way and make it worse - ie more people would say they're cool with a gay prez when they aren't than would say they aren't when they are.
That seems a surprisingly high proportion of the electorate but then again we must always remind ourselves that America is a much more religious society than the UK.
We have a higher percentage of Muslims than the US though and many of them would not vote for a gay PM
Also a lot more in the C of E (merely being 'in the Anglican Communion' doesn't count as different A churches have different policies anyway). And you're always going on about how outrageous it would be for the C of E to be made to follow the law of the land and marry gay couples.
To be precise the law of the land is that CoE clergy cannot marry gay couples. It is enshrined in statute.
The law of the English land is that gay couples can be married. Full stop. That the C of E has a letout is an abominable outrage, given the special privileges which it possesses.
Do other churches/religious groups not have the same opt out? Or are you saying that doesn't really matter because they are not 'official' religions.
We're told that the importance of the C of E is that anyone in England can get married in the parish church (if nominally Xtian, presumably). Because it is established yadda yadda. Unless you are gay ...
The question is wehther the other religious groups have the same automatic right to be considered to 'marry' people, sure. But they are not the ideological arm of the state.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So UVDL got fewer votes than my Parish Councillors?
Count yourself lucky if your parish council, pointless as they are, sees much voting happen. Ours falls out of sequence with anything notable so most of them seem to get elected unopposed or get co-opted in between times. It’s all family and friends links. I think disrupting their cosy lifestyle might be a retirement project for me.
Town councils certainly are elected with competing party labels, Parish councils in villages though are normally Independent and elected unopposed
They aren’t really independent though, are they? It’s the most powerful local party in a friendship group. Thankfully they have limited powers (and should be abolished) but they can waste public funds on vanity projects.
They shouldn't, as a town councillor myself Parish and Town councils offer by far the closest council to the local community and know most about it and what it wants.
Councillors all come from and meet in the town or village, whereas district councils are always in the biggest town not a village and unitary and county councils are often in a town or city on the other side of the county
Huge logical fallacy there. You're assuming that the "local community" has to be the smallest possible area. But what about larger areas? You can't run a bus service based solely on Epping Middle Lower Parish Council (formerly Church of England, prop. Henry VIII, as modified by Gladstone WE).
No and where did I ever say Essex county council, which runs bus services, should be abolished?
My argument was simply we need town and parish councils too that know their local communities best
Are you in favour of introducing Block Wardens? They sure know their local communities best.
Trying to work out if the "Russia has a cunning plan" mob or "Musk has a cunning plan" mob are more delusional.
There's a theory on Deluded Lefty Twitter that Musk bought Twitter (probably with Trumpite, Russian and Chinese money) to deliberately run it into the ground, and destroy it in weeks, what with it being a liberal menace to human society
No clue what YOU are doing for fun & profit, but yours truly is monitoring ongoing election returns, in particular for the great Evergreen State of Washington.
Where today is going to be a VERY big day for vote counting. AND also for ballot accounting.
Yesterday the number of new ballots tabulated was relatively small. Why? Because most counties counted everything they had received AND validated up though the Monday before Election Day. And just about every county received a LARGE number of ballots on Tuesday, via the mail AND ballot drop boxes. So election workers spent a large part of yesterday simply digging hordes of ballots out of their drop boxes, sorting and starting the processing process.
So today will be the payoff for THAT work, in most counties. AND when in many locales the count moves beyond ballots returned by voters BEFORE Election Day, and moves on to votes cast ON Election Day.
In most of WA State outside of Seattle, trend of later ballots tends to favor Republican candidates.
In this election, this may - or may not - change the current standing is two US House races (CD3 and CD8) where Dems are currently hold narrow leads. Ditto several races for state legislature.
Another one to watch, is statewide race between incumbent - but appointed - Democratic Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, and his challenger, running as Nonpartisan, the current Pierce County Auditor Julie Anderson. Hobbs is now ahead, but MIGHT fall behind in latter vote counts. HOWEVER, writeins are taking a few percent, and are likely by Republican voters, thus coming out of Julie's hide.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So UVDL got fewer votes than my Parish Councillors?
Count yourself lucky if your parish council, pointless as they are, sees much voting happen. Ours falls out of sequence with anything notable so most of them seem to get elected unopposed or get co-opted in between times. It’s all family and friends links. I think disrupting their cosy lifestyle might be a retirement project for me.
Town councils certainly are elected with competing party labels, Parish councils in villages though are normally Independent and elected unopposed
They aren’t really independent though, are they? It’s the most powerful local party in a friendship group. Thankfully they have limited powers (and should be abolished) but they can waste public funds on vanity projects.
They shouldn't, as a town councillor myself Parish and Town councils offer by far the closest council to the local community and know most about it and what it wants.
Councillors all come from and meet in the town or village, whereas district councils are always in the biggest town not a village and unitary and county councils are often in a town or city on the other side of the county
Huge logical fallacy there. You're assuming that the "local community" has to be the smallest possible area. But what about larger areas? You can't run a bus service based solely on Epping Middle Lower Parish Council (formerly Church of England, prop. Henry VIII, as modified by Gladstone WE).
No and where did I ever say Essex county council, which runs bus services, should be abolished?
My argument was simply we need town and parish councils too that know their local communities best
There was an episode of Yes, Prime Minister based on the idea of extending that concept to urban areas; units smaller than council wards electing city village councils, whose chairs then became the district council with a hundred or so members.
At least some Y(P)M episodes were an attempt by the writers to bring slightly fringe political ideas into prime time (one of Jay and Lynn was fairly hardcore Free To Choose, I think)... I wonder how workable that plan would have been?
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
Why do the right-wing fruitcakes on here think that De Santis is the answer? He’s not impressive at all. Trump will make mince-meat of him. Watch this space - Trump will be the GOP candidate.
I’ve never seen him on telly before so can’t comment on his impressiveness. Merely pointing out that his public policy positions do not appear to be extreme but fairly mainstream. And that’s to be celebrated. Whether Trump wins the nom or not will depend almost entirely on the makeup of registered Republicans. You might be right. But I think it’s too early to say what that might look like.
I’ve seen him a few times. He can be brittle and prickly. He’s definitely on the right, which will put many off. He’s a Republican
But he’s bright, cunning, a tad ruthless - also sane, apparently quite honest, family-oriented and basically patriotic. And not 79 years old
He seems to realise that Putin is a baddie which is a good start.
Quite. He’s ex-Navy Seal
If 2024 is a rerun of Trump v Biden that will be utterly toxic - and politically catastrophic for the USA
He never did BUDS so he's not a SEAL. He was a legal advisor to ST1. He's a SEAL in the same way that Bob Dylan's lawyer is a songwriter.
That would be a good point if Bob Dylan's lawyer was a well known stage artiste
De Santis went to Iraq. To do the job of a military lawyer, admittedly, but he still went to Iraq: as a serving soldier
Trying to work out if the "Russia has a cunning plan" mob or "Musk has a cunning plan" mob are more delusional.
There's a theory on Deluded Lefty Twitter that Musk bought Twitter (probably with Trumpite, Russian and Chinese money) to deliberately run it into the ground, and destroy it in weeks, what with it being a liberal menace to human society
Most people are relatively new to knowing anything at all about Elon Musk. What they misunderstand is that he is a massive drama queen and continually exaggerates business risk. After all he is hero of his own story and it’s a more exciting story that he personally drives failing businesses not just to survival but a thriving state. It’s an even better story because there is much truth in it.
As for Twitter, it’s clear that running a social media platform requires a cuter understanding of the human condition than Musk is equipped with. Not his fault, he has other extraordinary gifts. But he’s not great at reading the room and the Twitterati is the biggest room of all. But, he’s proven excellent at cutting costs, product innovation and squeezing revenues in pretty imaginative ways.
I would be surprised if he doesn’t make Twitter a more financially viable business than when he bought it. I don’t have much of a view on whether he’ll be getting a good return on the $44bn.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
We’ve had this, to death.
We vote for UK governments, who exercised via the Council influence on EU direction.
We also voted for EU parliamentarians who are supposed to provide scrutiny (even if, in practice, Farage and UKIP only turned up to collect their meal allowances).
Personally that was fine with me. I think our democracy had/has issues rather closer to home.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So UVDL got fewer votes than my Parish Councillors?
Count yourself lucky if your parish council, pointless as they are, sees much voting happen. Ours falls out of sequence with anything notable so most of them seem to get elected unopposed or get co-opted in between times. It’s all family and friends links. I think disrupting their cosy lifestyle might be a retirement project for me.
Town councils certainly are elected with competing party labels, Parish councils in villages though are normally Independent and elected unopposed
They aren’t really independent though, are they? It’s the most powerful local party in a friendship group. Thankfully they have limited powers (and should be abolished) but they can waste public funds on vanity projects.
They shouldn't, as a town councillor myself Parish and Town councils offer by far the closest council to the local community and know most about it and what it wants.
Councillors all come from and meet in the town or village, whereas district councils are always in the biggest town not a village and unitary and county councils are often in a town or city on the other side of the county
Huge logical fallacy there. You're assuming that the "local community" has to be the smallest possible area. But what about larger areas? You can't run a bus service based solely on Epping Middle Lower Parish Council (formerly Church of England, prop. Henry VIII, as modified by Gladstone WE).
No and where did I ever say Essex county council, which runs bus services, should be abolished?
My argument was simply we need town and parish councils too that know their local communities best
Are you in favour of introducing Block Wardens? They sure know their local communities best.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
We’ve had this, to death.
We vote for UK governments, who exercised via the Council influence on EU direction.
We also voted for EU parliamentarians who are supposed to provide scrutiny (even if, in practice, Farage and UKIP only turned up to collect their meal allowances).
Personally that was fine with me. I think our democracy had/has issues rather closer to home.
Especially if people move to the States but still get to vote in the U.K.
Though yes a younger more centrist candidate like Biden's Transport Secretary and 2020 candidate Buttigieg would be the Democrats best bet. Especially if De Santis beats Trump for the GOP nomination, as in 2020 a lot of Biden votes were anti Trump rather than for him
Although I noted your post yesterday saying that 30% of the electorate, inc many Dems and Independents, wouldn't vote for a gay president?
People say all kinds of things to pollsters that they don't follow through with when they actually vote.
Yep. But I'd have thought this would skew the other way and make it worse - ie more people would say they're cool with a gay prez when they aren't than would say they aren't when they are.
That seems a surprisingly high proportion of the electorate but then again we must always remind ourselves that America is a much more religious society than the UK.
We have a higher percentage of Muslims than the US though and many of them would not vote for a gay PM
Also a lot more in the C of E (merely being 'in the Anglican Communion' doesn't count as different A churches have different policies anyway). And you're always going on about how outrageous it would be for the C of E to be made to follow the law of the land and marry gay couples.
To be precise the law of the land is that CoE clergy cannot marry gay couples. It is enshrined in statute.
The law of the English land is that gay couples can be married. Full stop. That the C of E has a letout is an abominable outrage, given the special privileges which it possesses.
Do other churches/religious groups not have the same opt out? Or are you saying that doesn't really matter because they are not 'official' religions.
We're told that the importance of the C of E is that anyone in England can get married in the parish church (if nominally Xtian, presumably). Because it is established yadda yadda. Unless you are gay ...
The question is wehther the other religious groups have the same automatic right to be considered to 'marry' people, sure. But they are not the ideological arm of the state.
The Church of England is just the established church, not an arm of the state as such.
However given the Bishop of Oxford, one of the most senior diocesan Bishops in the C of E now backs gay marriages in churches where Church of England vicars are willing to do so I expect it will happen in the next few years anyway.
Even if a few evangelicals leave for Pentecostal or Baptist churches, or Anglo Catholics for Rome as some did over women priests
Lmao, Maricopa has 400,000 left to count and wont be done till 'next week' (CNN)
The Thatcherite loons on here who like to attack the public sector should reflect, occasionally, on stuff like this in places like the US and think about all the things in the U.K. that “just work” and why that is.
The "why it is" in this particular case - processing & counting of election ballots - having ZERO to do with the quality of public sector & public workers on EITHER side of the Atlantic (or Pacific).
Rather, in vastly different systems for issuing, receiving, counting, processing, recording & reporting votes.
For one thing, my own ballot had about two dozen different federal, state and local candidate races and ballot questions. Typical for US elections. Atypical to say the least in UK.
Just one difference between elections here & there, wherever they may be from your (or my own skewed) perspective!
For some real-time examples of what's happening now in just one election office, check out the webcams at this link posted by King County Elections:
These explainations are helpful and explain why it might well take days. Why weeks and weeks though, in some extreme cases? Including days of little progress?
Weeks and weeks IF you add in recount(s). Which are NOT unusual but hardly commonplace, esp in statewide or congressional elections. .
Given I didn't say it was commonplace, rather 'in extreme cases', and you've said it was 'not unusual', that suggests to me it happens a lot more often than I thought, thus making the situation far worse than I thought.
More common to have recounts in local or legislative races.
And why is it "far worse" to wait a week or two to conduct a recount, which in vast majority of cases confirms the initial result?
Especially since when it CHANGES the result, it's a good thing they did a recount and corrected it!
It may surprise you to know that, with a heavy heart, I voted remain. My side lost. I have long despaired of the very politicised nature of what started as an Economic community, and became an attempt to create a United States of Europe. The people I blame most are the cowards in power in the U.K. who consistently failed to give the people a say in how the EEC/EU was changing. Right up to Gordon Brown scuttling through the back door to sign the Lisbon Treaty away from the cameras. They rarely tried to persuade, culminating in the awful lies and mischaracterisation of the referendum campaign itself. Remain were as dishonest as leave. I genuinely believe that the EU was U.K. democratic at heart, and that the bits the public got to cote for had little real power, at least when compared to national members of parliament. I don’t think that’s my prejudice, it’s my observation.
What's with this heavy ♥ business?
I voted Remain with the warm glow of universal liberal values and enlightened internationalism suffusing my very being.
What kind of universal liberal values explicitly exclude non-Europeans from membership?
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
I heard a rather ludicrous claim of millions dead each year from climate change. Utterly laughable, and not challenged by the radio host. I think the point is proportionality. If you were protesting about anything else and caused a death I think there would be hell to pay, and for most people this is no5 different.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Pope?
Errr, no, the Head of Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury, which matches the way VDL and Michel are chosen.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Prime Minister.
Errr, no, the Prime Minister is an elected Member of Parliament that is then chosen in a method determined by his or her peers of other elected Members of Parliament.
Well, if the PM's position is so unassailably democratic, so is his choice of archbishop, surely? Your starting point is little England good, big Europe bad, and this has really nothing to do with democracy.
The EU is run by its "House of Lords"
By which you mean the elected national governments, some imperfectly democratic of course.
No. Appointees are not elected.
Not getting this whole democracy lark, are you?
If you call Rishi Sunak an "appointee", yes. (Some like Macron have an even more direct mandate than Sunak, but most have the same mandate.)
No, Sunak is not an appointee, he's a directly elected Member of Parliament. He's zero steps removed from being elected by the voters.
Anyone Sunak appoints is not elected, unlike Sunak. Sunak was elected, but the Archbishop of Canterbury/UVDL or anyone else appointed is not.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
We’ve had this, to death.
We vote for UK governments, who exercised via the Council influence on EU direction.
We also voted for EU parliamentarians who are supposed to provide scrutiny (even if, in practice, Farage and UKIP only turned up to collect their meal allowances).
Personally that was fine with me. I think our democracy had/has issues rather closer to home.
Especially if people move to the States but still get to vote in the U.K.
Pretty standard stuff. I’ve been away less than a year.
I believe the Tories are hoping to provide “votes for life” for expatriates.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
We’ve had this, to death.
We vote for UK governments, who exercised via the Council influence on EU direction.
We also voted for EU parliamentarians who are supposed to provide scrutiny (even if, in practice, Farage and UKIP only turned up to collect their meal allowances).
Personally that was fine with me. I think our democracy had/has issues rather closer to home.
Especially if people move to the States but still get to vote in the U.K.
Pretty standard stuff. I’ve been away less than a year.
I believe the Tories are hoping to provide “votes for life” for expatriates.
I assume they want votes for life for expatriates that vote Tory, mainly!
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
We’ve had this, to death.
We vote for UK governments, who exercised via the Council influence on EU direction.
We also voted for EU parliamentarians who are supposed to provide scrutiny (even if, in practice, Farage and UKIP only turned up to collect their meal allowances).
Personally that was fine with me. I think our democracy had/has issues rather closer to home.
Yep. Fully sovereign. Pooled in the national interest. Successfully mis-sold as being "ruled by bureaucrats in Brussels". So now uncoupled. Still fully sovereign. Just a bit poorer and less influential and less secure. That's your Brexit.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
I heard a rather ludicrous claim of millions dead each year from climate change. Utterly laughable, and not challenged by the radio host. I think the point is proportionality. If you were protesting about anything else and caused a death I think there would be hell to pay, and for most people this is no5 different.
There's an increasing tendency for some people to talk about death as if it would be completely avoidable if only we eliminated all risks.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Pope?
Errr, no, the Head of Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury, which matches the way VDL and Michel are chosen.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Prime Minister.
Errr, no, the Prime Minister is an elected Member of Parliament that is then chosen in a method determined by his or her peers of other elected Members of Parliament.
Well, if the PM's position is so unassailably democratic, so is his choice of archbishop, surely? Your starting point is little England good, big Europe bad, and this has really nothing to do with democracy.
The EU is run by its "House of Lords"
By which you mean the elected national governments, some imperfectly democratic of course.
No. Appointees are not elected.
Not getting this whole democracy lark, are you?
If you call Rishi Sunak an "appointee", yes. (Some like Macron have an even more direct mandate than Sunak, but most have the same mandate.)
No, Sunak is not an appointee, he's a directly elected Member of Parliament. He's zero steps removed from being elected by the voters.
Anyone Sunak appoints is not elected, unlike Sunak. Sunak was elected, but the Archbishop of Canterbury/UVDL or anyone else appointed is not.
But there is a real and significant difference between a directly elected leader (say, Macron) and a indirectly elected one.
Opponents of the EU deliberately (or just moronically) refuse to concede the various nuances in the way democracies work.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
We’ve had this, to death.
We vote for UK governments, who exercised via the Council influence on EU direction.
We also voted for EU parliamentarians who are supposed to provide scrutiny (even if, in practice, Farage and UKIP only turned up to collect their meal allowances).
Personally that was fine with me. I think our democracy had/has issues rather closer to home.
Especially if people move to the States but still get to vote in the U.K.
The problem is, it wasn't enough for a lot of people - certainly enough people to tip the vote.
The EU has an enormous democratic deficit and has no intention of doing anything about it - that was always the problem.
"We vote for people who exercise influence" - not good enough. "Exercise influence" is never good enough in a democracy. You vote for the people whose policies you want to see enacted, and you vote them out when they don't do a good enough job. That is democracy. Anything less is not.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
'no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out'
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
I agree with you that the EU is a bureaucracy and not a democracy, which wouldn't be a problem except that the EU has lawmaking powers.
Lawmaking powers should be democratically accountable. A powerful EU President with a personal mandate, or a powerful EU Parliament with a powerful EU Prime Minister chosen from within its ranks, is far more democratic than what exists today.
Why do you not want a powerful EU President? And how do you conflate that with supporting the EU having lawmaking powers. If the EU politicians shouldn't be elected/powerful then they shouldn't have the powers, they shouldn't have the right to pass laws. Or they should, and they should be elected, in which case yes let them have a mandate and power that goes with that - they'll have earnt it.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
I heard a rather ludicrous claim of millions dead each year from climate change. Utterly laughable, and not challenged by the radio host. I think the point is proportionality. If you were protesting about anything else and caused a death I think there would be hell to pay, and for most people this is no5 different.
There's an increasing tendency for some people to talk about death as if it would be completely avoidable if only we eliminated all risks.
Totally. See covid. To hear some talk the Tories are responsible for every covid death in the U.K. All could have been saved. Despite the evidence from pretty much everywhere else in the world.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
I heard a rather ludicrous claim of millions dead each year from climate change. Utterly laughable, and not challenged by the radio host. I think the point is proportionality. If you were protesting about anything else and caused a death I think there would be hell to pay, and for most people this is no5 different.
Theoretical future millions of deaths, which many will think they are already trying prevent, may not be dismissed entirely, but very avoidable deaths today (or risk of deaths) will strike a chord.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
If they are to have the power to override the elected Governments and Parliaments of the member states then I want all the law making arms of the EU to be elected.
Trying to work out if the "Russia has a cunning plan" mob or "Musk has a cunning plan" mob are more delusional.
There's a theory on Deluded Lefty Twitter that Musk bought Twitter (probably with Trumpite, Russian and Chinese money) to deliberately run it into the ground, and destroy it in weeks, what with it being a liberal menace to human society
Most people are relatively new to knowing anything at all about Elon Musk. What they misunderstand is that he is a massive drama queen and continually exaggerates business risk. After all he is hero of his own story and it’s a more exciting story that he personally drives failing businesses not just to survival but a thriving state. It’s an even better story because there is much truth in it.
As for Twitter, it’s clear that running a social media platform requires a cuter understanding of the human condition than Musk is equipped with. Not his fault, he has other extraordinary gifts. But he’s not great at reading the room and the Twitterati is the biggest room of all. But, he’s proven excellent at cutting costs, product innovation and squeezing revenues in pretty imaginative ways.
I would be surprised if he doesn’t make Twitter a more financially viable business than when he bought it. I don’t have much of a view on whether he’ll be getting a good return on the $44bn.
Where you surprised that Musk tried to pull out of the Twit deal almost immediately after signing onto it?
What amazed me, was that he seemingly imagined that the Delaware court would let him get away with it!
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
We’ve had this, to death.
We vote for UK governments, who exercised via the Council influence on EU direction.
We also voted for EU parliamentarians who are supposed to provide scrutiny (even if, in practice, Farage and UKIP only turned up to collect their meal allowances).
Personally that was fine with me. I think our democracy had/has issues rather closer to home.
Yep. Fully sovereign. Pooled in the national interest. Successfully mis-sold as being "ruled by bureaucrats in Brussels". So now uncoupled. Still fully sovereign. Just a bit poorer and less influential and less secure. That's your Brexit.
Certainly, Britain matters less on the global stage. What it gained in trading sovereignty, it lost in geopolitical influence.
Thats not important to some people, of course, who will point to Ukraine as an example of the UK “punching above it’s weight”.
Actually, we haven’t heard that phrase in a while, which is probably telling.
Trying to work out if the "Russia has a cunning plan" mob or "Musk has a cunning plan" mob are more delusional.
There's a theory on Deluded Lefty Twitter that Musk bought Twitter (probably with Trumpite, Russian and Chinese money) to deliberately run it into the ground, and destroy it in weeks, what with it being a liberal menace to human society
If he bankrupts it, which is not impossible given the debt he’s loaded it with, it’s pretty likely to be sold on as a going concern. Run well, it’s potentially quite a profitable business. Probably just not one worth $44bn.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Pope?
Errr, no, the Head of Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury, which matches the way VDL and Michel are chosen.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Prime Minister.
Errr, no, the Prime Minister is an elected Member of Parliament that is then chosen in a method determined by his or her peers of other elected Members of Parliament.
Well, if the PM's position is so unassailably democratic, so is his choice of archbishop, surely? Your starting point is little England good, big Europe bad, and this has really nothing to do with democracy.
The EU is run by its "House of Lords"
By which you mean the elected national governments, some imperfectly democratic of course.
No. Appointees are not elected.
Not getting this whole democracy lark, are you?
If you call Rishi Sunak an "appointee", yes. (Some like Macron have an even more direct mandate than Sunak, but most have the same mandate.)
No, Sunak is not an appointee, he's a directly elected Member of Parliament. He's zero steps removed from being elected by the voters.
Anyone Sunak appoints is not elected, unlike Sunak. Sunak was elected, but the Archbishop of Canterbury/UVDL or anyone else appointed is not.
But there is a real and significant difference between a directly elected leader (say, Macron) and a indirectly elected one.
Opponents of the EU deliberately (or just moronically) refuse to concede the various nuances in the way democracies work.
Both Macron and Sunak are directly elected.
Sunak sits as a Member of the Commons which is exactly what he was elected to be. There he is chosen to be the first among equals, but he is not a President, as those who get too big for their boots or lose the confidence of their peers are liable to discover. See: May, Theresa; Johnson, Boris and most spectacularly Truss, Liz.
Macron is directly elected, just like Sunak is.
UVDL, Charles Michel and Justin Welby are not. They are appointees.
I wonder how many millions of lives the extraction and use of fossil fuels has cost over the years.
Alternatively how much life and happiness has the use of fossil fuels allowed? Would you want to return to 1500, a time that might be described as ‘sustainable’? I know what I prefer. We have made huge strides to a better world, yet the nutters seem to think we’ve done nothing, and it distresses me hugely. I think they are misguided, and are making poor choices right now.
Though yes a younger more centrist candidate like Biden's Transport Secretary and 2020 candidate Buttigieg would be the Democrats best bet. Especially if De Santis beats Trump for the GOP nomination, as in 2020 a lot of Biden votes were anti Trump rather than for him
Although I noted your post yesterday saying that 30% of the electorate, inc many Dems and Independents, wouldn't vote for a gay president?
People say all kinds of things to pollsters that they don't follow through with when they actually vote.
Yep. But I'd have thought this would skew the other way and make it worse - ie more people would say they're cool with a gay prez when they aren't than would say they aren't when they are.
That seems a surprisingly high proportion of the electorate but then again we must always remind ourselves that America is a much more religious society than the UK.
We have a higher percentage of Muslims than the US though and many of them would not vote for a gay PM
Also a lot more in the C of E (merely being 'in the Anglican Communion' doesn't count as different A churches have different policies anyway). And you're always going on about how outrageous it would be for the C of E to be made to follow the law of the land and marry gay couples.
To be precise the law of the land is that CoE clergy cannot marry gay couples. It is enshrined in statute.
The law of the English land is that gay couples can be married. Full stop. That the C of E has a letout is an abominable outrage, given the special privileges which it possesses.
Do other churches/religious groups not have the same opt out? Or are you saying that doesn't really matter because they are not 'official' religions.
We're told that the importance of the C of E is that anyone in England can get married in the parish church (if nominally Xtian, presumably). Because it is established yadda yadda. Unless you are gay ...
The question is wehther the other religious groups have the same automatic right to be considered to 'marry' people, sure. But they are not the ideological arm of the state.
The Church of England is just the established church, not an arm of the state as such.
However given the Bishop of Oxford, one of the most senior diocesan Bishops in the C of E now backs gay marriages in churches where Church of England vicars are willing to do so I expect it will happen in the next few years anyway.
Even if a few evangelicals leave for Pentecostal or Baptist churches, or Anglo Catholics for Rome as some did over women priests
Maybe, maybe, maybe.
That is not the situation now, and not the situation which has been ever since gat marriage was law of the land in England - unless of course youj wanted to get married in the established state church of England. Gays are very definitely inferior beings in your world. And though that is not your failt, you are far too happy to accept it.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Pope?
Errr, no, the Head of Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury, which matches the way VDL and Michel are chosen.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Prime Minister.
Errr, no, the Prime Minister is an elected Member of Parliament that is then chosen in a method determined by his or her peers of other elected Members of Parliament.
Well, if the PM's position is so unassailably democratic, so is his choice of archbishop, surely? Your starting point is little England good, big Europe bad, and this has really nothing to do with democracy.
The EU is run by its "House of Lords"
By which you mean the elected national governments, some imperfectly democratic of course.
No. Appointees are not elected.
Not getting this whole democracy lark, are you?
If you call Rishi Sunak an "appointee", yes. (Some like Macron have an even more direct mandate than Sunak, but most have the same mandate.)
No, Sunak is not an appointee, he's a directly elected Member of Parliament. He's zero steps removed from being elected by the voters.
Anyone Sunak appoints is not elected, unlike Sunak. Sunak was elected, but the Archbishop of Canterbury/UVDL or anyone else appointed is not.
But there is a real and significant difference between a directly elected leader (say, Macron) and a indirectly elected one.
Opponents of the EU deliberately (or just moronically) refuse to concede the various nuances in the way democracies work.
Both Macron and Sunak are directly elected.
Sunak sits as a Member of the Commons which is exactly what he was elected to be. There he is chosen to be the first among equals, but he is not a President, as those who get too big for their boots or lose the confidence of their peers are liable to discover. See: May, Theresa; Johnson, Boris and most spectacularly Truss, Liz.
Macron is directly elected, just like Sunak is.
UVDL, Charles Michel and Justin Welby are not. They are appointees.
This is what I mean. You just deliberately obscure the real difference between Sunak and Macron to make your point.
Of course UVDL et al are appointees, but the premises of your argument are intellectually dishonest because you want to pretend that appointees are in some sense undemocratic.
Absolutely fucking mental in Clark. Holy shit. This is election betting deciding stuff
I read that and couldn't make heads or tails of it. Glad I wasn't just been thick
All that’s remaining in NV is mail in. of which only 50K ballots left in Clark. There’s different types of mail in, that come before the day, on day, and after all the way up to Saturday still count.
The confusion is yesterday they said they had about 75k ballots to count and haven't announced any results in between those two statements.
No confusion today. 50k is just more accurate way of saying “about 75k”. You need to throw them some slack, you know, a big pile leaning against a wall could easily have appeared about 75K amount, you can’t expect exact numbers till the pile is counted.
Those of us with hefty bets on the Rep flipping this have no problem with 25k votes getting lost in mere figure of speech. It just quickens things to my pay out.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
'no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out'
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
We’ve had this, to death.
We vote for UK governments, who exercised via the Council influence on EU direction.
We also voted for EU parliamentarians who are supposed to provide scrutiny (even if, in practice, Farage and UKIP only turned up to collect their meal allowances).
Personally that was fine with me. I think our democracy had/has issues rather closer to home.
Yep. Fully sovereign. Pooled in the national interest. Successfully mis-sold as being "ruled by bureaucrats in Brussels". So now uncoupled. Still fully sovereign. Just a bit poorer and less influential and less secure. That's your Brexit.
"Ever since we had the baby we've been poorer, more tired, less energetic, and we are unable to go out at night. That's your Brexit"
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Pope?
Errr, no, the Head of Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury, which matches the way VDL and Michel are chosen.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Prime Minister.
Errr, no, the Prime Minister is an elected Member of Parliament that is then chosen in a method determined by his or her peers of other elected Members of Parliament.
Well, if the PM's position is so unassailably democratic, so is his choice of archbishop, surely? Your starting point is little England good, big Europe bad, and this has really nothing to do with democracy.
The EU is run by its "House of Lords"
By which you mean the elected national governments, some imperfectly democratic of course.
No. Appointees are not elected.
Not getting this whole democracy lark, are you?
If you call Rishi Sunak an "appointee", yes. (Some like Macron have an even more direct mandate than Sunak, but most have the same mandate.)
No, Sunak is not an appointee, he's a directly elected Member of Parliament. He's zero steps removed from being elected by the voters.
Anyone Sunak appoints is not elected, unlike Sunak. Sunak was elected, but the Archbishop of Canterbury/UVDL or anyone else appointed is not.
But there is a real and significant difference between a directly elected leader (say, Macron) and a indirectly elected one.
Opponents of the EU deliberately (or just moronically) refuse to concede the various nuances in the way democracies work.
Both Macron and Sunak are directly elected.
Sunak sits as a Member of the Commons which is exactly what he was elected to be. There he is chosen to be the first among equals, but he is not a President, as those who get too big for their boots or lose the confidence of their peers are liable to discover. See: May, Theresa; Johnson, Boris and most spectacularly Truss, Liz.
Macron is directly elected, just like Sunak is.
UVDL, Charles Michel and Justin Welby are not. They are appointees.
This is what I mean. You just deliberately obscure the real difference between Sunak and Macron to make your point.
Of course UVDL et al are appointees, but the premises of your argument are intellectually dishonest because you want to pretend that appointees are in some sense undemocratic.
There are differences between the way we hold elections, sure, but both Sunak and Macron are elected under our systems, by the voters, at our elections.
Of course appointees are undemocratic, they've not been democratically elected, so that's pretty much the meaning of the word.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
Says the man excusing the (supposed) death of someone just because you support 'the cause'. You are a fucking hypocrite.
It may surprise you to know that, with a heavy heart, I voted remain. My side lost. I have long despaired of the very politicised nature of what started as an Economic community, and became an attempt to create a United States of Europe. The people I blame most are the cowards in power in the U.K. who consistently failed to give the people a say in how the EEC/EU was changing. Right up to Gordon Brown scuttling through the back door to sign the Lisbon Treaty away from the cameras. They rarely tried to persuade, culminating in the awful lies and mischaracterisation of the referendum campaign itself. Remain were as dishonest as leave. I genuinely believe that the EU was U.K. democratic at heart, and that the bits the public got to cote for had little real power, at least when compared to national members of parliament. I don’t think that’s my prejudice, it’s my observation.
What's with this heavy ♥ business?
I voted Remain with the warm glow of universal liberal values and enlightened internationalism suffusing my very being.
What kind of universal liberal values explicitly exclude non-Europeans from membership?
Not the way to look at it. It's the very long game - so long it will never end - but the direction of travel should be ever more integration between the countries of the world and ever wider enshrinement of the values of liberty, equality and brotherhood.
Why do the right-wing fruitcakes on here think that De Santis is the answer? He’s not impressive at all. Trump will make mince-meat of him. Watch this space - Trump will be the GOP candidate.
I’ve never seen him on telly before so can’t comment on his impressiveness. Merely pointing out that his public policy positions do not appear to be extreme but fairly mainstream. And that’s to be celebrated. Whether Trump wins the nom or not will depend almost entirely on the makeup of registered Republicans. You might be right. But I think it’s too early to say what that might look like.
I’ve seen him a few times. He can be brittle and prickly. He’s definitely on the right, which will put many off. He’s a Republican
But he’s bright, cunning, a tad ruthless - also sane, apparently quite honest, family-oriented and basically patriotic. And not 79 years old
He seems to realise that Putin is a baddie which is a good start.
Quite. He’s ex-Navy Seal
If 2024 is a rerun of Trump v Biden that will be utterly toxic - and politically catastrophic for the USA
He never did BUDS so he's not a SEAL. He was a legal advisor to ST1. He's a SEAL in the same way that Bob Dylan's lawyer is a songwriter.
That would be a good point if Bob Dylan's lawyer was a well known stage artiste
De Santis went to Iraq. To do the job of a military lawyer, admittedly, but he still went to Iraq: as a serving soldier
Why do the right-wing fruitcakes on here think that De Santis is the answer? He’s not impressive at all. Trump will make mince-meat of him. Watch this space - Trump will be the GOP candidate.
I’ve never seen him on telly before so can’t comment on his impressiveness. Merely pointing out that his public policy positions do not appear to be extreme but fairly mainstream. And that’s to be celebrated. Whether Trump wins the nom or not will depend almost entirely on the makeup of registered Republicans. You might be right. But I think it’s too early to say what that might look like.
I’ve seen him a few times. He can be brittle and prickly. He’s definitely on the right, which will put many off. He’s a Republican
But he’s bright, cunning, a tad ruthless - also sane, apparently quite honest, family-oriented and basically patriotic. And not 79 years old
He seems to realise that Putin is a baddie which is a good start.
Quite. He’s ex-Navy Seal
If 2024 is a rerun of Trump v Biden that will be utterly toxic - and politically catastrophic for the USA
He never did BUDS so he's not a SEAL. He was a legal advisor to ST1. He's a SEAL in the same way that Bob Dylan's lawyer is a songwriter.
That would be a good point if Bob Dylan's lawyer was a well known stage artiste
De Santis went to Iraq. To do the job of a military lawyer, admittedly, but he still went to Iraq: as a serving soldier
Lmao, Maricopa has 400,000 left to count and wont be done till 'next week' (CNN)
The Thatcherite loons on here who like to attack the public sector should reflect, occasionally, on stuff like this in places like the US and think about all the things in the U.K. that “just work” and why that is.
The "why it is" in this particular case - processing & counting of election ballots - having ZERO to do with the quality of public sector & public workers on EITHER side of the Atlantic (or Pacific).
Rather, in vastly different systems for issuing, receiving, counting, processing, recording & reporting votes.
For one thing, my own ballot had about two dozen different federal, state and local candidate races and ballot questions. Typical for US elections. Atypical to say the least in UK.
Just one difference between elections here & there, wherever they may be from your (or my own skewed) perspective!
For some real-time examples of what's happening now in just one election office, check out the webcams at this link posted by King County Elections:
These explainations are helpful and explain why it might well take days. Why weeks and weeks though, in some extreme cases? Including days of little progress?
Weeks and weeks IF you add in recount(s). Which are NOT unusual but hardly commonplace, esp in statewide or congressional elections. .
Given I didn't say it was commonplace, rather 'in extreme cases', and you've said it was 'not unusual', that suggests to me it happens a lot more often than I thought, thus making the situation far worse than I thought.
More common to have recounts in local or legislative races.
And why is it "far worse" to wait a week or two to conduct a recount, which in vast majority of cases confirms the initial result?
Especially since when it CHANGES the result, it's a good thing they did a recount and corrected it!
Whether it is harmful or simply irritating for an accurate count to take so long is besides the point when the issue was simply why it takes so long.
You are missing the nature of the criticism, since you are appear to be pretending it is people complaining about doing an accurate count, by implying people want to rush and thus not be accurate.
No once questions the need for an accurate count. People are questioning why an accurate count takes so long. You have explained why it might take some time, but none that explain why it would take what you've now extended to two weeks. If you get enough people in, for instance, you could do full recounts easily in a single week. Other options will also be available
Now, you may say that action is not necessary, and there is little harm in waiting a little longer, and that may be true, but simply claiming it takes that long because they might conduct a recount doesn't actually answer the point since it isn't some natural law that recounts take a week or two.
Am I to believe there is something unique about american elections that means recounts cannot possibly be done accurately faster? Have some states, for example, performed recounts at faster rates? Given different procedures and rules in different states that seems quite probable.
Over here some seats take special measures to count as fast as reasonably possible, and others take their time, some elections they count overnight and others till morning, and so some are faster to declare than others. All are just as accurate in the end, so while it may not be worth enforcing a faster option, given the choice why what harm if some people prefer the faster?
Your position seems to be it is fast as it possibly can be, even though other places doing the same are faster and so that is untrue, and pushing for it to be faster means people don't care about accuracy, when one need not lead to the other.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
A defining challenge of our era that we are tackling head on. Did you imagine 10 years ago that there would be days where most of our electricity comes from renewable sources? The issue I have with extinction rebellion and the rest is that they act as if nothing is being done. The reality is far from it.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
That's not the choice at all. Here it is: You vote for a government which is a member of the European Council and the Council of the EU. Through the first, your PM nominates the European Commission; through the second, your ministers vote on the draft laws from the Commission. Your government appoints the leaders of the other institutions through the Councils. The one exception is the Parliament, where you vote for MEPs who can independently veto the draft laws from the Commission. So there is your democracy and your civil service. Some of these steps could be removed, if governments would cede national sovereignty over the EU; they don't want to.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
I hope you will have that same attitude when the public start assaulting climate activists. Personally I think both situations would be wrong but you seem to be excusing deaths caused by the climate activists just because you happen to agree with them.
I’m not sure I agree with them. It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
A defining challenge of our era that we are tackling head on. Did you imagine 10 years ago that there would be days where most of our electricity comes from renewable sources? The issue I have with extinction rebellion and the rest is that they act as if nothing is being done. The reality is far from it.
No, I didn’t. It’s great, isn’t it? I tend to be a techno-optimist about this stuff, but others will not doubt tell me I am living in denial.
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
Trying to work out if the "Russia has a cunning plan" mob or "Musk has a cunning plan" mob are more delusional.
There's a theory on Deluded Lefty Twitter that Musk bought Twitter (probably with Trumpite, Russian and Chinese money) to deliberately run it into the ground, and destroy it in weeks, what with it being a liberal menace to human society
If he bankrupts it, which is not impossible given the debt he’s loaded it with, it’s pretty likely to be sold on as a going concern. Run well, it’s potentially quite a profitable business. Probably just not one worth $44bn.
Isn't that the elephant in the room?
Anything clever Musk might plan to do is going to be hobbled by the amount of debt the company is now lumbered with?
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
Quite. All assumed either to be dole scroungers or Tarquin the Trustafarian etc.
That is it not some kind of direct democracy is one of the weaker arguments against it, not least because nobody actually wants a powerful EU president with a personal mandate.
The question is, do you want to be ruled by bureaucrats in perpetuity, with no democratic mechanism to boot the bastards out?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
We’ve had this, to death.
We vote for UK governments, who exercised via the Council influence on EU direction.
We also voted for EU parliamentarians who are supposed to provide scrutiny (even if, in practice, Farage and UKIP only turned up to collect their meal allowances).
Personally that was fine with me. I think our democracy had/has issues rather closer to home.
Yep. Fully sovereign. Pooled in the national interest. Successfully mis-sold as being "ruled by bureaucrats in Brussels". So now uncoupled. Still fully sovereign. Just a bit poorer and less influential and less secure. That's your Brexit.
"Ever since we had the baby we've been poorer, more tired, less energetic, and we are unable to go out at night. That's your Brexit"
Why do the right-wing fruitcakes on here think that De Santis is the answer? He’s not impressive at all. Trump will make mince-meat of him. Watch this space - Trump will be the GOP candidate.
I’ve never seen him on telly before so can’t comment on his impressiveness. Merely pointing out that his public policy positions do not appear to be extreme but fairly mainstream. And that’s to be celebrated. Whether Trump wins the nom or not will depend almost entirely on the makeup of registered Republicans. You might be right. But I think it’s too early to say what that might look like.
I’ve seen him a few times. He can be brittle and prickly. He’s definitely on the right, which will put many off. He’s a Republican
But he’s bright, cunning, a tad ruthless - also sane, apparently quite honest, family-oriented and basically patriotic. And not 79 years old
He seems to realise that Putin is a baddie which is a good start.
Quite. He’s ex-Navy Seal
If 2024 is a rerun of Trump v Biden that will be utterly toxic - and politically catastrophic for the USA
He never did BUDS so he's not a SEAL. He was a legal advisor to ST1. He's a SEAL in the same way that Bob Dylan's lawyer is a songwriter.
That would be a good point if Bob Dylan's lawyer was a well known stage artiste
De Santis went to Iraq. To do the job of a military lawyer, admittedly, but he still went to Iraq: as a serving soldier
As the rather deer-in-the-headlights Ms Rumbelow noted, what about all the deaths caused by climate change?
Climate activists have largely won, rapid actions are being taken. They're not screaming at a brick wall anymore. People can and should still push for as much more action as they feel is necessary, but is it really as necessary? And even if it is, why shouldn't they be treated more robustly, as the law probably already allows? The public are often generous in those situations, and it will create martyrs if they are not.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Nobody ever changed anything by playing nicey-nicey.
Except that the climate change argument had already been won and action already taken to transition the UK away from coal and other fossil fuels and towards clean and reliable net zero anyway.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
I’m not persuaded by this argument.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
People have a right to protest.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
I am not unhappy to see the law broken. Rosa Parks broke a law perhaps when she refused to get to the back of the bus.
I expect though to see lawbreaking addressed by the police (proportionately).
My issue is that people are much more worked up about Miss Arabella Fannyfeathers et al and not about the terrifying effects of climate change already around us and disproportionately affecting third world countries.
It may surprise you to know that, with a heavy heart, I voted remain. My side lost. I have long despaired of the very politicised nature of what started as an Economic community, and became an attempt to create a United States of Europe. The people I blame most are the cowards in power in the U.K. who consistently failed to give the people a say in how the EEC/EU was changing. Right up to Gordon Brown scuttling through the back door to sign the Lisbon Treaty away from the cameras. They rarely tried to persuade, culminating in the awful lies and mischaracterisation of the referendum campaign itself. Remain were as dishonest as leave. I genuinely believe that the EU was U.K. democratic at heart, and that the bits the public got to cote for had little real power, at least when compared to national members of parliament. I don’t think that’s my prejudice, it’s my observation.
What's with this heavy ♥ business?
I voted Remain with the warm glow of universal liberal values and enlightened internationalism suffusing my very being.
What kind of universal liberal values explicitly exclude non-Europeans from membership?
Not the way to look at it. It's the very long game - so long it will never end - but the direction of travel should be ever more integration between the countries of the world and ever wider enshrinement of the values of liberty, equality and brotherhood.
Do those have to be linked? I believe in liberty, equality and brotherhood, but don’t believe there needs to be integration to achieve that.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Pope?
Errr, no, the Head of Government chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury, which matches the way VDL and Michel are chosen.
How often do the various EU Presidents get "voted" in and out?
I mean, when can VDL and Michel be unelected by their demos?
Or Ms Truss or Mr Sunak?
For the purposes of this discussion, the Conservative Party does not count as a demos. Even though some of it on here seem to think it has a fixed role within the constitution.
Truss and Sunak were both elected to Parliament, and have been chosen from within Parliament's elected members to lead Parliament.
Who elected VDL and Michel?
The Leaders of the Governments of the European Union?
So no voters then.
No more democratically elected than the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Or the Prime Minister.
Errr, no, the Prime Minister is an elected Member of Parliament that is then chosen in a method determined by his or her peers of other elected Members of Parliament.
Well, if the PM's position is so unassailably democratic, so is his choice of archbishop, surely? Your starting point is little England good, big Europe bad, and this has really nothing to do with democracy.
The EU is run by its "House of Lords"
By which you mean the elected national governments, some imperfectly democratic of course.
No. Appointees are not elected.
Not getting this whole democracy lark, are you?
If you call Rishi Sunak an "appointee", yes. (Some like Macron have an even more direct mandate than Sunak, but most have the same mandate.)
No, Sunak is not an appointee, he's a directly elected Member of Parliament. He's zero steps removed from being elected by the voters.
Anyone Sunak appoints is not elected, unlike Sunak. Sunak was elected, but the Archbishop of Canterbury/UVDL or anyone else appointed is not.
But there is a real and significant difference between a directly elected leader (say, Macron) and a indirectly elected one.
Opponents of the EU deliberately (or just moronically) refuse to concede the various nuances in the way democracies work.
Both Macron and Sunak are directly elected.
Sunak sits as a Member of the Commons which is exactly what he was elected to be. There he is chosen to be the first among equals, but he is not a President, as those who get too big for their boots or lose the confidence of their peers are liable to discover. See: May, Theresa; Johnson, Boris and most spectacularly Truss, Liz.
Macron is directly elected, just like Sunak is.
UVDL, Charles Michel and Justin Welby are not. They are appointees.
This is what I mean. You just deliberately obscure the real difference between Sunak and Macron to make your point.
Of course UVDL et al are appointees, but the premises of your argument are intellectually dishonest because you want to pretend that appointees are in some sense undemocratic.
There are differences between the way we hold elections, sure, but both Sunak and Macron are elected under our systems, by the voters, at our elections.
Of course appointees are undemocratic, they've not been democratically elected, so that's pretty much the meaning of the word.
So if an elected prime minister appoints a SPAD that is undemocratic in your view. Should there be elections to choose SPADs?
It may surprise you to know that, with a heavy heart, I voted remain. My side lost. I have long despaired of the very politicised nature of what started as an Economic community, and became an attempt to create a United States of Europe. The people I blame most are the cowards in power in the U.K. who consistently failed to give the people a say in how the EEC/EU was changing. Right up to Gordon Brown scuttling through the back door to sign the Lisbon Treaty away from the cameras. They rarely tried to persuade, culminating in the awful lies and mischaracterisation of the referendum campaign itself. Remain were as dishonest as leave. I genuinely believe that the EU was U.K. democratic at heart, and that the bits the public got to cote for had little real power, at least when compared to national members of parliament. I don’t think that’s my prejudice, it’s my observation.
What's with this heavy ♥ business?
I voted Remain with the warm glow of universal liberal values and enlightened internationalism suffusing my very being.
What kind of universal liberal values explicitly exclude non-Europeans from membership?
Not the way to look at it. It's the very long game - so long it will never end - but the direction of travel should be ever more integration between the countries of the world and ever wider enshrinement of the values of liberty, equality and brotherhood.
If that's your long game then you should actively hate the EU. Instead of European countries teaming up at the UN, WTO, etc, to push for universal liberal solutions, they've formed an exclusive club.
Comments
Alba Neep
I voted Remain with the warm glow of universal liberal values and enlightened internationalism suffusing my very being.
--> Biggest union for civil servants has voted for a walkout and threatened to conspire with others to bring the country to a standstill
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/10/unions-plan-christmas-discontent-co-ordinated-strikes-inflict/
I find Rishi Sunak and various members of his Cabinet more objectionable.
Perhaps I am missing something.
De Santis went to Iraq. To do the job of a military lawyer, admittedly, but he still went to Iraq: as a serving soldier
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17319487/ron-desantis-iraq-war-navy-attorney-military/
I think that gives him bragging rights
My argument was simply we need town and parish councils too that know their local communities best
The question is wehther the other religious groups have the same automatic right to be considered to 'marry' people, sure. But they are not the ideological arm of the state.
Don't know how many were added but has made miniscule difference to State totals.
Where today is going to be a VERY big day for vote counting. AND also for ballot accounting.
Yesterday the number of new ballots tabulated was relatively small. Why? Because most counties counted everything they had received AND validated up though the Monday before Election Day. And just about every county received a LARGE number of ballots on Tuesday, via the mail AND ballot drop boxes. So election workers spent a large part of yesterday simply digging hordes of ballots out of their drop boxes, sorting and starting the processing process.
So today will be the payoff for THAT work, in most counties. AND when in many locales the count moves beyond ballots returned by voters BEFORE Election Day, and moves on to votes cast ON Election Day.
In most of WA State outside of Seattle, trend of later ballots tends to favor Republican candidates.
In this election, this may - or may not - change the current standing is two US House races (CD3 and CD8) where Dems are currently hold narrow leads. Ditto several races for state legislature.
Another one to watch, is statewide race between incumbent - but appointed - Democratic Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, and his challenger, running as Nonpartisan, the current Pierce County Auditor Julie Anderson. Hobbs is now ahead, but MIGHT fall behind in latter vote counts. HOWEVER, writeins are taking a few percent, and are likely by Republican voters, thus coming out of Julie's hide.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/10/concern-over-plan-for-military-to-fill-in-for-striking-border-force-staff
And ambulances.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/10/civil-servants-vote-to-strike-comes-after-years-of-abrasive-government-cuts
Wonder (a) how many there are left and (b0 what the rest will do? Nursing? Driving licences?
At least some Y(P)M episodes were an attempt by the writers to bring slightly fringe political ideas into prime time (one of Jay and Lynn was fairly hardcore Free To Choose, I think)... I wonder how workable that plan would have been?
Tony Benn was right:
What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it?
And most importantly:
To whom are you accountable? And how do we get rid of you?
Note that GOP punted away one quite winnable seat - Ohio 9th - because their candidate inflated his military credentials.
As for Twitter, it’s clear that running a social media platform requires a cuter understanding of the human condition than Musk is equipped with. Not his fault, he has other extraordinary gifts. But he’s not great at reading the room and the Twitterati is the biggest room of all. But, he’s proven excellent at cutting costs, product innovation and squeezing revenues in pretty imaginative ways.
I would be surprised if he doesn’t make Twitter a more financially viable business than when he bought it. I don’t have much of a view on whether he’ll be getting a good return on the $44bn.
https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1590561181550321665
We vote for UK governments, who exercised via the Council influence on EU direction.
We also voted for EU parliamentarians who are supposed to provide scrutiny (even if, in practice, Farage and UKIP only turned up to collect their meal allowances).
Personally that was fine with me.
I think our democracy had/has issues rather closer to home.
https://twitter.com/JesseLehrich/status/1590829490711982080
However given the Bishop of Oxford, one of the most senior diocesan Bishops in the C of E now backs gay marriages in churches where Church of England vicars are willing to do so I expect it will happen in the next few years anyway.
Even if a few evangelicals leave for Pentecostal or Baptist churches, or Anglo Catholics for Rome as some did over women priests
And why is it "far worse" to wait a week or two to conduct a recount, which in vast majority of cases confirms the initial result?
Especially since when it CHANGES the result, it's a good thing they did a recount and corrected it!
Anyone Sunak appoints is not elected, unlike Sunak. Sunak was elected, but the Archbishop of Canterbury/UVDL or anyone else appointed is not.
I’ve been away less than a year.
I believe the Tories are hoping to provide “votes for life” for expatriates.
So a firm stance against the more dangerously obstructive protests seems perfectly reasonable
Opponents of the EU deliberately (or just moronically) refuse to concede the various nuances in the way democracies work.
The EU has an enormous democratic deficit and has no intention of doing anything about it - that was always the problem.
"We vote for people who exercise influence" - not good enough. "Exercise influence" is never good enough in a democracy. You vote for the people whose policies you want to see enacted, and you vote them out when they don't do a good enough job. That is democracy. Anything less is not.
Indeed, a problem for all seasons.
Lawmaking powers should be democratically accountable. A powerful EU President with a personal mandate, or a powerful EU Parliament with a powerful EU Prime Minister chosen from within its ranks, is far more democratic than what exists today.
Why do you not want a powerful EU President? And how do you conflate that with supporting the EU having lawmaking powers. If the EU politicians shouldn't be elected/powerful then they shouldn't have the powers, they shouldn't have the right to pass laws. Or they should, and they should be elected, in which case yes let them have a mandate and power that goes with that - they'll have earnt it.
Despite the evidence from pretty much everywhere else in the world.
What amazed me, was that he seemingly imagined that the Delaware court would let him get away with it!
Thats not important to some people, of course, who will point to Ukraine as an example of the UK “punching above it’s weight”.
Actually, we haven’t heard that phrase in a while, which is probably telling.
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/letzte-generation-unfall-berlin-radfahrerin-1.5686980?reduced=true
Run well, it’s potentially quite a profitable business. Probably just not one worth $44bn.
Sunak sits as a Member of the Commons which is exactly what he was elected to be. There he is chosen to be the first among equals, but he is not a President, as those who get too big for their boots or lose the confidence of their peers are liable to discover. See: May, Theresa; Johnson, Boris and most spectacularly Truss, Liz.
Macron is directly elected, just like Sunak is.
UVDL, Charles Michel and Justin Welby are not. They are appointees.
We have made huge strides to a better world, yet the nutters seem to think we’ve done nothing, and it distresses me hugely. I think they are misguided, and are making poor choices right now.
That is not the situation now, and not the situation which has been ever since gat marriage was law of the land in England - unless of course youj wanted to get married in the established state church of England. Gays are very definitely inferior beings in your world. And though that is not your failt, you are far too happy to accept it.
You just deliberately obscure the real difference between Sunak and Macron to make your point.
Of course UVDL et al are appointees, but the premises of your argument are intellectually dishonest because you want to pretend that appointees are in some sense undemocratic.
Those of us with hefty bets on the Rep flipping this have no problem with 25k votes getting lost in mere figure of speech. It just quickens things to my pay out.
It’s just that there are too many gammony old bastards on here mingeing about protests on what is surely the defining challenge of our era.
Of course I don’t expect you to support them as you are a notorious climate change skeptic and general ideological loon-case.
Dinosaurs like MrEd late of this parish bemoaning Net Zero, are not taken seriously.
People have worked hard to achieve major transformations in the UK's energy and environmental policies. These fools closing motorways aren't achieving anything except satisfying their own egotistic desire to make it all about themselves.
Yep. But you've got a child
He'll be off loading the company within months i suspect.
Still, it brought the gammons on here one apoplexy closer to an inevitable coronary, so not all bad.
Of course appointees are undemocratic, they've not been democratically elected, so that's pretty much the meaning of the word.
You are missing the nature of the criticism, since you are appear to be pretending it is people complaining about doing an accurate count, by implying people want to rush and thus not be accurate.
No once questions the need for an accurate count. People are questioning why an accurate count takes so long. You have explained why it might take some time, but none that explain why it would take what you've now extended to two weeks. If you get enough people in, for instance, you could do full recounts easily in a single week. Other options will also be available
Now, you may say that action is not necessary, and there is little harm in waiting a little longer, and that may be true, but simply claiming it takes that long because they might conduct a recount doesn't actually answer the point since it isn't some natural law that recounts take a week or two.
Am I to believe there is something unique about american elections that means recounts cannot possibly be done accurately faster? Have some states, for example, performed recounts at faster rates? Given different procedures and rules in different states that seems quite probable.
Over here some seats take special measures to count as fast as reasonably possible, and others take their time, some elections they count overnight and others till morning, and so some are faster to declare than others. All are just as accurate in the end, so while it may not be worth enforcing a faster option, given the choice why what harm if some people prefer the faster?
Your position seems to be it is fast as it possibly can be, even though other places doing the same are faster and so that is untrue, and pushing for it to be faster means people don't care about accuracy, when one need not lead to the other.
Yes, the UK is moving fast (and probably about as fast as I’m happy with). But there are various hold-outs in various sectors.
Anyway, my position is that I support the right to protest, I recognise that for these people the issue is literally existential, I don’t expect them to get special treatment, and I’m bemused and how much venom they induce in posters of a certain age.
the person who hosted the Twitter Space with Elon Musk yesterday to tell advertisers that things were actually fine just resigned
https://twitter.com/KurtWagner8/status/1590824366492643328
I tend to be a techno-optimist about this stuff, but others will not doubt tell me I am living in denial.
People don't have a right to break the law.
If people break the law while protesting, they should face the consequences of breaking the law, same as any other criminal. That can be done deliberately by some protestors to get attention, but you don't get to have your cake and eat it too getting away with breaking the law just because its a protest.
"should we resign?"
"no, we need to get him to fire us all" https://twitter.com/_ElizabethMay/status/1590837344516468736/photo/1
Anything clever Musk might plan to do is going to be hobbled by the amount of debt the company is now lumbered with?
Rosa Parks broke a law perhaps when she refused to get to the back of the bus.
I expect though to see lawbreaking addressed by the police (proportionately).
My issue is that people are much more worked up about Miss Arabella Fannyfeathers et al and not about the terrifying effects of climate change already around us and disproportionately affecting third world countries.