Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Remember the rules have changed for the London Mayoral election – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,122
edited August 2023 in General
imageRemember the rules have changed for the London Mayoral election – politicalbetting.com

Next May Labour’s Sadiq Khan will be seeking to defend his position as Mayor of London – a post that was first contested in May 2000.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Test
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,942
    edited August 2023
    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,463
    What was the justification for this change at the time? Apart from the bleedin obvious?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,278
    https://x.com/robertmsterling/status/1690833294290542592

    Please tell me that @elonmusk didn’t submit an unsolicited bid to acquire US Steel, a company with a $5B market cap, just to acquire the $X stock symbol.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,078
    edited August 2023

    https://x.com/robertmsterling/status/1690833294290542592

    Please tell me that @elonmusk didn’t submit an unsolicited bid to acquire US Steel, a company with a $5B market cap, just to acquire the $X stock symbol.

    Why not. It’s an asset of the business that Musk probably values more than anyone else.

    Buy a majority stake in US Steel.

    Sell everything else then reverse Twitter into the cash shell at a value close to what he paid for it. Job done.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,795

    https://x.com/robertmsterling/status/1690833294290542592

    Please tell me that @elonmusk didn’t submit an unsolicited bid to acquire US Steel, a company with a $5B market cap, just to acquire the $X stock symbol.

    Why not. It’s an asset of the business that Musk probably values more than anyone else.

    Buy a majority stake in US Steel.

    Sell everything else then reverse Twitter into the cash shell at a value close to what he paid for it. Job done.
    I'm not sure he'll get the full $44bn if he relists Twitter.

    He bought it at 8.5x sales. If he gets 8x sales now (bearing mind tech stocks have gone down *and* he overpaid), then he'd get a value of around $28bn.

    Of course the debt holders would be made whole, which means that the equity holders would have lost about two-thirds of their money.

    Should Twitter then start growing nicely (and earning money) again, then it would be an interesting investment.

    But (and this is not advice), if I were to put money anywhere, I think it would probably be Twitter - sorry X - debt.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,795
    Stand down all: it wasn't Twitter/X that bid on US Steel but Cleveland-Cliffs.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,078
    rcs1000 said:

    https://x.com/robertmsterling/status/1690833294290542592

    Please tell me that @elonmusk didn’t submit an unsolicited bid to acquire US Steel, a company with a $5B market cap, just to acquire the $X stock symbol.

    Why not. It’s an asset of the business that Musk probably values more than anyone else.

    Buy a majority stake in US Steel.

    Sell everything else then reverse Twitter into the cash shell at a value close to what he paid for it. Job done.
    I'm not sure he'll get the full $44bn if he relists Twitter.

    He bought it at 8.5x sales. If he gets 8x sales now (bearing mind tech stocks have gone down *and* he overpaid), then he'd get a value of around $28bn.

    Of course the debt holders would be made whole, which means that the equity holders would have lost about two-thirds of their money.

    Should Twitter then start growing nicely (and earning money) again, then it would be an interesting investment.

    But (and this is not advice), if I were to put
    money anywhere, I think it would probably be Twitter - sorry X - debt.
    Buy a majority of US Steel. Stack the board. Buy X for a negotiated value. Fend off the shareholder lawsuits using the business judgement defence.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,795

    rcs1000 said:

    https://x.com/robertmsterling/status/1690833294290542592

    Please tell me that @elonmusk didn’t submit an unsolicited bid to acquire US Steel, a company with a $5B market cap, just to acquire the $X stock symbol.

    Why not. It’s an asset of the business that Musk probably values more than anyone else.

    Buy a majority stake in US Steel.

    Sell everything else then reverse Twitter into the cash shell at a value close to what he paid for it. Job done.
    I'm not sure he'll get the full $44bn if he relists Twitter.

    He bought it at 8.5x sales. If he gets 8x sales now (bearing mind tech stocks have gone down *and* he overpaid), then he'd get a value of around $28bn.

    Of course the debt holders would be made whole, which means that the equity holders would have lost about two-thirds of their money.

    Should Twitter then start growing nicely (and earning money) again, then it would be an interesting investment.

    But (and this is not advice), if I were to put
    money anywhere, I think it would probably be Twitter - sorry X - debt.
    Buy a majority of US Steel. Stack the board. Buy X for a negotiated value. Fend off the shareholder lawsuits using the business judgement defence.
    Won't that trigger a mandatory bid for the rest?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,078
    edited August 2023
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    https://x.com/robertmsterling/status/1690833294290542592

    Please tell me that @elonmusk didn’t submit an unsolicited bid to acquire US Steel, a company with a $5B market cap, just to acquire the $X stock symbol.

    Why not. It’s an asset of the business that Musk probably values more than anyone else.

    Buy a majority stake in US Steel.

    Sell everything else then reverse Twitter into the cash shell at a value close to what he paid for it. Job done.
    I'm not sure he'll get the full $44bn if he relists Twitter.

    He bought it at 8.5x sales. If he gets 8x sales now (bearing mind tech stocks have gone down *and* he overpaid), then he'd get a value of around $28bn.

    Of course the debt holders would be made whole, which means that the equity holders would have lost about two-thirds of their money.

    Should Twitter then start growing nicely (and earning money) again, then it would be an interesting investment.

    But (and this is not advice), if I were to put
    money anywhere, I think it would probably be Twitter - sorry X - debt.
    Buy a majority of US Steel. Stack the board. Buy X for a negotiated value. Fend off the shareholder lawsuits using the business judgement defence.
    Won't that trigger a mandatory bid for the rest?
    Not in the US - one of the most shareholder unfriendly regimes out there.

    Edit: to be fair to the US, according to wiki neither Bermuda nor BVI require a mandatory offer either
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,813
    Oh

    Contractors told about legionella on day asylum seekers boarded barge
    Dorset council says it flagged test results about potentially deadly bacteria on Monday, but evacuation didn’t take place until four days later


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/13/home-office-was-told-about-legionella-on-refugees-barge-on-day-they-boarded
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited August 2023
    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Thanks for this.

    For those of us betting, as well as commentating, this sort of empirical data is really helpful.

    👏
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,135
    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,678
    Scott_xP said:

    Oh

    Contractors told about legionella on day asylum seekers boarded barge
    Dorset council says it flagged test results about potentially deadly bacteria on Monday, but evacuation didn’t take place until four days later


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/13/home-office-was-told-about-legionella-on-refugees-barge-on-day-they-boarded

    The government's mistake was in trying to source accommodation that was shitty enough to satisfy their desire to punish refugees and appeal to their voters while not so shitty that it would actually kill the people housed in it. That turns out to be quite hard to calibrate, especially for an organisation as incompetent as the Home Office.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,135

    Scott_xP said:

    Oh

    Contractors told about legionella on day asylum seekers boarded barge
    Dorset council says it flagged test results about potentially deadly bacteria on Monday, but evacuation didn’t take place until four days later


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/13/home-office-was-told-about-legionella-on-refugees-barge-on-day-they-boarded

    The government's mistake was in trying to source accommodation that was shitty enough to satisfy their desire to punish refugees and appeal to their voters while not so shitty that it would actually kill the people housed in it. That turns out to be quite hard to calibrate, especially for an organisation as incompetent as the Home Office.
    I think it’s quite generous to assume they only made one mistake.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,629
    edited August 2023
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
    The 2021 result was actually:

    Round 1:
    Lab 40.0, Con 35.3, Everyone else 24.7

    Round 2:
    Lab 55.2, Con 44.8

    I think what the previous post is saying is that in Round 1, Lab got 53.1% of the combined Lab + Con vote, not 53.1% of the total vote.

    ie 40.0/75.3 = 53.1%
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,139
    Scott_xP said:

    Oh

    Contractors told about legionella on day asylum seekers boarded barge
    Dorset council says it flagged test results about potentially deadly bacteria on Monday, but evacuation didn’t take place until four days later


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/13/home-office-was-told-about-legionella-on-refugees-barge-on-day-they-boarded

    I think several well paid and comfortably off Conservative MPs have already implied, "if one is genuinely fleeing from political or social persecution in their own country, they won't mind dying in squalor of Legionnaires disease in ours".
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,693
    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,541
    edited August 2023
    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,952

    https://x.com/robertmsterling/status/1690833294290542592

    Please tell me that @elonmusk didn’t submit an unsolicited bid to acquire US Steel, a company with a $5B market cap, just to acquire the $X stock symbol.

    Why not. It’s an asset of the business that Musk probably values more than anyone else.

    Buy a majority stake in US Steel.

    Sell everything else then reverse Twitter into the cash shell at a value close to what he paid for it. Job done.
    Elon Musk loves US Steel.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,026
    MikeL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
    The 2021 result was actually:

    Round 1:
    Lab 40.0, Con 35.3, Everyone else 24.7

    Round 2:
    Lab 55.2, Con 44.8

    I think what the previous post is saying is that in Round 1, Lab got 53.1% of the combined Lab + Con vote, not 53.1% of the total vote.

    ie 40.0/75.3 = 53.1%
    What it shows is that the only thing that will change is the winner won't have the validation of being the preferred choice over the other finalist.

    It's very likely everywhere will still end up with the same winner - although Teesside is going to be interesting as the shine is definitely coming off Ben Houchen.

    This letter to Redcar council shows the scale of the problem. His budget used to pay for the free parking but now that budget has been cut he's trying to blame the local councils (who are now no longer Tory lead for the obvious reason that they didn't actually deliver anything).

    https://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/23707036.tees-valley-mayor-ben-houchens-parking-funds-response-criticised/
  • eekeek Posts: 28,026
    edited August 2023

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,264

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    Envy of the world!

    (Said no-one who’s ever experienced any other healthcare system in an OECD country).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,952
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,026
    edited August 2023

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,636
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/14/roads-agency-starts-to-undo-its-vandalism-of-victorian-bridge

    O/T but interesting - that bridge swamped in concrete is being remediated.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,168

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    I’m conflicted about this. On the one hand the government is the U.K. government, and ultimately responsible for all inhabitants. But health is devolved. It would be better for NHS england to get its own house in order before helping the devolved services. I wonder whose idea it was?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,617
    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,688

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    I’m conflicted about this. On the one hand the government is the U.K. government, and ultimately responsible for all inhabitants. But health is devolved. It would be better for NHS england to get its own house in order before helping the devolved services. I wonder whose idea it was?
    Cross-border aid could be mutually beneficial. Maybe there’s an underused MRI machine on one side and an underused hydrotherapy pool on the other. Dunno, just speculating.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,168
    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,636
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/14/sharp-rise-in-cost-of-food-basics-forces-uk-families-to-make-desperate-choices

    Forget boats, this is Mr Sunak's problem. Well, not for him personally, but for very many voters food inflation is baked in - prices need to fall a looooooong way before we are even back at the point we were, even compared to wider inflation (which has not, on the whole, been compensated for in wages).

    "Food price inflation has slowed in recent months, but costs remain much higher than they were two years ago, disproportionally affecting low-income households, according to research by consumer body Which? shared exclusively with the Guardian.

    The annual pace of grocery price growth cooled to 14.9% over the four weeks to 9 July, down from 16.5% a month earlier, according to the latest analysis by retail industry data provider Kantar.

    Despite the slowdown, Which? figures showed that food prices have risen significantly over the past two years, and some products have gone up more than 30% since 2021.

    The food products with the highest rates of inflation are milk (36.4%), cheese (35.2%), butters and spreads (32.2%), cakes and cookies (31.2%), and bakery items (30.3%)."

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,636

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    I’m conflicted about this. On the one hand the government is the U.K. government, and ultimately responsible for all inhabitants. But health is devolved. It would be better for NHS england to get its own house in order before helping the devolved services. I wonder whose idea it was?
    Cross-border aid could be mutually beneficial. Maybe there’s an underused MRI machine on one side and an underused hydrotherapy pool on the other. Dunno, just speculating.
    It's all a bit odd to make this up as something new, given the nature of NHS commissioning. One supplier is much like another. I know someone in Northumberland who was given an operation in Melrose (Borders General) and that was years ago.

    Re 'worse', see the discussion yesterday - depends how you define 'worse'. Also, stats differently defined.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,617

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,942
    edited August 2023
    eek said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...

    Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.

    Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.

    Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,636

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    See this.

    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23607689.scotland-england-behind-nhs-waiting-list-divide/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,441

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    He was something of a disappointment with respect to foreign policy; domestically he did pretty well considering the makeup of Congress.

    And, FWIW, he was instrumental in persuading Biden not to run.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,264

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    I’m conflicted about this. On the one hand the government is the U.K. government, and ultimately responsible for all inhabitants. But health is devolved. It would be better for NHS england to get its own house in order before helping the devolved services. I wonder whose idea it was?
    You can see what they were trying to do with the kite-flying, but saying that our English system is a little bit less crap that the Scottish and Welsh systems, on a couple of narrow measures, went down about as well as expected in England, where patients want to see further reductions in waiting lists in England.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,135
    edited August 2023
    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/14/roads-agency-starts-to-undo-its-vandalism-of-victorian-bridge

    O/T but interesting - that bridge swamped in concrete is being remediated.

    Striking comments about organisations that are out of control and believe they are beyond the law.

    That seems true of far too many in this country. The police, as Cyclefree has constantly shown. The water companies. OFSTED. The Home Office. I'm sure many could list others from their own experience.

    Serve the bastards right that they got their comeuppance here.

    What alarms me is that they thought it worth spending £450,000 to avoid admitting a mistake/crime (delete according to taste) that would have cost £430,000 to reverse. Somebody needs to be investigated for that as well.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,135
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    He was something of a disappointment with respect to foreign policy; domestically he did pretty well considering the makeup of Congress.

    And, FWIW, he was instrumental in persuading Biden not to run.
    So his final major act in office was a catastrophic error of judgement?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,617
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    He was something of a disappointment with respect to foreign policy; domestically he did pretty well considering the makeup of Congress.

    And, FWIW, he was instrumental in persuading Biden not to run.
    I just know that I yearn - almost tearfully - for his natural charm and graciousness, compared to the flailing gaffes of Biden, and the odious demagoguery of Trump. And I think he’d be better on the foreign stuff now he’s a bit older and grizzled. He was naive
  • Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    He had a lot of potential but was a disappointment in office compared to Biden. His Veep has been a far better President than he was.

    Especially with respect to the handling of Russia/Ukraine.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,449
    edited August 2023
    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    Waiting lists are managed differently in each country. England prioritises P4 patients (non urgent) by time on W/L, so 1 year+ waiters automatically get priority regardless of clinical urgency, even if that means P3 patients (urgent < 3/12) wait longer.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,441
    The sight of Republicans arguing with each other about whether new manufacturing jobs are a good thing or not is a sight to behold.

    Those taking credit for a program they voted against, even more so.

    Democrats’ climate law set off a wave of energy projects in GOP districts. A backlash followed.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/13/biden-inflation-reduction-act-climate-states-00110940
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,026
    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/14/sharp-rise-in-cost-of-food-basics-forces-uk-families-to-make-desperate-choices

    Forget boats, this is Mr Sunak's problem. Well, not for him personally, but for very many voters food inflation is baked in - prices need to fall a looooooong way before we are even back at the point we were, even compared to wider inflation (which has not, on the whole, been compensated for in wages).

    "Food price inflation has slowed in recent months, but costs remain much higher than they were two years ago, disproportionally affecting low-income households, according to research by consumer body Which? shared exclusively with the Guardian.

    The annual pace of grocery price growth cooled to 14.9% over the four weeks to 9 July, down from 16.5% a month earlier, according to the latest analysis by retail industry data provider Kantar.

    Despite the slowdown, Which? figures showed that food prices have risen significantly over the past two years, and some products have gone up more than 30% since 2021.

    The food products with the highest rates of inflation are milk (36.4%), cheese (35.2%), butters and spreads (32.2%), cakes and cookies (31.2%), and bakery items (30.3%)."

    Got to say those food prices are now becoming more visible when eating out. The local pub reopened last week and is after £11 for a baguette with chips...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,553
    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/14/roads-agency-starts-to-undo-its-vandalism-of-victorian-bridge

    O/T but interesting - that bridge swamped in concrete is being remediated.

    Striking comments about organisations that are out of control and believe they are beyond the law.

    That seems true of far too many in this country. The police, as Cyclefree has constantly shown. The water companies. OFSTED. The Home Office. I'm sure many could list others from their own experience.

    Serve the bastards right that they got their comeuppance here.

    What alarms me is that they thought it worth spending £450,000 to avoid admitting a mistake/crime (delete according to taste) that would have cost £430,000 to reverse. Somebody needs to be investigated for that as well.
    Isn’t the 450k attempted bung a bribe? As in attempting to procure misconduct in a public office.

    The 450k was about saving management face. And trying to stop enquiries.

    I predict

    1) a junior engineer who got the coffees for the meeting that made the decision will be blamed. Sort of.
    2) Lessons Will Be Learned
    3) the people actually involved will move on to better paid, more responsible jobs. Probably responsible for major national historic monuments.

    #NU10K
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,139
    ...
    Foxy said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    Waiting lists are managed differently in each country. England prioritises P4 patients (non urgent) by time on W/L, so 1 year+ waiters automatically get priority regardless of clinical urgency, even if that means P3 patients (urgent < 3/12) wait longer.
    Presumably if urgent patients fall off the perch they also fall off the waiting list. So I can see the logic.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,441
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    He was something of a disappointment with respect to foreign policy; domestically he did pretty well considering the makeup of Congress.

    And, FWIW, he was instrumental in persuading Biden not to run.
    So his final major act in office was a catastrophic error of judgement?
    The alternative history, had Biden beaten Hillary, and then Trump, is interesting to think about.
  • eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/14/sharp-rise-in-cost-of-food-basics-forces-uk-families-to-make-desperate-choices

    Forget boats, this is Mr Sunak's problem. Well, not for him personally, but for very many voters food inflation is baked in - prices need to fall a looooooong way before we are even back at the point we were, even compared to wider inflation (which has not, on the whole, been compensated for in wages).

    "Food price inflation has slowed in recent months, but costs remain much higher than they were two years ago, disproportionally affecting low-income households, according to research by consumer body Which? shared exclusively with the Guardian.

    The annual pace of grocery price growth cooled to 14.9% over the four weeks to 9 July, down from 16.5% a month earlier, according to the latest analysis by retail industry data provider Kantar.

    Despite the slowdown, Which? figures showed that food prices have risen significantly over the past two years, and some products have gone up more than 30% since 2021.

    The food products with the highest rates of inflation are milk (36.4%), cheese (35.2%), butters and spreads (32.2%), cakes and cookies (31.2%), and bakery items (30.3%)."

    Got to say those food prices are now becoming more visible when eating out. The local pub reopened last week and is after £11 for a baguette with chips...
    Remember that it isn't just food prices affecting out of home prices. Electricity prices - whilst less mental than the peak - are still a lot higher than they were. Inflation has driven up property prices has driven up commercial rents. And so many businesses only survived Covid by taking on an ocean of debt.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,441
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    He was something of a disappointment with respect to foreign policy; domestically he did pretty well considering the makeup of Congress.

    And, FWIW, he was instrumental in persuading Biden not to run.
    I just know that I yearn - almost tearfully - for his natural charm and graciousness, compared to the flailing gaffes of Biden, and the odious demagoguery of Trump. And I think he’d be better on the foreign stuff now he’s a bit older and grizzled. He was naive
    It will be interesting to see whether he gets significantly involved again in domestic politics, having largely stepped away from it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,617
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    He was something of a disappointment with respect to foreign policy; domestically he did pretty well considering the makeup of Congress.

    And, FWIW, he was instrumental in persuading Biden not to run.
    I just know that I yearn - almost tearfully - for his natural charm and graciousness, compared to the flailing gaffes of Biden, and the odious demagoguery of Trump. And I think he’d be better on the foreign stuff now he’s a bit older and grizzled. He was naive
    It will be interesting to see whether he gets significantly involved again in domestic politics, having largely stepped away from it.
    He’s still only 62. Young by American political standards
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,688
    edited August 2023
    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...

    Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.

    Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.

    Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
    Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,441
    100 years ago.

    U.S. Steel switches from 12-hour to 8-hour workdays - becoming the second company after Ford Motors to do so.
    https://twitter.com/100YearsAgoLive/status/1690767469961482240
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,139
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    He was something of a disappointment with respect to foreign policy; domestically he did pretty well considering the makeup of Congress.

    And, FWIW, he was instrumental in persuading Biden not to run.
    So his final major act in office was a catastrophic error of judgement?
    The alternative history, had Biden beaten Hillary, and then Trump, is interesting to think about.
    Trump, I believe had dirt on Hunter Biden. His campaign team in the Kremlin would have had dossiers galore and gone nuclear on that.

    Both Hillary and Joe had compromised national security issues. Somewhat ironic after what came next.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,617
    eek said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/14/sharp-rise-in-cost-of-food-basics-forces-uk-families-to-make-desperate-choices

    Forget boats, this is Mr Sunak's problem. Well, not for him personally, but for very many voters food inflation is baked in - prices need to fall a looooooong way before we are even back at the point we were, even compared to wider inflation (which has not, on the whole, been compensated for in wages).

    "Food price inflation has slowed in recent months, but costs remain much higher than they were two years ago, disproportionally affecting low-income households, according to research by consumer body Which? shared exclusively with the Guardian.

    The annual pace of grocery price growth cooled to 14.9% over the four weeks to 9 July, down from 16.5% a month earlier, according to the latest analysis by retail industry data provider Kantar.

    Despite the slowdown, Which? figures showed that food prices have risen significantly over the past two years, and some products have gone up more than 30% since 2021.

    The food products with the highest rates of inflation are milk (36.4%), cheese (35.2%), butters and spreads (32.2%), cakes and cookies (31.2%), and bakery items (30.3%)."

    Got to say those food prices are now becoming more visible when eating out. The local pub reopened last week and is after £11 for a baguette with chips...
    £49 for 2 for an OK-ish takeaway curry in Cornwall last night (I’m showing my older daughter a couple of southwest universities)

    Something in me rebels against a takeaway costing £50. It should rightfully be ~£30
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,819
    edited August 2023

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,168

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    I’m conflicted about this. On the one hand the government is the U.K. government, and ultimately responsible for all inhabitants. But health is devolved. It would be better for NHS england to get its own house in order before helping the devolved services. I wonder whose idea it was?
    Cross-border aid could be mutually beneficial. Maybe there’s an underused MRI machine on one side and an underused hydrotherapy pool on the other. Dunno, just speculating.
    Possible, but the NHS in England is pretty big, so you’d argue those kind of issues could be better/easier addressed internally.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,264

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    Almost all of the problems in US politics stem from the huge amount of money in Washington, from donors and lobbyists. Even the politician with the most radical manifesto, gets totally house trained on their first week in the job, and the separation of powers is pretty much designed to prevent major reform of anything that favours the entrenched interests at the expense of the people.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,636

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    I’m conflicted about this. On the one hand the government is the U.K. government, and ultimately responsible for all inhabitants. But health is devolved. It would be better for NHS england to get its own house in order before helping the devolved services. I wonder whose idea it was?
    Cross-border aid could be mutually beneficial. Maybe there’s an underused MRI machine on one side and an underused hydrotherapy pool on the other. Dunno, just speculating.
    Possible, but the NHS in England is pretty big, so you’d argue those kind of issues could be better/easier addressed internally.
    As I note earlier, it was already buying in services from Scotland years ago in the Northumberland area where useful. I believe it stopped a few years later, by political or administrative fiat, despite the sometimes very real inconvenience to patients (the hospital services in Northumberland aren't well distributed).
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,168

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...

    Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.

    Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.

    Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
    Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
    What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
  • eek said:

    MikeL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
    The 2021 result was actually:

    Round 1:
    Lab 40.0, Con 35.3, Everyone else 24.7

    Round 2:
    Lab 55.2, Con 44.8

    I think what the previous post is saying is that in Round 1, Lab got 53.1% of the combined Lab + Con vote, not 53.1% of the total vote.

    ie 40.0/75.3 = 53.1%
    What it shows is that the only thing that will change is the winner won't have the validation of being the preferred choice over the other finalist.

    It's very likely everywhere will still end up with the same winner - although Teesside is going to be interesting as the shine is definitely coming off Ben Houchen.

    This letter to Redcar council shows the scale of the problem. His budget used to pay for the free parking but now that budget has been cut he's trying to blame the local councils (who are now no longer Tory lead for the obvious reason that they didn't actually deliver anything).

    https://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/23707036.tees-valley-mayor-ben-houchens-parking-funds-response-criticised/
    The new rules will probably matter in the provincial south- the sort of place where urban centres are LabCon and the hinterland is LibCon and the total is C40LD30Lab20Others10.

    That's Bedford, Cambridgeshire, probably some others (especially the new ones). But, unless Jezza or someone similar goes for it, Sadiq should be safe enough.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,688

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...

    Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.

    Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.

    Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
    Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
    What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
    Well, the first set of hearings, on pandemic preparations, was front page news on the BBC News website every day. The next hearings will be more interesting, I suspect, but haven’t started yet.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,728

    eek said:

    MikeL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
    The 2021 result was actually:

    Round 1:
    Lab 40.0, Con 35.3, Everyone else 24.7

    Round 2:
    Lab 55.2, Con 44.8

    I think what the previous post is saying is that in Round 1, Lab got 53.1% of the combined Lab + Con vote, not 53.1% of the total vote.

    ie 40.0/75.3 = 53.1%
    What it shows is that the only thing that will change is the winner won't have the validation of being the preferred choice over the other finalist.

    It's very likely everywhere will still end up with the same winner - although Teesside is going to be interesting as the shine is definitely coming off Ben Houchen.

    This letter to Redcar council shows the scale of the problem. His budget used to pay for the free parking but now that budget has been cut he's trying to blame the local councils (who are now no longer Tory lead for the obvious reason that they didn't actually deliver anything).

    https://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/23707036.tees-valley-mayor-ben-houchens-parking-funds-response-criticised/
    The new rules will probably matter in the provincial south- the sort of place where urban centres are LabCon and the hinterland is LibCon and the total is C40LD30Lab20Others10.

    That's Bedford, Cambridgeshire, probably some others (especially the new ones). But, unless Jezza or someone similar goes for it, Sadiq should be safe enough.
    I'd guess it will have a devastating effect on the Lib Dem candidate if the message gets across that voting Lib Dem could let the Tory in.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,026

    eek said:

    MikeL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
    The 2021 result was actually:

    Round 1:
    Lab 40.0, Con 35.3, Everyone else 24.7

    Round 2:
    Lab 55.2, Con 44.8

    I think what the previous post is saying is that in Round 1, Lab got 53.1% of the combined Lab + Con vote, not 53.1% of the total vote.

    ie 40.0/75.3 = 53.1%
    What it shows is that the only thing that will change is the winner won't have the validation of being the preferred choice over the other finalist.

    It's very likely everywhere will still end up with the same winner - although Teesside is going to be interesting as the shine is definitely coming off Ben Houchen.

    This letter to Redcar council shows the scale of the problem. His budget used to pay for the free parking but now that budget has been cut he's trying to blame the local councils (who are now no longer Tory lead for the obvious reason that they didn't actually deliver anything).

    https://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/23707036.tees-valley-mayor-ben-houchens-parking-funds-response-criticised/
    The new rules will probably matter in the provincial south- the sort of place where urban centres are LabCon and the hinterland is LibCon and the total is C40LD30Lab20Others10.

    That's Bedford, Cambridgeshire, probably some others (especially the new ones). But, unless Jezza or someone similar goes for it, Sadiq should be safe enough.
    Another place where it may work is in the North East where the Labour vote is going to be split between Kim McGuinness and Jamie Driscoll allowing the chimpanzee with blue rosette to sneak down the middle.

    For those who don't remember Jamie Driscoll is the North of Tyne Mayor who the NEC didn't allow to stand.

    Kim McGuinness has social media posts that should have removed her from standing as well.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,026
    Chris said:

    eek said:

    MikeL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
    The 2021 result was actually:

    Round 1:
    Lab 40.0, Con 35.3, Everyone else 24.7

    Round 2:
    Lab 55.2, Con 44.8

    I think what the previous post is saying is that in Round 1, Lab got 53.1% of the combined Lab + Con vote, not 53.1% of the total vote.

    ie 40.0/75.3 = 53.1%
    What it shows is that the only thing that will change is the winner won't have the validation of being the preferred choice over the other finalist.

    It's very likely everywhere will still end up with the same winner - although Teesside is going to be interesting as the shine is definitely coming off Ben Houchen.

    This letter to Redcar council shows the scale of the problem. His budget used to pay for the free parking but now that budget has been cut he's trying to blame the local councils (who are now no longer Tory lead for the obvious reason that they didn't actually deliver anything).

    https://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/23707036.tees-valley-mayor-ben-houchens-parking-funds-response-criticised/
    The new rules will probably matter in the provincial south- the sort of place where urban centres are LabCon and the hinterland is LibCon and the total is C40LD30Lab20Others10.

    That's Bedford, Cambridgeshire, probably some others (especially the new ones). But, unless Jezza or someone similar goes for it, Sadiq should be safe enough.
    I'd guess it will have a devastating effect on the Lib Dem candidate if the message gets across that voting Lib Dem could let the Tory in.
    It really will provide a message for Labour to focus on - it's us v the Tory candidate - any other vote is a complete waste.
  • TheKitchenCabinetTheKitchenCabinet Posts: 2,275
    edited August 2023

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,264
    eek said:

    eek said:

    MikeL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
    The 2021 result was actually:

    Round 1:
    Lab 40.0, Con 35.3, Everyone else 24.7

    Round 2:
    Lab 55.2, Con 44.8

    I think what the previous post is saying is that in Round 1, Lab got 53.1% of the combined Lab + Con vote, not 53.1% of the total vote.

    ie 40.0/75.3 = 53.1%
    What it shows is that the only thing that will change is the winner won't have the validation of being the preferred choice over the other finalist.

    It's very likely everywhere will still end up with the same winner - although Teesside is going to be interesting as the shine is definitely coming off Ben Houchen.

    This letter to Redcar council shows the scale of the problem. His budget used to pay for the free parking but now that budget has been cut he's trying to blame the local councils (who are now no longer Tory lead for the obvious reason that they didn't actually deliver anything).

    https://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/23707036.tees-valley-mayor-ben-houchens-parking-funds-response-criticised/
    The new rules will probably matter in the provincial south- the sort of place where urban centres are LabCon and the hinterland is LibCon and the total is C40LD30Lab20Others10.

    That's Bedford, Cambridgeshire, probably some others (especially the new ones). But, unless Jezza or someone similar goes for it, Sadiq should be safe enough.
    Another place where it may work is in the North East where the Labour vote is going to be split between Kim McGuinness and Jamie Driscoll allowing the chimpanzee with blue rosette to sneak down the middle.

    For those who don't remember Jamie Driscoll is the North of Tyne Mayor who the NEC didn't allow to stand.

    Kim McGuinness has social media posts that should have removed her from standing as well.
    I still find it hilarious that the major parties still seem unable to properly vet candidates for MP or mayoral roles.

    At the next GE, your average middle-class 35-year-old will likely have had a iPhone and a Facebook account since they were 18 - and so will all of their friends and acquaintances.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,688

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    Oh well. At least you can support today’s Republican Party, who are strong on defending Ukraine and very keen on bipartisan cooperation.
  • Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    MikeL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
    The 2021 result was actually:

    Round 1:
    Lab 40.0, Con 35.3, Everyone else 24.7

    Round 2:
    Lab 55.2, Con 44.8

    I think what the previous post is saying is that in Round 1, Lab got 53.1% of the combined Lab + Con vote, not 53.1% of the total vote.

    ie 40.0/75.3 = 53.1%
    What it shows is that the only thing that will change is the winner won't have the validation of being the preferred choice over the other finalist.

    It's very likely everywhere will still end up with the same winner - although Teesside is going to be interesting as the shine is definitely coming off Ben Houchen.

    This letter to Redcar council shows the scale of the problem. His budget used to pay for the free parking but now that budget has been cut he's trying to blame the local councils (who are now no longer Tory lead for the obvious reason that they didn't actually deliver anything).

    https://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/23707036.tees-valley-mayor-ben-houchens-parking-funds-response-criticised/
    The new rules will probably matter in the provincial south- the sort of place where urban centres are LabCon and the hinterland is LibCon and the total is C40LD30Lab20Others10.

    That's Bedford, Cambridgeshire, probably some others (especially the new ones). But, unless Jezza or someone similar goes for it, Sadiq should be safe enough.
    Another place where it may work is in the North East where the Labour vote is going to be split between Kim McGuinness and Jamie Driscoll allowing the chimpanzee with blue rosette to sneak down the middle.

    For those who don't remember Jamie Driscoll is the North of Tyne Mayor who the NEC didn't allow to stand.

    Kim McGuinness has social media posts that should have removed her from standing as well.
    I still find it hilarious that the major parties still seem unable to properly vet candidates for MP or mayoral roles.

    At the next GE, your average middle-class 35-year-old will likely have had a iPhone and a Facebook account since they were 18 - and so will all of their friends and acquaintances.
    The thing is that youthful indiscretions are something we all had and shouldn't be something to hold against someone.

    The problem with most 'social media' controversy when it kicks off with politicians and candidates is that it doesn't date back to what they said over a decade ago, its almost always about what they were actively saying very recently.

    A bit like Corbyn, some people liked to claim things were decades old and muckraking, but he'd never changed and the incidents of antisemitism he was personally involved in dated right up to the point he became Leader of the Opposition.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,441

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    Oh well. At least you can support today’s Republican Party, who are strong on defending Ukraine and very keen on bipartisan cooperation.
    But that's all the Democrats' fault.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,264

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...

    Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.

    Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.

    Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
    Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
    What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
    Well, the first set of hearings, on pandemic preparations, was front page news on the BBC News website every day. The next hearings will be more interesting, I suspect, but haven’t started yet.
    The Telegraph is running with it on the front page today, a group of children’s charities making criticism of the speed of the enquiry in addressing the concerns of children.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/14/covid-inquiry-silencing-children-claim-charities/
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    I’m conflicted about this. On the one hand the government is the U.K. government, and ultimately responsible for all inhabitants. But health is devolved. It would be better for NHS england to get its own house in order before helping the devolved services. I wonder whose idea it was?
    The clue is in the "UK government", they control all the budgets , they are always whining that they are the big chiefs who give the orders. They are hoist by their own petard and rightly should look after "UK" since they are not the "English" government. They are happy to take all the "Scottish" resources and say they are "UK" resources. Bunch of fcuking losers here whinge constantly about us all being one big union/country when it suits but Little Englanderitis always breaks out and shows the reality. Suggesting they starve the other health services to fund teh English NHS is gruesome even for the crackpots on here.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    Oh well. At least you can support today’s Republican Party, who are strong on defending Ukraine and very keen on bipartisan cooperation.
    Some are, definitely. 👍

    Just a shame none of them are candidates for President.

    One thing Biden has done well, and one reason I rate him as the best of the 21st century Presidents so far of any party, is that he worked hard at reaching across the aisle, and building bipartisan agreements especially on Ukraine. No mean feat in 21st century America.

    Despite the very weak on foreign policy candidates in the GOP like Trump and De Santis and the grip they hold on much of the party, a lot of GOP Senators have held their backbone and supported bipartisan support for Ukraine. Hopefully that continues into the future.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,264

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    MikeL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
    The 2021 result was actually:

    Round 1:
    Lab 40.0, Con 35.3, Everyone else 24.7

    Round 2:
    Lab 55.2, Con 44.8

    I think what the previous post is saying is that in Round 1, Lab got 53.1% of the combined Lab + Con vote, not 53.1% of the total vote.

    ie 40.0/75.3 = 53.1%
    What it shows is that the only thing that will change is the winner won't have the validation of being the preferred choice over the other finalist.

    It's very likely everywhere will still end up with the same winner - although Teesside is going to be interesting as the shine is definitely coming off Ben Houchen.

    This letter to Redcar council shows the scale of the problem. His budget used to pay for the free parking but now that budget has been cut he's trying to blame the local councils (who are now no longer Tory lead for the obvious reason that they didn't actually deliver anything).

    https://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/23707036.tees-valley-mayor-ben-houchens-parking-funds-response-criticised/
    The new rules will probably matter in the provincial south- the sort of place where urban centres are LabCon and the hinterland is LibCon and the total is C40LD30Lab20Others10.

    That's Bedford, Cambridgeshire, probably some others (especially the new ones). But, unless Jezza or someone similar goes for it, Sadiq should be safe enough.
    Another place where it may work is in the North East where the Labour vote is going to be split between Kim McGuinness and Jamie Driscoll allowing the chimpanzee with blue rosette to sneak down the middle.

    For those who don't remember Jamie Driscoll is the North of Tyne Mayor who the NEC didn't allow to stand.

    Kim McGuinness has social media posts that should have removed her from standing as well.
    I still find it hilarious that the major parties still seem unable to properly vet candidates for MP or mayoral roles.

    At the next GE, your average middle-class 35-year-old will likely have had a iPhone and a Facebook account since they were 18 - and so will all of their friends and acquaintances.
    The thing is that youthful indiscretions are something we all had and shouldn't be something to hold against someone.

    The problem with most 'social media' controversy when it kicks off with politicians and candidates is that it doesn't date back to what they said over a decade ago, its almost always about what they were actively saying very recently.

    A bit like Corbyn, some people liked to claim things were decades old and muckraking, but he'd never changed and the incidents of antisemitism he was personally involved in dated right up to the point he became Leader of the Opposition.
    I agree with you about youthful indiscretions, but opponents and the public in general don't agree and think it’s fair
    game. Especially with things such as drug use and sex work, as well as controversial political statements.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,617

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,942
    edited August 2023

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...

    Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.

    Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.

    Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
    Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
    That's part of the (tacit) conspiracy of silence of course - political debate on the disaster of our COVID response is effectively shut down for probably a decade while people say "wait for the inquiry", even though it won't tell us anything that isn't blindingly obvious and all we'll get is one opinion out of many farcically given official sanction because of the prejudices of the panel. Not only a complete waste of money but also damaging because of the delay to the national debate.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,352

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...

    Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.

    Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.

    Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
    Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
    What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
    The use of inquiries is central to how power, mostly government power, works. They are used to deflect legitimate criticism of the powerful at the time, then used to bore, delay and complexify/lawyerify any and all issues until people can't remember, don't care and have moved on.

    Basically they disperse trouble over extended time.

    In the end (Iraq is a classic) the reports are so long that even the serious media can't cope with it.

    The list is endless, and the current list is quite long.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,617
    edited August 2023

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump

    Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin

    Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,189
    Remember too Corbyn has not ruled out a bid for London Mayor either.

    If it is held solely under FPTP next year you could see Khan, Corbyn and Hall all on 25 to 30% of the vote and each with a chance of winning. Whereas on the old system where preferences would decide the winner between the top 2 either Khan or Corbyn would likely easily beat Hall in London depending on which of them got to that last two
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,189

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,189
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    He was something of a disappointment with respect to foreign policy; domestically he did pretty well considering the makeup of Congress.

    And, FWIW, he was instrumental in persuading Biden not to run.
    So his final major act in office was a catastrophic error of judgement?
    The alternative history, had Biden beaten Hillary, and then Trump, is interesting to think about.
    The key is he could and almost certainly would have beaten Trump in 2016.

    No Trump presidency. No MAGA bullshit. No hollowing out of the Republican Party. No attempted coup.

    Of course, that might mean they went for someone even nuttier like DeSantis in 2020. But no Trump would definitely have been a good start.

    I think it was Paul Linford said the key to understanding 2016 was that Clinton and Trump were the only candidates the other one could beat. Literally anyone else for the Republicans and Clinton would have been nowhere. Anyone else for the Dems and Trump would have lost.

    2016 was a tragedy, however you cut it.
    Had Biden won the Democratic nomination over Hillary and then beaten Trump in 2016 then Cruz or Kasich would have been in prime position in 2020 on the Republican side
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump

    Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin

    Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
    Our resident Chicken Little reckons everything is shit and getting worse. Quelle surprise!

    No, I rate Biden because I rate Biden, not simply Trump. I didn't say that Biden was better than Trump, I said he was better than Obama too.

    "Wokeness" is not a real problem, just press the X button on the top-right hand corner of the browser showing X and move on with your life.

    Life expectancy is falling because of drugs and other issues that are not in the Presidents immediate control to turn around in 3 years.

    Maui is burning because of the climate its in. Fires happen sometimes. Your hyperventilating about American cities is mostly (but not entirely) unjustified.

    And as for Afghanistan the agreement to leave Afghanistan was signed under his predecessor, not him, and besides after two decades it would have been absurd to reverse that agreement anyway.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,558

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...

    Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.

    Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.

    Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
    Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
    What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
    Well, the first set of hearings, on pandemic preparations, was front page news on the BBC News website every day. The next hearings will be more interesting, I suspect, but haven’t started yet.
    If the covid hearings start questioning the BBC line of lockdown good, freedom bad, the BBC will go strangely quiet.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,553
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump

    Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin

    Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
    Afghanistan was Trump’s Art Of The Deal made manifest. Biden just got the blame.

    Biden is the best foreign policy president since George Bush I.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,189
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    MikeL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
    The 2021 result was actually:

    Round 1:
    Lab 40.0, Con 35.3, Everyone else 24.7

    Round 2:
    Lab 55.2, Con 44.8

    I think what the previous post is saying is that in Round 1, Lab got 53.1% of the combined Lab + Con vote, not 53.1% of the total vote.

    ie 40.0/75.3 = 53.1%
    What it shows is that the only thing that will change is the winner won't have the validation of being the preferred choice over the other finalist.

    It's very likely everywhere will still end up with the same winner - although Teesside is going to be interesting as the shine is definitely coming off Ben Houchen.

    This letter to Redcar council shows the scale of the problem. His budget used to pay for the free parking but now that budget has been cut he's trying to blame the local councils (who are now no longer Tory lead for the obvious reason that they didn't actually deliver anything).

    https://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/23707036.tees-valley-mayor-ben-houchens-parking-funds-response-criticised/
    The new rules will probably matter in the provincial south- the sort of place where urban centres are LabCon and the hinterland is LibCon and the total is C40LD30Lab20Others10.

    That's Bedford, Cambridgeshire, probably some others (especially the new ones). But, unless Jezza or someone similar goes for it, Sadiq should be safe enough.
    Another place where it may work is in the North East where the Labour vote is going to be split between Kim McGuinness and Jamie Driscoll allowing the chimpanzee with blue rosette to sneak down the middle.

    For those who don't remember Jamie Driscoll is the North of Tyne Mayor who the NEC didn't allow to stand.

    Kim McGuinness has social media posts that should have removed her from standing as well.
    I still find it hilarious that the major parties still seem unable to properly vet candidates for MP or mayoral roles.

    At the next GE, your average middle-class 35-year-old will likely have had a iPhone and a Facebook account since they were 18 - and so will all of their friends and acquaintances.
    They do, both party HQs vet social media before you get on the list but then again if we never allowed people to say what they think within reason some of the best politicians in the past may never have been selected as they surely would not have had dull anodyne social media accounts
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump

    Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin

    Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
    Afghanistan was Trump’s Art Of The Deal made manifest. Biden just got the blame.

    Biden is the best foreign policy president since George Bush I.
    I'd say since Clinton personally, Clinton did well in navigating the period post the fall of the Soviet Union, expanding NATO into Eastern Europe, got the closest to getting peace in the Middle East (and much progress there), and did well with Kosovo.

    Biden is the best of those elected in the 21st Century though, easily.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,323
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
    Excellent points.

    To be fair to Obama on Iraq, once Bush and, to his shame, Blair had unleashed the dogs of war there was no good outcome likely or even possible.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,819
    edited August 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
    Excellent points.

    To be fair to Obama on Iraq, once Bush and, to his shame, Blair had unleashed the dogs of war there was no good outcome likely or even possible.
    You think leaving Iraq to Saddam Hussein would have been a good outcome?

    There were no good outcomes pre-war. War sometimes is a lesser evil, but lets not pretend that Saddam's Iraq was sunshine and roses.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,189

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
    Excellent points.

    To be fair to Obama on Iraq, once Bush and, to his shame, Blair had unleashed the dogs of war there was no good outcome likely or even possible.
    Ironically Iraq today is rather an improvement on the Iraq of Saddam in 2003. Whereas Afghanistan today under the Taliban is no different from the Afghanistan of 2001 under the Taliban. Even Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan ultimately, again under Obama, another credit to his bow
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,323

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
    Excellent points.

    To be fair to Obama on Iraq, once Bush and, to his shame, Blair had unleashed the dogs of war there was no good outcome likely or even possible.
    You think leaving Iraq to Saddam Hussein would have been a good outcome?

    There were no good outcomes pre-war. War sometimes is a lesser evil, but lets not pretend that Saddam's Iraq was sunshine and roses.
    I suspect that someone would have arranged a nasty accident for Saddam and his sons before long.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,617

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump

    Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin

    Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
    Our resident Chicken Little reckons everything is shit and getting worse. Quelle surprise!

    No, I rate Biden because I rate Biden, not simply Trump. I didn't say that Biden was better than Trump, I said he was better than Obama too.

    "Wokeness" is not a real problem, just press the X button on the top-right hand corner of the browser showing X and move on with your life.

    Life expectancy is falling because of drugs and other issues that are not in the Presidents immediate control to turn around in 3 years.

    Maui is burning because of the climate its in. Fires happen sometimes. Your hyperventilating about American cities is mostly (but not entirely) unjustified.

    And as for Afghanistan the agreement to leave Afghanistan was signed under his predecessor, not him, and besides after two decades it would have been absurd to reverse that agreement anyway.
    I’m not sure you’re entirely in a position to pontificate on the state of America seeing as you have never gone beyond the confines of your Barratt estate on the outskirts of Northampton. Indeed I sometimes wonder if you’ve ever actually left your house other than to go sit in your car and pretend to drive it while making “driving” noises with your mouth
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,690
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
    Always nice to like both sides of a discussion. Good posts by both @HYUFD and @BartholomewRoberts
  • eekeek Posts: 28,026
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    MikeL said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    "A bit" is the operative word. Of course political junkies like to obsess about voting systems, but the difference between first preferences shares between the Tory and Labour candidate and second round shares has been pretty trivial in the scheme of things:

    Wineer 1st round 2nd round
    2021 53.1 Lab 55.2
    2016 55.8 Lab 56.8
    2012 52.2 Con 51.5
    2008 53.9 Con 53.2

    So the change would have advantaged the Conservative candidate in all cases, but in no cases by more than a couple of points. And of course we don't know how, if at all, people's voting habits will be affected by the change (my guess is they won't be because vanishingly few will notice and those that would probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway).

    Your first round figures make no sense. If they had got over 50% in the first round there would have been no need for a second round.

    Or do you just mean that in all cases the candidate who led in the first round went on to win anyway?
    The 2021 result was actually:

    Round 1:
    Lab 40.0, Con 35.3, Everyone else 24.7

    Round 2:
    Lab 55.2, Con 44.8

    I think what the previous post is saying is that in Round 1, Lab got 53.1% of the combined Lab + Con vote, not 53.1% of the total vote.

    ie 40.0/75.3 = 53.1%
    What it shows is that the only thing that will change is the winner won't have the validation of being the preferred choice over the other finalist.

    It's very likely everywhere will still end up with the same winner - although Teesside is going to be interesting as the shine is definitely coming off Ben Houchen.

    This letter to Redcar council shows the scale of the problem. His budget used to pay for the free parking but now that budget has been cut he's trying to blame the local councils (who are now no longer Tory lead for the obvious reason that they didn't actually deliver anything).

    https://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/23707036.tees-valley-mayor-ben-houchens-parking-funds-response-criticised/
    The new rules will probably matter in the provincial south- the sort of place where urban centres are LabCon and the hinterland is LibCon and the total is C40LD30Lab20Others10.

    That's Bedford, Cambridgeshire, probably some others (especially the new ones). But, unless Jezza or someone similar goes for it, Sadiq should be safe enough.
    Another place where it may work is in the North East where the Labour vote is going to be split between Kim McGuinness and Jamie Driscoll allowing the chimpanzee with blue rosette to sneak down the middle.

    For those who don't remember Jamie Driscoll is the North of Tyne Mayor who the NEC didn't allow to stand.

    Kim McGuinness has social media posts that should have removed her from standing as well.
    I still find it hilarious that the major parties still seem unable to properly vet candidates for MP or mayoral roles.

    At the next GE, your average middle-class 35-year-old will likely have had a iPhone and a Facebook account since they were 18 - and so will all of their friends and acquaintances.
    They do, both party HQs vet social media before you get on the list but then again if we never allowed people to say what they think within reason some of the best politicians in the past may never have been selected as they surely would not have had dull anodyne social media accounts
    See my comment earlier - while they vet it they don't do a good enough job of it.

    So the moment Kim McGuinness got the nod her racists post where discovered and highlighted (now deleted by the looks of things but the damage was done).
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump

    Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin

    Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
    Our resident Chicken Little reckons everything is shit and getting worse. Quelle surprise!

    No, I rate Biden because I rate Biden, not simply Trump. I didn't say that Biden was better than Trump, I said he was better than Obama too.

    "Wokeness" is not a real problem, just press the X button on the top-right hand corner of the browser showing X and move on with your life.

    Life expectancy is falling because of drugs and other issues that are not in the Presidents immediate control to turn around in 3 years.

    Maui is burning because of the climate its in. Fires happen sometimes. Your hyperventilating about American cities is mostly (but not entirely) unjustified.

    And as for Afghanistan the agreement to leave Afghanistan was signed under his predecessor, not him, and besides after two decades it would have been absurd to reverse that agreement anyway.
    I’m not sure you’re entirely in a position to pontificate on the state of America seeing as you have never gone beyond the confines of your Barratt estate on the outskirts of Northampton. Indeed I sometimes wonder if you’ve ever actually left your house other than to go sit in your car and pretend to drive it while making “driving” noises with your mouth
    You should embrace the feeling of driving on the open road, if you took your usual anti-car gibberish to America no wonder you have such a downbeat feeling about America.

    That's a country designed around the open road, as it works, and is more modern without our clinging onto the pre-technological past. As a result they have a much higher standard of living, despite their great many other problems like endemic racism, guns and drugs.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,055
    edited August 2023

    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    Dramatic reduction in the number of future missed cancer targets: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66494983

    That Barclay is some boy.

    If the government renames the NHS the National Queueing Service, that will solve the rest of its problems.

    ETA this is reminiscent of the tail end of the Major government, where ministers forgot that whatever the official line, people knew how long they, their friends and families had been waiting.
    See especially the announcement later this week where it will be suggested that Scottish and Welsh patients use English hospitals to solve waiting delays.

    Anyone waiting in England is going to be thinking I could have been seen earlier if it was for this interferring.
    And, the observant will notice that it is not the Tories in office in either of those devolved administrations and the waiting time are even worse.
    What does that actually gain them - the argument any sane opposition is going to use is that waiting lists were less than 1 million in 2010 and now they are 8 million+...

    Given that there wasn't a pandemic in 2008 comparing the waiting lists on the two dates makes no sense.

    Comparing how the devolved regions of the UK are faring is much more appropriate, as both went through the pandemic at the same time.

    Of course the real disaster was to turn the NHS into the National Covid Service and to terrify the public into going along with it, but as all main parties approved of that, and all the other disastrous COVID measures we took, they can't rationally criticise it, so there is a conspiracy of silence on that.
    Ah, yes, the ol’ conspiracy of silence line. It’s not as if there’s a public inquiry costing over £85 million into COVID-19 and how we handled it.
    What’s interesting about the inquiry is how quiet the media are about it. They seem to have lost all interest in covid now.
    The media were only ever interested in Covid for three stories.

    1. OhMyGod we're all gonna die! The Tory plan to kill YOUR granny to save Whetherspoons.
    2. The Covid rules are so confusing - why can't I do x if so-and-so is doing y?
    3. Hypocrisy!

    They are consequently only interested in the inquiry insofar as it touches on these stories, and even then only the first and third of these. I have been very critical of the government's failures over Covid, but the media manage to make them look good.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,617

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    People over-rate Biden just because the alternative is Trump

    Virtually all of America’s problems have got way worse under Biden, life expectancy is plunging, the cities burn, he’s helpless with Wokeness, and as for foreign policy he did a cut and run in Afghanistan which was far worse than any error by obama. And he emboldened Putin

    Go do a drive around inland America. This is a tottering empire under a doddering leader. He’s the perfect emblem, in that way
    Our resident Chicken Little reckons everything is shit and getting worse. Quelle surprise!

    No, I rate Biden because I rate Biden, not simply Trump. I didn't say that Biden was better than Trump, I said he was better than Obama too.

    "Wokeness" is not a real problem, just press the X button on the top-right hand corner of the browser showing X and move on with your life.

    Life expectancy is falling because of drugs and other issues that are not in the Presidents immediate control to turn around in 3 years.

    Maui is burning because of the climate its in. Fires happen sometimes. Your hyperventilating about American cities is mostly (but not entirely) unjustified.

    And as for Afghanistan the agreement to leave Afghanistan was signed under his predecessor, not him, and besides after two decades it would have been absurd to reverse that agreement anyway.
    I’m not sure you’re entirely in a position to pontificate on the state of America seeing as you have never gone beyond the confines of your Barratt estate on the outskirts of Northampton. Indeed I sometimes wonder if you’ve ever actually left your house other than to go sit in your car and pretend to drive it while making “driving” noises with your mouth
    You should embrace the feeling of driving on the open road, if you took your usual anti-car gibberish to America no wonder you have such a downbeat feeling about America.

    That's a country designed around the open road, as it works, and is more modern without our clinging onto the pre-technological past. As a result they have a much higher standard of living, despite their great many other problems like endemic racism, guns and drugs.
    You do make “driving” noises with your mouth, tho, don’t you? You sit on the car seat turning the wheel going “parp parp brrrrwoooh” as your carer looks anxiously out of the window
  • HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    This might explain the rather masculine Michelle Obama



    I say good luck to him. Publish and be damned. A sensitive and intellectual man, who might have been a disappointment in office but by god he was better than what America is offered now

    I never had a problem with Obama as president. I did take issue at the adulation and prizes awarded on becoming president, rather than after seeing how well he did the job itself.
    I was the full-on Obamacan. A right winger who would eagerly have voted for him. He was genuinely inspiring and charismatic. I also thought he might conclusively heal America’s race divide…

    Oh dear

    He still seems enviably smart, sharp and vigorous - compared to Trump or Biden. He probably got the job too young (when he was susceptible to the flattery you mention). He’d be better now. He’s also aware to the dangers of Woke, and has spoken of it


    Obama neatly highlights the problem in American politics. You can elect a president on a mandate to reform the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy. And then have that blocked by the other parts of government who have a mandate to preserve the various multiple catastrophically broken parts of American society and economy.

    Ultimately you get what you vote for, and so many American shitkickers vote for more shit to kick. And have done for years thanks to the power of money offering a choice of political parties both of whom are corrupt to their core.
    The problem isn't just the power of money, the bigger problem is separation of powers.

    Ultimately when you keep separating powers, and America has taken the concept to ridiculous extremes, then you are going to get elected individuals at multiple tiers who can block and confront each other, and blame each other, so that nobody gets shit done and nobody takes responsibility.

    We saw it in this country too with the EU, and we see it in this country still today with Scotland. And we see it with NIMBY Councils wanting to abuse their powers on a crappy turnout.

    There needs to be someone saying "the buck stops here" and getting stuff done. Its why I backed Brexit, and Scottish independence, and stripping Councils of their right to interfere in construction projects which should instead be based on national laws and standards.
    The whole American system is designed to build in compromise - hence the filibuster, the separation of powers etc. The idea is that you put in the checks so you do bring about a solution that is acceptable to most people.

    There is a tendency to think - as epitomised by @RochdalePioneers' post - that Obama was trying desperately to overcome resistance and compromise at every opportunity for the good of the country. In fact, he was very divisive - we got the schick about 'Hope' etc but, in the US, he was probably one of the most partisan Presidents ever. He wasn't interested in building bridges across the aisle.

    I will lay aside the fact he was not a great President to put it mildly (Ukraine is where it is because of his weakness) but. in trying to push through his agenda, he caused problems for the Democrats later on. So he supported abolishing the filibuster for Cabinet officials and federal judges and, lo and behold, McConnell hot his own back by abolishing it for Supreme Court Justice nominations. Hence the current composition.

    One final point. Since the Civil War, the precedent is that ex-Presidents take themselves out of town so as not to be seen to be overshadowing the incoming administration (Woodrow Wilson didn't because he was too ill to move). Obama hasn't and has kept himself very much in DC land - ostensibly for his daughter's school but more likely both to be at the heart of the post-2016 Democrat party.
    But at least whenever the camera approaches Obama you get the feeling he is likely to say something wise or insightful, witty or charming. And you kinda smile


    When the camera approaches Biden I fiercely cringe in anticipation of him saying something weird, sad, incoherent and plain bonkers, and when the camera approaches Trump I either gaze in horror or yield to nihilistic laughter and have a large gin

    Obama was charming, but charming isn't the main thing a Presidency needs.

    Biden has been a far better President than Obama, not because he's been more charming, but because he's got the job done.

    Biden is more shrewd than Obama. His background helps, he's an old-school Senator who is used to working in bipartisan agreements in the Senate. Despite the hyper-partisan nature of 21st Century American politics he's been able to reach across the aisle time and again to get agreements made, whether it be supporting Ukraine, or getting the debt ceiling lifted without a shutdown.

    He's also not been suckered in by Putin, in the way that Trump was and still is, and Obama was.
    Obama got Obamacare done and didn't withdraw from Afghanistan and leave it to the Taliban, he only withdrew from Iraq which has an elected government now.
    Excellent points.

    To be fair to Obama on Iraq, once Bush and, to his shame, Blair had unleashed the dogs of war there was no good outcome likely or even possible.
    You think leaving Iraq to Saddam Hussein would have been a good outcome?

    There were no good outcomes pre-war. War sometimes is a lesser evil, but lets not pretend that Saddam's Iraq was sunshine and roses.
    I suspect that someone would have arranged a nasty accident for Saddam and his sons before long.
    Considering he'd been leader of a totalitarian Iraq since 1979, what exactly brings on that suspicion?

    And if he had, he'd almost certainly have been replaced with another Ba'athist anyway.

    Unpopular opinion in today's west, but Iraq despite its problems is now a much better for us having invaded and freed them from Hussein's dictatorship.

    Just a shame we didn't have the same lasting success in Afghanistan.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,180
    Stupid conspiracy theorists have already got the Maui tragedy in their sights.

    https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1690795391074123776
This discussion has been closed.