In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
Polarisation, and the decline (thanks to gerrymandering) in the number of competitive seats, means that both parties' House delegations tend to march in lock-step, now. From the Republicans' POV, the important prizes are the Speakership, and Chairing the House Committees.
For a Representative to break ranks on an issue the base cares about will terminate their career, as Liz Cheney and her colleagues demonstrate.
The Republicans will have little chance to pass anything, given that the Senate is outside their control, but they can use their majority to refuse to pass a budget.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
One thing that I don't like is the large number of uncontested seats - looks like 22 without a Dem candidate and 12 without a GOP candidate.
Aside from making a national vote total harder to calculate it seems undemocratic to me.
It's very odd. You'd think the parties would at least find paper candidates, the way the Conservatives will put up a candidate in Bootle, and Labour in the Isle of Wight.
Trump calls DeSantis a very 'average' governor and lacking in loyalty and class. Certainly suggests Trump ain't standing aside for Ron and will fight him all the way for the GOP nomination in 2024 and maybe beyond as an Independent if DeSantis wins that nomination
Whereas most Conservative media, from Fox News to the Murdoch press, has deciceively turned away from Trump and towards DeSantis in the past 48 hours. There’s little chance of coming back from there, politics is brutal sometimes.
Trump will still get a large number of Republicans to vote for him in 2024 even if DeSantis wins the nomination.
Trump will also threaten to run as an Independent if he does not win the nomination most likely, which would hand the election to the Democrats on a plate due to a split Conservative vote.
And lead to Trump being humiliated when he gets only 5% of the vote.
He's not someone who wants to be humiliated.
It would also destroy any hopes the Trump brats have of a political career.
Could be more than 5% and he'd just badge it to suit.
"The hugest number of votes ever for a candidate without a party. I won this election when you think about it. Won big."
My sense is he craves attention more than anything. Loves the rallies, being all over the tv, the whole caboodle. So he might well do it. And he'll definitely threaten it for leverage.
Trump calls DeSantis a very 'average' governor and lacking in loyalty and class. Certainly suggests Trump ain't standing aside for Ron and will fight him all the way for the GOP nomination in 2024 and maybe beyond as an Independent if DeSantis wins that nomination
Whereas most Conservative media, from Fox News to the Murdoch press, has deciceively turned away from Trump and towards DeSantis in the past 48 hours. There’s little chance of coming back from there, politics is brutal sometimes.
Trump will still get a large number of Republicans to vote for him in 2024 even if DeSantis wins the nomination.
Trump will also threaten to run as an Independent if he does not win the nomination most likely, which would hand the election to the Democrats on a plate due to a split Conservative vote.
Trump may threaten it, but to finish a very poor third would be a huge blow to his ego.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
Living in a mostly-private healthcare market, the outpatient facilities are totally rammed at the weekend - because that’s when there’s most demand for outpatient services! Why should I need to take a day off work for a minor appointment?
Does the NHS exist primarily for the benefit of its customers, or the convenience of its staff?
I use NHS, private dentist and recently reluctantly had a private operation as it was a choice between getting it done and retirement.
The difference in culture is absolutely staggering. Basically in the NHS the system (especially admin aspects and front of house) steers towards the idea that the system is doing you a favour; in the other sector you are the customer and they are to providing a service, which they do reliably and well.
Yes but you might not want the NHS to operate at that level - it would cost a fortune on top of the fortune it already costs.
It would cost a fortune to instil in the NHS a culture of responsibility towards its patients that I can probably agree with.
On the other hand, my distinct impression is that the private ops industry relies heavily on being able to dump post-op complications on the NHS. It would be good to have someone more knowledgeable comment on that point.
Not the case in my experience (n = 1).
Based on what I have heard about the general staffing, expertise etc. of some operators. Anything bnad goes wrong, it's off to the NHS.
Edit: not to say that youyr experiense is wrong.
But one corollary is that even private hospitals would have to reorganise themselves considerably if the NHS didn't exist.
Well that's an interesting point that no one was really advancing - the NHS not to exist. But plenty of other healthcare systems internationally don't have an "NHS" and they do pretty well. Save America, I belive.
They do generally cost more though (but also perform better on some measures).
I'm not too bothered about the organisation, although experiences with the internal market in the NHS suggest that marketisation* is no silver bullet, but the simple fact is that better service costs more. I've seen a study showing that privately run clinics introduced into the NHS under Labour had better performance that NHS-run clinics; they also cost more per patient treated.
* to take one small example, Trusts now employ coders (not in the computer science sense) to apply the diagnostic, treatment codes to finished episodes of care that result in the highest payment - not lying by any means, but making sure to record every last thing that might enhance payment (and also improve standardised hospital mortality figures for that Trust, as recording patients as more complex will improve that measure for the same level of mortality - there are also expensive consultancy services for that). All bureaucratic jobs introduced by the marketisation.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
I imagine lots of deal making.
Biden gets some of what he wants in return for the moderate GOP getting some of what they want.
With the MAGA GOP getting even more angry.
These things are relative. Moderate GOP means very hardline. To their right is the batshit GOP, like Boebert and MTG.
Trump calls DeSantis a very 'average' governor and lacking in loyalty and class. Certainly suggests Trump ain't standing aside for Ron and will fight him all the way for the GOP nomination in 2024 and maybe beyond as an Independent if DeSantis wins that nomination
Whereas most Conservative media, from Fox News to the Murdoch press, has deciceively turned away from Trump and towards DeSantis in the past 48 hours. There’s little chance of coming back from there, politics is brutal sometimes.
Trump will still get a large number of Republicans to vote for him in 2024 even if DeSantis wins the nomination.
Trump will also threaten to run as an Independent if he does not win the nomination most likely, which would hand the election to the Democrats on a plate due to a split Conservative vote.
And lead to Trump being humiliated when he gets only 5% of the vote.
He's not someone who wants to be humiliated.
It would also destroy any hopes the Trump brats have of a political career.
I doubt it, Ross Perot got 19% in 1992 and handed the election to Bill Clinton on a plate. For despite the fact Clinton got only 43%, Bush 41 ended up with just 37% after leaking votes to Perot.
Trump is even more of a billionaire ego maniac than Perot with even bigger name recognition as an ex President, could self fund his campaign and easily get to 19%. He would do it to humiliate the GOP after what he would see as them humiliating him by not falling in line to support his nomination again.
In 1912 too former President Theodore Roosevelt ran against sitting GOP President Taft so Democrat Wilson was elected with just 41%
There's already a shortage of staff in the NHS. Huge numbers of NHS workers of all types have young kids and would like to see them at weekends. So weekend working is likely to exacerbate the shortage as people leave or don't apply in the first place. It's a real conundrum.
It's not like train drivers or supermarket workers, for example, who apply for those jobs knowing that weekend shifts are involved.
So let's not change anything ever. Let's not even try.
I thought it was the Conservatives who liked to pickle things in aspic.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
Polarisation, and the decline (thanks to gerrymandering) in the number of competitive seats, means that both parties' House delegations tend to march in lock-step, now. From the Republicans' POV, the important prizes are the Speakership, and Chairing the House Committees.
For a Representative to break ranks on an issue the base cares about will terminate their career, as Liz Cheney and her colleagues demonstrate.
The Republicans will have little chance to pass anything, given that the Senate is outside their control, but they can use their majority to refuse to pass a budget.
The danger is another debt ceiling crisis, which Republicans are already planning. The smaller their majority in the House, the better.
I repeat my long stated and oft mocked forecast that neither Trump nor Biden will be nominees. In Trump’s case, he’ll either not stand, will be primaried - or nicked.
But, I realise I’m a hostage to fortune with that prediction (and have no money backing it up).
Trump calls DeSantis a very 'average' governor and lacking in loyalty and class. Certainly suggests Trump ain't standing aside for Ron and will fight him all the way for the GOP nomination in 2024 and maybe beyond as an Independent if DeSantis wins that nomination
Whereas most Conservative media, from Fox News to the Murdoch press, has deciceively turned away from Trump and towards DeSantis in the past 48 hours. There’s little chance of coming back from there, politics is brutal sometimes.
Trump will still get a large number of Republicans to vote for him in 2024 even if DeSantis wins the nomination.
Trump will also threaten to run as an Independent if he does not win the nomination most likely, which would hand the election to the Democrats on a plate due to a split Conservative vote.
Trump may threaten it, but to finish a very poor third would be a huge blow to his ego.
Agreed. If he doesn’t get the nomination he probably goes down (what I suspect will be) the Boris route of being a backseat driver and telling everyone how much better everything would be if he was in charge.
Trump calls DeSantis a very 'average' governor and lacking in loyalty and class. Certainly suggests Trump ain't standing aside for Ron and will fight him all the way for the GOP nomination in 2024 and maybe beyond as an Independent if DeSantis wins that nomination
Whereas most Conservative media, from Fox News to the Murdoch press, has deciceively turned away from Trump and towards DeSantis in the past 48 hours. There’s little chance of coming back from there, politics is brutal sometimes.
Trump will still get a large number of Republicans to vote for him in 2024 even if DeSantis wins the nomination.
Trump will also threaten to run as an Independent if he does not win the nomination most likely, which would hand the election to the Democrats on a plate due to a split Conservative vote.
And lead to Trump being humiliated when he gets only 5% of the vote.
He's not someone who wants to be humiliated.
It would also destroy any hopes the Trump brats have of a political career.
I doubt it, Ross Perot got 19% in 1992 and handed the election to Bill Clinton on a plate. For despite the fact Clinton got only 43%, Bush 41 ended up with just 37% after leaking votes to Perot.
Trump is even more of a billionaire ego maniac than Perot with even bigger name recognition as an ex President, could self fund his campaign and easily get to 19%. He would do it to humiliate the GOP after what he would see as them humiliating him by not falling in line to support his nomination again.
In 1912 too former President Theodore Roosevelt ran against sitting GOP President Taft so Democrat Wilson was elected with just 41%
Due to the way the primary system works the window for Trump loses the nomination and doesn't come third in the general as an independent candidate, is very narrow. If he was more popular than RDS then he'd win the primary.
Whether that logic would weigh heavily on Trump's decision I don't know, but I still expect him to win the primary, so I don't expect him to face that decision.
There's already a shortage of staff in the NHS. Huge numbers of NHS workers of all types have young kids and would like to see them at weekends. So weekend working is likely to exacerbate the shortage as people leave or don't apply in the first place. It's a real conundrum.
It's not like train drivers or supermarket workers, for example, who apply for those jobs knowing that weekend shifts are involved.
So let's not change anything ever. Let's not even try.
I thought it was the Conservatives who liked to pickle things in aspic.
I don't think anyone's arguing that.
Simply that the barriers to going to 7 day working are considerable, and it would require the expenditure of a lot of political capital, and a lot of money. Labour under Blair/Brown had plenty of both to do it, and wasted the opportunity; it's been become increasingly difficult since then.
There's already a shortage of staff in the NHS. Huge numbers of NHS workers of all types have young kids and would like to see them at weekends. So weekend working is likely to exacerbate the shortage as people leave or don't apply in the first place. It's a real conundrum.
It's not like train drivers or supermarket workers, for example, who apply for those jobs knowing that weekend shifts are involved.
So let's not change anything ever. Let's not even try.
I thought it was the Conservatives who liked to pickle things in aspic.
I don't think anyone's arguing that.
Simply that the barriers to going to 7 day working are considerable, and it would require the expenditure of a lot of political capital, and a lot of money. Labour under Blair/Brown had plenty of both to do it, and wasted the opportunity; it's been become increasingly difficult since then.
Most recently tried by a Cons SoS with disastrous consequences, strikes, you name it.
I repeat my long stated and oft mocked forecast that neither Trump nor Biden will be nominees. In Trump’s case, he’ll either not stand, will be primaried - or nicked.
But, I realise I’m a hostage to fortune with that prediction (and have no money backing it up).
Hope you are right but his statement today re DeSantis suggests he will at the very least try to run
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
Looking back at the 538 forecasts:
Their Lite (polls only) model predicted an average of 229 Republican seats, popular vote lead of R+2.4%, and 75% chance of Republican majority.
Classic (polls, fundraising, past voting patterns and more) had average 232 Republican seats, vote margin R+3.8, and 82% chance of R majority.
Deluxe (Classic + experts' ratings) average 230 R seats, popular vote R +4.0, 84% chance R majority.
Their default model is the Deluxe, which they described before the election as "the best and most accurate", but this time the Lite model looks like ending up the most accurate in both average seats and vote margin (and will probably end up forecasting the Senate best too), so I wonder how they will play it next time. The Deluxe model has only been running since 2018, and goes slightly against their philosophy of building a mathematical model, and then NOT putting a thumb on the scales to get an answer that seems to fit better.
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
If you want people to work unsociable hours like weekends and nights you need to pay them properly for it compensation. The government appears unwilling to do so.
This is true, but the idea that anyone can or should enter any medical field without realising that it has to function 24/7 on 365 days a year and that to be part of it is a vocation is hopeless.
It's not just the doctors and nurses. That would include porters, physios, social workers (or whoever the almoners are called these days), secretaries, receptionists ...
Yes, absolutely.
As a starting point, making the existing five-day NHS take Mondays and Tuesdays off, rather than Saturdays and Sundays, would make a massive difference to the level of service in the minds of their patients, and productivity in the general economy.
Just to check, though.
Would your intention be to keep everything else the same (pay etc), just changing the NHS week to Tuesday to Sunday? Because that's an awful lot less attractive to anyone with a partner who doesn't work in the NHS, let alone having children.
In a world where ancillary staff can go and work for someone else, and medical staff can go and work abroad, it would be a brave move for an employer to make.
Of course you're entitled to an opinion. By all means believe that doctors are paid too much money for too little work. Ultimately, the market works this out and the observation that there are massive recruitment problems leading to huge spending on agency staff says otherwise.
Right-of-centre politics is meant to understand this.
@Stuartinromford Please see my point on demand planning in UK teaching hospitals. I am inclined to believe it is incompetence rather than conspiracy to keep the number of doctors less than the posts available. It is an extraordinary state of affairs considering the fact that every year there are dozens of applicants for every single place. The BMA would like you to believe that you need to be an academic genius to be a doctor. You do not, any more than you need to be for any other profession. It is a system that is run by a self-interested cartel.
Trump calls DeSantis a very 'average' governor and lacking in loyalty and class. Certainly suggests Trump ain't standing aside for Ron and will fight him all the way for the GOP nomination in 2024 and maybe beyond as an Independent if DeSantis wins that nomination
Whereas most Conservative media, from Fox News to the Murdoch press, has deciceively turned away from Trump and towards DeSantis in the past 48 hours. There’s little chance of coming back from there, politics is brutal sometimes.
Trump will still get a large number of Republicans to vote for him in 2024 even if DeSantis wins the nomination.
Trump will also threaten to run as an Independent if he does not win the nomination most likely, which would hand the election to the Democrats on a plate due to a split Conservative vote.
And lead to Trump being humiliated when he gets only 5% of the vote.
He's not someone who wants to be humiliated.
It would also destroy any hopes the Trump brats have of a political career.
I doubt it, Ross Perot got 19% in 1992 and handed the election to Bill Clinton on a plate. For despite the fact Clinton got only 43%, Bush 41 ended up with just 37% after leaking votes to Perot.
Trump is even more of a billionaire ego maniac than Perot with even bigger name recognition as an ex President, could self fund his campaign and easily get to 19%. He would do it to humiliate the GOP after what he would see as them humiliating him by not falling in line to support his nomination again.
In 1912 too former President Theodore Roosevelt ran against sitting GOP President Taft so Democrat Wilson was elected with just 41%
And Perot got 8% in 1996.
The law of diminishing returns applies to Trump as well.
A 78 year old having a tantrum does not attract support.
There's already a shortage of staff in the NHS. Huge numbers of NHS workers of all types have young kids and would like to see them at weekends. So weekend working is likely to exacerbate the shortage as people leave or don't apply in the first place. It's a real conundrum.
It's not like train drivers or supermarket workers, for example, who apply for those jobs knowing that weekend shifts are involved.
So let's not change anything ever. Let's not even try.
I thought it was the Conservatives who liked to pickle things in aspic.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
The thin majority means less chance of ultra-partisan craziness. Hunter Biden's laptop will probably not be impeached now.
Trump calls DeSantis a very 'average' governor and lacking in loyalty and class. Certainly suggests Trump ain't standing aside for Ron and will fight him all the way for the GOP nomination in 2024 and maybe beyond as an Independent if DeSantis wins that nomination
Whereas most Conservative media, from Fox News to the Murdoch press, has deciceively turned away from Trump and towards DeSantis in the past 48 hours. There’s little chance of coming back from there, politics is brutal sometimes.
Trump will still get a large number of Republicans to vote for him in 2024 even if DeSantis wins the nomination.
Trump will also threaten to run as an Independent if he does not win the nomination most likely, which would hand the election to the Democrats on a plate due to a split Conservative vote.
And lead to Trump being humiliated when he gets only 5% of the vote.
He's not someone who wants to be humiliated.
It would also destroy any hopes the Trump brats have of a political career.
I doubt it, Ross Perot got 19% in 1992 and handed the election to Bill Clinton on a plate. For despite the fact Clinton got only 43%, Bush 41 ended up with just 37% after leaking votes to Perot.
Trump is even more of a billionaire ego maniac than Perot with even bigger name recognition as an ex President, could self fund his campaign and easily get to 19%. He would do it to humiliate the GOP after what he would see as them humiliating him by not falling in line to support his nomination again.
In 1912 too former President Theodore Roosevelt ran against sitting GOP President Taft so Democrat Wilson was elected with just 41%
And Perot got 8% in 1996.
The law of diminishing returns applies to Trump as well.
A 78 year old having a tantrum does not attract support.
Probably Trump will try to do a deal where he promises not to run as independent, in return for republicans shielding him from his legal problems. But actually running would be desperate, and would just increase the chances of him ending up convicted of various crimes.
It’s strange watching the Ukraine war unfold the way it has done.
For most of my adult life, indeed probably my entire life, wars were generally either asymmetric affairs between a large imperial power and a guerrilla force in a weaker country, or civil wars within smaller nations.
Here we have an archetype of an early 20th century war. 2 nations fighting over territory with artillery, tanks and missiles. With a few drones thrown in for 21st century flavour. The last ever traditional territorial war in human history.
Trenches, attacks and counterattacks, towns being occupied then liberated, annexations, sieges, retreats, PoWs. And the casualty figures are huge and tragic. I read the reports from Kherson and wonder what it must feel like to be a soldier, trapped by the riverside, artillery fire raining down, not knowing whether I’ll survive the night. It doesn’t bear thinking about.
This war was completely avoidable, a war of choice based on a deluded vision and nostalgia for empire. I really hope it’s the last such event.
As a better man than I observed, war has certainties.
It's just they are death, horror, destruction.
And as another man said, only the dead have seen the end of war.
There is a reason that, to the shock of some, military security is the highest priority.
We, in the UK, can only luxuriate in the NHS, DVLA, DfE etc because there is approximately zero chance of Russians/Vikings/Normans wandering down the road chopping us into little bits.
To put it another way - For the next century or 2, defence spending in Ukraine is going to be massively higher than their spending on health care.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
If you want people to work unsociable hours like weekends and nights you need to pay them properly for it compensation. The government appears unwilling to do so.
This is true, but the idea that anyone can or should enter any medical field without realising that it has to function 24/7 on 365 days a year and that to be part of it is a vocation is hopeless.
It's not just the doctors and nurses. That would include porters, physios, social workers (or whoever the almoners are called these days), secretaries, receptionists ...
Yes, absolutely.
As a starting point, making the existing five-day NHS take Mondays and Tuesdays off, rather than Saturdays and Sundays, would make a massive difference to the level of service in the minds of their patients, and productivity in the general economy.
Just to check, though.
Would your intention be to keep everything else the same (pay etc), just changing the NHS week to Tuesday to Sunday? Because that's an awful lot less attractive to anyone with a partner who doesn't work in the NHS, let alone having children.
In a world where ancillary staff can go and work for someone else, and medical staff can go and work abroad, it would be a brave move for an employer to make.
Of course you're entitled to an opinion. By all means believe that doctors are paid too much money for too little work. Ultimately, the market works this out and the observation that there are massive recruitment problems leading to huge spending on agency staff says otherwise.
Right-of-centre politics is meant to understand this.
@Stuartinromford Please see my point on demand planning in UK teaching hospitals. I am inclined to believe it is incompetence rather than conspiracy to keep the number of doctors less than the posts available. It is an extraordinary state of affairs considering the fact that every year there are dozens of applicants for every single place. The BMA would like you to believe that you need to be an academic genius to be a doctor. You do not, any more than you need to be for any other profession. It is a system that is run by a self-interested cartel.
Indeed. Any sane system would ensure that all available teaching places are filled and that a plan is in place to expand places steadily in a manageable manner. Excess medical staff (which I think is unlikely to be a situation for many years anyway) can find places overseas. I see no downside at all to training as many doctors and nurses as we can fit into the system. It is one of the few professions where we can reasonably say we will always need them.
If Trump doesn’t run I’d think that would make it more likely Biden doesn’t .
Ron DeSantis tries to put on a more respectable front but he’s an extremist and just covers it up better . Given his huge win in Florida and likely more broader appeal he would be a big problem for the Dems .
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
If you want people to work unsociable hours like weekends and nights you need to pay them properly for it compensation. The government appears unwilling to do so.
This is true, but the idea that anyone can or should enter any medical field without realising that it has to function 24/7 on 365 days a year and that to be part of it is a vocation is hopeless.
It's not just the doctors and nurses. That would include porters, physios, social workers (or whoever the almoners are called these days), secretaries, receptionists ...
Yes, absolutely.
As a starting point, making the existing five-day NHS take Mondays and Tuesdays off, rather than Saturdays and Sundays, would make a massive difference to the level of service in the minds of their patients, and productivity in the general economy.
Just to check, though.
Would your intention be to keep everything else the same (pay etc), just changing the NHS week to Tuesday to Sunday? Because that's an awful lot less attractive to anyone with a partner who doesn't work in the NHS, let alone having children.
In a world where ancillary staff can go and work for someone else, and medical staff can go and work abroad, it would be a brave move for an employer to make.
Of course you're entitled to an opinion. By all means believe that doctors are paid too much money for too little work. Ultimately, the market works this out and the observation that there are massive recruitment problems leading to huge spending on agency staff says otherwise.
Right-of-centre politics is meant to understand this.
@Stuartinromford Please see my point on demand planning in UK teaching hospitals. I am inclined to believe it is incompetence rather than conspiracy to keep the number of doctors less than the posts available. It is an extraordinary state of affairs considering the fact that every year there are dozens of applicants for every single place. The BMA would like you to believe that you need to be an academic genius to be a doctor. You do not, any more than you need to be for any other profession. It is a system that is run by a self-interested cartel.
I think high doctors salaries are partly a result of the scarcity of doctors (basic supply and demand). Pharmacy is an example of what can happen if you go the other way. We opened many more schools of pharmacy in the last two decades, churned out pharmacists and suddenly the locum rates dropped like a stone. The was competition for work.
As a result the applications to study pharmacy plummeted, and pressure on schools to keep recruiting has been huge. My own department has been within a whisker of closure, depsite being older than the University (by 60 years) and despite producing some of the best graduates in the country (as determined by the professional exam all pharmacists must take - the Pre-Reg).
So there is a vested interest for doctors NOT to train hordes of doctors. And don't forget, most doctors are trained by doctors, and they play a part in decisions such as 'shall we expand our places?'.
I really hope that Trump runs as an independent. Finally, once and for all MAGA would be smashed to bits and normal service can resume. Those nutcases need to be put in their place and their godking finishing on 7% of the vote would do just that.
.@NicolaSturgeon continues to ignore public opposition and seeks to push through the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in under two weeks, demonstrating once again that she prioritises the approval of lobby groups over Scottish voters' concerns. 1/2
The polling is clear: this bill is not supported by the public. Principled MSPs have already voted against it and one has resigned, yet the First Feminist remains determined to undermine the sex-based rights of Scottish girls and women. 2/2
Sunak happily signing up to Climate Reparations are a sign of that.
Eh?
Rishi Sunak has dealt a blow to the developing countries hardest-hit by climate change by shunning appeals for the UK to contribute towards reparations for the natural disasters caused by hundreds of years of industrial pollution.
Ah, that was different to what was being briefed at the start of the week.
Good news for once.
Cumulative U.K. CO2 emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution are less than 5% of the total in any case. The US & China are orders of magnitude the biggest. Good luck getting them to cough up! Unless you’re a virtue signalling regional politician in search of an international job…..
There was an article in the Telegraph this week pointing out China had put more emissions into the atmosphere in the last 8 years than we had since the start of the Industrial revolution.
They produced more steel in the last 2 years than we ever have.
Fair play to Sunak for standing up to this nonsense, unlike Starmer who won't.
Our electric consumption has increased by 50% since 1990 but our use of non renewables hasn't
Of course many of the groups who want these "reparations" would be the ones with a financial interest in seeing it through as they will be involved in projects using these funds.
Hence the howls of anguish when the aid budget was cut from various charities and NGO's.
"There was an article in the Telegraph."
Course there was.
Quoting those figures gross and without context is precisely like a farmer saying: for 10 years I had a flock of 100 texels. Last year I added two suffolks. Bugger me, after running the numbers I am going straight over to suffolks because over time they have only eaten ONE FIVE HUNDREDTH AS MUCH as the texels. It really is that mouth-breathingly stupid.
China is making extraordinary strides with decarbonising itself (never mind making decarbonising kit, and everything else, for RoW)
both based on China figures, but Bloomberg and S&P do due diligence on what they report.
Trying to lift a nation of 1.4bn out of poverty also needs coal and steel. Wow.
The Chinese would also have to be pretty stupid not to be combating GW out of pure self-interest, given the vulnerability of a country as large and populous as that.
And even if they are having a laugh at our expense, so what? Saying we won't bother because they don't, is like saying: yes, I shoplift the odd lump of butter from Tescos. Everybody is at it, I see people smuggling whole chickens and bottles of sherry out under their coats, and it's not like the profit on a pat of butter is going to hurt Tesco's bottom line. Curious how pride-in-empire little Englanders are happy with a complete lack of national honesty, self respect and leadership if they think it pays. So I am actually quite happy to triangulate back from this line of argument to their probable personal standards.
And when they discuss China there's an early Coldplay earworm that I can't get out of my head.
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
If you want people to work unsociable hours like weekends and nights you need to pay them properly for it compensation. The government appears unwilling to do so.
This is true, but the idea that anyone can or should enter any medical field without realising that it has to function 24/7 on 365 days a year and that to be part of it is a vocation is hopeless.
It's not just the doctors and nurses. That would include porters, physios, social workers (or whoever the almoners are called these days), secretaries, receptionists ...
Yes, absolutely.
As a starting point, making the existing five-day NHS take Mondays and Tuesdays off, rather than Saturdays and Sundays, would make a massive difference to the level of service in the minds of their patients, and productivity in the general economy.
Just to check, though.
Would your intention be to keep everything else the same (pay etc), just changing the NHS week to Tuesday to Sunday? Because that's an awful lot less attractive to anyone with a partner who doesn't work in the NHS, let alone having children.
In a world where ancillary staff can go and work for someone else, and medical staff can go and work abroad, it would be a brave move for an employer to make.
Of course you're entitled to an opinion. By all means believe that doctors are paid too much money for too little work. Ultimately, the market works this out and the observation that there are massive recruitment problems leading to huge spending on agency staff says otherwise.
Right-of-centre politics is meant to understand this.
@Stuartinromford Please see my point on demand planning in UK teaching hospitals. I am inclined to believe it is incompetence rather than conspiracy to keep the number of doctors less than the posts available. It is an extraordinary state of affairs considering the fact that every year there are dozens of applicants for every single place. The BMA would like you to believe that you need to be an academic genius to be a doctor. You do not, any more than you need to be for any other profession. It is a system that is run by a self-interested cartel.
I think high doctors salaries are partly a result of the scarcity of doctors (basic supply and demand). Pharmacy is an example of what can happen if you go the other way. We opened many more schools of pharmacy in the last two decades, churned out pharmacists and suddenly the locum rates dropped like a stone. The was competition for work.
As a result the applications to study pharmacy plummeted, and pressure on schools to keep recruiting has been huge. My own department has been within a whisker of closure, depsite being older than the University (by 60 years) and despite producing some of the best graduates in the country (as determined by the professional exam all pharmacists must take - the Pre-Reg).
So there is a vested interest for doctors NOT to train hordes of doctors. And don't forget, most doctors are trained by doctors, and they play a part in decisions such as 'shall we expand our places?'.
Drs salaries are high!!
Not on the NHS Contract hence them going for Locum shifts on double to triple
I repeat my long stated and oft mocked forecast that neither Trump nor Biden will be nominees. In Trump’s case, he’ll either not stand, will be primaried - or nicked.
But, I realise I’m a hostage to fortune with that prediction (and have no money backing it up).
Hope you are right but his statement today re DeSantis suggests he will at the very least try to run
I think he's hard to predict. He might well try to run, but I don't think he'll end up as nominee for one of the reasons above.
The most satisfying result purely from a get out the popcorn and watch the drama unfold would be if Hobbs can beat Lake in Arizona !
At the moment the later vote by mail is quite different from 2020 . There because of covid many more Democrats voted earlier but the returns so far have broken around 54/45 in the Dems favour .
The real test will be the ballot drop box returns close to Election Day . There’s also around 17,000 on the day votes still left to count and these should break strongly for the Reps .
Hobbs needs to keep running up the totals from Pima and hope those ballot drop boxes aren’t too good for the Reps.
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
If you want people to work unsociable hours like weekends and nights you need to pay them properly for it compensation. The government appears unwilling to do so.
This is true, but the idea that anyone can or should enter any medical field without realising that it has to function 24/7 on 365 days a year and that to be part of it is a vocation is hopeless.
It's not just the doctors and nurses. That would include porters, physios, social workers (or whoever the almoners are called these days), secretaries, receptionists ...
Yes, absolutely.
As a starting point, making the existing five-day NHS take Mondays and Tuesdays off, rather than Saturdays and Sundays, would make a massive difference to the level of service in the minds of their patients, and productivity in the general economy.
Just to check, though.
Would your intention be to keep everything else the same (pay etc), just changing the NHS week to Tuesday to Sunday? Because that's an awful lot less attractive to anyone with a partner who doesn't work in the NHS, let alone having children.
In a world where ancillary staff can go and work for someone else, and medical staff can go and work abroad, it would be a brave move for an employer to make.
Of course you're entitled to an opinion. By all means believe that doctors are paid too much money for too little work. Ultimately, the market works this out and the observation that there are massive recruitment problems leading to huge spending on agency staff says otherwise.
Right-of-centre politics is meant to understand this.
@Stuartinromford Please see my point on demand planning in UK teaching hospitals. I am inclined to believe it is incompetence rather than conspiracy to keep the number of doctors less than the posts available. It is an extraordinary state of affairs considering the fact that every year there are dozens of applicants for every single place. The BMA would like you to believe that you need to be an academic genius to be a doctor. You do not, any more than you need to be for any other profession. It is a system that is run by a self-interested cartel.
I think high doctors salaries are partly a result of the scarcity of doctors (basic supply and demand). Pharmacy is an example of what can happen if you go the other way. We opened many more schools of pharmacy in the last two decades, churned out pharmacists and suddenly the locum rates dropped like a stone. The was competition for work.
As a result the applications to study pharmacy plummeted, and pressure on schools to keep recruiting has been huge. My own department has been within a whisker of closure, depsite being older than the University (by 60 years) and despite producing some of the best graduates in the country (as determined by the professional exam all pharmacists must take - the Pre-Reg).
So there is a vested interest for doctors NOT to train hordes of doctors. And don't forget, most doctors are trained by doctors, and they play a part in decisions such as 'shall we expand our places?'.
All true. I've been on the panel for medical interviews and been the teacher trying to support kids through the process. There are definitely more young people we could fruitfully train to be doctors than we currently do.
Whilst that pushes the question to somewhere more fruitful than "I want doctors to do more without being paid more", the question then becomes how many trainee doctors do we want and how is the country going to pay for their (expensive) training.
And a lot of the people in the NHS aren't doctors...
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
Reading around online the Sunsynk seems to have better reviews than the growatt. Dunno if that outweighs the price difference though. Anyone have experience of these batteries ?
All fail the crap name test. Sunsynk ffs. Say what you like about Elon, a tesla powerwall sounds something you would want to spend money on.
Specially if it had a blue tick account on twitter.
There's already a shortage of staff in the NHS. Huge numbers of NHS workers of all types have young kids and would like to see them at weekends. So weekend working is likely to exacerbate the shortage as people leave or don't apply in the first place. It's a real conundrum.
It's not like train drivers or supermarket workers, for example, who apply for those jobs knowing that weekend shifts are involved.
So let's not change anything ever. Let's not even try.
I thought it was the Conservatives who liked to pickle things in aspic.
I don't think anyone's arguing that.
Simply that the barriers to going to 7 day working are considerable, and it would require the expenditure of a lot of political capital, and a lot of money. Labour under Blair/Brown had plenty of both to do it, and wasted the opportunity; it's been become increasingly difficult since then.
Most recently tried by a Cons SoS with disastrous consequences, strikes, you name it.
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
If you want people to work unsociable hours like weekends and nights you need to pay them properly for it compensation. The government appears unwilling to do so.
This is true, but the idea that anyone can or should enter any medical field without realising that it has to function 24/7 on 365 days a year and that to be part of it is a vocation is hopeless.
It's not just the doctors and nurses. That would include porters, physios, social workers (or whoever the almoners are called these days), secretaries, receptionists ...
Yes, absolutely.
As a starting point, making the existing five-day NHS take Mondays and Tuesdays off, rather than Saturdays and Sundays, would make a massive difference to the level of service in the minds of their patients, and productivity in the general economy.
Just to check, though.
Would your intention be to keep everything else the same (pay etc), just changing the NHS week to Tuesday to Sunday? Because that's an awful lot less attractive to anyone with a partner who doesn't work in the NHS, let alone having children.
In a world where ancillary staff can go and work for someone else, and medical staff can go and work abroad, it would be a brave move for an employer to make.
Of course you're entitled to an opinion. By all means believe that doctors are paid too much money for too little work. Ultimately, the market works this out and the observation that there are massive recruitment problems leading to huge spending on agency staff says otherwise.
Right-of-centre politics is meant to understand this.
@Stuartinromford Please see my point on demand planning in UK teaching hospitals. I am inclined to believe it is incompetence rather than conspiracy to keep the number of doctors less than the posts available. It is an extraordinary state of affairs considering the fact that every year there are dozens of applicants for every single place. The BMA would like you to believe that you need to be an academic genius to be a doctor. You do not, any more than you need to be for any other profession. It is a system that is run by a self-interested cartel.
Indeed. Any sane system would ensure that all available teaching places are filled and that a plan is in place to expand places steadily in a manageable manner. Excess medical staff (which I think is unlikely to be a situation for many years anyway) can find places overseas. I see no downside at all to training as many doctors and nurses as we can fit into the system. It is one of the few professions where we can reasonably say we will always need them.
There isa world wide shortage of doctors - and it is getting worse. This is because India and China (and there are others), as they grow richer, are transitioning to service economies. Which means lots of demand for services. The rate at which they are expanding medical training isn't sufficient to close the gap.
In the UK, the NHS knows, to some accuracy, how many doctors and nurses it will require in the next decade. Training is deliberately below this and has been for many years.
In some medical university courses, we increased the number of undergrads by 25% due to the A level screw up.
Either they are useless and shouldn't be doctors, or we have been failing a large segment of those going into education. Note that there is a considerable hunger for places in medical training - all courses have more than enough applicants per place.
It's is also worth considering that a medical undergraduate degree is also useful for other things. I've worked with a couple of people who did medical training then decided to do other things - they had good scientific training, learning skills etc.
There would be many worse things for the country to have, than a surplus of trained medical people.
I repeat my long stated and oft mocked forecast that neither Trump nor Biden will be nominees. In Trump’s case, he’ll either not stand, will be primaried - or nicked.
But, I realise I’m a hostage to fortune with that prediction (and have no money backing it up).
Hope you are right but his statement today re DeSantis suggests he will at the very least try to run
I think he's hard to predict. He might well try to run, but I don't think he'll end up as nominee for one of the reasons above.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
538 has the wrong figures . Kelly is 115,000 votes ahead as per the SOS website and Casto is now 9,000 votes behind .
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead
or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
Indeed, I think this is now likely: NV, GA and AZ all go blue.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
538 has the wrong figures . Kelly is 115,000 votes ahead as per the SOS website and Casto is now 9,000 votes behind .
Yes, 538 figures are now out of date, but does that alter their projection?
If Trump doesn’t run I’d think that would make it more likely Biden doesn’t .
Ron DeSantis tries to put on a more respectable front but he’s an extremist and just covers it up better . Given his huge win in Florida and likely more broader appeal he would be a big problem for the Dems .
De Santis GOP nominee and Trump as an Independent candidate best for the Dems as they could win with just 40% of the vote.
Though yes DeSantis alone with Trump endorsing him and not running as an Independent is more of a threat to the Democrats.
However the evidence suggests Trump will put his ego before what is best for the GOP
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
Living in a mostly-private healthcare market, the outpatient facilities are totally rammed at the weekend - because that’s when there’s most demand for outpatient services! Why should I need to take a day off work for a minor appointment?
Does the NHS exist primarily for the benefit of its customers, or the convenience of its staff?
I use NHS, private dentist and recently reluctantly had a private operation as it was a choice between getting it done and retirement.
The difference in culture is absolutely staggering. Basically in the NHS the system (especially admin aspects and front of house) steers towards the idea that the system is doing you a favour; in the other sector you are the customer and they are to providing a service, which they do reliably and well.
Yes but you might not want the NHS to operate at that level - it would cost a fortune on top of the fortune it already costs.
It would cost a fortune to instil in the NHS a culture of responsibility towards its patients that I can probably agree with.
On the other hand, my distinct impression is that the private ops industry relies heavily on being able to dump post-op complications on the NHS. It would be good to have someone more knowledgeable comment on that point.
Not the case in my experience (n = 1).
Based on what I have heard about the general staffing, expertise etc. of some operators. Anything bnad goes wrong, it's off to the NHS.
Sozza but we can't work with "based on what I have heard". Need some more evidence even if anecdotal would be a start.
Comments made by friends in uni who study such things (but are not medics or NHS employees). I wasn't paying particular attention at the time, bvut it is certainly an area which is more complex than the usual DM soundbite.
Can confirm from long term girlfriend who was a senior theatre nurse, NHS or Nuffield depending on pay and conditions. There's a reason private hospitals are next to NHS hospitals, because if it all goes horribly wrong on the private side you whisk the patient across the road. Her advice was for serious surgery, start in the NHS. Nuffield for jumping the new joints queue, and fresh orange juice.
Yep, thanks, that is pretty much the impression I got. Definitely something to be aware of.
Trump calls DeSantis a very 'average' governor and lacking in loyalty and class. Certainly suggests Trump ain't standing aside for Ron and will fight him all the way for the GOP nomination in 2024 and maybe beyond as an Independent if DeSantis wins that nomination
Whereas most Conservative media, from Fox News to the Murdoch press, has deciceively turned away from Trump and towards DeSantis in the past 48 hours. There’s little chance of coming back from there, politics is brutal sometimes.
Trump will still get a large number of Republicans to vote for him in 2024 even if DeSantis wins the nomination.
Trump will also threaten to run as an Independent if he does not win the nomination most likely, which would hand the election to the Democrats on a plate due to a split Conservative vote.
And lead to Trump being humiliated when he gets only 5% of the vote.
He's not someone who wants to be humiliated.
It would also destroy any hopes the Trump brats have of a political career.
I doubt it, Ross Perot got 19% in 1992 and handed the election to Bill Clinton on a plate. For despite the fact Clinton got only 43%, Bush 41 ended up with just 37% after leaking votes to Perot.
Trump is even more of a billionaire ego maniac than Perot with even bigger name recognition as an ex President, could self fund his campaign and easily get to 19%. He would do it to humiliate the GOP after what he would see as them humiliating him by not falling in line to support his nomination again.
In 1912 too former President Theodore Roosevelt ran against sitting GOP President Taft so Democrat Wilson was elected with just 41%
And Perot got 8% in 1996.
The law of diminishing returns applies to Trump as well.
A 78 year old having a tantrum does not attract support.
Probably Trump will try to do a deal where he promises not to run as independent, in return for republicans shielding him from his legal problems. But actually running would be desperate, and would just increase the chances of him ending up convicted of various crimes.
Could he fund an independent run though? He can only use it for blackmail if it's doable.
I repeat my long stated and oft mocked forecast that neither Trump nor Biden will be nominees. In Trump’s case, he’ll either not stand, will be primaried - or nicked.
But, I realise I’m a hostage to fortune with that prediction (and have no money backing it up).
Hope you are right but his statement today re DeSantis suggests he will at the very least try to run
I think he's hard to predict. He might well try to run, but I don't think he'll end up as nominee for one of the reasons above.
Yes (hopefully)
What is the consensus? Would Desantis beat Trump for the nomination? If he did would Trump run anyway as an Independent? If he did and Trump didn't run would Trump's base turn out and vote for DeSantis
Trump calls DeSantis a very 'average' governor and lacking in loyalty and class. Certainly suggests Trump ain't standing aside for Ron and will fight him all the way for the GOP nomination in 2024 and maybe beyond as an Independent if DeSantis wins that nomination
Whereas most Conservative media, from Fox News to the Murdoch press, has deciceively turned away from Trump and towards DeSantis in the past 48 hours. There’s little chance of coming back from there, politics is brutal sometimes.
Trump will still get a large number of Republicans to vote for him in 2024 even if DeSantis wins the nomination.
Trump will also threaten to run as an Independent if he does not win the nomination most likely, which would hand the election to the Democrats on a plate due to a split Conservative vote.
And lead to Trump being humiliated when he gets only 5% of the vote.
He's not someone who wants to be humiliated.
It would also destroy any hopes the Trump brats have of a political career.
I doubt it, Ross Perot got 19% in 1992 and handed the election to Bill Clinton on a plate. For despite the fact Clinton got only 43%, Bush 41 ended up with just 37% after leaking votes to Perot.
Trump is even more of a billionaire ego maniac than Perot with even bigger name recognition as an ex President, could self fund his campaign and easily get to 19%. He would do it to humiliate the GOP after what he would see as them humiliating him by not falling in line to support his nomination again.
In 1912 too former President Theodore Roosevelt ran against sitting GOP President Taft so Democrat Wilson was elected with just 41%
And Perot got 8% in 1996.
The law of diminishing returns applies to Trump as well.
A 78 year old having a tantrum does not attract support.
Even if Trump got just 8% that almost certainly costs the GOP the Presidential election as that 8% would almost all be Republican voters from 2020
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead
or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
Indeed, I think this is now likely: NV, GA and AZ all go blue.
As for the NV gubernatorial race: who knows?
Yes, Dems to finish on 51 senators. It's a shame they couldn't hold onto the House. MAGA GOP needs to keep losing until they realise they need to jettison the MAGA element back to whatever mad Libertarian parties that still exist.
If Trump doesn’t run I’d think that would make it more likely Biden doesn’t .
Ron DeSantis tries to put on a more respectable front but he’s an extremist and just covers it up better . Given his huge win in Florida and likely more broader appeal he would be a big problem for the Dems .
De Santis GOP nominee and Trump as an Independent candidate best for the Dems as they could win with just 40% of the vote.
Though yes DeSantis alone with Trump endorsing him and not running as an Independent is more of a threat to the Democrats.
However the evidence suggests Trump will put his ego before what is best for the GOP
My mental model is that DeSantis would be the first election about abortion, and Democrats would outperform again in swing states, while dropping in safe blue states where the local approach to abortion has hardly changed. There would be a little about inflation which will be lower, a lot about crime which will be higher, and a little about LGBT to get out the vote. By contrast Trump would be about the same nonsense as last time. I think Trump wins in more outcomes-of-the-world than DeSantis.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
538 has the wrong figures . Kelly is 115,000 votes ahead as per the SOS website and Casto is now 9,000 votes behind .
Yes, 538 figures are now out of date, but does that alter their projection?
There’s still some uncertainty as to how many votes are still to be counted in Clark county. The elections supervisor wasn’t clear. It’s possible there’s less than originally thought as his update yesterday conflicted with what was released on Wednesday.
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
If you want people to work unsociable hours like weekends and nights you need to pay them properly for it compensation. The government appears unwilling to do so.
This is true, but the idea that anyone can or should enter any medical field without realising that it has to function 24/7 on 365 days a year and that to be part of it is a vocation is hopeless.
It's not just the doctors and nurses. That would include porters, physios, social workers (or whoever the almoners are called these days), secretaries, receptionists ...
Yes, absolutely.
As a starting point, making the existing five-day NHS take Mondays and Tuesdays off, rather than Saturdays and Sundays, would make a massive difference to the level of service in the minds of their patients, and productivity in the general economy.
Just to check, though.
Would your intention be to keep everything else the same (pay etc), just changing the NHS week to Tuesday to Sunday? Because that's an awful lot less attractive to anyone with a partner who doesn't work in the NHS, let alone having children.
In a world where ancillary staff can go and work for someone else, and medical staff can go and work abroad, it would be a brave move for an employer to make.
Of course you're entitled to an opinion. By all means believe that doctors are paid too much money for too little work. Ultimately, the market works this out and the observation that there are massive recruitment problems leading to huge spending on agency staff says otherwise.
Right-of-centre politics is meant to understand this.
@Stuartinromford Please see my point on demand planning in UK teaching hospitals. I am inclined to believe it is incompetence rather than conspiracy to keep the number of doctors less than the posts available. It is an extraordinary state of affairs considering the fact that every year there are dozens of applicants for every single place. The BMA would like you to believe that you need to be an academic genius to be a doctor. You do not, any more than you need to be for any other profession. It is a system that is run by a self-interested cartel.
I think high doctors salaries are partly a result of the scarcity of doctors (basic supply and demand). Pharmacy is an example of what can happen if you go the other way. We opened many more schools of pharmacy in the last two decades, churned out pharmacists and suddenly the locum rates dropped like a stone. The was competition for work.
As a result the applications to study pharmacy plummeted, and pressure on schools to keep recruiting has been huge. My own department has been within a whisker of closure, depsite being older than the University (by 60 years) and despite producing some of the best graduates in the country (as determined by the professional exam all pharmacists must take - the Pre-Reg).
So there is a vested interest for doctors NOT to train hordes of doctors. And don't forget, most doctors are trained by doctors, and they play a part in decisions such as 'shall we expand our places?'.
All true. I've been on the panel for medical interviews and been the teacher trying to support kids through the process. There are definitely more young people we could fruitfully train to be doctors than we currently do.
Whilst that pushes the question to somewhere more fruitful than "I want doctors to do more without being paid more", the question then becomes how many trainee doctors do we want and how is the country going to pay for their (expensive) training.
And a lot of the people in the NHS aren't doctors...
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead
or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
Indeed, I think this is now likely: NV, GA and AZ all go blue.
As for the NV gubernatorial race: who knows?
Yes, Dems to finish on 51 senators. It's a shame they couldn't hold onto the House. MAGA GOP needs to keep losing until they realise they need to jettison the MAGA element back to whatever mad Libertarian parties that still exist.
GOP needs MAGA as much as Independent voters to win.
Same with the Tories here who cannot win without most of the redwall as well as the bluewall now
And so it starts. If Spain does it Portugal, Italy and Greece will follow suit and then, slowly, the rest. The EU will surely realise this and refuse because it's one of their major bargaining chips.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead
or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
Indeed, I think this is now likely: NV, GA and AZ all go blue.
As for the NV gubernatorial race: who knows?
Yes, Dems to finish on 51 senators. It's a shame they couldn't hold onto the House. MAGA GOP needs to keep losing until they realise they need to jettison the MAGA element back to whatever mad Libertarian parties that still exist.
GOP needs MAGA as much as Independent voters to win.
Same with the Tories here who cannot win without most of the redwall as well as the bluewall now
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be
against them but not by much. It could be
business as usual for Biden.
538 has the wrong figures . Kelly is 115,000 votes
ahead as per the SOS website and Casto is now 9,000 votes behind .
No, indeed that would surely make the projection more concrete. I’m expecting an AZ call when the west coast wakes up.
Yes, 538 figures are now out of date, but does that alter their projection?
Realise this is irony, but I've found the poppy fascism to have stepped down a notch this year. Have the public started to realise how ridiculous it had become?
Reading around online the Sunsynk seems to have better reviews than the growatt. Dunno if that outweighs the price difference though. Anyone have experience of these batteries ?
All fail the crap name test. Sunsynk ffs. Say what you like about Elon, a tesla powerwall sounds something you would want to spend money on.
If not for the stupid spelling, Sunsynk wouldn't be a bad name at all. It neatly describes the function of the battery.
I certainly wouldn’t be putting Masto as a strong favourite because it’s not certain her 60/40 margin will hold up when they start counting the votes in the Election Day ballot drop boxes .
The first returns of those when we get them will be decisive because whatever the margin there is unlikely to change much.
Reading around online the Sunsynk seems to have better reviews than the growatt. Dunno if that outweighs the price difference though. Anyone have experience of these batteries ?
All fail the crap name test. Sunsynk ffs. Say what you like about Elon, a tesla powerwall sounds something you would want to spend money on.
If not for the stupid spelling, Sunsynk wouldn't be a bad name at all. It neatly describes the function of the battery.
True. Whereas pylontech...
And Growatt is perhaps deliberately appealing to the cannabis producer market.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
Things with broad cross-party support are *nearly* the only things that pass even now.
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Reading around online the Sunsynk seems to have better reviews than the growatt. Dunno if that outweighs the price difference though. Anyone have experience of these batteries ?
All fail the crap name test. Sunsynk ffs. Say what you like about Elon, a tesla powerwall sounds something you would want to spend money on.
If not for the stupid spelling, Sunsynk wouldn't be a bad name at all. It neatly describes the function of the battery.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
Manchin is essentially beyond any pressure from Democrats, as he has to plough his own furrow to have any chance of re-election. Sinema is up for re-election in 2024; if she doesn't toe the line rather more than she has recently - and she's done less than nothing to help her colleagues this last year - she risks being primaried.
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
If you want people to work unsociable hours like weekends and nights you need to pay them properly for it compensation. The government appears unwilling to do so.
This is true, but the idea that anyone can or should enter any medical field without realising that it has to function 24/7 on 365 days a year and that to be part of it is a vocation is hopeless.
It's not just the doctors and nurses. That would include porters, physios, social workers (or whoever the almoners are called these days), secretaries, receptionists ...
Yes, absolutely.
As a starting point, making the existing five-day NHS take Mondays and Tuesdays off, rather than Saturdays and Sundays, would make a massive difference to the level of service in the minds of their patients, and productivity in the general economy.
Just to check, though.
Would your intention be to keep everything else the same (pay etc), just changing the NHS week to Tuesday to Sunday? Because that's an awful lot less attractive to anyone with a partner who doesn't work in the NHS, let alone having children.
In a world where ancillary staff can go and work for someone else, and medical staff can go and work abroad, it would be a brave move for an employer to make.
Of course you're entitled to an opinion. By all means believe that doctors are paid too much money for too little work. Ultimately, the market works this out and the observation that there are massive recruitment problems leading to huge spending on agency staff says otherwise.
Right-of-centre politics is meant to understand this.
@Stuartinromford Please see my point on demand planning in UK teaching hospitals. I am inclined to believe it is incompetence rather than conspiracy to keep the number of doctors less than the posts available. It is an extraordinary state of affairs considering the fact that every year there are dozens of applicants for every single place. The BMA would like you to believe that you need to be an academic genius to be a doctor. You do not, any more than you need to be for any other profession. It is a system that is run by a self-interested cartel.
I think high doctors salaries are partly a result of the scarcity of doctors (basic supply and demand). Pharmacy is an example of what can happen if you go the other way. We opened many more schools of pharmacy in the last two decades, churned out pharmacists and suddenly the locum rates dropped like a stone. The was competition for work.
As a result the applications to study pharmacy plummeted, and pressure on schools to keep recruiting has been huge. My own department has been within a whisker of closure, depsite being older than the University (by 60 years) and despite producing some of the best graduates in the country (as determined by the professional exam all pharmacists must take - the Pre-Reg).
So there is a vested interest for doctors NOT to train hordes of doctors. And don't forget, most doctors are trained by doctors, and they play a part in decisions such as 'shall we expand our places?'.
All true. I've been on the panel for medical interviews and been the teacher trying to support kids through the process. There are definitely more young people we could fruitfully train to be doctors than we currently do.
Whilst that pushes the question to somewhere more fruitful than "I want doctors to do more without being paid more", the question then becomes how many trainee doctors do we want and how is the country going to pay for their (expensive) training.
And a lot of the people in the NHS aren't doctors...
Is any of this that difficult if people are willing to change it up a bit?
Train them for 4 years instead of 7 and accept that they have to be far more specialised and need to retrain if they wan to move to a different area.
Also paying for training for doctors now, decreases the cost per doctor in future years, and will lead to better retention of skilled and experienced doctors in their fifties and sixties who will be able to maintain some life balance in work rather than decide to retire early.
Our public services require investment to make them cheaper in future. Cutting funding now increases costs in the future. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of those who rightly want to balance the books. We are well past the point of finding short term cost savings, but long term ones are perfectly possible, with targeted investment.
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Putin remains highly unlikely to use a nuke. Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Putin remains highly unlikely to use a nuke. Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
If Trump doesn’t run I’d think that would make it more likely Biden doesn’t .
Ron DeSantis tries to put on a more respectable front but he’s an extremist and just covers it up better . Given his huge win in Florida and likely more broader appeal he would be a big problem for the Dems .
But how much of his Florida win is due to dodgy electoral goings on, and the elderly decamping to coastal condos, rather than campaigning genius?
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Putin remains highly unlikely to use a nuke. Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
Question is what does he do? What is the endgame now?
Pull back to the borders and try to hold Crimea? So go back to Feb 2022 position?
would that be it, would that be enough for Russia to go for peace?
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be
against them but not by much. It could be
business as usual for Biden.
538 has the wrong figures . Kelly is 115,000 votes
ahead as per the SOS website and Casto is now 9,000 votes behind .
No, indeed that would surely make the projection more concrete. I’m expecting an AZ call when the west coast wakes up.
Yes, 538 figures are now out of date, but does that alter their projection?
Realise this is irony, but I've found the poppy fascism to have stepped down a notch this year. Have the public started to realise how ridiculous it had become?
It definitely feels less this year. Perhaps CoL etc is drowning out everything else?
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Scare mongering nonsense that inspires genuine fear in *certain* people.
Shifts in the anti-Tory vote based on 2 different issues I would speculate:
- Asylum and small boats: a portion of those on the right of the culture wars but economic left showing their unhappiness with the government via Refuk vote rather than Labour: I reckon there is a Lab-Ref swing here, possibly red wall based
- Just stop oil protests: some on the left/eco flank of Labour angered by Starmer’s tough talk on the protesters so lodging their protest in responding Green
When Brexit problems hit the headlines we often see the LD vote go up a bit, similar effect.
I think a headlines-adjusted (but not tactical voting adjusted) underlying numbers would be more like:
I've just worked out how Musk can make a fortune out of Twitter.
First the problem: Twitter needs income - perhaps an extra $1 billion per year just for loan repayments. The $8 Twitter Blue nonsense will only make a feeble amount, and removes the entire verification nonsense.
It's clear that some people can afford more than $8, whilst other accounts are worth much less.
A simple change fixes everything. Hold a monthly auction for each twitter handle. The winner of the auction gets the handle and all of its followers. So if you pay enough, you can be the realDonaldTrump, or JoeBiden, or LizTruss (*), or ElonMusk.
It's fair and it's capitalist.
I fact, it's genius.
Musk will win bigly.
(*) I bet her account would be worth about five pennies.
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Putin remains highly unlikely to use a nuke. Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
Perhaps; however:
A weapon that nobody can tell if it's been used or not doesn't sound THAT scary.
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Putin remains highly unlikely to use a nuke. Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
Perhaps; however:
More targeted = equals not very powerful and thus limited range,
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead
or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
Indeed, I think this is now likely: NV, GA and AZ all go blue.
As for the NV gubernatorial race: who knows?
Yes, Dems to finish on 51 senators. It's a shame they couldn't hold onto the House. MAGA GOP needs to keep losing until they realise they need to jettison the MAGA element back to whatever mad Libertarian parties that still exist.
GOP needs MAGA as much as Independent voters to win.
Same with the Tories here who cannot win without most of the redwall as well as the bluewall now
Not really, they can win from the centre.
Not alone unless the Democrats are well to the left which they aren't at the moment.
Otherwise the Democrats win with the left and dividing the centre with the GOP if much of the right goes to an Independent Trump.
Same with the Tories given Labour is now more centrist than under Corbyn, they cannot afford to leak too much to RefUK (unless Starmer also leaks a lot to the Greens of course)
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be
against them but not by much. It could be
business as usual for Biden.
538 has the wrong figures . Kelly is 115,000 votes
ahead as per the SOS website and Casto is now 9,000 votes behind .
No, indeed that would surely make the projection more concrete. I’m expecting an AZ call when the west coast wakes up.
Yes, 538 figures are now out of date, but does that alter their projection?
Realise this is irony, but I've found the poppy fascism to have stepped down a notch this year. Have the public started to realise how ridiculous it had become?
It definitely feels less this year. Perhaps CoL etc is drowning out everything else?
It could also subconsciously be something to do with HMQ not being with us anymore. The wartime generation is now more or less gone, and she was a strong representation of that.
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Putin remains highly unlikely to use a nuke. Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
Perhaps; however:
That article is conflating two different things, though. One is a nuke; the other would be of pretty limited effect.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be
against them but not by much. It could be
business as usual for Biden.
538 has the wrong figures . Kelly is 115,000 votes
ahead as per the SOS website and Casto is now 9,000 votes behind .
No, indeed that would surely make the projection more concrete. I’m expecting an AZ call when the west coast wakes up.
Yes, 538 figures are now out of date, but does that alter their projection?
Realise this is irony, but I've found the poppy fascism to have stepped down a notch this year. Have the public started to realise how ridiculous it had become?
It definitely feels less this year. Perhaps CoL etc is drowning out everything else?
It could also subconsciously be something to do with HMQ not being with us anymore. The wartime generation is now more or less gone, and she was a strong representation of that.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
Looking back at the 538 forecasts:
Their Lite (polls only) model predicted an average of 229 Republican seats, popular vote lead of R+2.4%, and 75% chance of Republican majority.
Classic (polls, fundraising, past voting patterns and more) had average 232 Republican seats, vote margin R+3.8, and 82% chance of R majority.
Deluxe (Classic + experts' ratings) average 230 R seats, popular vote R +4.0, 84% chance R majority.
Their default model is the Deluxe, which they described before the election as "the best and most accurate", but this time the Lite model looks like ending up the most accurate in both average seats and vote margin (and will probably end up forecasting the Senate best too), so I wonder how they will play it next time. The Deluxe model has only been running since 2018, and goes slightly against their philosophy of building a mathematical model, and then NOT putting a thumb on the scales to get an answer that seems to fit better.
The Republicans strongly outperformed Senate and House polling in 2020. Had Trump not thrown a strop, they'd have held the Senate. That made the De Luxe model look better.
This time, the polling was generally, very accurate.
Then add in candidate selection. Despite polarisation, there is plainly a chunk of the Republican electorate who will not vote for terrible candidates. The fact that the Republicans won everything statewide in Georgia, bar the Senate, points to this, as do the results in Pennsylvania, and Arizona. In Penn, the GOP candidate for Governor could hardly feed and dress himself, like their candidate for Senator in Arizona.
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Putin remains highly unlikely to use a nuke. Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
The two big threats from Russia right now are the expected imminent arrival of ballistic missiles from Iran, and the increasing success of the Lancet drones in hitting Ukrainian artillery and air defence equipment.
Oh, and a third being that they've cut a deal with the US for a ceasefire, which would prevent Ukraine liberating more occupied territory. On this point it will be illuminating to see how much artillery Russia throws across the river at Kherson City.
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
Funny, I was in Southampton General last weekend having a 'procedure' courtesy of the NHS, and the department seemed to be working away normally
R4 pushback on NEXT boss remarks yesterday “he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and needs to pay his workers more”. David Goodheart of Policy Exchange. Suggests expanding the scheme for 18-30 year olds to come & work for 2 years that we currently have bilaterally with Aus/Nz/Japan/S.Korea unilaterally with EU27.
Non-reciprocal freedom of movement for EU workers? I'll chalk that up as another benefit of Brexit.
Those deals are reciprocal.
The suggestion this morning was to make a non reciprocal offer to EU youngster just to overcome the issues and make goodwill gestures to the EU.
That's just stupid, especially when the EU doesn't control this kind of deal anyway. They are on a national basis and we'd have to sign 27 separate ones. We could legitimately pick and choose.
I'm just the messenger. Discussed on the Today programme this morning. It was the only thing the two sides, of whatever the argument was, agreed on.
In terms of votes the Republicans lead by 51.2 million to 46 million. That gap will narrow as California completes its counting, to something like 56 million to 54 million.
222/3 Republicans to 212/3 Democrats seems the likeliest outcome, now. And, Boebert will return to infest the House.
I am not particularly au fait with how party discipline works in the House, I feel much more clued up in terms of how the Senate works. I would have thought a House majority of 10 would be very unstable for actually passing much that the GOP leadership would want, but maybe the whipping operation is more effective there than here?
Certainly Pelosi seemed to manage OK with a small majority but then I think she has earned a reputation as a very strong congressional dealmaker.
A narrow win for the GOP is likely to lead to lots of problems as each wing of the party fights to exert their influence . You have the real nutjobs like the Freedom caucus and you’re also likely to have the new intake of GOP house members from deep blue states concerned about their re-election chances if they rubber stamp an extreme agenda .
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
Actual revolts in terms of members voting with the opposite party are rare (and actual defections to the other party are vanishingly rare). As in the UK, the majority party managers get a realistic view of the chances of each Bill, and don't press anything that won't get a majority (the US have the additional problem that legislation has to get through the equivalent of Select Committees, where revolts do happen). A Dem President, a virtually tied Senate and a tiny GOP House majority is a textbook example of likely gridlock. Only things with broad cross-party response will pass.
538 says In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
Manchin is essentially beyond any pressure from Democrats, as he has to plough his own furrow to have any chance of re-election. Sinema is up for re-election in 2024; if she doesn't toe the line rather more than she has recently - and she's done less than nothing to help her colleagues this last year - she risks being primaried.
If Manhin intends to run again in 2024, he will probably have to be a considerable thorn in the side of the Democrats. He is the only Democrat now who can win West Virginia.
Sinema would almost certainly be a Republican, if she was heterosexual.
Well above expectations. Market has it as -0.6% so expecting a real downturn, not just a minor one. We may now just see two quarters of minor recession with inflation falling by Q2 next year bringing relief for households and businesses. The Bank of England's doom forecast of a 2 year recession doesn't look realistic. They're suffering from Davos group think.
If it hadn't been for the Queen's death (to keep @TOPPING happy) we might well have not been in recession at all. Forecasts of a large increase in unemployment seem wide of the mark.
'preciated.
Meanwhile, extremely sensible doctor bloke on the radio saying how for starters the NHS needs to go to a 7-day week. Apparently last time this kite was flown (by the current CotE) there was a strike or threat of it.
Everyone knows that precisely nothing happens at the NHS from Friday pm to Monday mid-morning.
No wonder our health outcomes vs the rest are so useless.
It is eye opening having to go into a hospital on a weekend daytime just how totally deserted it and the car park etc is. On a weekday it can be a case of queueing just to wait for the barrier to lift for a space to be available in the car park, on a weekend its deserted.
A total waste of money. A factory with the level of investment hospitals have wouldn't shut down just because its a Sunday.
But the patient demand can't be turned on and off like a factory. So it's never going to be optimal staffing, whether it's 7/7 or whatever. [edit] That's the classic excuse of the privatisers - run the service down till it is well beyond the sane operational level to take care of small scale fluctuiations, and blame the NHS model itself. I strongly suspect we are seeing the traffic queuing fallacy being used as a shield to attack the public medicine model.
The patient demand is stalled by refusing to offer patients non emergency appointments at the weekend.
It's got nothing to do with public versus private. Public or private can be 24/7 or at the very least 8-12/7
Shift work nowadays is bog standard for much of the workforce. Why should it be any different for hospitals?
I'm sure many patients offered a choice of being seen this Saturday or 2 months time on a Wednesday would absolutely go for the weekend appointment.
Trump calls DeSantis a very 'average' governor and lacking in loyalty and class. Certainly suggests Trump ain't standing aside for Ron and will fight him all the way for the GOP nomination in 2024 and maybe beyond as an Independent if DeSantis wins that nomination
Whereas most Conservative media, from Fox News to the Murdoch press, has deciceively turned away from Trump and towards DeSantis in the past 48 hours. There’s little chance of coming back from there, politics is brutal sometimes.
Trump will still get a large number of Republicans to vote for him in 2024 even if DeSantis wins the nomination.
Trump will also threaten to run as an Independent if he does not win the nomination most likely, which would hand the election to the Democrats on a plate due to a split Conservative vote.
And lead to Trump being humiliated when he gets only 5% of the vote.
He's not someone who wants to be humiliated.
It would also destroy any hopes the Trump brats have of a political career.
I doubt it, Ross Perot got 19% in 1992 and handed the election to Bill Clinton on a plate. For despite the fact Clinton got only 43%, Bush 41 ended up with just 37% after leaking votes to Perot.
Trump is even more of a billionaire ego maniac than Perot with even bigger name recognition as an ex President, could self fund his campaign and easily get to 19%. He would do it to humiliate the GOP after what he would see as them humiliating him by not falling in line to support his nomination again.
In 1912 too former President Theodore Roosevelt ran against sitting GOP President Taft so Democrat Wilson was elected with just 41%
And Perot got 8% in 1996.
The law of diminishing returns applies to Trump as well.
A 78 year old having a tantrum does not attract support.
Probably Trump will try to do a deal where he promises not to run as independent, in return for republicans shielding him from his legal problems. But actually running would be desperate, and would just increase the chances of him ending up convicted of various crimes.
Could he fund an independent run though? He can only use it for blackmail if it's doable.
Probably, if this story is anything to go by:
"Former President Trump pulled in $255.4 million in political donations from his supporters in the eight weeks following the 2020 election, according to new federal filings, but much of this money—which was solicited to fund challenges to the outcome based on specious claims of voter fraud—will likely be put to other uses."
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Putin remains highly unlikely to use a nuke. Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
Perhaps; however:
A weapon that nobody can tell if it's been used or not doesn't sound THAT scary.
The FT (££) has a deliciously different take
“A tactical nuclear weapon used to create an explosion would most likely be ineffective against the mobile, dispersed combination of guerrilla and conventional warfare that Ukrainians are deploying to reclaim their territory.
“But the use of a nuclear weapon for electromagnetic warfare is a different matter. The signature of this type of attack would not be a fireball and mushroom cloud but a weird electric blue medusa orb pulsing directly overhead, followed by silence. At that altitude, the sound will not carry.”
Call me Sergeant Major Super-Observant, but I’d definitely notice a huge “weird electric blue Medusa orb pulsing directly over London” followed by total eerie silence and the failure of every electronic device in south east England
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Putin remains highly unlikely to use a nuke. Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
Perhaps; however:
That article is conflating two different things, though. One is a nuke; the other would be of pretty limited effect.
A nuke only generates major EMP by being detonated in the upper atmosphere. It also has be pretty large to generate the effect - a megaton or 2 fired several hundred miles up will be a bold statement.
See Starfish Prime
The conventional EMP weapons - explosively collapsing a coil etc - have the problem that they aren't nukes. So orders of magnitude less energy. There is even debate about if you could make a portable one that would have any kind of range at all.
Lastly, the myth that "The Russians use/used valves in everything to protect against EMP" is, indeed, a myth. Valves don't make you EMP proof. And the Russian military, these days uses lots and lots of commercial chips with no EMP protection. Unlike the Western weapons that Ukraine is being supplied with - many of which were designed and built to resist EMP.
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Putin remains highly unlikely to use a nuke. Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
Perhaps; however:
A weapon that nobody can tell if it's been used or not doesn't sound THAT scary.
The FT (££) has a deliciously different take
“A tactical nuclear weapon used to create an explosion would most likely be ineffective against the mobile, dispersed combination of guerrilla and conventional warfare that Ukrainians are deploying to reclaim their territory.
“But the use of a nuclear weapon for electromagnetic warfare is a different matter. The signature of this type of attack would not be a fireball and mushroom cloud but a weird electric blue medusa orb pulsing directly overhead, followed by silence. At that altitude, the sound will not carry.”
Call me Sergeant Major Super-Observant, but I’d definitely notice a huge “weird electric blue Medusa orb pulsing directly over London” followed by total eerie silence and the failure of every electronic device in south east England
"every electronic device in south east England "
Hmmm. I think you overestimate the power of such a (non-nuclear) device.
Also, the ruskies would have to be very, very careful that such an event does not trigger the west's nuclear warning satellites.
Another slightly strange article suggesting Russia is preparing an “electro magnetic pulse explosion” (probably nuclear but not necessarily) to paralyse Ukrainian advances. There was a similar article in the FT earlier this week
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Putin remains highly unlikely to use a nuke. Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
Perhaps; however:
A weapon that nobody can tell if it's been used or not doesn't sound THAT scary.
The FT (££) has a deliciously different take
“A tactical nuclear weapon used to create an explosion would most likely be ineffective against the mobile, dispersed combination of guerrilla and conventional warfare that Ukrainians are deploying to reclaim their territory.
“But the use of a nuclear weapon for electromagnetic warfare is a different matter. The signature of this type of attack would not be a fireball and mushroom cloud but a weird electric blue medusa orb pulsing directly overhead, followed by silence. At that altitude, the sound will not carry.”
Call me Sergeant Major Super-Observant, but I’d definitely notice a huge “weird electric blue Medusa orb pulsing directly over London” followed by total eerie silence and the failure of every electronic device in south east England
They're talking about the nuke for EMP, which would have a hugely detrimental effect but it's still a nuke which we now know Putin isn't going to go for or is unable to convince the military chain of command to use (see the Kherson retreat with no nuclear retaliation). You have posted about a non-nuke EMP which can cover a tiny area of ground and would be useless on the battlefield.
Comments
For a Representative to break ranks on an issue the base cares about will terminate their career, as Liz Cheney and her colleagues demonstrate.
The Republicans will have little chance to pass anything, given that the Senate is outside their control, but they can use their majority to refuse to pass a budget.
"The hugest number of votes ever for a candidate without a party. I won this election when you think about it. Won big."
My sense is he craves attention more than anything. Loves the rallies, being all over the tv, the whole caboodle. So he might well do it. And he'll definitely threaten it for leverage.
The Dems should go for the controversial option in the lame duck session and raise the debt ceiling right upto the next Presidential election otherwise the GOP are likely to force a confrontation on that . They’re going to want to cut social security and Medicare which the Dems won’t be able to stomach .
https://twitter.com/glosmeusec/status/1590997761318653954
They won't be getting a lot of heavy equipment over that way.
I'm not too bothered about the organisation, although experiences with the internal market in the NHS suggest that marketisation* is no silver bullet, but the simple fact is that better service costs more. I've seen a study showing that privately run clinics introduced into the NHS under Labour had better performance that NHS-run clinics; they also cost more per patient treated.
* to take one small example, Trusts now employ coders (not in the computer science sense) to apply the diagnostic, treatment codes to finished episodes of care that result in the highest payment - not lying by any means, but making sure to record every last thing that might enhance payment (and also improve standardised hospital mortality figures for that Trust, as recording patients as more complex will improve that measure for the same level of mortality - there are also expensive consultancy services for that). All bureaucratic jobs introduced by the marketisation.
Trump is even more of a billionaire ego maniac than Perot with even bigger name recognition as an ex
President, could self fund his campaign and easily get to 19%. He would do it to humiliate the GOP after what he would see as them humiliating him by not falling in line to support his nomination again.
In 1912 too former President Theodore Roosevelt ran against sitting GOP President Taft so Democrat Wilson was elected with just 41%
I thought it was the Conservatives who liked to pickle things in aspic.
The smaller their majority in the House, the better.
But, I realise I’m a hostage to fortune with that prediction (and have no money backing it up).
Whether that logic would weigh heavily on Trump's decision I don't know, but I still expect him to win the primary, so I don't expect him to face that decision.
Simply that the barriers to going to 7 day working are considerable, and it would require the expenditure of a lot of political capital, and a lot of money.
Labour under Blair/Brown had plenty of both to do it, and wasted the opportunity; it's been become increasingly difficult since then.
Their Lite (polls only) model predicted an average of 229 Republican seats, popular vote lead of R+2.4%, and 75% chance of Republican majority.
Classic (polls, fundraising, past voting patterns and more) had average 232 Republican seats, vote margin R+3.8, and 82% chance of R majority.
Deluxe (Classic + experts' ratings) average 230 R seats, popular vote R +4.0, 84% chance R majority.
Their default model is the Deluxe, which they described before the election as "the best and most accurate", but this time the Lite model looks like ending up the most accurate in both average seats and vote margin (and will probably end up forecasting the Senate best too), so I wonder how they will play it next time. The Deluxe model has only been running since 2018, and goes slightly against their philosophy of building a mathematical model, and then NOT putting a thumb on the scales to get an answer that seems to fit better.
The law of diminishing returns applies to Trump as well.
A 78 year old having a tantrum does not attract support.
DEM 20.5K
GOP 13.5K
Clark counted 11.7k
Dem 7.5k
GOP 4.2k
I stick with my view Dems win by at least 15k
1.06 is not attractive mind as could go on for a week and then legal challenges??
It's just they are death, horror, destruction.
And as another man said, only the dead have seen the end of war.
There is a reason that, to the shock of some, military security is the highest priority.
We, in the UK, can only luxuriate in the NHS, DVLA, DfE etc because there is approximately zero chance of Russians/Vikings/Normans wandering down the road chopping us into little bits.
To put it another way - For the next century or 2, defence spending in Ukraine is going to be massively higher than their spending on health care.
Ron DeSantis tries to put on a more respectable front but he’s an extremist and just covers it up better . Given his huge win in Florida and likely more broader appeal he would be a big problem for the Dems .
As a result the applications to study pharmacy plummeted, and pressure on schools to keep recruiting has been huge. My own department has been within a whisker of closure, depsite being older than the University (by 60 years) and despite producing some of the best graduates in the country (as determined by the professional exam all pharmacists must take - the Pre-Reg).
So there is a vested interest for doctors NOT to train hordes of doctors. And don't forget, most doctors are trained by doctors, and they play a part in decisions such as 'shall we expand our places?'.
Course there was.
Quoting those figures gross and without context is precisely like a farmer saying: for 10 years I had a flock of 100 texels. Last year I added two suffolks. Bugger me, after running the numbers I am going straight over to suffolks because over time they have only eaten ONE FIVE HUNDREDTH AS MUCH as the texels. It really is that mouth-breathingly stupid.
China is making extraordinary strides with decarbonising itself (never mind making decarbonising kit, and everything else, for RoW)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-24/china-s-clean-energy-growth-outlook-for-2022-keeps-getting-bigger
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/092322-china-could-exceed-renewables-generation-target-of-33-by-2025
both based on China figures, but Bloomberg and S&P do due diligence on what they report.
Trying to lift a nation of 1.4bn out of poverty also needs coal and steel. Wow.
The Chinese would also have to be pretty stupid not to be combating GW out of pure self-interest, given the vulnerability of a country as large and populous as that.
And even if they are having a laugh at our expense, so what? Saying we won't bother because they don't, is like saying: yes, I shoplift the odd lump of butter from Tescos. Everybody is at it, I see people smuggling whole chickens and bottles of sherry out under their coats, and it's not like the profit on a pat of butter is going to hurt Tesco's bottom line. Curious how pride-in-empire little Englanders are happy with a complete lack of national honesty, self respect and leadership if they think it pays. So I am actually quite happy to triangulate back from this line of argument to their probable personal standards.
And when they discuss China there's an early Coldplay earworm that I can't get out of my head.
Not on the NHS Contract hence them going for Locum shifts on double to triple
At the moment the later vote by mail is quite different from 2020 . There because of covid many more Democrats voted earlier but the returns so far have broken around 54/45 in the Dems favour .
The real test will be the ballot drop box returns close to Election Day . There’s also around 17,000 on the day votes still left to count and these should break strongly for the Reps .
Hobbs needs to keep running up the totals from Pima and hope those ballot drop boxes aren’t too good for the Reps.
Whilst that pushes the question to somewhere more fruitful than "I want doctors to do more without being paid more", the question then becomes how many trainee doctors do we want and how is the country going to pay for their (expensive) training.
And a lot of the people in the NHS aren't doctors...
In Arizona, Kelly leads Masters 51 percent to 46 percent — a margin of 98,141 votes. There are over 600,000 ballots left to count statewide, but it will be difficult for Masters to overcome that deficit.
In Nevada, Laxalt leads Cortez Masto 49 percent to 48 percent — a margin of 15,867 votes. However, there are roughly 100,000 ballots left to count, and they’re mostly mail-in ballots, which favor Democrats. So we think Cortez Masto will probably take the lead once they’re counted.
We know that the Georgia has Warnock ahead or Walker so a Dem hold there is quite possible in the runoff.
IF the Dems win all 3 they will have gained one overall and they could pay a tiny bit less attention to Manchin and Sinema. The House will be against them but not by much. It could be business as usual for Biden.
In the UK, the NHS knows, to some accuracy, how many doctors and nurses it will require in the next decade. Training is deliberately below this and has been for many years.
In some medical university courses, we increased the number of undergrads by 25% due to the A level screw up.
Either they are useless and shouldn't be doctors, or we have been failing a large segment of those going into education. Note that there is a considerable hunger for places in medical training - all courses have more than enough applicants per place.
It's is also worth considering that a medical undergraduate degree is also useful for other things. I've worked with a couple of people who did medical training then decided to do other things - they had good scientific training, learning skills etc.
There would be many worse things for the country to have, than a surplus of trained medical people.
As for the NV gubernatorial race: who knows?
Though yes DeSantis alone with Trump endorsing him and not running as an Independent is more of a threat to the Democrats.
However the evidence suggests Trump will put his ego before what is best for the GOP
Would Desantis beat Trump for the nomination?
If he did would Trump run anyway as an Independent?
If he did and Trump didn't run would Trump's base turn out and vote for DeSantis
Spain will ask permission from the EU to enable this change to take effect.
Cyprus needs to do the same !!!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/spain-wants-to-scrap-90-day-rule-for-british-tourists-allowing-them-to-stay-indefinitely/ar-AA13Yfot?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=124fdff2694c40818866d5bf9404c359
Same with the Tories here who cannot win without most of the redwall as well as the bluewall now
The first returns of those when we get them will be decisive because whatever the margin there is unlikely to change much.
And Growatt is perhaps deliberately appealing to the cannabis producer market.
See Yglesias on Secret Congress:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-rise-and-importance-of-secret
“How Russia could use electromagnetic pulse weapon to cripple Ukraine”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/846f4044-610f-11ed-80da-2c56e60527b0?shareToken=dbfd394d96c9ed68fa8287c15b137fbd
Scare mongering nonsense? Genuine fear?
It certainly looks like Russia is surrendering Kherson, which is a huge defeat. If Putin accepts this without any attempt at revenge - or is simply unable to respond - his regime must be in danger
Sorry, "Sunshyft"
Sinema is up for re-election in 2024; if she doesn't toe the line rather more than she has recently - and she's done less than nothing to help her colleagues this last year - she risks being primaried.
Train them for 4 years instead of 7 and accept that they have to be far more specialised and need to retrain if they wan to move to a different area.
Also paying for training for doctors now, decreases the cost per doctor in future years, and will lead to better retention of skilled and experienced doctors in their fifties and sixties who will be able to maintain some life balance in work rather than decide to retire early.
Our public services require investment to make them cheaper in future. Cutting funding now increases costs in the future. This is the fundamental misunderstanding of those who rightly want to balance the books. We are well past the point of finding short term cost savings, but long term ones are perfectly possible, with targeted investment.
Calling it an EMP weapon doesn't change that.
But how is it even 70s?
They would need 53 seats to have 51 ex. the two "independents".
That would mean overturning two seats already called in favour of the GOP as well as sweeping up all three uncalled seats?
What am I missing?
Pull back to the borders and try to hold Crimea? So go back to Feb 2022 position?
would that be it, would that be enough for Russia to go for peace?
https://twitter.com/peoplepolling/status/1591007964605083648?s=46&t=N2dtngPWfedzQ4eluPGaUg
Shifts in the anti-Tory vote based on 2 different issues I would speculate:
- Asylum and small boats: a portion of those on the right of the culture wars but economic left showing their unhappiness with the government via Refuk vote rather than Labour: I reckon there is a Lab-Ref swing here, possibly red wall based
- Just stop oil protests: some on the left/eco flank of Labour angered by Starmer’s tough talk on the protesters so lodging their protest in responding Green
When Brexit problems hit the headlines we often see the LD vote go up a bit, similar effect.
I think a headlines-adjusted (but not tactical voting adjusted) underlying numbers would be more like:
Lab: 46%
Con: 23%
LDM: 9%
GRN: 7%
Ref: 4%
SNP: 5%
First the problem: Twitter needs income - perhaps an extra $1 billion per year just for loan repayments. The $8 Twitter Blue nonsense will only make a feeble amount, and removes the entire verification nonsense.
It's clear that some people can afford more than $8, whilst other accounts are worth much less.
A simple change fixes everything. Hold a monthly auction for each twitter handle. The winner of the auction gets the handle and all of its followers. So if you pay enough, you can be the realDonaldTrump, or JoeBiden, or LizTruss (*), or ElonMusk.
It's fair and it's capitalist.
I fact, it's genius.
Musk will win bigly.
(*) I bet her account would be worth about five pennies.
Otherwise the Democrats win with the left and dividing the centre with the GOP if much of the right goes to an Independent
Trump.
Same with the Tories given Labour is now more centrist than under Corbyn, they cannot afford to leak too much to RefUK (unless Starmer also leaks a lot to the Greens of course)
One is a nuke; the other would be of pretty limited effect.
This time, the polling was generally, very accurate.
Then add in candidate selection. Despite polarisation, there is plainly a chunk of the Republican electorate who will not vote for terrible candidates. The fact that the Republicans won everything statewide in Georgia, bar the Senate, points to this, as do the results in Pennsylvania, and Arizona. In Penn, the GOP candidate for Governor could hardly feed and dress himself, like their candidate for Senator in Arizona.
Oh, and a third being that they've cut a deal with the US for a ceasefire, which would prevent Ukraine liberating more occupied territory. On this point it will be illuminating to see how much artillery Russia throws across the river at Kherson City.
Sinema would almost certainly be a Republican, if she was heterosexual.
It's got nothing to do with public versus private. Public or private can be 24/7 or at the very least 8-12/7
Shift work nowadays is bog standard for much of the workforce. Why should it be any different for hospitals?
I'm sure many patients offered a choice of being seen this Saturday or 2 months time on a Wednesday would absolutely go for the weekend appointment.
"Former President Trump pulled in $255.4 million in political donations from his supporters in the eight weeks following the 2020 election, according to new federal filings, but much of this money—which was solicited to fund challenges to the outcome based on specious claims of voter fraud—will likely be put to other uses."
“A tactical nuclear weapon used to create an explosion would most likely be ineffective against the mobile, dispersed combination of guerrilla and conventional warfare that Ukrainians are deploying to reclaim their territory.
“But the use of a nuclear weapon for electromagnetic warfare is a different matter. The signature of this type of attack would not be a fireball and mushroom cloud but a weird electric blue medusa orb pulsing directly overhead, followed by silence. At that altitude, the sound will not carry.”
Call me Sergeant Major Super-Observant, but I’d definitely notice a huge “weird electric blue Medusa orb pulsing directly over London” followed by total eerie silence and the failure of every electronic device in south east England
See Starfish Prime
The conventional EMP weapons - explosively collapsing a coil etc - have the problem that they aren't nukes. So orders of magnitude less energy. There is even debate about if you could make a portable one that would have any kind of range at all.
Lastly, the myth that "The Russians use/used valves in everything to protect against EMP" is, indeed, a myth. Valves don't make you EMP proof. And the Russian military, these days uses lots and lots of commercial chips with no EMP protection. Unlike the Western weapons that Ukraine is being supplied with - many of which were designed and built to resist EMP.
Hmmm. I think you overestimate the power of such a (non-nuclear) device.
Also, the ruskies would have to be very, very careful that such an event does not trigger the west's nuclear warning satellites.
I cashed out some, but £40 is still better than nothing, if the Dems do win it.