I'd say the value in this market is laying DeSantis.
I think that Trump is still value, should probably be odds-on for the GOP nomination, but if he is knocked out of the race over the next year then there's going to be a very wide field and DeSantis wouldn't be a strong frontrunner in that field.
Agreed, I’m pretty convinced that DeSantis is going to be a non-runner, especially if DJT builds momentum in the coming months. The younger man would be much better off keeping his nose dry for 2028 or 2032, and being one of the kingmakers in the nomination process.
That is my view. Far better for RDS to do a deal with Trump and be his VP pick for 2024.
Though if Trump loses that ends his chances too.
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
Nixon?
Edit - also Mondale.
Nixon was IKE's VP and IKE won in 1952 and 1956.
Nixon lost as the presidential candidate in 1960, he never lost as the VP GOP nominee.
Mondale was elected VP in 1976 when Carter won, so that would be a different scenario as Trump would still have to win in 2024 with DeSantis on the ticket for equivalence
He also lost in 1980.
Nixon was of course the last previously defeated presidential candidate to date - as opposed to primary nominee - to be elected President.
Yes but we were talking VP candidates
And Mondale was a defeated VP candidate.
Mondale was the elected Vice President in 1980 when he lost with Carter. He won as VP candidate in 1976.
So that is not the same situation at all as Trump picking DeSantis in 2024 as his VP and the ticket losing, Trump-DeSantis would have to win in 2024 to be the equivalent of Carter-Mondale (even if DeSantis went on to lose in 2028 when he was incumbent VP)
Why do I bother? Triumph of hope over experience, I suppose.
I'd say the value in this market is laying DeSantis.
I think that Trump is still value, should probably be odds-on for the GOP nomination, but if he is knocked out of the race over the next year then there's going to be a very wide field and DeSantis wouldn't be a strong frontrunner in that field.
Agreed, I’m pretty convinced that DeSantis is going to be a non-runner, especially if DJT builds momentum in the coming months. The younger man would be much better off keeping his nose dry for 2028 or 2032, and being one of the kingmakers in the nomination process.
That is my view. Far better for RDS to do a deal with Trump and be his VP pick for 2024.
Though if Trump loses that ends his chances too.
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
Nixon?
Edit - also Mondale.
Nixon was IKE's VP and IKE won in 1952 and 1956.
Nixon lost as the presidential candidate in 1960, he never lost as the VP GOP nominee.
Mondale was elected VP in 1976 when Carter won, so that would be a different scenario as Trump would still have to win in 2024 with DeSantis on the ticket for equivalence
He also lost in 1980.
Nixon was of course the last previously defeated presidential candidate to date - as opposed to primary nominee - to be elected President.
Yes but we were talking VP candidates
And Mondale was a defeated VP candidate.
Mondale was the elected Vice President in 1980 when he lost with Carter. He won as VP candidate in 1976.
So that is not the same situation at all as Trump picking DeSantis in 2024 as his VP and the ticket losing, Trump-DeSantis would have to win in 2024 to be the equivalent of Carter-Mondale (even if DeSantis went on to lose in 2028 when he was incumbent VP)
Why do I bother? Triumph of hope over experience, I suppose.
The point was not directly relevant. As I said originally 'if Trump loses that likely ends his chances too'. So Trump winning with DeSantis in 2024 as Carter and Mondale won in 1976 is not Trump losing is it!
Only losing VP nominees who never were elected VP would be relevant and you have to go back to FDR to find one of those who got elected President later. FDR having been Cox's losing running mate in 1920 but getting elected President in 1932
Also I've forgotten a second one - Bob Dole. Defeated on Ford's ticket in 1976, nominee for the Republicans in 1996 in default of anyone more memorable.
I'd say the value in this market is laying DeSantis.
I think that Trump is still value, should probably be odds-on for the GOP nomination, but if he is knocked out of the race over the next year then there's going to be a very wide field and DeSantis wouldn't be a strong frontrunner in that field.
Agreed, I’m pretty convinced that DeSantis is going to be a non-runner, especially if DJT builds momentum in the coming months. The younger man would be much better off keeping his nose dry for 2028 or 2032, and being one of the kingmakers in the nomination process.
That is my view. Far better for RDS to do a deal with Trump and be his VP pick for 2024.
Though if Trump loses that ends his chances too.
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
Nixon?
Edit - also Mondale.
Nixon was IKE's VP and IKE won in 1952 and 1956.
Nixon lost as the presidential candidate in 1960, he never lost as the VP GOP nominee.
Mondale was elected VP in 1976 when Carter won, so that would be a different scenario as Trump would still have to win in 2024 with DeSantis on the ticket for equivalence
He also lost in 1980.
Nixon was of course the last previously defeated presidential candidate to date - as opposed to primary nominee - to be elected President.
Yes but we were talking VP candidates
And Mondale was a defeated VP candidate.
Mondale was the elected Vice President in 1980 when he lost with Carter. He won as VP candidate in 1976.
So that is not the same situation at all as Trump picking DeSantis in 2024 as his VP and the ticket losing, Trump-DeSantis would have to win in 2024 to be the equivalent of Carter-Mondale (even if DeSantis went on to lose in 2028 when he was incumbent VP)
Why do I bother? Triumph of hope over experience, I suppose.
I'd say the value in this market is laying DeSantis.
I think that Trump is still value, should probably be odds-on for the GOP nomination, but if he is knocked out of the race over the next year then there's going to be a very wide field and DeSantis wouldn't be a strong frontrunner in that field.
Agreed, I’m pretty convinced that DeSantis is going to be a non-runner, especially if DJT builds momentum in the coming months. The younger man would be much better off keeping his nose dry for 2028 or 2032, and being one of the kingmakers in the nomination process.
That is my view. Far better for RDS to do a deal with Trump and be his VP pick for 2024.
Though if Trump loses that ends his chances too.
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
Nixon?
Edit - also Mondale.
Nixon was IKE's VP and IKE won in 1952 and 1956.
Nixon lost as the presidential candidate in 1960, he never lost as the VP GOP nominee.
Mondale was elected VP in 1976 when Carter won, so that would be a different scenario as Trump would still have to win in 2024 with DeSantis on the ticket for equivalence
He also lost in 1980.
Nixon was of course the last previously defeated presidential candidate to date - as opposed to primary nominee - to be elected President.
Yes but we were talking VP candidates
And Mondale was a defeated VP candidate.
Mondale was the elected Vice President in 1980 when he lost with Carter. He won as VP candidate in 1976.
So that is not the same situation at all as Trump picking DeSantis in 2024 as his VP and the ticket losing, Trump-DeSantis would have to win in 2024 to be the equivalent of Carter-Mondale (even if DeSantis went on to lose in 2028 when he was incumbent VP)
Why do I bother? Triumph of hope over experience, I suppose.
The point was not directly relevant. As I said originally 'if Trump loses that likely ends his chances too'. So Trump winning with DeSantis in 2024 as Carter and Mondale won in 1976 is not Trump losing is it!
Only losing VP nominees who never were elected VP would be relevant and you have to go back to FDR to find one of those who got elected President later. FDR having been Cox's losing running mate in 1920 but getting elected President in 1932
You said party nomination. Mondale as a losing VP did get the nomination though his youth and inexperience cost him.
Also I've forgotten a second one - Bob Dole. Defeated on Ford's ticket in 1976, nominee for the Republicans in 1996 in default of anyone more memorable.
OK but he was not elected President in 1996 even if he did get the nomination (he lost the nomination when he tried first before in 1988 though to Bush Snr)
Also I've forgotten a second one - Bob Dole. Defeated on Ford's ticket in 1976, nominee for the Republicans in 1996 in default of anyone more memorable.
OK but he was never elected President in 1996 even if he did get the nomination
So will you modify this:
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
I'd say the value in this market is laying DeSantis.
I think that Trump is still value, should probably be odds-on for the GOP nomination, but if he is knocked out of the race over the next year then there's going to be a very wide field and DeSantis wouldn't be a strong frontrunner in that field.
Agreed, I’m pretty convinced that DeSantis is going to be a non-runner, especially if DJT builds momentum in the coming months. The younger man would be much better off keeping his nose dry for 2028 or 2032, and being one of the kingmakers in the nomination process.
That is my view. Far better for RDS to do a deal with Trump and be his VP pick for 2024.
Though if Trump loses that ends his chances too.
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
Nixon?
Edit - also Mondale.
Nixon was IKE's VP and IKE won in 1952 and 1956.
Nixon lost as the presidential candidate in 1960, he never lost as the VP GOP nominee.
Mondale was elected VP in 1976 when Carter won, so that would be a different scenario as Trump would still have to win in 2024 with DeSantis on the ticket for equivalence
He also lost in 1980.
Nixon was of course the last previously defeated presidential candidate to date - as opposed to primary nominee - to be elected President.
Yes but we were talking VP candidates
And Mondale was a defeated VP candidate.
Mondale was the elected Vice President in 1980 when he lost with Carter. He won as VP candidate in 1976.
So that is not the same situation at all as Trump picking DeSantis in 2024 as his VP and the ticket losing, Trump-DeSantis would have to win in 2024 to be the equivalent of Carter-Mondale (even if DeSantis went on to lose in 2028 when he was incumbent VP)
Why do I bother? Triumph of hope over experience, I suppose.
The point was not directly relevant. As I said originally 'if Trump loses that likely ends his chances too'. So Trump winning with DeSantis in 2024 as Carter and Mondale won in 1976 is not Trump losing is it!
Only losing VP nominees who never were elected VP would be relevant and you have to go back to FDR to find one of those who got elected President later. FDR having been Cox's losing running mate in 1920 but getting elected President in 1932
You said party nomination. Mondale as a losing VP did get the nomination though his youth and inexperience cost him.
Also I've forgotten a second one - Bob Dole. Defeated on Ford's ticket in 1976, nominee for the Republicans in 1996 in default of anyone more memorable.
OK but he was never elected President in 1996 even if he did get the nomination
So will you modify this:
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
I won't alter the first part no, I will amend the second part only to say 'or even got their party's nomination when they first tried' given Dole lost the GOP nomination in 1988 when he first tried after losing as VP nominee in 1976
Keir is now playing out time to the next GE. That should be enough for LAB unless there is a remarkable economic turn round for CON by then.
Labour doesn’t need to do anything beyond not being this Government and looking none scary.
That none scary bit is why the Labour Party doesn’t want to talk policies to ensure the papers have nothing but the latest Tory party scandal.
While this is true to an extent, it is not true that Labour are home and dry for four good reasons:
Events.
The monsters under Labour's bed.
The dangers of running for election from opposition when the government is terrible in every way BUT there are no rational policies addressing the real issues that are any short term use to short term electors - which is the real reason why you don't have any policies.
Brexit remains the political equivalent of trying to play cricket and rugby on the same pitch at the same time. No-one knows when the ball will come out of the scrum and get you lbw.
I am absolutely certain neither Starmer nor anyone else in the Labour Party will be taking a single vote for granted nor will they regard polls as some form of truth cast in stone.
"Events, Dear Boy, Events" - yes, we all know. Sunak will be hoping, pace Micawber, the economy turns decisively and gives him chance to bribe people with their own money in the form of spring 2024 tax cuts.
Blair was also worried about some on the Left would say and do but the prospect of victory in my experience does wonders for internal party discipline. Winning unites parties, losing divides them.
In terms of policy, nothing too radical is often a winning move - Thatcher's 1979 Manifesto was less radical than Heath's 1970 (though he won as well). There's time to be radical in the second term but in the first the key is to put right (or ascribe blame to) the failings of the previous administration.
I'd say the value in this market is laying DeSantis.
I think that Trump is still value, should probably be odds-on for the GOP nomination, but if he is knocked out of the race over the next year then there's going to be a very wide field and DeSantis wouldn't be a strong frontrunner in that field.
Agreed, I’m pretty convinced that DeSantis is going to be a non-runner, especially if DJT builds momentum in the coming months. The younger man would be much better off keeping his nose dry for 2028 or 2032, and being one of the kingmakers in the nomination process.
That is my view. Far better for RDS to do a deal with Trump and be his VP pick for 2024.
Though if Trump loses that ends his chances too.
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
Nixon?
Edit - also Mondale.
Nixon was IKE's VP and IKE won in 1952 and 1956.
Nixon lost as the presidential candidate in 1960, he never lost as the VP GOP nominee.
Mondale was elected VP in 1976 when Carter won, so that would be a different scenario as Trump would still have to win in 2024 with DeSantis on the ticket for equivalence
He also lost in 1980.
Nixon was of course the last previously defeated presidential candidate to date - as opposed to primary nominee - to be elected President.
Yes but we were talking VP candidates
And Mondale was a defeated VP candidate.
Mondale was the elected Vice President in 1980 when he lost with Carter. He won as VP candidate in 1976.
So that is not the same situation at all as Trump picking DeSantis in 2024 as his VP and the ticket losing, Trump-DeSantis would have to win in 2024 to be the equivalent of Carter-Mondale (even if DeSantis went on to lose in 2028 when he was incumbent VP)
Why do I bother? Triumph of hope over experience, I suppose.
The point was not directly relevant. As I said originally 'if Trump loses that likely ends his chances too'. So Trump winning with DeSantis in 2024 as Carter and Mondale won in 1976 is not Trump losing is it!
Only losing VP nominees who never were elected VP would be relevant and you have to go back to FDR to find one of those who got elected President later. FDR having been Cox's losing running mate in 1920 but getting elected President in 1932
You said party nomination. Mondale as a losing VP did get the nomination though his youth and inexperience cost him.
Mondale was already elected VP in 1976
Most VPs have been elected on a ticket. You wouldn't have many people left if you excluded them!
Also I've forgotten a second one - Bob Dole. Defeated on Ford's ticket in 1976, nominee for the Republicans in 1996 in default of anyone more memorable.
OK but he was never elected President in 1996 even if he did get the nomination
So will you modify this:
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
I won't alter the first part no, I will amend the second part only to say 'or even got their party's nomination when they first tried' given Dole lost the GOP nomination in 1988 when he first tried after losing as VP nominee in 1976
Then I will amend the second part of my comment above only to say:
Why do I bother? Triumph of hope over experience, plus occasionally he shows a glimmer of realism, I suppose.
A bit of trivia from the 1960 presidential election: It is unclear who won the popular vote nationally, because of the strange situation in Alabama: "The 1960 United States presidential election in Alabama was held on November 8, 1960 as part of that year's national presidential election. Eleven Democratic electors were elected, of whom six voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and five for Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. . . . Varying methods have been used to break down the vote into Kennedy and unpledged votes. One method is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the 324,050 votes as unpledged votes, giving a total much higher than the actual votes cast.[5] Another is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the remainder (5,747 votes) as unpledged votes.[6] A third is to split the 324,050 in the proportion of 5⁄11 to 6⁄11, following the proportion of electors, giving 147,295 votes for Kennedy and 176,755 for unpledged electors.[7] In all cases, Republican candidate Richard Nixon of California, then Vice President of the United States, has 237,981 votes. If the last method is used, it means that Nixon won the popular vote in Alabama; it also means that he won the popular vote nationally.[3][7] Congressional Quarterly calculated the popular vote in this manner at the time of the 1960 election." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama
My own opinion? A split decision: Democrats won the popular vote, nationally; Nixon beat Kennedy in the popular vote nationally. But I will admit that I have been unable to find a satisfactory way for allocating the votes.
(As I recall, since World War II, there have been two times when the winner of the popular vote for the House of Commons lost the election.)
Also I've forgotten a second one - Bob Dole. Defeated on Ford's ticket in 1976, nominee for the Republicans in 1996 in default of anyone more memorable.
OK but he was never elected President in 1996 even if he did get the nomination
So will you modify this:
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
I won't alter the first part no, I will amend the second part only to say 'or even got their party's nomination when they first tried' given Dole lost the GOP nomination in 1988 when he first tried after losing as VP nominee in 1976
Then I will amend the second part of my comment above only to say:
Why do I bother? Triumph of hope over experience, plus occasionally he shows a glimmer of realism, I suppose.
Your point was still not relevant to Trump and DeSantis losing in 2024 as Carter and Mondale won in 1976
I'd say the value in this market is laying DeSantis.
I think that Trump is still value, should probably be odds-on for the GOP nomination, but if he is knocked out of the race over the next year then there's going to be a very wide field and DeSantis wouldn't be a strong frontrunner in that field.
Agreed, I’m pretty convinced that DeSantis is going to be a non-runner, especially if DJT builds momentum in the coming months. The younger man would be much better off keeping his nose dry for 2028 or 2032, and being one of the kingmakers in the nomination process.
That is my view. Far better for RDS to do a deal with Trump and be his VP pick for 2024.
Though if Trump loses that ends his chances too.
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
Nixon?
Edit - also Mondale.
Nixon was IKE's VP and IKE won in 1952 and 1956.
Nixon lost as the presidential candidate in 1960, he never lost as the VP GOP nominee.
Mondale was elected VP in 1976 when Carter won, so that would be a different scenario as Trump would still have to win in 2024 with DeSantis on the ticket for equivalence
He also lost in 1980.
Nixon was of course the last previously defeated presidential candidate to date - as opposed to primary nominee - to be elected President.
Yes but we were talking VP candidates
And Mondale was a defeated VP candidate.
Mondale was the elected Vice President in 1980 when he lost with Carter. He won as VP candidate in 1976.
So that is not the same situation at all as Trump picking DeSantis in 2024 as his VP and the ticket losing, Trump-DeSantis would have to win in 2024 to be the equivalent of Carter-Mondale (even if DeSantis went on to lose in 2028 when he was incumbent VP)
Why do I bother? Triumph of hope over experience, I suppose.
The point was not directly relevant. As I said originally 'if Trump loses that likely ends his chances too'. So Trump winning with DeSantis in 2024 as Carter and Mondale won in 1976 is not Trump losing is it!
Only losing VP nominees who never were elected VP would be relevant and you have to go back to FDR to find one of those who got elected President later. FDR having been Cox's losing running mate in 1920 but getting elected President in 1932
You said party nomination. Mondale as a losing VP did get the nomination though his youth and inexperience cost him.
Mondale was already elected VP in 1976
Most VPs have been elected on a ticket. You wouldn't have many people left if you excluded them!
Yes but it was losing VP nominees only in question, VP nominees who were elected VP don't count
A bit of trivia from the 1960 presidential election: It is unclear who won the popular vote nationally, because of the strange situation in Alabama: "The 1960 United States presidential election in Alabama was held on November 8, 1960 as part of that year's national presidential election. Eleven Democratic electors were elected, of whom six voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and five for Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. . . . Varying methods have been used to break down the vote into Kennedy and unpledged votes. One method is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the 324,050 votes as unpledged votes, giving a total much higher than the actual votes cast.[5] Another is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the remainder (5,747 votes) as unpledged votes.[6] A third is to split the 324,050 in the proportion of 5⁄11 to 6⁄11, following the proportion of electors, giving 147,295 votes for Kennedy and 176,755 for unpledged electors.[7] In all cases, Republican candidate Richard Nixon of California, then Vice President of the United States, has 237,981 votes. If the last method is used, it means that Nixon won the popular vote in Alabama; it also means that he won the popular vote nationally.[3][7] Congressional Quarterly calculated the popular vote in this manner at the time of the 1960 election." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama
My own opinion? A split decision: Democrats won the popular vote, nationally; Nixon beat Kennedy in the popular vote nationally. But I will admit that I have been unable to find a satisfactory way for allocating the votes.
(As I recall, since World War II, there have been two times when the winner of the popular vote for the House of Commons lost the election.)
1951, and (for a given value of 'lost') February 1974.
Also I've forgotten a second one - Bob Dole. Defeated on Ford's ticket in 1976, nominee for the Republicans in 1996 in default of anyone more memorable.
OK but he was never elected President in 1996 even if he did get the nomination
So will you modify this:
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
I won't alter the first part no, I will amend the second part only to say 'or even got their party's nomination when they first tried' given Dole lost the GOP nomination in 1988 when he first tried after losing as VP nominee in 1976
Then I will amend the second part of my comment above only to say:
Why do I bother? Triumph of hope over experience, plus occasionally he shows a glimmer of realism, I suppose.
Your point was still not relevant to Trump and DeSantis losing in 2024 as Carter and Mondale won in 1976
A bit of trivia from the 1960 presidential election: It is unclear who won the popular vote nationally, because of the strange situation in Alabama: "The 1960 United States presidential election in Alabama was held on November 8, 1960 as part of that year's national presidential election. Eleven Democratic electors were elected, of whom six voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and five for Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. . . . Varying methods have been used to break down the vote into Kennedy and unpledged votes. One method is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the 324,050 votes as unpledged votes, giving a total much higher than the actual votes cast.[5] Another is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the remainder (5,747 votes) as unpledged votes.[6] A third is to split the 324,050 in the proportion of 5⁄11 to 6⁄11, following the proportion of electors, giving 147,295 votes for Kennedy and 176,755 for unpledged electors.[7] In all cases, Republican candidate Richard Nixon of California, then Vice President of the United States, has 237,981 votes. If the last method is used, it means that Nixon won the popular vote in Alabama; it also means that he won the popular vote nationally.[3][7] Congressional Quarterly calculated the popular vote in this manner at the time of the 1960 election." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama
My own opinion? A split decision: Democrats won the popular vote, nationally; Nixon beat Kennedy in the popular vote nationally. But I will admit that I have been unable to find a satisfactory way for allocating the votes.
(As I recall, since World War II, there have been two times when the winner of the popular vote for the House of Commons lost the election.)
In 1960 of course it was GOP Nixon winning California which won him the popular vote even if Democrat JFK won the EC, the reverse of 2000 and 2016.
A bit of trivia from the 1960 presidential election: It is unclear who won the popular vote nationally, because of the strange situation in Alabama: "The 1960 United States presidential election in Alabama was held on November 8, 1960 as part of that year's national presidential election. Eleven Democratic electors were elected, of whom six voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and five for Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. . . . Varying methods have been used to break down the vote into Kennedy and unpledged votes. One method is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the 324,050 votes as unpledged votes, giving a total much higher than the actual votes cast.[5] Another is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the remainder (5,747 votes) as unpledged votes.[6] A third is to split the 324,050 in the proportion of 5⁄11 to 6⁄11, following the proportion of electors, giving 147,295 votes for Kennedy and 176,755 for unpledged electors.[7] In all cases, Republican candidate Richard Nixon of California, then Vice President of the United States, has 237,981 votes. If the last method is used, it means that Nixon won the popular vote in Alabama; it also means that he won the popular vote nationally.[3][7] Congressional Quarterly calculated the popular vote in this manner at the time of the 1960 election." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama
My own opinion? A split decision: Democrats won the popular vote, nationally; Nixon beat Kennedy in the popular vote nationally. But I will admit that I have been unable to find a satisfactory way for allocating the votes.
(As I recall, since World War II, there have been two times when the winner of the popular vote for the House of Commons lost the election.)
In 1960 of course it was GOP Nixon winning California which won him the popular vote even if Democrat JFK won the EC, the reverse of 2000 and 2016.
A bit of trivia from the 1960 presidential election: It is unclear who won the popular vote nationally, because of the strange situation in Alabama: "The 1960 United States presidential election in Alabama was held on November 8, 1960 as part of that year's national presidential election. Eleven Democratic electors were elected, of whom six voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and five for Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. . . . Varying methods have been used to break down the vote into Kennedy and unpledged votes. One method is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the 324,050 votes as unpledged votes, giving a total much higher than the actual votes cast.[5] Another is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the remainder (5,747 votes) as unpledged votes.[6] A third is to split the 324,050 in the proportion of 5⁄11 to 6⁄11, following the proportion of electors, giving 147,295 votes for Kennedy and 176,755 for unpledged electors.[7] In all cases, Republican candidate Richard Nixon of California, then Vice President of the United States, has 237,981 votes. If the last method is used, it means that Nixon won the popular vote in Alabama; it also means that he won the popular vote nationally.[3][7] Congressional Quarterly calculated the popular vote in this manner at the time of the 1960 election." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama
My own opinion? A split decision: Democrats won the popular vote, nationally; Nixon beat Kennedy in the popular vote nationally. But I will admit that I have been unable to find a satisfactory way for allocating the votes.
(As I recall, since World War II, there have been two times when the winner of the popular vote for the House of Commons lost the election.)
In 1960 of course it was GOP Nixon winning California which won him the popular vote even if Democrat JFK won the EC, the reverse of 2000 and 2016.
Err JFK won the popular vote in 1960.
Not using the 3rd method and CQ calculation Jim Miller mentions he didn't
I wonder how this compares to other big cities like London? Certainly it seems other US cities like LA and SF have seen similar and tax revenues have collapsed in SF.
This is interesting, yes. I don’t know enough about the New York rental market, save that it is terrifying and that broker fees should be illegal.
I know a bit more about London, where rental prices are also currently spiking. I can’t really think why since it’s not obvious to me that people are flooding back to the UK.
Part of me wonders if prices are essentially set by landlords, many of whom are now facing increased interest costs. Some may be dropping out, reducing supply.
A bit of trivia from the 1960 presidential election: It is unclear who won the popular vote nationally, because of the strange situation in Alabama: "The 1960 United States presidential election in Alabama was held on November 8, 1960 as part of that year's national presidential election. Eleven Democratic electors were elected, of whom six voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and five for Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. . . . Varying methods have been used to break down the vote into Kennedy and unpledged votes. One method is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the 324,050 votes as unpledged votes, giving a total much higher than the actual votes cast.[5] Another is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the remainder (5,747 votes) as unpledged votes.[6] A third is to split the 324,050 in the proportion of 5⁄11 to 6⁄11, following the proportion of electors, giving 147,295 votes for Kennedy and 176,755 for unpledged electors.[7] In all cases, Republican candidate Richard Nixon of California, then Vice President of the United States, has 237,981 votes. If the last method is used, it means that Nixon won the popular vote in Alabama; it also means that he won the popular vote nationally.[3][7] Congressional Quarterly calculated the popular vote in this manner at the time of the 1960 election." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama
My own opinion? A split decision: Democrats won the popular vote, nationally; Nixon beat Kennedy in the popular vote nationally. But I will admit that I have been unable to find a satisfactory way for allocating the votes.
(As I recall, since World War II, there have been two times when the winner of the popular vote for the House of Commons lost the election.)
In 1960 of course it was GOP Nixon winning California which won him the popular vote even if Democrat JFK won the EC, the reverse of 2000 and 2016.
Err JFK won the popular vote in 1960.
Not using the 3rd method and CQ calculation Jim Miller mentions he didn't
I wonder how this compares to other big cities like London? Certainly it seems other US cities like LA and SF have seen similar and tax revenues have collapsed in SF.
This is interesting, yes. I don’t know enough about the New York rental market, save that it is terrifying and that broker fees should be illegal.
I know a bit more about London, where rental prices are also currently spiking. I can’t really think why since it’s not obvious to me that people are flooding back to the UK.
Part of me wonders if prices are essentially set by landlords, many of whom are now facing increased interest costs. Some may be dropping out, reducing supply.
Possibly. You can't claim mortgage payments against tax as a private landlord (unless you've formed a company and are financing it via that company). So they must be feeling the pinch.
I think the Dem nomination is a 1 horse race if Biden chooses to go again (Which I think he will) of course there's a non zero chance of a medical mishap which might open things further. The GOP situation is more interesting. A bigger field helps Trump, whereas he could be vulnerable in a 2 horse race vs Desantis. But I think others will want ro run. Harry and Pence in the GOP field would be gravy for the Donald
The nominees will be Trump and Biden, short of medical events. I don't know why everyone is thinking otherwise. Just a misreading from the other side of the Atlantic.
I wonder how this compares to other big cities like London? Certainly it seems other US cities like LA and SF have seen similar and tax revenues have collapsed in SF.
This is interesting, yes. I don’t know enough about the New York rental market, save that it is terrifying and that broker fees should be illegal.
I know a bit more about London, where rental prices are also currently spiking. I can’t really think why since it’s not obvious to me that people are flooding back to the UK.
Part of me wonders if prices are essentially set by landlords, many of whom are now facing increased interest costs. Some may be dropping out, reducing supply.
Increased interest rates is part of it, but there's also tax changes that mean interest payments aren't tax deductible any more, i.e. it's possible to make a loss on renting out a property (due to costs) and still have to pay tax on the loss. Add to that the government's plan to end no-fault evictions, plus property prices not rising any more and interest rates on savings being a thing again, then add in EPC requirements meaning costly upgrades to properties coming in the next couple of years, plus the making tax digital thing increasing costs and burdens, and there's no angle in being a landlord especially in London, where high property prices mean yields are low.
Net result, the few who can afford to buy benefit from distressed landlords selling, but the majority who can't afford or don't want to buy are competing for a smaller and smaller pool of supply, hence rental prices going through the roof and people being unable to find a place to live - demand simply hugely outstrips supply as a result of government intervention causing private landlords to leave the market over the last few years.
Seattle Times ($) via Associated Press - S. Dakota GOP leader: [State] Senator accused of harassment
South Dakota’s Senate Republican leader said Friday that a committee will investigate a suspended senator for allegedly harassing a legislative aide during an exchange over childhood vaccines and breastfeeding.
Sen. Casey Crabtree, the Senate GOP leader, had declined to provide details of the allegations against fellow Republican Sen. Julie Frye-Mueller on Thursday when the Senate voted to suspend her legislative powers. Crabtree said in a statement on Friday afternoon that Senate Republicans this week had received a “detailed report” from a staff member of the Legislative Research Council accusing Frye-Mueller of “inappropriate behavior and harassment related to private maternal matters, including childhood vaccines and breastfeeding.”
Republican legislative leaders had previously refused to release any details on the allegations. Frye-Mueller had told reporters Thursday that she had shared her views on vaccinations with the aide, but Crabtree said her public statements did not match with what she told Senate Republican leaders in a private discussion or what the legislative aide reported.
A Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion will be formed to investigate the allegations and is expected to complete its work next week, Crabtree said. . . .
During Thursday’s Senate hearing that led to her suspension, Frye-Mueller said the action deprived her of due process. Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden, who presides over the Senate, also cautioned against punishing a senator without first conducting an investigation.
Crabtree, in his statement, pushed back on those objections: “Our goal is to create a safe work environment for staff and legislators, and an environment where employees feel safe bringing concerns forward. All allegations of harassment must be taken seriously. There will be due process afforded to all parties as this matter moves forward,” he said. . . .
The committee will be made up of seven Republicans and two Democrats.
Frye-Mueller is a part of a right-wing group of lawmakers and has proposed legislation removing school requirements for childhood vaccines.
Vaccines have been championed as public health success stories, but rates among kindergarteners have dropped nationwide in recent years. Officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that’s due to decreased confidence in vaccines and disruptions to routine health care during the pandemic are the.
Falling vaccination rates open the door to outbreaks of diseases once thought to be in the rearview mirror, experts say.
SSI - Reading between the lines, appears that GOP state senator in question, was perhaps a bit too robust in conveying her views to a legislative staff member?
Presumably including anti-vax; no way (at least for me) to discern the senator's views on breastfeeding.
I'd say the value in this market is laying DeSantis.
I think that Trump is still value, should probably be odds-on for the GOP nomination, but if he is knocked out of the race over the next year then there's going to be a very wide field and DeSantis wouldn't be a strong frontrunner in that field.
Agreed, I’m pretty convinced that DeSantis is going to be a non-runner, especially if DJT builds momentum in the coming months. The younger man would be much better off keeping his nose dry for 2028 or 2032, and being one of the kingmakers in the nomination process.
That is my view. Far better for RDS to do a deal with Trump and be his VP pick for 2024.
Though if Trump loses that ends his chances too.
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
RDS doesn't get to be Trump's VP unless Trump moves State.
The key issue is this. Any wannabee GOP Presidential nominee has a choice to make. You either run against Trump, in which case you have to, y'know, actually criticise him, and point out that he lost the 2020 election, or you have to support him for the 2024 election.
They're all too cowardly/realistic about the hold Trump has on the GOP grassroots to criticise him, or contradict his lie about winning in 2020, so they can't possibly seriously run against him. How can your pitch to the primary voters be, "Trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 election, he's a great guy, the Democrats stole the election from him, and we should let them get away with that by not voting for Trump in 2024." It doesn't make any sense.
So all the other possible runners are left hoping for an actuarial or judicial solution to the Trump problem.
Why would a Republican running for presidential nomination in 2024 be compelled to say- for public consumption - that Trump lost in 2020? With OR without 45 in the field?
Certainly Ron DiSantis is NOT gonna do that, regardless of what he says - or more likely does NOT say - about his fellow Floridian.
Worth taking note that, while Republican Governor Brian Kemp incurred the unrighteous wrath of Trump for NOT going along with stealing Georgia (at least AFTER Election Day) yet still won re-nomination AND re-election last year, handily, despite vocal opposition of Sage of Mar-a-Lardo.
I'd say the value in this market is laying DeSantis.
I think that Trump is still value, should probably be odds-on for the GOP nomination, but if he is knocked out of the race over the next year then there's going to be a very wide field and DeSantis wouldn't be a strong frontrunner in that field.
Agreed, I’m pretty convinced that DeSantis is going to be a non-runner, especially if DJT builds momentum in the coming months. The younger man would be much better off keeping his nose dry for 2028 or 2032, and being one of the kingmakers in the nomination process.
That is my view. Far better for RDS to do a deal with Trump and be his VP pick for 2024.
Though if Trump loses that ends his chances too.
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
RDS doesn't get to be Trump's VP unless Trump moves State.
The key issue is this. Any wannabee GOP Presidential nominee has a choice to make. You either run against Trump, in which case you have to, y'know, actually criticise him, and point out that he lost the 2020 election, or you have to support him for the 2024 election.
They're all too cowardly/realistic about the hold Trump has on the GOP grassroots to criticise him, or contradict his lie about winning in 2020, so they can't possibly seriously run against him. How can your pitch to the primary voters be, "Trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 election, he's a great guy, the Democrats stole the election from him, and we should let them get away with that by not voting for Trump in 2024." It doesn't make any sense.
So all the other possible runners are left hoping for an actuarial or judicial solution to the Trump problem.
Why would a Republican running for presidential nomination in 2024 be compelled to say- for public consumption - that Trump lost in 2020? With OR without 45 in the field?
Certainly Ron DiSantis is NOT gonna do that, regardless of what he says - or more likely does NOT say - about his fellow Floridian.
Worth taking note that, while Republican Governor Brian Kemp incurred the unrighteous wrath of Trump for NOT going along with stealing Georgia (at least AFTER Election Day) yet still won re-nomination AND re-election last year, handily, despite vocal opposition of Sage of Mar-a-Lardo.
Is Kemp actually willing to say that Trump lost the 2020 election fair and square?
Or was he the recipient of Trump's ire only for not stealing the election on his behalf?
I wonder how this compares to other big cities like London? Certainly it seems other US cities like LA and SF have seen similar and tax revenues have collapsed in SF.
This is interesting, yes. I don’t know enough about the New York rental market, save that it is terrifying and that broker fees should be illegal.
I know a bit more about London, where rental prices are also currently spiking. I can’t really think why since it’s not obvious to me that people are flooding back to the UK.
Part of me wonders if prices are essentially set by landlords, many of whom are now facing increased interest costs. Some may be dropping out, reducing supply.
Increased interest rates is part of it, but there's also tax changes that mean interest payments aren't tax deductible any more, i.e. it's possible to make a loss on renting out a property (due to costs) and still have to pay tax on the loss. Add to that the government's plan to end no-fault evictions, plus property prices not rising any more and interest rates on savings being a thing again, then add in EPC requirements meaning costly upgrades to properties coming in the next couple of years, plus the making tax digital thing increasing costs and burdens, and there's no angle in being a landlord especially in London, where high property prices mean yields are low.
Net result, the few who can afford to buy benefit from distressed landlords selling, but the majority who can't afford or don't want to buy are competing for a smaller and smaller pool of supply, hence rental prices going through the roof and people being unable to find a place to live - demand simply hugely outstrips supply as a result of government intervention causing private landlords to leave the market over the last few years.
The average London rental income is £2,343 per a month.
You would have to be a pretty ineffective landlord to fail to make a profit most months from that!
I'd say the value in this market is laying DeSantis.
I think that Trump is still value, should probably be odds-on for the GOP nomination, but if he is knocked out of the race over the next year then there's going to be a very wide field and DeSantis wouldn't be a strong frontrunner in that field.
Agreed, I’m pretty convinced that DeSantis is going to be a non-runner, especially if DJT builds momentum in the coming months. The younger man would be much better off keeping his nose dry for 2028 or 2032, and being one of the kingmakers in the nomination process.
That is my view. Far better for RDS to do a deal with Trump and be his VP pick for 2024.
Though if Trump loses that ends his chances too.
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
RDS doesn't get to be Trump's VP unless Trump moves State.
The key issue is this. Any wannabee GOP Presidential nominee has a choice to make. You either run against Trump, in which case you have to, y'know, actually criticise him, and point out that he lost the 2020 election, or you have to support him for the 2024 election.
They're all too cowardly/realistic about the hold Trump has on the GOP grassroots to criticise him, or contradict his lie about winning in 2020, so they can't possibly seriously run against him. How can your pitch to the primary voters be, "Trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 election, he's a great guy, the Democrats stole the election from him, and we should let them get away with that by not voting for Trump in 2024." It doesn't make any sense.
So all the other possible runners are left hoping for an actuarial or judicial solution to the Trump problem.
Why would a Republican running for presidential nomination in 2024 be compelled to say- for public consumption - that Trump lost in 2020? With OR without 45 in the field?
Certainly Ron DiSantis is NOT gonna do that, regardless of what he says - or more likely does NOT say - about his fellow Floridian.
Worth taking note that, while Republican Governor Brian Kemp incurred the unrighteous wrath of Trump for NOT going along with stealing Georgia (at least AFTER Election Day) yet still won re-nomination AND re-election last year, handily, despite vocal opposition of Sage of Mar-a-Lardo.
Is Kemp actually willing to say that Trump lost the 2020 election fair and square?
Or was he the recipient of Trump's ire only for not stealing the election on his behalf?
I could only find various compiled lists of election deniers who were congressional candidates, but he doesn't appear on this story about gubernatorial candidates who were election deniers.
I would expect that because he accepted the result in his own state he would see it would be ridiculous to go after all the others in so blatant a fashion.
The sad thing is I don't think anyone thinks people such as Kemp or (if he were in office) Pence would actually refuse to support Trump if he wins renomination as candidate, even though they stood up to him stealing the last election outright. Anyone who has a line to cross over supporting him (even if they won't commit fraud for him) will already have jumped.
The nominees will be Trump and Biden, short of medical events. I don't know why everyone is thinking otherwise. Just a misreading from the other side of the Atlantic.
Well, there's clearly at least some Republicans who don't want it to be Trump, but they seem to be hanging their hopes on legal quandries keeping him out (even as most of them parrot his lines when he is facing those legal issues), as the cost of taking him on is too much for them.
The nominees will be Trump and Biden, short of medical events. I don't know why everyone is thinking otherwise. Just a misreading from the other side of the Atlantic.
Well, there's clearly at least some Republicans who don't want it to be Trump, but they seem to be hanging their hopes on legal quandries keeping him out (even as most of them parrot his lines when he is facing those legal issues), as the cost of taking him on is too much for them.
Rich, powerful white men in America don't face the same justice system as regular folks. Trump will be fine.
Delighted to announce that after a surprise visit to the real world, where she reluctantly admitted a hulking great rapist doesn't become a woman by putting on a wig, our illustrious leader has made it safely home to You're All Just Bigots territory.
Boris Johnson was formally told to stop asking Richard Sharp for “advice” about his “personal financial matters” days before Sharp was announced as the next BBC chairman, according to a leaked Cabinet Office memo.
Johnson, then prime minister, was warned by officials on December 22, 2020 that he had to stop speaking to Sharp about his financial affairs. Sharp was announced as the government’s choice for chairman of the national broadcaster on January 6, 2021.
The Cabinet Office document was drawn up after Johnson and Sharp sought advice in early December on accepting a loan of up to £800,000 guaranteed by the prime minister’s distant cousin, Sam Blyth, a Canadian businessman. Blyth and Sharp had discussed how to help Johnson with his finances on two occasions, the first, at a dinner in September and the second, on the telephone. Johnson secured the loan in February 2021, according to his own declaration in the internal register of ministers’ interests, parts of which are not made public.
"Black people in UK 'living in fear' over racism, say UN experts
A panel of UN experts paints a bleak picture of the state of racism in the UK, but the government says it is only "a superficial analysis" and that the country is "open, tolerant and welcoming"."
I'd say the value in this market is laying DeSantis.
I think that Trump is still value, should probably be odds-on for the GOP nomination, but if he is knocked out of the race over the next year then there's going to be a very wide field and DeSantis wouldn't be a strong frontrunner in that field.
Agreed, I’m pretty convinced that DeSantis is going to be a non-runner, especially if DJT builds momentum in the coming months. The younger man would be much better off keeping his nose dry for 2028 or 2032, and being one of the kingmakers in the nomination process.
That is my view. Far better for RDS to do a deal with Trump and be his VP pick for 2024.
Though if Trump loses that ends his chances too.
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
File under "X hasn't happened since the last time it happened".
It's a big file.
Plus Trump/RDS ticket cannot happen either.
Both are from Florida and that buggers up the electoral college voters.
I'm not sure why people see this as a slam dunk argument against a Trump-RDS ticket. It is not hard for an American to move states. There are plenty of safely Republican states to which Trump can 'move'.
The key thing js whether Trump and RDS both want the deal. If they do, a way will be found round the state issue.
A bit of trivia from the 1960 presidential election: It is unclear who won the popular vote nationally, because of the strange situation in Alabama: "The 1960 United States presidential election in Alabama was held on November 8, 1960 as part of that year's national presidential election. Eleven Democratic electors were elected, of whom six voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia and five for Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. . . . Varying methods have been used to break down the vote into Kennedy and unpledged votes. One method is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the 324,050 votes as unpledged votes, giving a total much higher than the actual votes cast.[5] Another is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the remainder (5,747 votes) as unpledged votes.[6] A third is to split the 324,050 in the proportion of 5⁄11 to 6⁄11, following the proportion of electors, giving 147,295 votes for Kennedy and 176,755 for unpledged electors.[7] In all cases, Republican candidate Richard Nixon of California, then Vice President of the United States, has 237,981 votes. If the last method is used, it means that Nixon won the popular vote in Alabama; it also means that he won the popular vote nationally.[3][7] Congressional Quarterly calculated the popular vote in this manner at the time of the 1960 election." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama
My own opinion? A split decision: Democrats won the popular vote, nationally; Nixon beat Kennedy in the popular vote nationally. But I will admit that I have been unable to find a satisfactory way for allocating the votes.
(As I recall, since World War II, there have been two times when the winner of the popular vote for the House of Commons lost the election.)
In 1960 of course it was GOP Nixon winning California which won him the popular vote even if Democrat JFK won the EC, the reverse of 2000 and 2016.
So who won the popular vote if you exclude Alabama?
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
If you watch TV talking heads here in the United States, you would think that race relations here were terrible, and getting worse.
If you were to watch many of the advertisements on TV, you would think race relations here were fine, and, if anything, getting better. For example: https://www.tvcommercialad.com/watch/MFFVs1l
A great many advertisements make a point of showing black families doing well, and mixed race groups getting along fine with each other.
(I am just cynical enough to note that each group, TV talking heads and advertisers, are pursuing their own financial interests: The talking heads get more attention -- and money -- when there is conflict to draw viewers; advertisers would rather sell to everyone, and know that showing happy people together is usually a better way to sell products than the reverse.)
The truth, as it so often is, is somewhere in the middle. Although we have had setbacks under Obama and Trump, the fact is the US has made astonishing progress in race relations, during my life time. For example, the last time I looked at the numbers, since 1980 blacks had closed much of the gap in longevity. As I recall, it was in the 1980s that black women's longevity passed that of white men. And is still higher, in spite of the greater effect of COVID on blacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
Surely our resident Nats can give a defence of NS (excepting @malcolmg of course)
J K Rowling is absolutely battering Sturgeon with her recent tweets. But then Sturgeon seems intent on self destruction anyway. So maybe they’re both happy
If you have trouble getting that Taltz commercial to play -- or finding one that will -- here's how the commercial goes: The couple are walking together while the commercial explains there is a drug that will help with psoriasis, they get ice cream cones, and then end up sitting on a park bench with the man's arm around the woman.
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
Surely our resident Nats can give a defence of NS (excepting @malcolmg of course)
J K Rowling is absolutely battering Sturgeon with her recent tweets. But then Sturgeon seems intent on self destruction anyway. So maybe they’re both happy
*orders haggis-flavoured popcorn, etc*
My take is Nicola knows that she's not going to be the FM who delivers independence so, rather than go down in history as a 'failure, she will exit onto an international role cum book deal etc. It's not hard.to imagine a scenario where this issue becomes the one on which she decides to step down claiming she was defeated by bigoted forces.
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
I have had Tramadol when in really appalling pain. It works - but means that you are away with the fairies for most of the day and therefore unable to drive, do sensible work or anything else. It is addictive. Once the pain stopped, I stopped taking it.
But unless you are in serious pain and a doctor prescribes it, you'd be an absolute bloody fool to take it, especially if you are prone to addiction, as I suspect you are.
Don't Do It. There are far nicer ways to get a high, none of them involving drugs.
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
Surely our resident Nats can give a defence of NS (excepting @malcolmg of course)
J K Rowling is absolutely battering Sturgeon with her recent tweets. But then Sturgeon seems intent on self destruction anyway. So maybe they’re both happy
*orders haggis-flavoured popcorn, etc*
Sturgeon is lashing out because the Graham case - and the response it has forced from her in order to avoid the most appalling publicity - has blown sky high all the arguments she has made for her GRR Bill. It has also exposed that she really does not understand the consequences of her Bill, the existing law in the GRA and Equality Act nor the effect of the Haldane judgment.
What has also come out about how the Scottish Prison Service developed its policy on this, who advised it and why has also not helped one little bit.
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
I have had Tramadol when in really appalling pain. It works - but means that you are away with the fairies for most of the day and therefore unable to drive, do sensible work or anything else. It is addictive. Once the pain stopped, I stopped taking it.
But unless you are in serious pain and a doctor prescribes it, you'd be an absolute bloody fool to take it, especially if you are prone to addiction, as I suspect you are.
Don't Do It. There are far nicer ways to get a high, none of them involving drugs.
Sincere thanks for your concern. And indeed the advice of other PB-ers. On reflection I am putting my Tramadol on the middle shelf for now. Only to be used in cases of extreme boredom - or severe pain
"The authors of two United Nations reports into the origins of the pandemic say they believe a laboratory leak was the most likely cause of Covid-19, accusing top British and American scientists of helping China deliberately to suppress debate on the issue."
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
Surely our resident Nats can give a defence of NS (excepting @malcolmg of course)
J K Rowling is absolutely battering Sturgeon with her recent tweets. But then Sturgeon seems intent on self destruction anyway. So maybe they’re both happy
*orders haggis-flavoured popcorn, etc*
Sturgeon is lashing out because the Graham case - and the response it has forced from her in order to avoid the most appalling publicity - has blown sky high all the arguments she has made for her GRR Bill. It has also exposed that she really does not understand the consequences of her Bill, the existing law in the GRA and Equality Act nor the effect of the Haldane judgment.
What has also come out about how the Scottish Prison Service developed its policy on this, who advised it and why has also not helped one little bit.
I agree with all of that, and you know the details better than me, what interests me is more: 1. How the previously unflappable Sturgeon is visibly crumbling and 2. How just a few brutal but articulate tweets from someone like Rowling can really damage a politician
The last Rowling tweet linked by @CarlottaVance has been seen by 1.4m people. Far more than any Scottish newspaper article, I’d imagine
Also: wtf is Sturgeon on? Why fight this weird losing battle?!
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
Surely our resident Nats can give a defence of NS (excepting @malcolmg of course)
J K Rowling is absolutely battering Sturgeon with her recent tweets. But then Sturgeon seems intent on self destruction anyway. So maybe they’re both happy
*orders haggis-flavoured popcorn, etc*
Sturgeon is lashing out because the Graham case - and the response it has forced from her in order to avoid the most appalling publicity - has blown sky high all the arguments she has made for her GRR Bill. It has also exposed that she really does not understand the consequences of her Bill, the existing law in the GRA and Equality Act nor the effect of the Haldane judgment.
What has also come out about how the Scottish Prison Service developed its policy on this, who advised it and why has also not helped one little bit.
I agree with all of that, and you know the details better than me, what interests me is more: 1. How the previously unflappable Sturgeon is visibly crumbling and 2. How just a few brutal but articulate tweets from someone like Rowling can really damage a politician
The last Rowling tweet linked by @CarlottaVance has been seen by 1.4m people. Far more than any Scottish newspaper article, I’d imagine
Also: wtf is Sturgeon on? Why fight this weird losing battle?!
“No one to the left” has been replaced by “No one more progressive”
The trans debate is where the rights of two different, protected groups clash. Which means that a *choice* has to be made. Which isn’t part of the unthinking version of “progressive” thought.
If you watch TV talking heads here in the United States, you would think that race relations here were terrible, and getting worse.
If you were to watch many of the advertisements on TV, you would think race relations here were fine, and, if anything, getting better. For example: https://www.tvcommercialad.com/watch/MFFVs1l
A great many advertisements make a point of showing black families doing well, and mixed race groups getting along fine with each other.
(I am just cynical enough to note that each group, TV talking heads and advertisers, are pursuing their own financial interests: The talking heads get more attention -- and money -- when there is conflict to draw viewers; advertisers would rather sell to everyone, and know that showing happy people together is usually a better way to sell products than the reverse.)
The truth, as it so often is, is somewhere in the middle. Although we have had setbacks under Obama and Trump, the fact is the US has made astonishing progress in race relations, during my life time. For example, the last time I looked at the numbers, since 1980 blacks had closed much of the gap in longevity. As I recall, it was in the 1980s that black women's longevity passed that of white men. And is still higher, in spite of the greater effect of COVID on blacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
I think it's true that the life expectancy of white Americans has been falling recently due to the opioid crisis. It hasn't affected black Americans as much.
The nominees will be Trump and Biden, short of medical events. I don't know why everyone is thinking otherwise. Just a misreading from the other side of the Atlantic.
Well, there's clearly at least some Republicans who don't want it to be Trump, but they seem to be hanging their hopes on legal quandries keeping him out (even as most of them parrot his lines when he is facing those legal issues), as the cost of taking him on is too much for them.
Rich, powerful white men in America don't face the same justice system as regular folks. Trump will be fine.
It is a faint hope, but anything more requires a spine.
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
I have had Tramadol when in really appalling pain. It works - but means that you are away with the fairies for most of the day and therefore unable to drive, do sensible work or anything else. It is addictive. Once the pain stopped, I stopped taking it.
But unless you are in serious pain and a doctor prescribes it, you'd be an absolute bloody fool to take it, especially if you are prone to addiction, as I suspect you are.
Don't Do It. There are far nicer ways to get a high, none of them involving drugs.
Sincere thanks for your concern. And indeed the advice of other PB-ers. On reflection I am putting my Tramadol on the middle shelf for now. Only to be used in cases of extreme boredom - or severe pain
BUT it is nice to know it’s there. If needs be
My uncle was proscribed it and it gave him terrible constipation, just to add 'something' to the discussion. He seems to be naturally resistant to a lot of painkillers anyway, the poor bugger, so doesn't even take it anymore.
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
Surely our resident Nats can give a defence of NS (excepting @malcolmg of course)
J K Rowling is absolutely battering Sturgeon with her recent tweets. But then Sturgeon seems intent on self destruction anyway. So maybe they’re both happy
*orders haggis-flavoured popcorn, etc*
And yet next time there's a poll I bet Sturgeon will rate very well. Bullet proof, despite this issue being at best an incoherent and divisive one to push.
I wonder how this compares to other big cities like London? Certainly it seems other US cities like LA and SF have seen similar and tax revenues have collapsed in SF.
This is interesting, yes. I don’t know enough about the New York rental market, save that it is terrifying and that broker fees should be illegal.
I know a bit more about London, where rental prices are also currently spiking. I can’t really think why since it’s not obvious to me that people are flooding back to the UK.
Part of me wonders if prices are essentially set by landlords, many of whom are now facing increased interest costs. Some may be dropping out, reducing supply.
My understanding is that this is a trend that began some time ago and is driven not so much by interest rates but by changes in both taxation of landlords and by changes in the law which make it no longer an attractive sector for many people. The number of rental properties in the UK halved between 2019 and 2022.
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
Surely our resident Nats can give a defence of NS (excepting @malcolmg of course)
J K Rowling is absolutely battering Sturgeon with her recent tweets. But then Sturgeon seems intent on self destruction anyway. So maybe they’re both happy
*orders haggis-flavoured popcorn, etc*
And yet next time there's a poll I bet Sturgeon will rate very well. Bullet proof, despite this issue being at best an incoherent and divisive one to push.
The political demise of Nicola Sturgeon has been predicted a thousand times in the last ten years (often by me) and yet it never happens
However this *feels* different. Also: Independence is as far away as ever and sturgeon has run out of new ideas to achieve it. Meanwhile her actual government has a fairly dreadful record
Her career is nearer the end than the beginning. I predict Labour will take a few handy seats from the Nits in 2024…
PART 2: "Ukraine War Ii: Russian Invasion of Britain 2022", was a propaganda piece meant to exhort support for Ukraine by setting the war in Britain. Unpublished due to events (Truss and the death of the Queen) it was part of a backstage discussion forum - off-off-PB, if you will. I did maps.
PART 3: "The Intermarium", or whatever @TSE decides to call it - "Ukraine War III: The Intermarium" would be good, btw - is an explanation of the historical background going back to the 16th century. Again the short version will be published on PB, the longer version will form part of a discussion forum in about a fortnight. @Nigelb and @MattW and @Sean_F have received advance copies as they provided links and tweets to read.
I'm busy tomorrow and so will repost this early Sunday afternoon before publication. I hope you like it.
I should point out that my article adopts the @Dura_Ace style guide, which is to say it uses a heck of a lot of tech jargon. This is not just to be pretentious - that's more a side benefit, tbh - but because a lot of the concepts were complex. Apologies in advance.
In which La Sturgeon claims that “if you oppose putting hairy male rapists in women’s prisons, you’re probably transphobic, homophobic, misogynist [???] and… a racist”
I have had Tramadol when in really appalling pain. It works - but means that you are away with the fairies for most of the day and therefore unable to drive, do sensible work or anything else. It is addictive. Once the pain stopped, I stopped taking it.
But unless you are in serious pain and a doctor prescribes it, you'd be an absolute bloody fool to take it, especially if you are prone to addiction, as I suspect you are.
Don't Do It. There are far nicer ways to get a high, none of them involving drugs.
Sincere thanks for your concern. And indeed the advice of other PB-ers. On reflection I am putting my Tramadol on the middle shelf for now. Only to be used in cases of extreme boredom - or severe pain
BUT it is nice to know it’s there. If needs be
My uncle was proscribed it and it gave him terrible constipation, just to add 'something' to the discussion. He seems to be naturally resistant to a lot of painkillers anyway, the poor bugger, so doesn't even take it anymore.
WillG said: "Rich, powerful white men in America don't face the same justice system as regular folks. Trump will be fine."
That's probably what Jeffrey Epstein thought.
And he was right. Two years in an open prison for systematic child sex abuse is definitely not what a black man or even a poor man would have got.
And the odds are by the time his lawyers had finished mangling due process he would have got a fairly lenient sentence again if he hadn’t killed himself.
I wonder how this compares to other big cities like London? Certainly it seems other US cities like LA and SF have seen similar and tax revenues have collapsed in SF.
This is interesting, yes. I don’t know enough about the New York rental market, save that it is terrifying and that broker fees should be illegal.
I know a bit more about London, where rental prices are also currently spiking. I can’t really think why since it’s not obvious to me that people are flooding back to the UK.
Part of me wonders if prices are essentially set by landlords, many of whom are now facing increased interest costs. Some may be dropping out, reducing supply.
Landlords are unlikely to be on long-term fixed interest rate mortgages, government policy has been to slowly discourage small landlords with changes such as the inability to claim interest payments against income tax, there’s evidence of sale prices having reached a peak and starting to fall this year.
All of which is leading to landlords selling up, and a suppply squeeze for rental properties leading to price increases.
I should point out that my article adopts the @Dura_Ace style guide, which is to say it uses a heck of a lot of tech jargon. This is not just to be pretentious - that's more a side benefit, tbh - but because a lot of the concepts were complex. Apologies in advance.
Look forward to it.
I remember, in the midst of the Brexit arguments, trying to write a header on the effects of “No-deal Brexit” on commercial aviation, a subject that was going round in circles more than the Heathrow stack, below the line - but after a week and several drafts, got stuck in acronym soup that clearly wasn’t going to work for a general audience. So I gave up, and did so with an increased admiration for those who write above the line, especially on complicated or technical subjects.
Alistair Meeks is once again right here - the reason for the second half of the letter is to avoid plotting which would have been easily solved by withdrawing the whip.
Which would be completely justifiable because you can’t have a rules for the party candidates and another one for actual MPs. And no candidate would get past an investigation that discovered significant tax issues
I should point out that my article adopts the @Dura_Ace style guide, which is to say it uses a heck of a lot of tech jargon. This is not just to be pretentious - that's more a side benefit, tbh - but because a lot of the concepts were complex. Apologies in advance.
Look forward to it.
I remember, in the midst of the Brexit arguments, trying to write a header on the effects of “No-deal Brexit” on commercial aviation, a subject that was going round in circles more than the Heathrow stack, below the line - but after a week and several drafts, got stuck in acronym soup that clearly wasn’t going to work for a general audience. So I gave up, and did so with an increased admiration for those who write above the line, especially on complicated or technical subjects.
Thank you. I went the other way: throw them in and hope the audience can keep up. I'm not sure it worked, but no doubt we shall see
Comments
Only losing VP nominees who never were elected VP would be relevant and you have to go back to FDR to find one of those who got elected President later. FDR having been Cox's losing running mate in 1920 but getting elected President in 1932
https://xkcd.com/386/
No losing VP nominee has gone on to win the Presidency or even their party's nomination since FDR
"Events, Dear Boy, Events" - yes, we all know. Sunak will be hoping, pace Micawber, the economy turns decisively and gives him chance to bribe people with their own money in the form of spring 2024 tax cuts.
Blair was also worried about some on the Left would say and do but the prospect of victory in my experience does wonders for internal party discipline. Winning unites parties, losing divides them.
In terms of policy, nothing too radical is often a winning move - Thatcher's 1979 Manifesto was less radical than Heath's 1970 (though he won as well). There's time to be radical in the second term but in the first the key is to put right (or ascribe blame to) the failings of the previous administration.
Why do I bother? Triumph of hope over experience, plus occasionally he shows a glimmer of realism, I suppose.
. . .
Varying methods have been used to break down the vote into Kennedy and unpledged votes. One method is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the 324,050 votes as unpledged votes, giving a total much higher than the actual votes cast.[5] Another is to take the 318,303 votes as Kennedy votes and the remainder (5,747 votes) as unpledged votes.[6] A third is to split the 324,050 in the proportion of 5⁄11 to 6⁄11, following the proportion of electors, giving 147,295 votes for Kennedy and 176,755 for unpledged electors.[7] In all cases, Republican candidate Richard Nixon of California, then Vice President of the United States, has 237,981 votes. If the last method is used, it means that Nixon won the popular vote in Alabama; it also means that he won the popular vote nationally.[3][7] Congressional Quarterly calculated the popular vote in this manner at the time of the 1960 election."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama
My own opinion? A split decision: Democrats won the popular vote, nationally; Nixon beat Kennedy in the popular vote nationally. But I will admit that I have been unable to find a satisfactory way for allocating the votes.
(As I recall, since World War II, there have been two times when the winner of the popular vote for the House of Commons lost the election.)
I don’t know enough about the New York rental market, save that it is terrifying and that broker fees should be illegal.
I know a bit more about London, where rental prices are also currently spiking. I can’t really think why since it’s not obvious to me that people are flooding back to the UK.
Part of me wonders if prices are essentially set by landlords, many of whom are now facing increased interest costs. Some may be dropping out, reducing supply.
See it's not that hard to admit.
The GOP situation is more interesting. A bigger field helps Trump, whereas he could be vulnerable in a 2 horse race vs Desantis.
But I think others will want ro run. Harry and Pence in the GOP field would be gravy for the Donald
Net result, the few who can afford to buy benefit from distressed landlords selling, but the majority who can't afford or don't want to buy are competing for a smaller and smaller pool of supply, hence rental prices going through the roof and people being unable to find a place to live - demand simply hugely outstrips supply as a result of government intervention causing private landlords to leave the market over the last few years.
South Dakota’s Senate Republican leader said Friday that a committee will investigate a suspended senator for allegedly harassing a legislative aide during an exchange over childhood vaccines and breastfeeding.
Sen. Casey Crabtree, the Senate GOP leader, had declined to provide details of the allegations against fellow Republican Sen. Julie Frye-Mueller on Thursday when the Senate voted to suspend her legislative powers. Crabtree said in a statement on Friday afternoon that Senate Republicans this week had received a “detailed report” from a staff member of the Legislative Research Council accusing Frye-Mueller of “inappropriate behavior and harassment related to private maternal matters, including childhood vaccines and breastfeeding.”
Republican legislative leaders had previously refused to release any details on the allegations. Frye-Mueller had told reporters Thursday that she had shared her views on vaccinations with the aide, but Crabtree said her public statements did not match with what she told Senate Republican leaders in a private discussion or what the legislative aide reported.
A Select Committee on Discipline and Expulsion will be formed to investigate the allegations and is expected to complete its work next week, Crabtree said. . . .
During Thursday’s Senate hearing that led to her suspension, Frye-Mueller said the action deprived her of due process. Lt. Gov. Larry Rhoden, who presides over the Senate, also cautioned against punishing a senator without first conducting an investigation.
Crabtree, in his statement, pushed back on those objections: “Our goal is to create a safe work environment for staff and legislators, and an environment where employees feel safe bringing concerns forward. All allegations of harassment must be taken seriously. There will be due process afforded to all parties as this matter moves forward,” he said. . . .
The committee will be made up of seven Republicans and two Democrats.
Frye-Mueller is a part of a right-wing group of lawmakers and has proposed legislation removing school requirements for childhood vaccines.
Vaccines have been championed as public health success stories, but rates among kindergarteners have dropped nationwide in recent years. Officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that’s due to decreased confidence in vaccines and disruptions to routine health care during the pandemic are the.
Falling vaccination rates open the door to outbreaks of diseases once thought to be in the rearview mirror, experts say.
SSI - Reading between the lines, appears that GOP state senator in question, was perhaps a bit too robust in conveying her views to a legislative staff member?
Presumably including anti-vax; no way (at least for me) to discern the senator's views on breastfeeding.
Certainly Ron DiSantis is NOT gonna do that, regardless of what he says - or more likely does NOT say - about his fellow Floridian.
Worth taking note that, while Republican Governor Brian Kemp incurred the unrighteous wrath of Trump for NOT going along with stealing Georgia (at least AFTER Election Day) yet still won re-nomination AND re-election last year, handily, despite vocal opposition of Sage of Mar-a-Lardo.
Or was he the recipient of Trump's ire only for not stealing the election on his behalf?
You would have to be a pretty ineffective landlord to fail to make a profit most months from that!
https://www.portico.com/buy/yields#:~:text=London rental yields 2022, 2023, and beyond - predictions&text=As of Q3 of 2022,ever annual increase of 16.1%.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/11/politics/fact-check-republican-governor-nominees-2020-election/index.html
I would expect that because he accepted the result in his own state he would see it would be ridiculous to go after all the others in so blatant a fashion.
The sad thing is I don't think anyone thinks people such as Kemp or (if he were in office) Pence would actually refuse to support Trump if he wins renomination as candidate, even though they stood up to him stealing the last election outright. Anyone who has a line to cross over supporting him (even if they won't commit fraud for him) will already have jumped.
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1619358295852208129
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/21198826/huge-90s-band-reunite-king-charles-coronation/
A panel of UN experts paints a bleak picture of the state of racism in the UK, but the government says it is only "a superficial analysis" and that the country is "open, tolerant and welcoming"."
https://news.sky.com/story/black-people-in-uk-living-in-fear-over-racism-say-un-experts-12797572
The key thing js whether Trump and RDS both want the deal. If they do, a way will be found round the state issue.
I kid thee not
https://twitter.com/stevesayersone/status/1619359604013674498?s=46&t=eRutFRW3475gjSnASdndTg
She has completely lost it
If you were to watch many of the advertisements on TV, you would think race relations here were fine, and, if anything, getting better. For example: https://www.tvcommercialad.com/watch/MFFVs1l
A great many advertisements make a point of showing black families doing well, and mixed race groups getting along fine with each other.
(I am just cynical enough to note that each group, TV talking heads and advertisers, are pursuing their own financial interests: The talking heads get more attention -- and money -- when there is conflict to draw viewers; advertisers would rather sell to everyone, and know that showing happy people together is usually a better way to sell products than the reverse.)
The truth, as it so often is, is somewhere in the middle. Although we have had setbacks under Obama and Trump, the fact is the US has made astonishing progress in race relations, during my life time. For example, the last time I looked at the numbers, since 1980 blacks had closed much of the gap in longevity. As I recall, it was in the 1980s that black women's longevity passed that of white men. And is still higher, in spite of the greater effect of COVID on blacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Here's the data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alabama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election
*orders haggis-flavoured popcorn, etc*
decides to step down claiming she was defeated by bigoted forces.
I have had Tramadol when in really appalling pain. It works - but means that you are away with the fairies for most of the day and therefore unable to drive, do sensible work or anything else. It is addictive. Once the pain stopped, I stopped taking it.
But unless you are in serious pain and a doctor prescribes it, you'd be an absolute bloody fool to take it, especially if you are prone to addiction, as I suspect you are.
Don't Do It. There are far nicer ways to get a high, none of them involving drugs.
That's probably what Jeffrey Epstein thought.
What has also come out about how the Scottish Prison Service developed its policy on this, who advised it and why has also not helped one little bit.
BUT it is nice to know it’s there. If needs be
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687651/IAN-BIRRELL-experts-say-lab-leak-likely-cause-Covid-19.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JcnwtAbPmg
The last Rowling tweet linked by @CarlottaVance has been seen by 1.4m people. Far more than any Scottish newspaper article, I’d imagine
Also: wtf is Sturgeon on? Why fight this weird losing battle?!
The trans debate is where the rights of two different, protected groups clash. Which means that a *choice* has to be made. Which isn’t part of the unthinking version of “progressive” thought.
However this *feels* different. Also: Independence is as far away as ever and sturgeon has run out of new ideas to achieve it. Meanwhile her actual government has a fairly dreadful record
Her career is nearer the end than the beginning. I predict Labour will take a few handy seats from the Nits in 2024…
Marquee Moon is one my favourite albums.
- PART 1: "Why Ukraine was particularly vulnerable" (see https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/05/02/why-ukraine-was-particularly-vulnerable/ ). This was an explanation of the geopolitical reasons why Putin is prosecuting this war. The shorther version was published on PB, a longer version was later discussed backstage.
- PART 2: "Ukraine War Ii: Russian Invasion of Britain 2022", was a propaganda piece meant to exhort support for Ukraine by setting the war in Britain. Unpublished due to events (Truss and the death of the Queen) it was part of a backstage discussion forum - off-off-PB, if you will. I did maps.
- PART 3: "The Intermarium", or whatever @TSE decides to call it - "Ukraine War III: The Intermarium" would be good, btw - is an explanation of the historical background going back to the 16th century. Again the short version will be published on PB, the longer version will form part of a discussion forum in about a fortnight. @Nigelb and @MattW and @Sean_F have received advance copies as they provided links and tweets to read.
I'm busy tomorrow and so will repost this early Sunday afternoon before publication. I hope you like it.And the odds are by the time his lawyers had finished mangling due process he would have got a fairly lenient sentence again if he hadn’t killed himself.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1619622142190002177?s=61&t=k6qaSu1I5rAeBy8zJr_w-w
All of which is leading to landlords selling up, and a suppply squeeze for rental properties leading to price increases.
I remember, in the midst of the Brexit arguments, trying to write a header on the effects of “No-deal Brexit” on commercial aviation, a subject that was going round in circles more than the Heathrow stack, below the line - but after a week and several drafts, got stuck in acronym soup that clearly wasn’t going to work for a general audience. So I gave up, and did so with an increased admiration for those who write above the line, especially on complicated or technical subjects.
Which would be completely justifiable because you can’t have a rules for the party candidates and another one for actual MPs. And no candidate would get past an investigation that discovered significant tax issues