Off-topic but perhaps culturally significant if TikTok provides a route from teenage dreams to proper telly, just as PB launched @Leon's career at the Knappers Gazette.
I think the Tory stewardship of Ofcom has been excellent and has got the UK into being the leader in FTTP build. They didn't do it directly of course but they were very up for splitting off Openreach which certainly helped.
... after sneering at Labour for its broadband plans, they decided maybe Jezza was onto something after all.
Because corbyns broadband plans were shit...it was a one size fits all policy whereas I can choose a company that optimizes for what I need whether is down speed upspeed or ping....not what the state decided I needed, Jezza can go shove his head up his butt
There is a difference between thinking Conservative broadband policy is better than Labour would have done, and believing governments should not involve themselves in broadband provision at all.
I didn't claim conservative policy was correct and frankly want the governement of any colour to stay as far as way from the internet as possible as they are incompetent. Points out back in the day of bt when it was governement run they wall balls deep for isdn and refused to countenance adsl.
Politicians have no understanding of telecoms and the best thing they can do is keep their fingers off. The fact they dont is why we have to experience crap like the online safety bill.
NBC live blog - NBC News is currently estimating that there will be about 130,000 caucusgoers, which is a lower turnout than expected. The NBC News Decision Desk made the estimate based off of entrance poll interviews and initial vote returns.
The caucuses come as Iowa faces subzero temperatures. In Des Moines, the temperature dipped to about -4 degrees, but shot down to -21 degrees when factoring in wind chill, according to the National Weather Service.
NBC live blog - NBC News is currently estimating that there will be about 130,000 caucusgoers, which is a lower turnout than expected. The NBC News Decision Desk made the estimate based off of entrance poll interviews and initial vote returns.
The caucuses come as Iowa faces subzero temperatures. In Des Moines, the temperature dipped to about -4 degrees, but shot down to -21 degrees when factoring in wind chill, according to the National Weather Service.
NBC live blog - NBC News is currently estimating that there will be about 130,000 caucusgoers, which is a lower turnout than expected. The NBC News Decision Desk made the estimate based off of entrance poll interviews and initial vote returns.
The caucuses come as Iowa faces subzero temperatures. In Des Moines, the temperature dipped to about -4 degrees, but shot down to -21 degrees when factoring in wind chill, according to the National Weather Service.
Those numbers are - of course - fahrenheit.
with windchill yesterday it was -40 degrees, no conversion necessary
NBC live blog - NBC News is currently estimating that there will be about 130,000 caucusgoers, which is a lower turnout than expected. The NBC News Decision Desk made the estimate based off of entrance poll interviews and initial vote returns.
The caucuses come as Iowa faces subzero temperatures. In Des Moines, the temperature dipped to about -4 degrees, but shot down to -21 degrees when factoring in wind chill, according to the National Weather Service.
NBC live blog - Trump won nearly every voting bloc in the Iowa Republican caucuses tonight, according to NBC News Entrance Poll results, but he did particularly well among a few groups.
His best showing came from voters who don’t have a college degree (65%), those who identify as very conservative (61%), voters over 65 years old (55%) and white evangelicals (53%).
SSI - the Evangelical number is quite interesting - lower than might be expected for King David 2024.
NBC live blog - NBC News is currently estimating that there will be about 130,000 caucusgoers, which is a lower turnout than expected. The NBC News Decision Desk made the estimate based off of entrance poll interviews and initial vote returns.
The caucuses come as Iowa faces subzero temperatures. In Des Moines, the temperature dipped to about -4 degrees, but shot down to -21 degrees when factoring in wind chill, according to the National Weather Service.
NBC live blog - NBC News is currently estimating that there will be about 130,000 caucusgoers, which is a lower turnout than expected. The NBC News Decision Desk made the estimate based off of entrance poll interviews and initial vote returns.
The caucuses come as Iowa faces subzero temperatures. In Des Moines, the temperature dipped to about -4 degrees, but shot down to -21 degrees when factoring in wind chill, according to the National Weather Service.
These are Fahrenheit, right?
Yeah - it's NBC, not BBC or CBC!
Yes. I’m afraid I can only “do” Celsius. I had to check Apple Weather. It’s currently -21, but “feels like” -32 in Des Moines.
Trump projection down to 52%. (No I don’t intend to monitor this all night).
Would be great for him to slip below 50%
Personally hopeful he will do it. Depends on final balance between rural versus urban/suburban, in one person, one vote situation. Which IMHO tends to slightly (emphasis on conditional) favor urbs & burbs.
NYT now reporting more than twice number of votes reported by Iowa GOP website; 4,195 vs 1,522
My guess this is due to backlog with state party reporting system, versus AP having reps and runners on the ground, which is their typical modus operandi.
Nikki Haley now leading in three counties: Johnson (Iowa City), Story (Ames) and now Polk (Des Moines) where she now leads by 4 votes, with just 3% of state's largest county reporting.
DeSantis leads in no county, however he is in 2nd place in most counties with any votes reported.
So no booths like a primary but people are filling in/writing on the paper where they sit?
My impression was that caucuses were a show of hands, people moving rooms etc, or is that just Dem ones?
Thanks
"It’s important to remember that Democrats and Republicans conduct their caucuses in two very different ways. Republicans select their candidate via a simple secret-ballot vote — unlike the Democratic shuffling from one corner of a caucus site to the other."
So no booths like a primary but people are filling in/writing on the paper where they sit?
My impression was that caucuses were a show of hands, people moving rooms etc, or is that just Dem ones?
Thanks
You're impression is from Democratic caucuses, where voting was generally NOT secret but rather public, with reallocation of supporters of candidates who failed to clear 15% minimum threshold.
In tonight's caucus, voting is by paper ballot, with people have reasonable privacy to fill in ballot, or write choice on blank piece of paper, depending on location. Pretty much how Iowa Republicans have always done it.
Feels not brilliant for Trump but not great for Haley either.
Surely important for Haley to come second - even if only by small margin.
If (big if) DeSantis pulls out before New Hampshire in a week's time, then second or third tonight makes no real difference to Haley, and she will almost certainly come second in that state even if RDS stays in.
So no booths like a primary but people are filling in/writing on the paper where they sit?
My impression was that caucuses were a show of hands, people moving rooms etc, or is that just Dem ones?
Thanks
"It’s important to remember that Democrats and Republicans conduct their caucuses in two very different ways. Republicans select their candidate via a simple secret-ballot vote — unlike the Democratic shuffling from one corner of a caucus site to the other."
(Dems might not bring that back)
The Democratic caucus method was crap, both because of it's inherently undemocratic features such as restricted voting window and non-secret ballot, but also because it's a logistical nightmare if you get a big turnout. And turnouts in fact got bigger and bigger.
Better to hold primaries instead. In Washington State, voter turnout for presidential preference primaries MUCH higher than for even the most well-attended caucuses.
Most of counties with zero reporting are in western, esp northwest Iowa. Which may be weather related . . . such as being reluctant to leave a nice warm building to head back down a long cold dark road . . .
For AP, etc. to "call" the statewide Iowa caucus results while VOTING IS STILL ONGOING is rotten journalism.
It's good journalism but whether it is great for the democratic process is open to doubt.
This is an old debate in USA, and personally speaking it was, is and will always be crap journalism.
Of course it doesn't happen in the UK because partial results don't exist. You either have 100% of the result from a particular constituency or 0%. There's no guessing by anyone. I think Ireland is the only other country which counts votes in that way.
So no booths like a primary but people are filling in/writing on the paper where they sit?
My impression was that caucuses were a show of hands, people moving rooms etc, or is that just Dem ones?
Thanks
"It’s important to remember that Democrats and Republicans conduct their caucuses in two very different ways. Republicans select their candidate via a simple secret-ballot vote — unlike the Democratic shuffling from one corner of a caucus site to the other."
(Dems might not bring that back)
The Democratic caucus method was crap, both because of it's inherently undemocratic features such as restricted voting window and non-secret ballot, but also because it's a logistical nightmare if you get a big turnout. And turnouts in fact got bigger and bigger.
Better to hold primaries instead. In Washington State, voter turnout for presidential preference primaries MUCH higher than for even the most well-attended caucuses.
Thanks for the info - so it sounds like the GOP caucuses are more democratic, and the only features that differ from a primary are that voting isn't 100% secret and that candidates/surrogates give speeches before voting - and that voting in a primary will be more similar to general election hours rather than starting in the evening.
And I think that states run primaries but parties run caucuses?
For AP, etc. to "call" the statewide Iowa caucus results while VOTING IS STILL ONGOING is rotten journalism.
It's good journalism but whether it is great for the democratic process is open to doubt.
This is an old debate in USA, and personally speaking it was, is and will always be crap journalism.
Of course it doesn't happen in the UK because partial results don't exist. You either have 100% of the result from a particular constituency or 0%. There's no guessing by anyone. I think Ireland is the only other country which counts votes in that way.
Short-circuiting democracy like this is more of an issue in the election itself when time zones mean results come in from the East coast while the West coast is still voting. Again, not an issue in Britain.
So no booths like a primary but people are filling in/writing on the paper where they sit?
My impression was that caucuses were a show of hands, people moving rooms etc, or is that just Dem ones?
Thanks
"It’s important to remember that Democrats and Republicans conduct their caucuses in two very different ways. Republicans select their candidate via a simple secret-ballot vote — unlike the Democratic shuffling from one corner of a caucus site to the other."
(Dems might not bring that back)
The Democratic caucus method was crap, both because of it's inherently undemocratic features such as restricted voting window and non-secret ballot, but also because it's a logistical nightmare if you get a big turnout. And turnouts in fact got bigger and bigger.
Better to hold primaries instead. In Washington State, voter turnout for presidential preference primaries MUCH higher than for even the most well-attended caucuses.
Thanks for the info - so it sounds like the GOP caucuses are more democratic, and the only features that differ from a primary are that voting isn't 100% secret and that candidates/surrogates give speeches before voting - and that voting in a primary will be more similar to general election hours rather than starting in the evening.
And I think that states run primaries but parties run caucuses?
Except that there are NO MORE Democratic Party caucuses, not for presidential delegate candidate allocation.
Primaries very similar to general elections with respect to voting opportunities. And parties run caucuses while state & local governments run primaries, except I think in South Carolina.
For AP, etc. to "call" the statewide Iowa caucus results while VOTING IS STILL ONGOING is rotten journalism.
It's good journalism but whether it is great for the democratic process is open to doubt.
This is an old debate in USA, and personally speaking it was, is and will always be crap journalism.
Of course it doesn't happen in the UK because partial results don't exist. You either have 100% of the result from a particular constituency or 0%. There's no guessing by anyone. I think Ireland is the only other country which counts votes in that way.
Although of course obviously in Ireland there will be multiple STV counts for one constituency, but it's the only other country I know of where results are declared by a returning officer.
For AP, etc. to "call" the statewide Iowa caucus results while VOTING IS STILL ONGOING is rotten journalism.
It's good journalism but whether it is great for the democratic process is open to doubt.
This is an old debate in USA, and personally speaking it was, is and will always be crap journalism.
Of course it doesn't happen in the UK because partial results don't exist. You either have 100% of the result from a particular constituency or 0%. There's no guessing by anyone. I think Ireland is the only other country which counts votes in that way.
Although of course obviously in Ireland there will be multiple STV counts for one constituency, but it's the only other country I know of where results are declared by a returning officer.
Canada has returning officers IIRC.
In USA, state and local chief election officers, such as secretaries of state, and county auditors or clerks, are equivalent to UK returning officers, though frequently acting as both executives and members of election canvassing boards, which may be able to overrule them in some matters.
Anyone on here still think that Trump won't be the nominee? Could see this all being over once he wins NH - if you like short odds betting the 1.16 on BF looks like a steal to me.
Trump with over 50%, DeSantis in second place from Haley.
It's been a good night for Trump: he won Iowa with more than 50% of the vote, and Haley wasn't second. It was an ok night for DeSamtis, in that he didn't come third. But with a nowhere in New Hampshire coming, it's only put off the inevitable. It was a disappointing night for Haley, because she really needed to be second. It's now all or nothing for her in New Hampshire.
Anyone on here still think that Trump won't be the nominee? Could see this all being over once he wins NH - if you like short odds betting the 1.16 on BF looks like a steal to me.
If he wins NH it is all over. And even if he doesn't, he is still very probably the nominee.
Really, the only negative for him is that he slightly underperformed the polling that had him in the high 50s.
NYT calling it a “record” win for Trump: De Santis is a “distant second”
Barring a black swan, Trump is the GOP candidate
I don't know why anyone is surprised: once you eliminated don't knows, Trump was polling in the high 50s in Iowa.
Trump just scraped 50% against a split opposition. Betfair has him at a 85% chance of getting the nomination. I think that's too high.
At this point, the chances of his nomination are directly correlated to the chance of him being disqualified in some way. If Republican members are allowed to vote for him in the primaries, they’re going to do so overwhelmingly.
NYT calling it a “record” win for Trump: De Santis is a “distant second”
Barring a black swan, Trump is the GOP candidate
I don't know why anyone is surprised: once you eliminated don't knows, Trump was polling in the high 50s in Iowa.
Trump just scraped 50% against a split opposition. Betfair has him at a 85% chance of getting the nomination. I think that's too high.
At this point, the chances of his nomination are directly correlated to the chance of him being disqualified in some way. If Republican members are allowed to vote for him in the primaries, they’re going to do so overwhelmingly.
It wasn't overwhelming in Iowa. Only half did. He'll probably get the nomination but I don't think it is 85% chance
I've joined Community Notes and I enjoy rating them. I also have the right to write them to provide context.
This was perhaps my favourite one, from the official White House account crediting Biden with a record pension increase - when in fact pensions go up automatically with inflation, and Biden didn’t pass any legislation regarding pensions. The WH deleted it shortly afterwards. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/02/white-house-twitter-context-note-00064647
So Trump wins Ioww comfortably as expected but with 51% not overwhelmingly.
DeSantis edges out Haley for second, helped by his more committed supporters being more willing to brave the cold than her Independent backers. Haley will hope to bounce back in New Hampshire.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.
Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.
Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
And one whose precepts are broken on such a massive scale?
So even though he's been trying to undermine them and remove them from their cherished place at the start of the campaign, and even though he wasn't on the ballot, Joe Biden wins bigly in the Iowa caucus.
American democracy is a big loser. Bigger than Trump.
Getting a bit of a Mordaunt vibe from Haley, ie someone semi sane who tries to ride the loonball tiger of their chosen party. They just can't authentically replicate the full fat wing nuttery that's required.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.
Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
Yes. Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. Does 90% of the job and no superflous nonsense about blasphemy or which religion if any you want to believe in.
Getting a bit of a Mordaunt vibe from Haley, ie someone semi sane who tries to ride the loonball tiger of their chosen party. They just can't authentically replicate the full fat wing nuttery that's required.
Getting a bit of a Mordaunt vibe from Haley, ie someone semi sane who tries to ride the loonball tiger of their chosen party. They just can't authentically replicate the full fat wing nuttery that's required.
How's Nikki on the sword holding front?
Don't know whether she still has a kirpan?*
*Bizarre autocorrect made that a 'Keir plan' which presumably would be to say and do nothing and wait for the utter loon she's running against to blow himself up in some way.
Getting a bit of a Mordaunt vibe from Haley, ie someone semi sane who tries to ride the loonball tiger of their chosen party. They just can't authentically replicate the full fat wing nuttery that's required.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
Religion can be a great source of solace and joy for individuals. All too often, it can be a hideous nightmare for others.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.
Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
Yes. Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. Does 90% of the job and no superflous nonsense about blasphemy or which religion if any you want to believe in.
It was the one about not admiring your neighbour's ass that always got me.
So basically, the best chance the Republicans have now is if the Supreme Court decide to uphold the Constitution instead of Trump's hurt feelings and rule him ineligible.
Not great, especially given the current Supreme Court have all the integrity and sophistication of a protection racket.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.
Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
Absolutely, the "golden rule" of treat others as you want to be treated.
Besides the Ten Commandments is not a good code of human behaviour, which is why most of them aren't even laws.
Seems just about a perfect result for Trump with near enough 50% of the vote and no clear rival emerging with DeSantis apparently soldiering on on the back of his second place. The GOP are not going to stop Trump, it will have to be seen if the courts can.
Seems Trump has won Iowa (no surprise) but he's barely got half of the Iowa GOP vote?
That to me seems like Trump surprising on the downside. Quite a poor result really for someone who supposedly has a lock on the party.
Reinforces my view that Trump 2024 is an even worse candidate than the losing candidate Trump 2020 and will lose in the general election in November.
Yes, that there are people professing to be Trump supporters but who, in the secrecy of the polling booth baulk at voting for him, is the best news of all.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.
Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
I generally agree that the Ten Commandments are a reasonable guide for personal behaviour, but far from perfect. It starts badly with: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", which you can see leading to all sorts of problems with other religions. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is another one that has zero purpose in reality. " Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is a control one. Then there is one about the Sabbath day, and the remainder are far better.
I know it is gauche to keep on reminding people of my brilliance but the BBC has finally caught up with what I have been saying for the last few years.
The Labour Party would need a record swing in votes at the next general election to win a majority in the House of Commons, according to analysis of the new electoral map.
The next election will be fought on new constituency boundaries, redrawn to reflect population changes and to try to even out voter numbers in each area.
An analysis of these changes for BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and the Press Association suggests Labour needs a national swing of 12.7% to win with just a small majority.
That's considerably higher than the 10.2% achieved by Tony Blair in 1997 and higher even than the 12% achieved by Clement Attlee in 1945.
The swing from the Conservatives to Labour would need to be uniform, to follow the same pattern everywhere, with other parties seeing no change in performance since 2019.
In practice, the picture will be more complicated, so this is a rough guide. But a uniform national swing has been a reliable model for general elections in the UK over a long period of time.
Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but: a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.
Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.
Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
I generally agree that the Ten Commandments are a reasonable guide for personal behaviour, but far from perfect. It starts badly with: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", which you can see leading to all sorts of problems with other religions. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is another one that has zero purpose in reality. " Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is a control one. Then there is one about the Sabbath day, and the remainder are far better.
As a moral code, I'd give it 5/10.
I feel the Ten Commandments are designed to get certain people into trouble, I mean why keep on repeating these?
Thou shalt not commit adultery and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife nor her ass.
Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….
Glorious conjunction of stories on the Guardian homepage this morning. Right next to each other.
“Let me be clear: divided parties fail,” Levido told Tory MPs. “It’s time to get serious – I am fighting to win this election, and I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t believe it was possible. We all need to be fighting to win this election.”
followed by
“The Rwanda Bill. I have signed the Cash & Jenrick amendments. I will vote for them,” Anderson wrote on X. Clarke-Smith, the MP for Bassetlaw, also confirmed he would vote for rebel amendments. Asked if he would be sacked, he replied: “We’ll see. Not for me to decide.”
Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….
It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.
But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….
It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.
But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
As Sean_F put it so eloquently the party of President Reagan is now Putin's catamites
Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….
It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.
But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
I think its a shame that your support of Ukraine doesn't go as far as American politics.
The US Constitution and US law requires the President to seek Congressional approval for the money and the law requires that money to be recorded the away that it is. Biden can't seek Congressional approval for less then send the same amount over.
Don't blame Biden for the GOP candidates being anti-Ukraine. They're anti-Ukraine, because they're anti-Ukraine.
Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….
It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.
But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
The 'it costs too much' screeching comes straight from the Republican/Musky Baby must-let-Russia-win mouths. It is not something created by Biden's administration.
It's stupid of them (and their supporters), because it's cheaper to help Ukraine win now than have to fight Russia later, and the vast majority of that money is being spent in the US.
I know it is gauche to keep on reminding people of my brilliance but the BBC has finally caught up with what I have been saying for the last few years.
The Labour Party would need a record swing in votes at the next general election to win a majority in the House of Commons, according to analysis of the new electoral map.
The next election will be fought on new constituency boundaries, redrawn to reflect population changes and to try to even out voter numbers in each area.
An analysis of these changes for BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and the Press Association suggests Labour needs a national swing of 12.7% to win with just a small majority.
That's considerably higher than the 10.2% achieved by Tony Blair in 1997 and higher even than the 12% achieved by Clement Attlee in 1945.
The swing from the Conservatives to Labour would need to be uniform, to follow the same pattern everywhere, with other parties seeing no change in performance since 2019.
In practice, the picture will be more complicated, so this is a rough guide. But a uniform national swing has been a reliable model for general elections in the UK over a long period of time.
The Iowa thing is hardly a surprise. A substantial minority of Americans think Trump is the Messiah and won’t accept any other result. Regardless of what the various courts or even the general election decides.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cek5e53e4gxo
Off-topic but perhaps culturally significant if TikTok provides a route from teenage dreams to proper telly, just as PB launched @Leon's career at the Knappers Gazette.
But it would be equally big if he were to lose New Hampshire.
That seems moderately disappointing for Trump, and passable for Haley but not amazingly so.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/15/us/elections/iowa-caucus-election-needle.html
Politicians have no understanding of telecoms and the best thing they can do is keep their fingers off. The fact they dont is why we have to experience crap like the online safety bill.
The caucuses come as Iowa faces subzero temperatures. In Des Moines, the temperature dipped to about -4 degrees, but shot down to -21 degrees when factoring in wind chill, according to the National Weather Service.
His best showing came from voters who don’t have a college degree (65%), those who identify as very conservative (61%), voters over 65 years old (55%) and white evangelicals (53%).
SSI - the Evangelical number is quite interesting - lower than might be expected for King David 2024.
I had to check Apple Weather. It’s currently -21, but “feels like” -32 in Des Moines.
(No I don’t intend to monitor this all night).
Would be great for him to slip below 50%
My guess this is due to backlog with state party reporting system, versus AP having reps and runners on the ground, which is their typical modus operandi.
Are the votes cast at the caucuses semi-secret?
So no booths like a primary but people are filling in/writing on the paper where they sit?
My impression was that caucuses were a show of hands, people moving rooms etc, or is that just Dem ones?
Thanks
DeSantis leads in no county, however he is in 2nd place in most counties with any votes reported.
But DeSantis currently second per CNN running totals:
Donald Trump 50.0% 3,743
Ron DeSantis 22.1% 1,657
Nikki Haley 20.5% 1,535
Vivek Ramaswamy 7.0% 527
Asa Hutchinson 0.1% 11
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/primaries-and-caucuses/results/iowa/republican-presidential-primary
Surely important for Haley to come second - even if only by small margin.
(Dems might not bring that back)
In tonight's caucus, voting is by paper ballot, with people have reasonable privacy to fill in ballot, or write choice on blank piece of paper, depending on location. Pretty much how Iowa Republicans have always done it.
Better to hold primaries instead. In Washington State, voter turnout for presidential preference primaries MUCH higher than for even the most well-attended caucuses.
Ron DeSantis 8,193 20.0%
Nikki Haley 7,920 19.4%
Asa Hutchinson 61 0.1%
Vivek Ramaswamy 3,172 7.8%
Donald Trump 21,270 52.0%
https://results.iacaucus2024.com/
Trump 52.0%
DeSantis 20.2%
Haley 19.0%
Ramaswamy 7.7%
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/primaries-and-caucuses/results/iowa/republican-presidential-primary
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/15/us/elections/iowa-caucus-election-needle.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/live-blog/iowa-election-2024-live-updates-rcna133678
And I think that states run primaries but parties run caucuses?
Primaries very similar to general elections with respect to voting opportunities. And parties run caucuses while state & local governments run primaries, except I think in South Carolina.
A generally disappointing result for everyone.
In USA, state and local chief election officers, such as secretaries of state, and county auditors or clerks, are equivalent to UK returning officers, though frequently acting as both executives and members of election canvassing boards, which may be able to overrule them in some matters.
Ron DeSantis 19,650 21.3%
Nikki Haley 17,616 19.1%
Asa Hutchinson 176 0.2%
Vivek Ramaswamy 7,120 7.7%
Donald Trump 47,108 51.0%
Appears DeSantis clear second.
Whether weather played a role in winning, placing or showing, not sure but suspect it may have depressed Haley vote more than Trump or DeSantis.
https://apnews.com/live/iowa-republican-caucuses-live-updates
Trump with over 50%, DeSantis in second place from Haley.
It was an ok night for DeSamtis, in that he didn't come third. But with a nowhere in New Hampshire coming, it's only put off the inevitable.
It was a disappointing night for Haley, because she really needed to be second. It's now all or nothing for her in New Hampshire.
Really, the only negative for him is that he slightly underperformed the polling that had him in the high 50s.
Haley 1,271
Trump 1,270
1. Trump wins New Hampshire. In which case, it is simply all over, as he will go on to win South Carolina, and everyone will withdraw by Super Tuesday
2. Haley wins New Hampshire. In which case, there is a good chance that the Super Tuesday primaries happen. (Which Trump will very probably win.)
3. Something else happens. In which case, Trump will still probably win. (The exception being a health event.)
Barring a black swan, Trump is the GOP candidate
The online election campaigns are going to be rather amusing with this feature.
https://x.com/fbi/status/1746910418436513980?s=61
The WH deleted it shortly afterwards.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/02/white-house-twitter-context-note-00064647
DeSantis edges out Haley for second, helped by his more committed supporters being more willing to brave the cold than her Independent backers. Haley will hope to bounce back in New Hampshire.
Ramaswamay drops out and endorses Trump
Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
American democracy is a big loser. Bigger than Trump.
How's Nikki on the sword holding front?
Seems Trump has won Iowa (no surprise) but he's barely got half of the Iowa GOP vote?
That to me seems like Trump surprising on the downside. Quite a poor result really for someone who supposedly has a lock on the party.
Reinforces my view that Trump 2024 is an even worse candidate than the losing candidate Trump 2020 and will lose in the general election in November.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2529741/SC-Governor-Nikki-Haley-gets-575-gun-Christmas.html
*Bizarre autocorrect made that a 'Keir plan' which presumably would be to say and do nothing and wait for the utter loon she's running against to blow himself up in some way.
Not great, especially given the current Supreme Court have all the integrity and sophistication of a protection racket.
Besides the Ten Commandments is not a good code of human behaviour, which is why most of them aren't even laws.
As a moral code, I'd give it 5/10.
The Labour Party would need a record swing in votes at the next general election to win a majority in the House of Commons, according to analysis of the new electoral map.
The next election will be fought on new constituency boundaries, redrawn to reflect population changes and to try to even out voter numbers in each area.
An analysis of these changes for BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and the Press Association suggests Labour needs a national swing of 12.7% to win with just a small majority.
That's considerably higher than the 10.2% achieved by Tony Blair in 1997 and higher even than the 12% achieved by Clement Attlee in 1945.
The swing from the Conservatives to Labour would need to be uniform, to follow the same pattern everywhere, with other parties seeing no change in performance since 2019.
In practice, the picture will be more complicated, so this is a rough guide. But a uniform national swing has been a reliable model for general elections in the UK over a long period of time.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138
All on NH now.
Thou shalt not commit adultery and Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife nor her ass.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468
“Let me be clear: divided parties fail,” Levido told Tory MPs. “It’s time to get serious – I am fighting to win this election, and I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t believe it was possible. We all need to be fighting to win this election.”
followed by
“The Rwanda Bill. I have signed the Cash & Jenrick amendments. I will vote for them,” Anderson wrote on X. Clarke-Smith, the MP for Bassetlaw, also confirmed he would vote for rebel amendments. Asked if he would be sacked, he replied: “We’ll see. Not for me to decide.”
But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
The US Constitution and US law requires the President to seek Congressional approval for the money and the law requires that money to be recorded the away that it is. Biden can't seek Congressional approval for less then send the same amount over.
Don't blame Biden for the GOP candidates being anti-Ukraine. They're anti-Ukraine, because they're anti-Ukraine.
It's stupid of them (and their supporters), because it's cheaper to help Ukraine win now than have to fight Russia later, and the vast majority of that money is being spent in the US.
But so is the extent to which the government elected in 2019 has messed up.