Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Agree but sadly easier said than done. Whilst America has had some scary moments in the past (McCarthyism, Wallace) I don't think any of those were a threat to the democracy (although I could be ignorant of my history). I am sure @TheKitchenCabinet thinks I am over reacting but I think Trump is the scariest thing for American democracy since the Civil War.
Its not remotely an over-reaction.
The problem with the US Constitution is that its interpreted by people and get people who will abuse the constitution rather than enforce it into the right places then suddenly its protections are utterly worthless.
The constitution says that Trump is disbarred from being President, since he led an insurrection, its there in black and white. No ifs, buts or maybes. But since 6 people can make up any bull as to why he isn't, then suddenly all the protections of the constitution become utterly worthless.
Enough of the Orange Manchild for now, what's going to happen with the Rwanda bill today?
The best way I think for the Government is to back the Buckland amendment (a centrist amendment based around Rwanda having to prove it has implemented the safety measures in the new treaty), and then it has cover to bring on board the ERG legal strengthening ones.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Agree but sadly easier said than done. Whilst America has had some scary moments in the past (McCarthyism, Wallace) I don't think any of those were a threat to the democracy (although I could be ignorant of my history). I am sure @TheKitchenCabinet thinks I am over reacting but I think Trump is the scariest thing for American democracy since the Civil War.
you are forgetting Nixon.
In fact you could say he helped pave the way for what is happening now.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Agree but sadly easier said than done. Whilst America has had some scary moments in the past (McCarthyism, Wallace) I don't think any of those were a threat to the democracy (although I could be ignorant of my history). I am sure @TheKitchenCabinet thinks I am over reacting but I think Trump is the scariest thing for American democracy since the Civil War.
you are forgetting Nixon.
In fact you could say he helped pave the way for what is happening now.
Following the last general election, a direct swing of seven percentage points from Conservative to Labour was required for Labour to become the largest party in a hung parliament. The boundary revisions up this target for Labour to a swing of 8.3 percentage points. To gain an overall majority Labour needs a swing of 12.7%, up from 12.0% on the old boundaries. A more difficult task certainly, but perhaps more a matter of degree than of substance. The swing needed is still substantially more than the 10.2% Tony Blair achieved in 1997, and indeed more than double that at any other election since 1945. Any uniform swing from Conservative to Labour of greater than 4.2% and less than 12.7% at the next general election is likely to produce a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority.
It's an absolute shambles of a piece of analysis / journalism. Tactical voting doesn't seem to have been accounted for, nor the SNP-Lab swing in Scotland. The BBC (and Railings & Thrasher) seem to be stuck in the same two-party state from 1959 when the swingometer was invented. This is not that world.
Labour won a comfortable majority in 2005 with a national lead of under 3%. While I don't expect their vote to be that efficient this year, the idea that they need a lead of 13% for a majority of just 2 is nuts and clearly has been past no sense-checking.
It's not the job of the Rallings and Thrasher notional calculations to take account of tactical voting in the new constituencies.
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?
This is what happens when people spend nearly 10 years refusing to engage with the underlying reasons why someone like Trump has become popular in the US.
FPT You keep making this comment @Andy_JS but how exactly are you meant to engage with the fact that some people are deplorable shitheads who would rather live in a fascist dictatorship than a free democracy where the other guys may win elections from time to time?
For those of us who value democracy, we need to keep making the case for democracy and defeating its enemies, not engaging with those who want to destroy it. The US President was for the better part of a century the Leader of the Free World, that some in America don't want to live in a Free World anymore is deplorable but it means they need to be defeated.
Leave aside the abstracts and the politics; the central point is right: if Trump wins, Nato becomes functionally defunct. That's something that Europe, including the UK, needs to be ready for on 20 Jan 2025.
Given this, what I find perplexing is why so many Tories - most recently Jake Berry on Peston last week - are backing Trump for the US presidency. His foreign policy runs directly contrary to the UK's most important security interests.
As @Leon correctly said, people live on their phones. The cyberscape (apologies for stupid word) he "lives" in is populated by politicians who are very for or against Trump, and he has literally forgotten he's British and is standing on an island.
Iain M Banks once pointed out the dangers of Infinite Fun spaces, virtual environments of increased complexity that trapped their inhabitants by interest and exploration, forgetting that they had real bodies with real needs, like eating.
Same thing here. Jake Berry has become lost in cyberspace. The fact that so many British legislators are joining him genuinely worries me.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Agree but sadly easier said than done. Whilst America has had some scary moments in the past (McCarthyism, Wallace) I don't think any of those were a threat to the democracy (although I could be ignorant of my history). I am sure @TheKitchenCabinet thinks I am over reacting but I think Trump is the scariest thing for American democracy since the Civil War.
I know that’s a common view, but in my mind Trump is just another problem that democracy will overcome. He’s limited as to what he can do as President without Congressional approval, and he’s not going to be able to amend the Constitution that prevents him running again in 2028.
Following the last general election, a direct swing of seven percentage points from Conservative to Labour was required for Labour to become the largest party in a hung parliament. The boundary revisions up this target for Labour to a swing of 8.3 percentage points. To gain an overall majority Labour needs a swing of 12.7%, up from 12.0% on the old boundaries. A more difficult task certainly, but perhaps more a matter of degree than of substance. The swing needed is still substantially more than the 10.2% Tony Blair achieved in 1997, and indeed more than double that at any other election since 1945. Any uniform swing from Conservative to Labour of greater than 4.2% and less than 12.7% at the next general election is likely to produce a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority.
It's an absolute shambles of a piece of analysis / journalism. Tactical voting doesn't seem to have been accounted for, nor the SNP-Lab swing in Scotland. The BBC (and Railings & Thrasher) seem to be stuck in the same two-party state from 1959 when the swingometer was invented. This is not that world.
Labour won a comfortable majority in 2005 with a national lead of under 3%. While I don't expect their vote to be that efficient this year, the idea that they need a lead of 13% for a majority of just 2 is nuts and clearly has been past no sense-checking.
It's not the job of the Rallings and Thrasher notional calculations to take account of tactical voting in the new constituencies.
No, but if they're being serious then it is their job to put caveats and disclaimers on their work.
The idea of the swingometer is total bunk. Not just 2005, look at 2015.
In 2015 (and before) we had article after article about the impossible lead the Tories would need to get a majority, and how a small swing against the Tories would see Labour in office.
The result in 2015? A small swing against the Tories, that led to the Tories gaining an overall majority.
Anyone who believes in universal swing needs their head examining.
I don't want Trump to win either - and his NATO announcement is already doing damage by emboldening Iran and Russia - but I don't think he'd actually pull out of the substance of it cold. I think this is "art of the deal" stuff to reduce costs to the US and get European countries to step-up. He did similar with renegotiating NAFTA and he wasn't shy of using US power in the Middle East when he was in office, or standing up to North Korea.
He knows that geopolitical chaos would damage the US economy and its trading interests, collapsing support, so I think this is Trump sounding and mouthing off (unsettling things as he is) but not actually with the intent to withdraw into glorious isolation - which he can't and realistically stay in office long.
"Avanti West Coast managers joked about receiving “free money” from government and performance-related payments being “too good to be true” in an internal presentation at the notoriously unreliable train operator, it has emerged.
One slide, entitled “Roll up, roll-up get your free money here!” described how the Treasury and Department for Transport supported the firm with taxpayers’ money, provided third-party suppliers and inspections, and then paid Avanti fees on top."
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Agree but sadly easier said than done. Whilst America has had some scary moments in the past (McCarthyism, Wallace) I don't think any of those were a threat to the democracy (although I could be ignorant of my history). I am sure @TheKitchenCabinet thinks I am over reacting but I think Trump is the scariest thing for American democracy since the Civil War.
you are forgetting Nixon.
In fact you could say he helped pave the way for what is happening now.
Whoops I did.
Again though it doesn't feel the same (and again it could be my lack of knowledge of American history) but wasn't this a case of a crime in an attempt to gain advantage in an election (eg bugging phones, etc) and then the cover up (the cover up is always worse). We would be naive to think people don't do naughty things from all parties from time to time (I have been a witness in an election cheating case). That doesn't feel the same to me, although I might be dancing on a pin head.
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?
This is what happens when people spend nearly 10 years refusing to engage with the underlying reasons why someone like Trump has become popular in the US.
FPT You keep making this comment @Andy_JS but how exactly are you meant to engage with the fact that some people are deplorable shitheads who would rather live in a fascist dictatorship than a free democracy where the other guys may win elections from time to time?
For those of us who value democracy, we need to keep making the case for democracy and defeating its enemies, not engaging with those who want to destroy it. The US President was for the better part of a century the Leader of the Free World, that some in America don't want to live in a Free World anymore is deplorable but it means they need to be defeated.
Leave aside the abstracts and the politics; the central point is right: if Trump wins, Nato becomes functionally defunct. That's something that Europe, including the UK, needs to be ready for on 20 Jan 2025.
Given this, what I find perplexing is why so many Tories - most recently Jake Berry on Peston last week - are backing Trump for the US presidency. His foreign policy runs directly contrary to the UK's most important security interests.
As @Leon correctly said, people live on their phones. The cyberscape (apologies for stupid word) he "lives" in is populated by politicians who are very for or against Trump, and he has literally forgotten he's British and is standing on an island.
Iain M Banks once pointed out the dangers of Infinite Fun spaces, virtual environments of increased complexity that trapped their inhabitants by interest and exploration, forgetting that they had real bodies with real needs, like eating.
Same thing here. Jake Berry has become lost in cyberspace. The fact that so many British legislators are joining him genuinely worries me.
Berry wont be in the Commons by the time Trump 2.0 takes office in a year.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Agree but sadly easier said than done. Whilst America has had some scary moments in the past (McCarthyism, Wallace) I don't think any of those were a threat to the democracy (although I could be ignorant of my history). I am sure @TheKitchenCabinet thinks I am over reacting but I think Trump is the scariest thing for American democracy since the Civil War.
you are forgetting Nixon.
In fact you could say he helped pave the way for what is happening now.
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?
This is what happens when people spend nearly 10 years refusing to engage with the underlying reasons why someone like Trump has become popular in the US.
FPT You keep making this comment @Andy_JS but how exactly are you meant to engage with the fact that some people are deplorable shitheads who would rather live in a fascist dictatorship than a free democracy where the other guys may win elections from time to time?
For those of us who value democracy, we need to keep making the case for democracy and defeating its enemies, not engaging with those who want to destroy it. The US President was for the better part of a century the Leader of the Free World, that some in America don't want to live in a Free World anymore is deplorable but it means they need to be defeated.
Leave aside the abstracts and the politics; the central point is right: if Trump wins, Nato becomes functionally defunct. That's something that Europe, including the UK, needs to be ready for on 20 Jan 2025.
Given this, what I find perplexing is why so many Tories - most recently Jake Berry on Peston last week - are backing Trump for the US presidency. His foreign policy runs directly contrary to the UK's most important security interests.
As @Leon correctly said, people live on their phones. The cyberscape (apologies for stupid word) he "lives" in is populated by politicians who are very for or against Trump, and he has literally forgotten he's British and is standing on an island.
Iain M Banks once pointed out the dangers of Infinite Fun spaces, virtual environments of increased complexity that trapped their inhabitants by interest and exploration, forgetting that they had real bodies with real needs, like eating.
Same thing here. Jake Berry has become lost in cyberspace. The fact that so many British legislators are joining him genuinely worries me.
Berry wont be in the Commons by the time Trump 2.0 takes office in a year.
His majority isn't that small, so that's far from definite.
Can somebody briefly summarise the Jarndyce vs Jarndyce of isam and kinabalu's #betgate for me?
I am loving the drama but I don't really know what it's all about.
They placed a bet between each other.
One or both then thought it was voided but the circumstances are disputed.
One of them now insists the bet remains.
@rcs1000, @TSE, to prevent this happening in future may I request that comments betting either be banned or the money placed in escrow with you by both parties before the bet is sealed. You don't have to (it's not your problem) but it would help.
In the past Peter the Punter has adjudicated betting disputes.
Please tell me that he wears the full regalia of a judge while doing so.
"Avanti West Coast managers joked about receiving “free money” from government and performance-related payments being “too good to be true” in an internal presentation at the notoriously unreliable train operator, it has emerged.
One slide, entitled “Roll up, roll-up get your free money here!” described how the Treasury and Department for Transport supported the firm with taxpayers’ money, provided third-party suppliers and inspections, and then paid Avanti fees on top."
They are embarrassed at getting caught saying it, but their slides are correct. All aspects of their service are directed by the DfT who set the fees payable for compliance. And its the same with all of the operators.
This is the idiocy of the dogmatic left who foam on about "privatised" operators. Everything is done by the direct edict of civil servants.
Following the last general election, a direct swing of seven percentage points from Conservative to Labour was required for Labour to become the largest party in a hung parliament. The boundary revisions up this target for Labour to a swing of 8.3 percentage points. To gain an overall majority Labour needs a swing of 12.7%, up from 12.0% on the old boundaries. A more difficult task certainly, but perhaps more a matter of degree than of substance. The swing needed is still substantially more than the 10.2% Tony Blair achieved in 1997, and indeed more than double that at any other election since 1945. Any uniform swing from Conservative to Labour of greater than 4.2% and less than 12.7% at the next general election is likely to produce a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority.
It's an absolute shambles of a piece of analysis / journalism. Tactical voting doesn't seem to have been accounted for, nor the SNP-Lab swing in Scotland. The BBC (and Railings & Thrasher) seem to be stuck in the same two-party state from 1959 when the swingometer was invented. This is not that world.
Labour won a comfortable majority in 2005 with a national lead of under 3%. While I don't expect their vote to be that efficient this year, the idea that they need a lead of 13% for a majority of just 2 is nuts and clearly has been past no sense-checking.
It's not the job of the Rallings and Thrasher notional calculations to take account of tactical voting in the new constituencies.
No, but if they're being serious then it is their job to put caveats and disclaimers on their work.
The idea of the swingometer is total bunk. Not just 2005, look at 2015.
In 2015 (and before) we had article after article about the impossible lead the Tories would need to get a majority, and how a small swing against the Tories would see Labour in office.
The result in 2015? A small swing against the Tories, that led to the Tories gaining an overall majority.
Anyone who believes in universal swing needs their head examining.
Universal swing is and always has been a good guide as typically differing swings in individual constituencies will cancel each other out to an extent.
But it is also important to take into account other factors. There is likely to be a larger swing in CON - LAB 'marginals' - I put in inverted commas as this could include seats currently up to 30% CON majority to reverse out the opposite in recent elections.
So LAB don't need to be 12 or 13% ahead. 6% should be enough for a small majority.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Agree but sadly easier said than done. Whilst America has had some scary moments in the past (McCarthyism, Wallace) I don't think any of those were a threat to the democracy (although I could be ignorant of my history). I am sure @TheKitchenCabinet thinks I am over reacting but I think Trump is the scariest thing for American democracy since the Civil War.
you are forgetting Nixon.
In fact you could say he helped pave the way for what is happening now.
Can somebody briefly summarise the Jarndyce vs Jarndyce of isam and kinabalu's #betgate for me?
I am loving the drama but I don't really know what it's all about.
They placed a bet between each other.
One or both then thought it was voided but the circumstances are disputed.
One of them now insists the bet remains.
@rcs1000, @TSE, to prevent this happening in future may I request that comments betting either be banned or the money placed in escrow with you by both parties before the bet is sealed. You don't have to (it's not your problem) but it would help.
In the past Peter the Punter has adjudicated betting disputes.
Please tell me that he wears the full regalia of a judge while doing so.
Just my usual suspenders and tights.
Suspenders with tights isn't the traditional arrangement.
No mistake, it was a triumphant night for Trump. Of course he as always going to win. But a 40-30 victory over either DeSantis or Haley is very different to the 50-20 he ended up achieving.
I look at Trump’s numbers with independents and think he’s toast at the general.
Following the last general election, a direct swing of seven percentage points from Conservative to Labour was required for Labour to become the largest party in a hung parliament. The boundary revisions up this target for Labour to a swing of 8.3 percentage points. To gain an overall majority Labour needs a swing of 12.7%, up from 12.0% on the old boundaries. A more difficult task certainly, but perhaps more a matter of degree than of substance. The swing needed is still substantially more than the 10.2% Tony Blair achieved in 1997, and indeed more than double that at any other election since 1945. Any uniform swing from Conservative to Labour of greater than 4.2% and less than 12.7% at the next general election is likely to produce a hung parliament with no one party having an overall majority.
It's an absolute shambles of a piece of analysis / journalism. Tactical voting doesn't seem to have been accounted for, nor the SNP-Lab swing in Scotland. The BBC (and Railings & Thrasher) seem to be stuck in the same two-party state from 1959 when the swingometer was invented. This is not that world.
Labour won a comfortable majority in 2005 with a national lead of under 3%. While I don't expect their vote to be that efficient this year, the idea that they need a lead of 13% for a majority of just 2 is nuts and clearly has been past no sense-checking.
It's not the job of the Rallings and Thrasher notional calculations to take account of tactical voting in the new constituencies.
No, but if they're being serious then it is their job to put caveats and disclaimers on their work.
The idea of the swingometer is total bunk. Not just 2005, look at 2015.
In 2015 (and before) we had article after article about the impossible lead the Tories would need to get a majority, and how a small swing against the Tories would see Labour in office.
The result in 2015? A small swing against the Tories, that led to the Tories gaining an overall majority.
Anyone who believes in universal swing needs their head examining.
Universal swing is and always has been a good guide as typically differing swings in individual constituencies will cancel each other out to an extent.
But it is also important to take into account other factors. There is likely to be a larger swing in CON - LAB 'marginals' - I put in inverted commas as this could include seats currently up to 30% CON majority to reverse out the opposite in recent elections.
So LAB don't need to be 12 or 13% ahead. 6% should be enough for a small majority.
DYOR 👍
Its not even a good guide. It began as and was only ever "a bit of fun".
People who take it seriously are on a hiding to nothing.
Can somebody briefly summarise the Jarndyce vs Jarndyce of isam and kinabalu's #betgate for me?
I am loving the drama but I don't really know what it's all about.
They placed a bet between each other.
One or both then thought it was voided but the circumstances are disputed.
One of them now insists the bet remains.
@rcs1000, @TSE, to prevent this happening in future may I request that comments betting either be banned or the money placed in escrow with you by both parties before the bet is sealed. You don't have to (it's not your problem) but it would help.
In the past Peter the Punter has adjudicated betting disputes.
Please tell me that he wears the full regalia of a judge while doing so.
Just my usual suspenders and tights.
Suspenders with tights isn't the traditional arrangement.
Is that what I've been doing wrong all these years?
It is completely dishonest of you to break your word like this, having agreed to void it, and I’m confident I’d win any ‘arbitration’ if the judge was fair.
On the other hand I was surprised you agreed to void it so readily in the first place, that was maybe too generous. You realise now that you didn’t have to do that, and wish you hadn’t. Bet regret.
But it leaves me in the position of giving up over two grand because I was banned from here without any reason being given, which doesn’t seem right at all.
Thank you for that, @isam, but I don’t think we should proceed with you feeling this way. I prefer my suggestion of having it looked at by a trusted 3rd party. Or some other solution if we can think of one.
I don’t think there’s bad faith on either side. It’s a genuine misunderstanding around an email exchange. Maybe our differing comms styles and personalities have contributed.
Here is my summary on this little tumble:
We do the bet. Around April 22, I think.
You disappear because you’re banned and I haven’t a clue if you’re coming back. Hence my occasional perturbed references to our bet, most of them jokey but not always and not totally.
Aug 23 you reappear with an email to me and RCS and Quincel. You talk about a bet with RCS, feeling hard done by on it, maybe getting RCS to take the bet with me off your hands. By this time our bet looks a surefire £300 loser for you. You make the point that it’s unfair for you to have to keep the losing bet with me but void the bet with RCS (which you say is now looking good for you).
I reply to this email. I’m all chatty and happyface, pleased you’re back, pleased our bet is being acknowledged, I ask about your bet with RCS, and I say I’m flexible, giving it the big Mr Cool, say I’m happy whatever, keep, void or transfer to RCS if he’s ok with that.
I wait for the continuation. RCS getting back to us about taking it or not, If so, fine. If not, me and you discussing further and agreeing to either keep it or void it. If the former, “Cheers, Islam, and again welcome back.” If the latter, “Cheers Kinabalu, voided then, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.”
But nothing happens. Silence. Nothing from RCS. Nothing from you. Hmm. Disappointing. We haven’t resolved the issue. It’s left hanging. I feel a bit put out. A bit disrespected. I’m now inclined to insist on keeping the bet. That’s my mindset after that exchange.
Fast forward to now. I decide to bring it up again. See where we stand. I do it by offering a cashout (to me) at £250 and then rather than settling a double or quits on size of Lab majority at the GE, me saying 3 digits, you saying less. I slant it in your favour a little bit to tempt you into it. But what I’m really trying to tease out is where you think we are on our Starmer bet (after the unsatisfactory email exchange).
I’m hoping for you to say, Ok done. But what I’m more expecting is you to say, “Hang on, we haven’t agreed what we’re doing with that Starmer bet.” I’m prepared for both.
But what you come back with is, “You what? That bet is void. You agreed to void it!” You then stick rigidly to this (relying on that one sentence of mine in the email) in the face of my protestations that there was no such agreement, that it was left hanging.
This rather hardens me in wanting to keep the bet.
Nevertheless I try to break the impasse by suggesting arbitration. You turn that down.
After some back & forth you say “fuck it, keep the bet, but you’re dishonest.”
Can somebody briefly summarise the Jarndyce vs Jarndyce of isam and kinabalu's #betgate for me?
I am loving the drama but I don't really know what it's all about.
They placed a bet between each other.
One or both then thought it was voided but the circumstances are disputed.
One of them now insists the bet remains.
@rcs1000, @TSE, to prevent this happening in future may I request that comments betting either be banned or the money placed in escrow with you by both parties before the bet is sealed. You don't have to (it's not your problem) but it would help.
In the past Peter the Punter has adjudicated betting disputes.
Please tell me that he wears the full regalia of a judge while doing so.
Just my usual suspenders and tights.
Suspenders with tights isn't the traditional arrangement.
Is that what I've been doing wrong all these years?
"Avanti West Coast managers joked about receiving “free money” from government and performance-related payments being “too good to be true” in an internal presentation at the notoriously unreliable train operator, it has emerged.
One slide, entitled “Roll up, roll-up get your free money here!” described how the Treasury and Department for Transport supported the firm with taxpayers’ money, provided third-party suppliers and inspections, and then paid Avanti fees on top."
They are embarrassed at getting caught saying it, but their slides are correct. All aspects of their service are directed by the DfT who set the fees payable for compliance. And its the same with all of the operators.
This is the idiocy of the dogmatic left who foam on about "privatised" operators. Everything is done by the direct edict of civil servants.
There should be proper privatisation.
You operate your business, you charge your customers, no subsidies. You make a profit, or you go bankrupt and lose your assets.
You would get the same reaction from many on the left, particularly the young. Look at the polling in the US talking about democracy has failed even if you exclude how many of them shut down free speech on campuses.
You constantly respond to a comment highlighting dangerous right wing anti democratic developments in America by identifying something trivial on the other side as comparable (you did this earlier today with a post about the centre left also being hijacked in response to a comment about the centre right being hijacked. It hasn't). They are not comparable. They could be, but currently they aren't.
There is nothing on the left comparable to Trump at the moment and to keep responding with posts that imply the left want to get rid of democracy or the nutters have taken over the left is crass. That is not to say it hasn't been a threat in the past or won't in the future, but it is not happening currently in the USA or Europe and you appear to make out it is just to deflect from the horrors of Trump.
If it were I would be with you as I was with the threats from the left many decades ago.
I happen to believe that most of the 'horror' at Trump is pure hyperbole - he didn't ruin US democracy in his first term and he won't if he gets in again.
What I do believe is a real threat to democracy is politicians on one side trying to get the opposition leader banned on grounds that are spurious - Trump hasn't been convicted of insurgency, sedition etc but, to many on here, a trial does not matter, just their own views and what they believe is right. You and others are quite happy to chuck constitutional and legal precedent out of the window just because you believe you are morally right.
As for standing up to threats from the left, you simply would not, you would be one of the acquiescent - maybe not agreeing to it but not really that bothered to do much about it. I have not heard a peep from you condemning speakers being prevented on campus from speaking for example.
Ruining democracy... I don't think Trump ruined US democracy. The US is a still a democracy. I think Trump did more damage to US democracy than anyone since the civil war. Would you agree with that?
I don't think politicians should try to get the opposition leader banned on grounds that are spurious. Trump's 2016 campaign slogan of "lock her up" was, thusly, outrageous. This year, Biden isn't trying to get Trump banned. The attempts to have Trump excluded from the ballot are not coming from the Democratic party leadership, but from a variety of interested groups representing individual voters, some Dem voting, some Rep voting. These people are bringing lawsuits. It would be inappropriate to ban people from bringing lawsuits, even if the lawsuits seem spurious and not in the spirit of democracy, as with the dozens of lawsuits Trump brought after the 2020 vote. The law suits over Trump's eligibility, however, do not appear spurious. Those who are empowered to react to those lawsuits have found them valid. That is how the rule of law works: you bring a case, the appropriate person considers the case, a decision is made, appeals are possible. The law in question, the 14th amendment, is clearly poorly worded, but that's not the fault of the today's politicians. The constitutional precedent seems pretty clear that you don't need to be convicted of insurgency. Again, blame those who wrote the 14th amendment.
People being prevented on campus from speaking: I don't know what kjh has said on the subject. I've certainly repeatedly decried the horrendous censorship on campus, particularly in deSantis's Florida.
"Avanti West Coast managers joked about receiving “free money” from government and performance-related payments being “too good to be true” in an internal presentation at the notoriously unreliable train operator, it has emerged.
One slide, entitled “Roll up, roll-up get your free money here!” described how the Treasury and Department for Transport supported the firm with taxpayers’ money, provided third-party suppliers and inspections, and then paid Avanti fees on top."
They are embarrassed at getting caught saying it, but their slides are correct. All aspects of their service are directed by the DfT who set the fees payable for compliance. And its the same with all of the operators.
This is the idiocy of the dogmatic left who foam on about "privatised" operators. Everything is done by the direct edict of civil servants.
There should be proper privatisation.
You operate your business, you charge your customers, no subsidies. You make a profit, or you go bankrupt and lose your assets.
We did that. They went bankrupt, or needed a form of direct subsidy called "cap and collar" to avoid going bankrupt. None of the major private transport companies - with the exception of First - want anything to do with the industry now.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
So Charles is our bulwark against dictatorship? I'm not sure that conveys much comfort tbh.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
So Charles is our bulwark against dictatorship? I'm not sure that conveys much comfort tbh.
Would you prefer to leave it to the will of the people?
Isam said will you void the bet. Kinabalu said sure, void it, put it back to RCS, whatever. There was no response, not from RCS, nor from Isam saying ok thanks consider it void then or thanks, RCS has taken it on. Under such circumstances it is understandable that in the absence of any confirmation of one course of action or the other, Kinabalu believed the matter hadn't been concluded but was happy and probably minded not to push the matter ("well what did you decide") because he was sitting on a likely winning bet.
Isam, meanwhile has, understandably taken the acknowledgement from kinabalu that he (Kinabalu) is prepared to void the bet as confirmation that it is voided, with the rest being details. He didn't feel it necessary to confirm it as the principle that it could be voided was sufficient with the understanding that if it wasn't put back to RCS it would be voided, either way it was off Isam's hands.
The "whatever" is crucial here. It invites a response. It is not conclusive and doesn't conclusively end the exchange. While Isam's view is understandable, in common usage, as presented, Kinabalu's response required a response (it was in effect saying "ok that's cool let me know what you decide"). No response was forthcoming and hence on balance I find as follows:
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
So Charles is our bulwark against dictatorship? I'm not sure that conveys much comfort tbh.
He’d be even more useless than Paul Von Hindenburg.
@SamCoatesSky 5 Tories currently saying they'll vote against at 3rd reading
Miriam Cates Marco Longhi Robert Jenrick Suella Braverman Simon Clarke
* Gvt formal majority 54 * So 28 (/2 +1) needed to defeat gvt * Abstentions count as half * But some independent Tories (Matt Hancock) expected to vote with gvt, while others staying away abstain, so real hurdle slightly higher than 28
You would get the same reaction from many on the left, particularly the young. Look at the polling in the US talking about democracy has failed even if you exclude how many of them shut down free speech on campuses.
You constantly respond to a comment highlighting dangerous right wing anti democratic developments in America by identifying something trivial on the other side as comparable (you did this earlier today with a post about the centre left also being hijacked in response to a comment about the centre right being hijacked. It hasn't). They are not comparable. They could be, but currently they aren't.
There is nothing on the left comparable to Trump at the moment and to keep responding with posts that imply the left want to get rid of democracy or the nutters have taken over the left is crass. That is not to say it hasn't been a threat in the past or won't in the future, but it is not happening currently in the USA or Europe and you appear to make out it is just to deflect from the horrors of Trump.
If it were I would be with you as I was with the threats from the left many decades ago.
I happen to believe that most of the 'horror' at Trump is pure hyperbole - he didn't ruin US democracy in his first term and he won't if he gets in again.
What I do believe is a real threat to democracy is politicians on one side trying to get the opposition leader banned on grounds that are spurious - Trump hasn't been convicted of insurgency, sedition etc but, to many on here, a trial does not matter, just their own views and what they believe is right. You and others are quite happy to chuck constitutional and legal precedent out of the window just because you believe you are morally right.
As for standing up to threats from the left, you simply would not, you would be one of the acquiescent - maybe not agreeing to it but not really that bothered to do much about it. I have not heard a peep from you condemning speakers being prevented on campus from speaking for example.
Ruining democracy... I don't think Trump ruined US democracy. The US is a still a democracy. I think Trump did more damage to US democracy than anyone since the civil war. Would you agree with that?
I don't think politicians should try to get the opposition leader banned on grounds that are spurious. Trump's 2016 campaign slogan of "lock her up" was, thusly, outrageous. This year, Biden isn't trying to get Trump banned. The attempts to have Trump excluded from the ballot are not coming from the Democratic party leadership, but from a variety of interested groups representing individual voters, some Dem voting, some Rep voting. These people are bringing lawsuits. It would be inappropriate to ban people from bringing lawsuits, even if the lawsuits seem spurious and not in the spirit of democracy, as with the dozens of lawsuits Trump brought after the 2020 vote. The law suits over Trump's eligibility, however, do not appear spurious. Those who are empowered to react to those lawsuits have found them valid. That is how the rule of law works: you bring a case, the appropriate person considers the case, a decision is made, appeals are possible. The law in question, the 14th amendment, is clearly poorly worded, but that's not the fault of the today's politicians. The constitutional precedent seems pretty clear that you don't need to be convicted of insurgency. Again, blame those who wrote the 14th amendment.
People being prevented on campus from speaking: I don't know what kjh has said on the subject. I've certainly repeatedly decried the horrendous censorship on campus, particularly in deSantis's Florida.
Excellent post.
Re what I have said on people being prevented on campus from speaking - Nothing. Not a dicky bird. Zilch. It would appear however that to be able to comment here @TheKitchenCabinet requires me to read every comment, everyday, and give my opinion on every damn one of them. Otherwise (s)he will infer what my views are on those posts.
Isam said will you void the bet. Kinabalu said sure, void it, put it back to RCS, whatever. There was no response, not from RCS, nor from Isam saying ok thanks consider it void then or thanks, RCS has taken it on. Under such circumstances it is understandable that in the absence of any confirmation of one course of action or the other, Kinabalu believed the matter hadn't been concluded but was happy and probably minded not to push the matter ("well what did you decide") because he was sitting on a likely winning bet.
Isam, meanwhile has, understandably taken the acknowledgement from kinabalu that he (Kinabalu) is prepared to void the bet as confirmation that it is voided, with the rest being details. He didn't feel it necessary to confirm it as the principle that it could be voided was sufficient with the understanding that if it wasn't put back to RCS it would be voided, either way it was off Isam's hands.
The "whatever" is crucial here. It invites a response. It is not conclusive and doesn't conclusively end the exchange. While Isam's view is understandable, in common usage, as presented, Kinabalu's response required a response (it was in effect saying "ok that's cool let me know what you decide"). No response was forthcoming and hence on balance I find as follows:
Kinabalu: 65%; ISAM 35%
About right. Accepting its going to be impossible to satisfy both, then best options from here imho are half void, half stand, or full bets stand but paid out to charity of winners choice instead of to each other.
@SamCoatesSky 5 Tories currently saying they'll vote against at 3rd reading
Miriam Cates Marco Longhi Robert Jenrick Suella Braverman Simon Clarke
* Gvt formal majority 54 * So 28 (/2 +1) needed to defeat gvt * Abstentions count as half * But some independent Tories (Matt Hancock) expected to vote with gvt, while others staying away abstain, so real hurdle slightly higher than 28
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
So Charles is our bulwark against dictatorship? I'm not sure that conveys much comfort tbh.
@Charles has not posted on PB since he left as far as I know so we don't know what he thinks.
It is completely dishonest of you to break your word like this, having agreed to void it, and I’m confident I’d win any ‘arbitration’ if the judge was fair.
On the other hand I was surprised you agreed to void it so readily in the first place, that was maybe too generous. You realise now that you didn’t have to do that, and wish you hadn’t. Bet regret.
But it leaves me in the position of giving up over two grand because I was banned from here without any reason being given, which doesn’t seem right at all.
Thank you for that, @isam, but I don’t think we should proceed with you feeling this way. I prefer my suggestion of having it looked at by a trusted 3rd party. Or some other solution if we can think of one.
I don’t think there’s bad faith on either side. It’s a genuine misunderstanding around an email exchange. Maybe our differing comms styles and personalities have contributed.
Here is my summary on this little tumble:
We do the bet. Around April 22, I think.
You disappear because you’re banned and I haven’t a clue if you’re coming back. Hence my occasional perturbed references to our bet, most of them jokey but not always and not totally.
Aug 23 you reappear with an email to me and RCS and Quincel. You talk about a bet with RCS, feeling hard done by on it, maybe getting RCS to take the bet with me off your hands. By this time our bet looks a surefire £300 loser for you. You make the point that it’s unfair for you to have to keep the losing bet with me but void the bet with RCS (which you say is now looking good for you).
I reply to this email. I’m all chatty and happyface, pleased you’re back, pleased our bet is being acknowledged, I ask about your bet with RCS, and I say I’m flexible, giving it the big Mr Cool, say I’m happy whatever, keep, void or transfer to RCS if he’s ok with that.
I wait for the continuation. RCS getting back to us about taking it or not, If so, fine. If not, me and you discussing further and agreeing to either keep it or void it. If the former, “Cheers, Islam, and again welcome back.” If the latter, “Cheers Kinabalu, voided then, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.”
But nothing happens. Silence. Nothing from RCS. Nothing from you. Hmm. Disappointing. We haven’t resolved the issue. It’s left hanging. I feel a bit put out. A bit disrespected. I’m now inclined to insist on keeping the bet. That’s my mindset after that exchange.
Fast forward to now. I decide to bring it up again. See where we stand. I do it by offering a cashout (to me) at £250 and then rather than settling a double or quits on size of Lab majority at the GE, me saying 3 digits, you saying less. I slant it in your favour a little bit to tempt you into it. But what I’m really trying to tease out is where you think we are on our Starmer bet (after the unsatisfactory email exchange).
I’m hoping for you to say, Ok done. But what I’m more expecting is you to say, “Hang on, we haven’t agreed what we’re doing with that Starmer bet.” I’m prepared for both.
But what you come back with is, “You what? That bet is void. You agreed to void it!” You then stick rigidly to this (relying on that one sentence of mine in the email) in the face of my protestations that there was no such agreement, that it was left hanging.
This rather hardens me in wanting to keep the bet.
Nevertheless I try to break the impasse by suggesting arbitration. You turn that down.
After some back & forth you say “fuck it, keep the bet, but you’re dishonest.”
Back to top.
From the outside, I can see why @ISAM might have taken "I’m flexible, giving it the big Mr Cool, say I’m happy whatever, keep, void or transfer to RCS if he’s ok with that." as you being ok to void the bet.
I can also see why you might be peeved he didn't come straight back and say 'Yes please, let's void it'.
Then again email (or even more, PB PMing) is a notoriously flaky way to get a definite response. Emails get missed, deleted, filed incorrectly (at least, mine do).
However, it was clearly a sincere bet once and you would be definitely be well-placed to collect £300 if it stood, given where we are now.
How about this as a compromise: @ISAM donates half the stake, so £150, to a charity of your choice?
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
So Charles is our bulwark against dictatorship? I'm not sure that conveys much comfort tbh.
@Charles has not posted on PB since he left as far as I know so we don't know what he thinks.
@SamCoatesSky 5 Tories currently saying they'll vote against at 3rd reading
Miriam Cates Marco Longhi Robert Jenrick Suella Braverman Simon Clarke
* Gvt formal majority 54 * So 28 (/2 +1) needed to defeat gvt * Abstentions count as half * But some independent Tories (Matt Hancock) expected to vote with gvt, while others staying away abstain, so real hurdle slightly higher than 28
He’s got his brackets in the wrong place.
Should be (28/2) + 1?
It's maths, Coates is just a Cambridge arts graduate. Give him a break.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
So Charles is our bulwark against dictatorship? I'm not sure that conveys much comfort tbh.
Would you prefer to leave it to the will of the people?
I'd prefer to have a written constitution with a 'majority of registered voters' referendum required to make changes.
It is completely dishonest of you to break your word like this, having agreed to void it, and I’m confident I’d win any ‘arbitration’ if the judge was fair.
On the other hand I was surprised you agreed to void it so readily in the first place, that was maybe too generous. You realise now that you didn’t have to do that, and wish you hadn’t. Bet regret.
But it leaves me in the position of giving up over two grand because I was banned from here without any reason being given, which doesn’t seem right at all.
Thank you for that, @isam, but I don’t think we should proceed with you feeling this way. I prefer my suggestion of having it looked at by a trusted 3rd party. Or some other solution if we can think of one.
I don’t think there’s bad faith on either side. It’s a genuine misunderstanding around an email exchange. Maybe our differing comms styles and personalities have contributed.
Here is my summary on this little tumble:
We do the bet. Around April 22, I think.
You disappear because you’re banned and I haven’t a clue if you’re coming back. Hence my occasional perturbed references to our bet, most of them jokey but not always and not totally.
Aug 23 you reappear with an email to me and RCS and Quincel. You talk about a bet with RCS, feeling hard done by on it, maybe getting RCS to take the bet with me off your hands. By this time our bet looks a surefire £300 loser for you. You make the point that it’s unfair for you to have to keep the losing bet with me but void the bet with RCS (which you say is now looking good for you).
I reply to this email. I’m all chatty and happyface, pleased you’re back, pleased our bet is being acknowledged, I ask about your bet with RCS, and I say I’m flexible, giving it the big Mr Cool, say I’m happy whatever, keep, void or transfer to RCS if he’s ok with that.
I wait for the continuation. RCS getting back to us about taking it or not, If so, fine. If not, me and you discussing further and agreeing to either keep it or void it. If the former, “Cheers, Islam, and again welcome back.” If the latter, “Cheers Kinabalu, voided then, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.”
But nothing happens. Silence. Nothing from RCS. Nothing from you. Hmm. Disappointing. We haven’t resolved the issue. It’s left hanging. I feel a bit put out. A bit disrespected. I’m now inclined to insist on keeping the bet. That’s my mindset after that exchange.
Fast forward to now. I decide to bring it up again. See where we stand. I do it by offering a cashout (to me) at £250 and then rather than settling a double or quits on size of Lab majority at the GE, me saying 3 digits, you saying less. I slant it in your favour a little bit to tempt you into it. But what I’m really trying to tease out is where you think we are on our Starmer bet (after the unsatisfactory email exchange).
I’m hoping for you to say, Ok done. But what I’m more expecting is you to say, “Hang on, we haven’t agreed what we’re doing with that Starmer bet.” I’m prepared for both.
But what you come back with is, “You what? That bet is void. You agreed to void it!” You then stick rigidly to this (relying on that one sentence of mine in the email) in the face of my protestations that there was no such agreement, that it was left hanging.
This rather hardens me in wanting to keep the bet.
Nevertheless I try to break the impasse by suggesting arbitration. You turn that down.
After some back & forth you say “fuck it, keep the bet, but you’re dishonest.”
Back to top.
I suggested we didn’t have the bet, and you agreed. Why would I think that would change? In your reply you also said you were happy to keep the bet, but you knew I didn’t want to. You also said you were happy to void it or sort with Robert, which you knew I did want. So why would the option you knew I didn’t want, and you were happy to not do, still be on the table now? You couldn’t for one minute have thought that I thought we were still on! Why would I have ever accepted that?
This is like telling a date you don’t want to see them again, but they’ve got a mate who might be right for them, and maybe could set you it up. The person being let down says “I’d like to see you again, but fair enough if not, and I’m up for meeting your mate” then six months later you get a text saying “Are we still on for that drink?”
@SamCoatesSky 5 Tories currently saying they'll vote against at 3rd reading
Miriam Cates Marco Longhi Robert Jenrick Suella Braverman Simon Clarke
* Gvt formal majority 54 * So 28 (/2 +1) needed to defeat gvt * Abstentions count as half * But some independent Tories (Matt Hancock) expected to vote with gvt, while others staying away abstain, so real hurdle slightly higher than 28
He’s got his brackets in the wrong place.
Should be (28/2) + 1?
It's maths, Coates is just a Cambridge arts graduate. Give him a break.
Time was when every Fenland Tech student had to do maths as well as classics. So sad to see the decline of I. Newton's alma mater.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
So Charles is our bulwark against dictatorship? I'm not sure that conveys much comfort tbh.
Would you prefer to leave it to the will of the people?
I'd prefer to have a written constitution with a 'majority of registered voters' referendum required to make changes.
Russia and North Korea have written constitutions. They're only as much use as people's willingness to abide by them in spirit as well as letter. In fact, it's generally best if they're not tested in letter at all.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
Sunak can't create peers; that's the sole prerogative of HM (not HRH). And if he has any sense, he'll say the same as his gt-grandfather did in 1910: if you want the power to do that, it goes to the people first.
The Parliament Act gives the Lords an absolute veto on extending the length of a parliament beyond 5 years; it's not just a 'last 13 months' thing (though obviously we're in that now too).
Besides, at the rate he's losing MPs, he wouldn't have a majority before all that long.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
So Charles is our bulwark against dictatorship? I'm not sure that conveys much comfort tbh.
Would you prefer to leave it to the will of the people?
I'd prefer to have a written constitution with a 'majority of registered voters' referendum required to make changes.
Russia and North Korea have written constitutions. They're only as much use as people's willingness to abide by them in spirit as well as letter. In fact, it's generally best if they're not tested in letter at all.
Agree. Having negotiated hundreds of contracts in a role I had many decades ago the best contracts were the ones you never ever referred to again after signing. You tend to only refer to the contract when things start going wrong.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
So Charles is our bulwark against dictatorship? I'm not sure that conveys much comfort tbh.
Would you prefer to leave it to the will of the people?
I'd prefer to have a written constitution with a 'majority of registered voters' referendum required to make changes.
If a simple majority can make changes then that amounts to the same thing.
Can somebody briefly summarise the Jarndyce vs Jarndyce of isam and kinabalu's #betgate for me?
I am loving the drama but I don't really know what it's all about.
They placed a bet between each other.
One or both then thought it was voided but the circumstances are disputed.
One of them now insists the bet remains.
@rcs1000, @TSE, to prevent this happening in future may I request that comments betting either be banned or the money placed in escrow with you by both parties before the bet is sealed. You don't have to (it's not your problem) but it would help.
In the past Peter the Punter has adjudicated betting disputes.
Please tell me that he wears the full regalia of a judge while doing so.
Just my usual suspenders and tights.
Suspenders with tights isn't the traditional arrangement.
Is that what I've been doing wrong all these years?
The first mistake you made was to put them over your head
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
This isn't a Republican vs Democrats thing. Both sides have had good and bad presidents. Voting GOP won't bring down democratic government, but voting for Trump will.
Trump led an insurrection against the separated powers in 2021. And openly states that he will take dictatorial powers on day 1 of a second term to simply discard the separated powers.
Hard to argue that Trump won't dismantle the existing democratic system when he says "I will be a dictator on day 1"
Would someone explain to me the practicalities of how Trump would become a dictator?
Historically - as in Nazi Germany - you not only need the backing of a large segment of the population and / or willingness to acquiesce but you also the need the support of the bureaucracy, industrial and military segments to take that step.
Trump does not have the backing of any of those segments. The bureaucracy is against him and, while he can fire the heads of areas, he cannot get rid of the whole Government infrastructure. The finance and commercial interests are also likely to not give their backing. Neither will the military and, even if he did fire the commanders, the rank and file (plus junior officers) would rebel. Plus you have a number of Democrat led states that he would not be able to govern.
The whole idea he could impose a dictatorship even if he wanted to is bonkers.
It's deserving of a like, the problem being is that he would probably try. And he would have enough support (even if a minority) to cause vast problems.
I doubt Trump would really be daft enough to cancel the 2028 election; but it would just be gerrymandered to heck (or outright fraud). California has its EC votes reduced to 1 by Presidential decree. California threatens to cede if that happens.... and then you end up in a civil war.
A lot of people 'support law and order', even if those laws are round up the jews and invade Poland.
Somebody help me here: Curtis says Labour would need to be 13.7% ahead on the new boundaries to achieve a majority but if I put a 13.7% lead into Electoral Calculus I get a Labour majority of 104 (C 27.2%, L 40.9%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
I need to narrow the Labour lead down to just 6% to get a bare majority of just 4 seats (C 31%, L 37%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
So who's right, Curtis or Electoral Calculus?
Edit: Oh, also... the YouGov MRP from a few days ago says Labour on track to win a 120 seat majority on a lead of... 13.5%
@SamCoatesSky 5 Tories currently saying they'll vote against at 3rd reading
Miriam Cates Marco Longhi Robert Jenrick Suella Braverman Simon Clarke
* Gvt formal majority 54 * So 28 (/2 +1) needed to defeat gvt * Abstentions count as half * But some independent Tories (Matt Hancock) expected to vote with gvt, while others staying away abstain, so real hurdle slightly higher than 28
He’s got his brackets in the wrong place.
Should be (28/2) + 1?
It should be (r-s)+2(a-z) is greater than 54 to defeat the govt, where: r = rebels voting against s = opposition voting for a = govt MP abstentions z = opposition abstentions
Somebody help me here: Curtis says Labour would need to be 13.7% ahead on the new boundaries to achieve a majority but if I put a 13.7% lead into Electoral Calculus I get a Labour majority of 104 (C 27.2%, L 40.9%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
I need to narrow the Labour lead down to just 6% to get a bare majority of just 4 seats (C 31%, L 37%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
So who's right, Curtis or Electoral Calculus?
Edit: Oh, also... the YouGov MRP from a few days ago says Labour on track to win a 120 seat majority on a lead of... 13.5%
The R&T analysis is bollocks, other than in resetting the 2019 baseline, which others have done equally well already.
@DominicPenna *The rebels prepared to vote down the Rwanda Bill* Marco Longhi Miriam Cates Nick Fletcher Robert Jenrick Sarah Dines Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg Sir John Hayes Sir Simon Clarke Suella Braverman + four more MPs who spoke off the record
It is completely dishonest of you to break your word like this, having agreed to void it, and I’m confident I’d win any ‘arbitration’ if the judge was fair.
On the other hand I was surprised you agreed to void it so readily in the first place, that was maybe too generous. You realise now that you didn’t have to do that, and wish you hadn’t. Bet regret.
But it leaves me in the position of giving up over two grand because I was banned from here without any reason being given, which doesn’t seem right at all.
Thank you for that, @isam, but I don’t think we should proceed with you feeling this way. I prefer my suggestion of having it looked at by a trusted 3rd party. Or some other solution if we can think of one.
I don’t think there’s bad faith on either side. It’s a genuine misunderstanding around an email exchange. Maybe our differing comms styles and personalities have contributed.
Here is my summary on this little tumble:
We do the bet. Around April 22, I think.
You disappear because you’re banned and I haven’t a clue if you’re coming back. Hence my occasional perturbed references to our bet, most of them jokey but not always and not totally.
Aug 23 you reappear with an email to me and RCS and Quincel. You talk about a bet with RCS, feeling hard done by on it, maybe getting RCS to take the bet with me off your hands. By this time our bet looks a surefire £300 loser for you. You make the point that it’s unfair for you to have to keep the losing bet with me but void the bet with RCS (which you say is now looking good for you).
I reply to this email. I’m all chatty and happyface, pleased you’re back, pleased our bet is being acknowledged, I ask about your bet with RCS, and I say I’m flexible, giving it the big Mr Cool, say I’m happy whatever, keep, void or transfer to RCS if he’s ok with that.
I wait for the continuation. RCS getting back to us about taking it or not, If so, fine. If not, me and you discussing further and agreeing to either keep it or void it. If the former, “Cheers, Islam, and again welcome back.” If the latter, “Cheers Kinabalu, voided then, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.”
But nothing happens. Silence. Nothing from RCS. Nothing from you. Hmm. Disappointing. We haven’t resolved the issue. It’s left hanging. I feel a bit put out. A bit disrespected. I’m now inclined to insist on keeping the bet. That’s my mindset after that exchange.
Fast forward to now. I decide to bring it up again. See where we stand. I do it by offering a cashout (to me) at £250 and then rather than settling a double or quits on size of Lab majority at the GE, me saying 3 digits, you saying less. I slant it in your favour a little bit to tempt you into it. But what I’m really trying to tease out is where you think we are on our Starmer bet (after the unsatisfactory email exchange).
I’m hoping for you to say, Ok done. But what I’m more expecting is you to say, “Hang on, we haven’t agreed what we’re doing with that Starmer bet.” I’m prepared for both.
But what you come back with is, “You what? That bet is void. You agreed to void it!” You then stick rigidly to this (relying on that one sentence of mine in the email) in the face of my protestations that there was no such agreement, that it was left hanging.
This rather hardens me in wanting to keep the bet.
Nevertheless I try to break the impasse by suggesting arbitration. You turn that down.
After some back & forth you say “fuck it, keep the bet, but you’re dishonest.”
Back to top.
I suggested we didn’t have the bet, and you agreed. Why would I think that would change? In your reply you also said you were happy to keep the bet, but you knew I didn’t want to. You also said you were happy to void it or sort with Robert, which you knew I did want. So why would the option you knew I didn’t want, and you were happy to not do, still be on the table now? You couldn’t for one minute have thought that I thought we were still on! Why would I have ever accepted that?
This is like telling a date you don’t want to see them again, but they’ve got a mate who might be right for them, and maybe could set you it up. The person being let down says “I’d like to see you again, but fair enough if not, and I’m up for meeting your mate” then six months later you get a text saying “Are we still on for that drink?”
That last bit made little sense, sorry.
But in addition to what you said, or to shed a bit of light on it, your “ occasional perturbed references to our bet, most of them jokey but not always and not totally.” were actually you making snide comments like “Where’s Sam, HE OWES ME £300” giving the impression that I had knocked you on a bet that had won, when in fact I was banned from the site, couldn’t reply, and our bet hadn’t even finished. It still hasn’t now, it’s just gone your way.
Thinking back, that’s why I didn’t reply in August; I thought you were being a bit of a dickhead with those comments, and you saying it was now void (it was you who actually first suggested voiding) was end of, and we didn’t have to talk anymore
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
So Charles is our bulwark against dictatorship? I'm not sure that conveys much comfort tbh.
Would you prefer to leave it to the will of the people?
I'd prefer to have a written constitution with a 'majority of registered voters' referendum required to make changes.
If a simple majority can make changes then that amounts to the same thing.
A simple 'majority of registered voters' yes. Note, Brexit would not have passed on that measure (were it deemed to be a constitutional referendum) nor indeed would the 1975 EEC referendum. It's deliberately a high bar. >50% of the electorate need to actively want the change enough to vote for it, for it to pass.
Somebody help me here: Curtis says Labour would need to be 13.7% ahead on the new boundaries to achieve a majority but if I put a 13.7% lead into Electoral Calculus I get a Labour majority of 104 (C 27.2%, L 40.9%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
I need to narrow the Labour lead down to just 6% to get a bare majority of just 4 seats (C 31%, L 37%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
So who's right, Curtis or Electoral Calculus?
Edit: Oh, also... the YouGov MRP from a few days ago says Labour on track to win a 120 seat majority on a lead of... 13.5%
The R&T analysis is bollocks, other than in resetting the 2019 baseline, which others have done equally well already.
It isn't analysis, it's simply saying how these seats would have voted at the last election had they existed. It's an inherently notional exercise, which is why they're called notional results.
Somebody help me here: Curtis says Labour would need to be 13.7% ahead on the new boundaries to achieve a majority but if I put a 13.7% lead into Electoral Calculus I get a Labour majority of 104 (C 27.2%, L 40.9%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
I need to narrow the Labour lead down to just 6% to get a bare majority of just 4 seats (C 31%, L 37%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
So who's right, Curtis or Electoral Calculus?
Edit: Oh, also... the YouGov MRP from a few days ago says Labour on track to win a 120 seat majority on a lead of... 13.5%
Curtis is applying uniform swing to the notional results. Uniform swing is very unlikely to happen of course.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Totally agree.
I was reflecting on the fragility of democracy the other day and wondering what would happen in the UK, if the PM of the day decided he or she wasn't going to ask HRH to dissolve parliament at the end of 5 years but instead passed a law to the effect that elections could be postponed indefinitely.
What would stop that happening? Parliament is sovereign after all.
How would that work?
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons. Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit. Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
So Charles is our bulwark against dictatorship? I'm not sure that conveys much comfort tbh.
Would you prefer to leave it to the will of the people?
I'd prefer to have a written constitution with a 'majority of registered voters' referendum required to make changes.
If a simple majority can make changes then that amounts to the same thing.
A simple 'majority of registered voters' yes. Note, Brexit would not have passed on that measure (were it deemed to be a constitutional referendum) nor indeed would the 1975 EEC referendum. It's deliberately a high bar. >50% of the electorate need to actively want the change enough to vote for it, for it to pass.
What about changes to the franchise or to voter demographics? Would allowing large scale immigration be regarded as unconstitutional?
Somebody help me here: Curtis says Labour would need to be 13.7% ahead on the new boundaries to achieve a majority but if I put a 13.7% lead into Electoral Calculus I get a Labour majority of 104 (C 27.2%, L 40.9%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
I need to narrow the Labour lead down to just 6% to get a bare majority of just 4 seats (C 31%, L 37%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
So who's right, Curtis or Electoral Calculus?
Edit: Oh, also... the YouGov MRP from a few days ago says Labour on track to win a 120 seat majority on a lead of... 13.5%
The R&T analysis is bollocks, other than in resetting the 2019 baseline, which others have done equally well already.
It isn't analysis, it's simply saying how these seats would have voted at the last election had they existed. It's an inherently notional exercise, which is why they're called notional results.
And unless I have misunderstood it, the baseline is the result in each ward in the 2019 local elections. To which is applied a niform national swing. So total rubbish on both counts.
Betgate is none of my business so I have no comment to make, but unless I've misunderstood the upshot is that there is an absolute consensus that Starmer will be the next PM. How times change.
It is completely dishonest of you to break your word like this, having agreed to void it, and I’m confident I’d win any ‘arbitration’ if the judge was fair.
On the other hand I was surprised you agreed to void it so readily in the first place, that was maybe too generous. You realise now that you didn’t have to do that, and wish you hadn’t. Bet regret.
But it leaves me in the position of giving up over two grand because I was banned from here without any reason being given, which doesn’t seem right at all.
Thank you for that, @isam, but I don’t think we should proceed with you feeling this way. I prefer my suggestion of having it looked at by a trusted 3rd party. Or some other solution if we can think of one.
I don’t think there’s bad faith on either side. It’s a genuine misunderstanding around an email exchange. Maybe our differing comms styles and personalities have contributed.
Here is my summary on this little tumble:
We do the bet. Around April 22, I think.
You disappear because you’re banned and I haven’t a clue if you’re coming back. Hence my occasional perturbed references to our bet, most of them jokey but not always and not totally.
Aug 23 you reappear with an email to me and RCS and Quincel. You talk about a bet with RCS, feeling hard done by on it, maybe getting RCS to take the bet with me off your hands. By this time our bet looks a surefire £300 loser for you. You make the point that it’s unfair for you to have to keep the losing bet with me but void the bet with RCS (which you say is now looking good for you).
I reply to this email. I’m all chatty and happyface, pleased you’re back, pleased our bet is being acknowledged, I ask about your bet with RCS, and I say I’m flexible, giving it the big Mr Cool, say I’m happy whatever, keep, void or transfer to RCS if he’s ok with that.
I wait for the continuation. RCS getting back to us about taking it or not, If so, fine. If not, me and you discussing further and agreeing to either keep it or void it. If the former, “Cheers, Islam, and again welcome back.” If the latter, “Cheers Kinabalu, voided then, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.”
But nothing happens. Silence. Nothing from RCS. Nothing from you. Hmm. Disappointing. We haven’t resolved the issue. It’s left hanging. I feel a bit put out. A bit disrespected. I’m now inclined to insist on keeping the bet. That’s my mindset after that exchange.
Fast forward to now. I decide to bring it up again. See where we stand. I do it by offering a cashout (to me) at £250 and then rather than settling a double or quits on size of Lab majority at the GE, me saying 3 digits, you saying less. I slant it in your favour a little bit to tempt you into it. But what I’m really trying to tease out is where you think we are on our Starmer bet (after the unsatisfactory email exchange).
I’m hoping for you to say, Ok done. But what I’m more expecting is you to say, “Hang on, we haven’t agreed what we’re doing with that Starmer bet.” I’m prepared for both.
But what you come back with is, “You what? That bet is void. You agreed to void it!” You then stick rigidly to this (relying on that one sentence of mine in the email) in the face of my protestations that there was no such agreement, that it was left hanging.
This rather hardens me in wanting to keep the bet.
Nevertheless I try to break the impasse by suggesting arbitration. You turn that down.
After some back & forth you say “fuck it, keep the bet, but you’re dishonest.”
Back to top.
I suggested we didn’t have the bet, and you agreed. Why would I think that would change? In your reply you also said you were happy to keep the bet, but you knew I didn’t want to. You also said you were happy to void it or sort with Robert, which you knew I did want. So why would the option you knew I didn’t want, and you were happy to not do, still be on the table now? You couldn’t for one minute have thought that I thought we were still on! Why would I have ever accepted that?
This is like telling a date you don’t want to see them again, but they’ve got a mate who might be right for them, and maybe could set you it up. The person being let down says “I’d like to see you again, but fair enough if not, and I’m up for meeting your mate” then six months later you get a text saying “Are we still on for that drink?”
That last bit made little sense, sorry.
But in addition to what you said, or to shed a bit of light on it, your “ occasional perturbed references to our bet, most of them jokey but not always and not totally.” were actually you making snide comments like “Where’s Sam, HE OWES ME £300” giving the impression that I had knocked you on a bet that had won, when in fact I was banned from the site, couldn’t reply, and our bet hadn’t even finished. It still hasn’t now, it’s just gone your way.
Thinking back, that’s why I didn’t reply in August; I thought you were being a bit of a dickhead with those comments, and you saying it was now void (it was you who actually first suggested voiding) was end of, and we didn’t have to talk anymore
Everyone knew you were banned, I think. And (as I said in our notorious email) I always explained the full situation to anyone who asked. And I didn't mention it very often. Maybe a dozen times from a 30k+ poster.
Still, if you were reading PB whilst banned and anything I wrote looked snide to you, I apologise. It wasn't meant that way.
Anyhow, this 50/50 resolution. It seems fair enough. I'm ok with it and hopefully you are?
Somebody help me here: Curtis says Labour would need to be 13.7% ahead on the new boundaries to achieve a majority but if I put a 13.7% lead into Electoral Calculus I get a Labour majority of 104 (C 27.2%, L 40.9%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
I need to narrow the Labour lead down to just 6% to get a bare majority of just 4 seats (C 31%, L 37%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
So who's right, Curtis or Electoral Calculus?
Edit: Oh, also... the YouGov MRP from a few days ago says Labour on track to win a 120 seat majority on a lead of... 13.5%
Curtis is applying uniform swing to the notional results. Uniform swing is very unlikely to happen of course.
SNP mess up uniform swing assumptions, because they are concentrated in one region. Uniform swing voted well in the old Robert McKenzie days - remember the swingometer? - but with distinct regional patterns and our semiBalkanisation it doesn't work as well now. I'm convinced a regional uniform swing would work, but regional-level polls aren't done often.
Somebody help me here: Curtis says Labour would need to be 13.7% ahead on the new boundaries to achieve a majority but if I put a 13.7% lead into Electoral Calculus I get a Labour majority of 104 (C 27.2%, L 40.9%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
I need to narrow the Labour lead down to just 6% to get a bare majority of just 4 seats (C 31%, L 37%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
So who's right, Curtis or Electoral Calculus?
Edit: Oh, also... the YouGov MRP from a few days ago says Labour on track to win a 120 seat majority on a lead of... 13.5%
The R&T analysis is bollocks, other than in resetting the 2019 baseline, which others have done equally well already.
It isn't analysis, it's simply saying how these seats would have voted at the last election had they existed. It's an inherently notional exercise, which is why they're called notional results.
The 'Labour needs a 12.7% swing for a majority' thing is both analysis and the lead item the media took out of the study. And bollocks.
@SamCoatesSky 5 Tories currently saying they'll vote against at 3rd reading
Miriam Cates Marco Longhi Robert Jenrick Suella Braverman Simon Clarke
* Gvt formal majority 54 * So 28 (/2 +1) needed to defeat gvt * Abstentions count as half * But some independent Tories (Matt Hancock) expected to vote with gvt, while others staying away abstain, so real hurdle slightly higher than 28
He’s got his brackets in the wrong place.
Should be (28/2) + 1?
It's maths, Coates is just a Cambridge arts graduate. Give him a break.
Time was when every Fenland Tech student had to do maths as well as classics. So sad to see the decline of I. Newton's alma mater.
Fen Poly. Cowley Tech.
It is vaguely interesting that maths & classics were recently listed as subjects where boys outdo girls which suggests there might be some relationship between them but on reflection, it probably just means classics are mainly taught in boys' public schools.
You would get the same reaction from many on the left, particularly the young. Look at the polling in the US talking about democracy has failed even if you exclude how many of them shut down free speech on campuses.
You constantly respond to a comment highlighting dangerous right wing anti democratic developments in America by identifying something trivial on the other side as comparable (you did this earlier today with a post about the centre left also being hijacked in response to a comment about the centre right being hijacked. It hasn't). They are not comparable. They could be, but currently they aren't.
There is nothing on the left comparable to Trump at the moment and to keep responding with posts that imply the left want to get rid of democracy or the nutters have taken over the left is crass. That is not to say it hasn't been a threat in the past or won't in the future, but it is not happening currently in the USA or Europe and you appear to make out it is just to deflect from the horrors of Trump.
If it were I would be with you as I was with the threats from the left many decades ago.
I happen to believe that most of the 'horror' at Trump is pure hyperbole - he didn't ruin US democracy in his first term and he won't if he gets in again.
What I do believe is a real threat to democracy is politicians on one side trying to get the opposition leader banned on grounds that are spurious - Trump hasn't been convicted of insurgency, sedition etc but, to many on here, a trial does not matter, just their own views and what they believe is right. You and others are quite happy to chuck constitutional and legal precedent out of the window just because you believe you are morally right.
As for standing up to threats from the left, you simply would not, you would be one of the acquiescent - maybe not agreeing to it but not really that bothered to do much about it. I have not heard a peep from you condemning speakers being prevented on campus from speaking for example.
Ruining democracy... I don't think Trump ruined US democracy. The US is a still a democracy. I think Trump did more damage to US democracy than anyone since the civil war. Would you agree with that?
I don't think politicians should try to get the opposition leader banned on grounds that are spurious. Trump's 2016 campaign slogan of "lock her up" was, thusly, outrageous. This year, Biden isn't trying to get Trump banned. The attempts to have Trump excluded from the ballot are not coming from the Democratic party leadership, but from a variety of interested groups representing individual voters, some Dem voting, some Rep voting. These people are bringing lawsuits. It would be inappropriate to ban people from bringing lawsuits, even if the lawsuits seem spurious and not in the spirit of democracy, as with the dozens of lawsuits Trump brought after the 2020 vote. The law suits over Trump's eligibility, however, do not appear spurious. Those who are empowered to react to those lawsuits have found them valid. That is how the rule of law works: you bring a case, the appropriate person considers the case, a decision is made, appeals are possible. The law in question, the 14th amendment, is clearly poorly worded, but that's not the fault of the today's politicians. The constitutional precedent seems pretty clear that you don't need to be convicted of insurgency. Again, blame those who wrote the 14th amendment.
People being prevented on campus from speaking: I don't know what kjh has said on the subject. I've certainly repeatedly decried the horrendous censorship on campus, particularly in deSantis's Florida.
A few things here (and ps I agree that censorship doesn't work either way, either from the right or left).
First, is that a lot of the things associated with Trump in terms of using executive power actually came from Obama, which is the main reason why I think he is actually one of the most damaging Presidents the US has had. It was Obama who pushed his "pen and paper" policy i.e. the excessive use of executive orders to bypass Congress. It was Obama who pushed for the filibuster to be abolished for federal judges below the SC and for Cabinet officials, which then led a Republican-led Senate to retaliate by abolishing it for the SC. It was Obama who set state institutions like the IRS onto groups he opposed. The list goes on. If you want to look at someone who truly did undermine US democracy and its institutions, although with a smiling face and an agreeable persona, look no further.
Second, maybe Trump should not have said 'lock her up' but the point is, once he became President, he didn't nor did he take action against his opponents (if he did, please let me know). Put simply, while he may talk about revenge, the only people he actually did take revenge against were the people in his own party - who he merely froze out or encouraged primary opponents to run against.
Third, if you want to push a narrative of 'stealing the election', there is no better accelerant than banning the clear favourite of one party from standing. If you think he is an insurrectionist, it should go through the proper process and, if he is found guilty, then I agree he can banned.
Trump's foreign policy is to retreat behind a wall of impenetrable armaments - that's not dissimilar to the way Biden has been going too. As far as the UK is concerned, is this worse for us than the 'liberal interventionism' era? Iraq cost us billions, and did it make the Middle East any more secure, or advance UK interests? Our support for the Maidan protests removing the Russian-backed President and installing a Western-backed Government - what was the outcome there?
If we look back at the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise, because we weren't continually asked to spend money and lives being the sidekick. Now, here we are again in Yemen.
This is a take that is at odds with reality.
Why was the withdrawal from Afghanistan a debacle? Because the Trump Whitehouse did a deal with the Taliban and cut out the Afghan government. Biden should have put a stop to it but the origin of the mess is Trump.
Why is Iran and their proxies being a pain in the arse again? Because the Trump Whitehouse dumped the nuclear deal and assassinated Soleimani, undoing a couple of decades of careful diplomacy.
Why did Russia further its invasion of Ukraine? Because Trump has consistently backed Putin — even to the degree of taking Putin's side against the US intelligence community — and tried to blackmail Ukraine, so Putin thought he had the green light from a friendly US President, and Russia likely would have attacked sooner if not for Covid. Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt, and is now plainly hoping for Trump being elected again.
The idea that "the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise" is genuinely a take that I'd only expect to come from one of our enemies. Trump managed to do a lot of damage without even starting any new wars. Trump being elected in 2024 would be a potential calamity of a scale that hardly anyone alive can remember.
"Legend has it that way back in the early part of the 21st century, a betting(1) dispute on a somewhat niche politics 'website' led to the establishment of the famous ISAM-kinabalu Principle. A principle whereby two parties, equally believing themselves wronged, can never again find peace in the world.
Unfortunately, since the Great Solar Event of 2123 wiped out all internet data from before that time, we will never know the truth of this legend.
(1) Betting: a pastime where people won or (more usually) lost money by predicting the future; a pastime no longer practical since the invention of accurate FV (Future Viewing)."
@SamCoatesSky 5 Tories currently saying they'll vote against at 3rd reading
Miriam Cates Marco Longhi Robert Jenrick Suella Braverman Simon Clarke
* Gvt formal majority 54 * So 28 (/2 +1) needed to defeat gvt * Abstentions count as half * But some independent Tories (Matt Hancock) expected to vote with gvt, while others staying away abstain, so real hurdle slightly higher than 28
He’s got his brackets in the wrong place.
Should be (28/2) + 1?
It's maths, Coates is just a Cambridge arts graduate. Give him a break.
Time was when every Fenland Tech student had to do maths as well as classics. So sad to see the decline of I. Newton's alma mater.
Fen Poly. Cowley Tech.
It is vaguely interesting that maths & classics were recently listed as subjects where boys outdo girls which suggests there might be some relationship between them but on reflection, it probably just means classics are mainly taught in boys' public schools.
Thanks for the correction - always useful.
I was actually thinking of the 18th century and no doubt some of the 19th - not sure if this was reformed in the 1850s wave ...
"Avanti West Coast managers joked about receiving “free money” from government and performance-related payments being “too good to be true” in an internal presentation at the notoriously unreliable train operator, it has emerged.
One slide, entitled “Roll up, roll-up get your free money here!” described how the Treasury and Department for Transport supported the firm with taxpayers’ money, provided third-party suppliers and inspections, and then paid Avanti fees on top."
They are embarrassed at getting caught saying it, but their slides are correct. All aspects of their service are directed by the DfT who set the fees payable for compliance. And its the same with all of the operators.
This is the idiocy of the dogmatic left who foam on about "privatised" operators. Everything is done by the direct edict of civil servants.
There should be proper privatisation.
You operate your business, you charge your customers, no subsidies. You make a profit, or you go bankrupt and lose your assets.
We did that. They went bankrupt, or needed a form of direct subsidy called "cap and collar" to avoid going bankrupt. None of the major private transport companies - with the exception of First - want anything to do with the industry now.
Then let them go bankrupt. What's the problem with that?
If they go bust, they go bust. That's a healthy part of the free market: inefficient businesses go bust and then their assets go in a firesale at pennies in the pound to someone else to manage better.
Trump's foreign policy is to retreat behind a wall of impenetrable armaments - that's not dissimilar to the way Biden has been going too. As far as the UK is concerned, is this worse for us than the 'liberal interventionism' era? Iraq cost us billions, and did it make the Middle East any more secure, or advance UK interests? Our support for the Maidan protests removing the Russian-backed President and installing a Western-backed Government - what was the outcome there?
If we look back at the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise, because we weren't continually asked to spend money and lives being the sidekick. Now, here we are again in Yemen.
This is a take that is at odds with reality.
Why was the withdrawal from Afghanistan a debacle? Because the Trump Whitehouse did a deal with the Taliban and cut out the Afghan government. Biden should have put a stop to it but the origin of the mess is Trump.
Why is Iran and thier proxies being a pain in the arse again? Because the Trump Whitehouse dumped the nuclear deal and assassinated Soleimani, undoing a couple of decades of careful diplomacy.
Why did Russia further its invasion of Ukraine? Because Trump has consistently backed Putin — even to the degree of taking Putin's side against the US intelligence community — and tried to blackmail Ukraine, so Putin thought he had the green light from a friendly US President, and Russia likely would have attacked sooner if not for Covid. Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt, and is now plainly hoping for Trump being elected again.
The idea that "the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise" is genuinely a take that I'd only expect to come from one of our enemies. Trump managed to do a lot of damage without even starting any new wars. Trump being elected in 2024 would be a potential calamity of a scale that hardly anyone alive can remember.
Your take is if anything more biased the other way. Under Obama Putin invaded Ukriane and 'got away' with annexing Crimea, Iran was conducting proxy-wars against its enemies, and his Afghanistan strategy was failing.
Trump's foreign policy is to retreat behind a wall of impenetrable armaments - that's not dissimilar to the way Biden has been going too. As far as the UK is concerned, is this worse for us than the 'liberal interventionism' era? Iraq cost us billions, and did it make the Middle East any more secure, or advance UK interests? Our support for the Maidan protests removing the Russian-backed President and installing a Western-backed Government - what was the outcome there?
If we look back at the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise, because we weren't continually asked to spend money and lives being the sidekick. Now, here we are again in Yemen.
This is a take that is at odds with reality.
Why was the withdrawal from Afghanistan a debacle? Because the Trump Whitehouse did a deal with the Taliban and cut out the Afghan government. Biden should have put a stop to it but the origin of the mess is Trump.
Why is Iran and thier proxies being a pain in the arse again? Because the Trump Whitehouse dumped the nuclear deal and assassinated Soleimani, undoing a couple of decades of careful diplomacy.
Why did Russia further its invasion of Ukraine? Because Trump has consistently backed Putin — even to the degree of taking Putin's side against the US intelligence community — and tried to blackmail Ukraine, so Putin thought he had the green light from a friendly US President, and Russia likely would have attacked sooner if not for Covid. Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt, and is now plainly hoping for Trump being elected again.
The idea that "the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise" is genuinely a take that I'd only expect to come from one of our enemies. Trump managed to do a lot of damage without even starting any new wars. Trump being elected in 2024 would be a potential calamity of a scale that hardly anyone alive can remember.
I have comments re your comments on Iran but what you say about Russia and Ukraine just doesn't make sense. Russia attacked in 2014 because it believed Obama wouldn't do anything (which was then correct). It then attacked in 2022 under Biden because (again) it assumed the US wouldn't do much (which seems to be correct, if it was not for Johnson's intervention). The US also continued to train Ukraine's military.
Moreover, Russia invaded in February 2022, more than a year after Trump was defeated. Therefore your comment that "Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt" is just not right - he had plenty of time. The fact was he thought that he could get away with it.
I think you are trying to weave an illogical story to avoid what is closer to the truth - Putin thought Trump was genuinely unpredictable and so he didn't want to risk a war (which is implicitly what the article someone posted the other day about war in Europe being closer than we think - Russia believes Europe or the US will be willing to defend Eastern Europe with force, which they would have been less sure of if Trump was in power).
"Legend has it that way back in the early part of the 21st century, a betting(1) dispute on a somewhat niche politics 'website' led to the establishment of the famous ISAM-kinabalu Principle. A principle whereby two parties, equally believing themselves wronged, can never again find peace in the world.
Unfortunately, since the Great Solar Event of 2123 wiped out all internet data from before that time, we will never know the truth of this legend.
(1) Betting: a pastime where people won or (more usually) lost money by predicting the future; a pastime no longer practical since the invention of accurate FV (Future Viewing)."
So the seeds of the Isamite-Kinabaloon civil war are being sown as we speak?
Trump's foreign policy is to retreat behind a wall of impenetrable armaments - that's not dissimilar to the way Biden has been going too. As far as the UK is concerned, is this worse for us than the 'liberal interventionism' era? Iraq cost us billions, and did it make the Middle East any more secure, or advance UK interests? Our support for the Maidan protests removing the Russian-backed President and installing a Western-backed Government - what was the outcome there?
If we look back at the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise, because we weren't continually asked to spend money and lives being the sidekick. Now, here we are again in Yemen.
This is a take that is at odds with reality.
Why was the withdrawal from Afghanistan a debacle? Because the Trump Whitehouse did a deal with the Taliban and cut out the Afghan government. Biden should have put a stop to it but the origin of the mess is Trump.
Why is Iran and their proxies being a pain in the arse again? Because the Trump Whitehouse dumped the nuclear deal and assassinated Soleimani, undoing a couple of decades of careful diplomacy.
Why did Russia further its invasion of Ukraine? Because Trump has consistently backed Putin — even to the degree of taking Putin's side against the US intelligence community — and tried to blackmail Ukraine, so Putin thought he had the green light from a friendly US President, and Russia likely would have attacked sooner if not for Covid. Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt, and is now plainly hoping for Trump being elected again.
The idea that "the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise" is genuinely a take that I'd only expect to come from one of our enemies. Trump managed to do a lot of damage without even starting any new wars. Trump being elected in 2024 would be a potential calamity of a scale that hardly anyone alive can remember.
Precisely. Trump set up a lot of the problems Biden has taken the fall for (though not all - Obama was also complicit in both Syria and Ukraine for not taking a stronger line, and Bush messed up badly with a completely unnecessary war in Iraq). Nonetheless, Trump consistently sided with autocrats over democracies, to no useful effect. The only genuine success he could claim was in the Middle East, with some move towards normalisation of relationships - though that may have happened anyway given the Iran / Saudi divide.
Somebody help me here: Curtis says Labour would need to be 13.7% ahead on the new boundaries to achieve a majority but if I put a 13.7% lead into Electoral Calculus I get a Labour majority of 104 (C 27.2%, L 40.9%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
I need to narrow the Labour lead down to just 6% to get a bare majority of just 4 seats (C 31%, L 37%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
So who's right, Curtis or Electoral Calculus?
Edit: Oh, also... the YouGov MRP from a few days ago says Labour on track to win a 120 seat majority on a lead of... 13.5%
The R&T analysis is bollocks, other than in resetting the 2019 baseline, which others have done equally well already.
It simply has to be bollox. It's saying that if the Lab/Con voteshares are the same as the 97 Blair landslide Starmer will just squeak a majority. You what?!
"Legend has it that way back in the early part of the 21st century, a betting(1) dispute on a somewhat niche politics 'website' led to the establishment of the famous ISAM-kinabalu Principle. A principle whereby two parties, equally believing themselves wronged, can never again find peace in the world.
Unfortunately, since the Great Solar Event of 2123 wiped out all internet data from before that time, we will never know the truth of this legend.
(1) Betting: a pastime where people won or (more usually) lost money by predicting the future; a pastime no longer practical since the invention of accurate FV (Future Viewing)."
So the seeds of the Isamite-Kinabaloon civil war are being sown as we speak?
Somebody help me here: Curtis says Labour would need to be 13.7% ahead on the new boundaries to achieve a majority but if I put a 13.7% lead into Electoral Calculus I get a Labour majority of 104 (C 27.2%, L 40.9%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
I need to narrow the Labour lead down to just 6% to get a bare majority of just 4 seats (C 31%, L 37%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
So who's right, Curtis or Electoral Calculus?
Edit: Oh, also... the YouGov MRP from a few days ago says Labour on track to win a 120 seat majority on a lead of... 13.5%
It's worth remembering that the current extraordinary bias of the electoral system towards the Conservatives only emerged in the space of a decade, and mostly in 2015. Kavanagh and Cowley's analysis of the 2010 election finds that if the Conservative vote share had only been 4.1% greater than Labour, rather than the actual 7.3%, then both parties would have won an equal number of seats. So in 2010 there was still a bias towards Labour, dating from the start of the Blair years.
What had changed by 2019? Well three things: 1. Labour lost an enormous number of seats in Scotland in 2015, even though the loss of its GB vote share during the Scotland collapse was relatively small. 2. Tactical voting between Labour and the Lib Dems ceased, initially in 2015 on account of the Lib Dems getting into bed with the Conservatives, and later the effect of Lib Dems fearing a government led by Corbyn. 3. Labour's collapse was particularly heavy in its Red Wall heartlands in 2019, and cost a disproportionate number of seats in 2019 although the effect was also apparent in 2015.
In 2024, Labour will recover strongly in Scotland, if not to 2010 levels, tactical Lab-LD voting will be back big time, and Labour will have also recovered strongly enough in the Red Wall to recapture seats lost in 2019 at least. The 2024 boundary changes will also not have much of a net effect, because their effect in favouring the Conservatives will be countered by demographic shifts favouring Labour since 2019. i.e. the shift of Labour voters into the suburbs and beyond.
The evidence of 2015 is that the direction of bias in the electoral system can change pretty quickly. With the factors that worked to Labour's disbenefit now going into reverse, anyone who even begins to predict the 2024 result on the basis of uniform national swing should not be believed. Labour will pick up many more seats, and the Conservatives will lose many more, than UNS will suggest. Whether that is enough to wholly eliminate the current bias towards the Conservatives may be a matter of doubt, but the scale of the bias will be nothing like it is currently. So the idea that Labour will need anything close to a 13.7% lead to win a majority is utter nonsense.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Agree but sadly easier said than done. Whilst America has had some scary moments in the past (McCarthyism, Wallace) I don't think any of those were a threat to the democracy (although I could be ignorant of my history). I am sure @TheKitchenCabinet thinks I am over reacting but I think Trump is the scariest thing for American democracy since the Civil War.
you are forgetting Nixon.
In fact you could say he helped pave the way for what is happening now.
Trump is far worse than Nixon.
It's not even remotely close frankly.
That doesn't mean, of course, that Peter isn't correct about Nixon having paved the way.
Nixon - a far smarter man than Trump - was held back by checks and balances, and common assumptions about the importance of the law, that have steadily eroded since his time.
Rick Perstein's outstanding series of histories - Before the Storm; Nixonland; The Invisible Bridge; Reaganland - while obviously written from a liberal perspective, given some idea of the progression.
Saying "we needed to bailout" companies "in order to avoid bankruptcy" is precisely the problem and why there is not a proper privatisation or free market.
The state should NEVER bailout* firms to avoid bankruptcy.
It's not the states job to ensure firms avoid bankruptcy, its the firms job. If they fail, they fail, they need to take responsibility. Privatise the gains, privatise the losses.
The second the state starts picking winners, or equally badly preventing losers, you have a problem.
* That's not to be confused with eg having a furlough scheme during COVID etc. That's not a bailout, that's compensation.
Trump's foreign policy is to retreat behind a wall of impenetrable armaments - that's not dissimilar to the way Biden has been going too. As far as the UK is concerned, is this worse for us than the 'liberal interventionism' era? Iraq cost us billions, and did it make the Middle East any more secure, or advance UK interests? Our support for the Maidan protests removing the Russian-backed President and installing a Western-backed Government - what was the outcome there?
If we look back at the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise, because we weren't continually asked to spend money and lives being the sidekick. Now, here we are again in Yemen.
This is a take that is at odds with reality.
Why was the withdrawal from Afghanistan a debacle? Because the Trump Whitehouse did a deal with the Taliban and cut out the Afghan government. Biden should have put a stop to it but the origin of the mess is Trump.
Why is Iran and thier proxies being a pain in the arse again? Because the Trump Whitehouse dumped the nuclear deal and assassinated Soleimani, undoing a couple of decades of careful diplomacy.
Why did Russia further its invasion of Ukraine? Because Trump has consistently backed Putin — even to the degree of taking Putin's side against the US intelligence community — and tried to blackmail Ukraine, so Putin thought he had the green light from a friendly US President, and Russia likely would have attacked sooner if not for Covid. Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt, and is now plainly hoping for Trump being elected again.
The idea that "the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise" is genuinely a take that I'd only expect to come from one of our enemies. Trump managed to do a lot of damage without even starting any new wars. Trump being elected in 2024 would be a potential calamity of a scale that hardly anyone alive can remember.
I have comments re your comments on Iran but what you say about Russia and Ukraine just doesn't make sense. Russia attacked in 2014 because it believed Obama wouldn't do anything (which was then correct). It then attacked in 2022 under Biden because (again) it assumed the US wouldn't do much (which seems to be correct, if it was not for Johnson's intervention). The US also continued to train Ukraine's military.
Moreover, Russia invaded in February 2022, more than a year after Trump was defeated. Therefore your comment that "Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt" is just not right - he had plenty of time. The fact was he thought that he could get away with it.
I think you are trying to weave an illogical story to avoid what is closer to the truth - Putin thought Trump was genuinely unpredictable and so he didn't want to risk a war (which is implicitly what the article someone posted the other day about war in Europe being closer than we think - Russia believes Europe or the US will be willing to defend Eastern Europe with force, which they would have been less sure of if Trump was in power).
Furthermore the full scale invasion of Ukraine came 8 months after a summit meeting between Biden and Putin. Blaming it on Trump is absurd.
Precisely. Trump set up a lot of the problems Biden has taken the fall for (though not all - Obama was also complicit in both Syria and Ukraine for not taking a stronger line, and Bush messed up badly with a completely unnecessary war in Iraq). Nonetheless, Trump consistently sided with autocrats over democracies, to no useful effect. The only genuine success he could claim was in the Middle East, with some move towards normalisation of relationships - though that may have happened anyway given the Iran / Saudi divide.
I would certainly say that Obama was negligent, but Trump was absolutely woeful. The damage done regarding Iran is now showing. Long term a peaceful resolution to Iran's nuclear ambitions now looks very unlikely, and the alternative is almost certainly a major military campaign, perferable only because it may be the sole thing that stops Israel doing something mad like launching nuclear weapons at enrichment facilities.
@GBNEWS has learned 66 Tory MPs have signed the rebel amendments to strengthen the Rwanda Bill. A leader of the rebels tells me: “It is growing. There are people joining rather than leaving.” A senior Tory tells me it is all about momentum going into the votes tomorrow night.
@GBNEWS has learned 66 Tory MPs have signed the rebel amendments to strengthen the Rwanda Bill. A leader of the rebels tells me: “It is growing. There are people joining rather than leaving.” A senior Tory tells me it is all about momentum going into the votes tomorrow night.
As I have already said, the Government should back the rebel amendments as well as the Buckland amendment.
Trump's foreign policy is to retreat behind a wall of impenetrable armaments - that's not dissimilar to the way Biden has been going too. As far as the UK is concerned, is this worse for us than the 'liberal interventionism' era? Iraq cost us billions, and did it make the Middle East any more secure, or advance UK interests? Our support for the Maidan protests removing the Russian-backed President and installing a Western-backed Government - what was the outcome there?
If we look back at the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise, because we weren't continually asked to spend money and lives being the sidekick. Now, here we are again in Yemen.
This is a take that is at odds with reality.
Why was the withdrawal from Afghanistan a debacle? Because the Trump Whitehouse did a deal with the Taliban and cut out the Afghan government. Biden should have put a stop to it but the origin of the mess is Trump.
Why is Iran and thier proxies being a pain in the arse again? Because the Trump Whitehouse dumped the nuclear deal and assassinated Soleimani, undoing a couple of decades of careful diplomacy.
Why did Russia further its invasion of Ukraine? Because Trump has consistently backed Putin — even to the degree of taking Putin's side against the US intelligence community — and tried to blackmail Ukraine, so Putin thought he had the green light from a friendly US President, and Russia likely would have attacked sooner if not for Covid. Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt, and is now plainly hoping for Trump being elected again.
The idea that "the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise" is genuinely a take that I'd only expect to come from one of our enemies. Trump managed to do a lot of damage without even starting any new wars. Trump being elected in 2024 would be a potential calamity of a scale that hardly anyone alive can remember.
I have comments re your comments on Iran but what you say about Russia and Ukraine just doesn't make sense. Russia attacked in 2014 because it believed Obama wouldn't do anything (which was then correct). It then attacked in 2022 under Biden because (again) it assumed the US wouldn't do much (which seems to be correct, if it was not for Johnson's intervention). The US also continued to train Ukraine's military.
Moreover, Russia invaded in February 2022, more than a year after Trump was defeated. Therefore your comment that "Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt" is just not right - he had plenty of time. The fact was he thought that he could get away with it.
I think you are trying to weave an illogical story to avoid what is closer to the truth - Putin thought Trump was genuinely unpredictable and so he didn't want to risk a war (which is implicitly what the article someone posted the other day about war in Europe being closer than we think - Russia believes Europe or the US will be willing to defend Eastern Europe with force, which they would have been less sure of if Trump was in power).
Furthermore the full scale invasion of Ukraine came 8 months after a summit meeting between Biden and Putin. Blaming it on Trump is absurd.
I have comments re your comments on Iran but what you say about Russia and Ukraine just doesn't make sense. Russia attacked in 2014 because it believed Obama wouldn't do anything (which was then correct). It then attacked in 2022 under Biden because (again) it assumed the US wouldn't do much (which seems to be correct, if it was not for Johnson's intervention). The US also continued to train Ukraine's military.
Moreover, Russia invaded in February 2022, more than a year after Trump was defeated. Therefore your comment that "Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt" is just not right - he had plenty of time. The fact was he thought that he could get away with it.
I think you are trying to weave an illogical story to avoid what is closer to the truth - Putin thought Trump was genuinely unpredictable and so he didn't want to risk a war (which is implicitly what the article someone posted the other day about war in Europe being closer than we think - Russia believes Europe or the US will be willing to defend Eastern Europe with force, which they would have been less sure of if Trump was in power).
Putin has never acted as though he feared Trump. Not once. Putin acts as though he can control Trump. He believes, probably correctly, that Russia and the US with Trump would fall back into the old ideas about spheres of influence, and that Russia would face little push back from the US regarding Russian influence, coercion, or agression towards Russia's neighbours.
Say Trump does win the election who do we think will be the GOP nominee in 2028?
One of the sproggs?
You think there'll be an election in 2028?
Many people seem to believe two incompatible things: that the US constitution with its separation of powers is the optimal form of democratic government, and that it all fails if people vote for the wrong person.
While others believe entirely compatible things, like that democracy is precious and fragile, and that it can fail if people elect someone willing to destroy it.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Don't elect those who aspire to be dictators.
Agree but sadly easier said than done. Whilst America has had some scary moments in the past (McCarthyism, Wallace) I don't think any of those were a threat to the democracy (although I could be ignorant of my history). I am sure @TheKitchenCabinet thinks I am over reacting but I think Trump is the scariest thing for American democracy since the Civil War.
you are forgetting Nixon.
In fact you could say he helped pave the way for what is happening now.
Trump is far worse than Nixon.
It's not even remotely close frankly.
That doesn't mean, of course, that Peter isn't correct about Nixon having paved the way.
Nixon - a far smarter man than Trump - was held back by checks and balances, and common assumptions about the importance of the law, that have steadily eroded since his time.
Rick Perstein's outstanding series of histories - Before the Storm; Nixonland; The Invisible Bridge; Reaganland - while obviously written from a liberal perspective, given some idea of the progression.
Nixon was a cheat but his transgressions were, set against Trump's, pretty small beer. Yet despite that he would have been impeached for them, which is as good a signal as you can get as to where the political norms and expectations of the time were and how little Nixon did to change them. On the same note, he was seen as an exception, an aberration. Indeed, the very fact that Nixon *didn't* get away with his behaviour could be said to have done the opposite of paving the way for Trump: he tested the limits and showed them (then) to be secure. That should have inhibited further challenge.
By contrast, Trump's actions and rejection of those norms and conventions have been out in the open. He's made no secret about wanting to change how politics is done, to his own benefit.
Comments
The problem with the US Constitution is that its interpreted by people and get people who will abuse the constitution rather than enforce it into the right places then suddenly its protections are utterly worthless.
The constitution says that Trump is disbarred from being President, since he led an insurrection, its there in black and white. No ifs, buts or maybes. But since 6 people can make up any bull as to why he isn't, then suddenly all the protections of the constitution become utterly worthless.
In fact you could say he helped pave the way for what is happening now.
Then @edmundintokyo, @Peter_the_Punter and the troll decide the inevitable US election court case.
Iain M Banks once pointed out the dangers of Infinite Fun spaces, virtual environments of increased complexity that trapped their inhabitants by interest and exploration, forgetting that they had real bodies with real needs, like eating.
Same thing here. Jake Berry has become lost in cyberspace. The fact that so many British legislators are joining him genuinely worries me.
Today's big news: Louis Rees Zammit quits Wales and Gloucester for a career in the NFL.
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/wales-star-louis-rees-zammit-quits-rugby-immediately-to-join-nfl/
The idea of the swingometer is total bunk. Not just 2005, look at 2015.
In 2015 (and before) we had article after article about the impossible lead the Tories would need to get a majority, and how a small swing against the Tories would see Labour in office.
The result in 2015? A small swing against the Tories, that led to the Tories gaining an overall majority.
Anyone who believes in universal swing needs their head examining.
He knows that geopolitical chaos would damage the US economy and its trading interests, collapsing support, so I think this is Trump sounding and mouthing off (unsettling things as he is) but not actually with the intent to withdraw into glorious isolation - which he can't and realistically stay in office long.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/16/free-money-avanti-west-coast-bosses-caught-joking-about-uk-government-handouts
"Avanti West Coast managers joked about receiving “free money” from government and performance-related payments being “too good to be true” in an internal presentation at the notoriously unreliable train operator, it has emerged.
One slide, entitled “Roll up, roll-up get your free money here!” described how the Treasury and Department for Transport supported the firm with taxpayers’ money, provided third-party suppliers and inspections, and then paid Avanti fees on top."
Government Proposes a Rishi Sunak Forever Bill, which is smashed through the Commons.
Bill then goes to the Lords who, once they stop harrumphing, send it back with "no" written on it in black marker pen. The Commons can't force the hand of the Lords without further legislation which it can't even propose as it doesn't have legal authority to sit.
Or, in the entertaining event that Sunak has rammed a load of new Lords in to get the bill passed, we get an act which has to go to HMK for royal assent.
You can imagine his reaction.
Available at reasonable (for brilliant lawyer) rates to investigate @kinabalu / @isam dispute.
Writing of 485 page report extra, of course.
Again though it doesn't feel the same (and again it could be my lack of knowledge of American history) but wasn't this a case of a crime in an attempt to gain advantage in an election (eg bugging phones, etc) and then the cover up (the cover up is always worse). We would be naive to think people don't do naughty things from all parties from time to time (I have been a witness in an election cheating case). That doesn't feel the same to me, although I might be dancing on a pin head.
This is the idiocy of the dogmatic left who foam on about "privatised" operators. Everything is done by the direct edict of civil servants.
But it is also important to take into account other factors. There is likely to be a larger swing in CON - LAB 'marginals' - I put in inverted commas as this could include seats currently up to 30% CON majority to reverse out the opposite in recent elections.
So LAB don't need to be 12 or 13% ahead. 6% should be enough for a small majority.
DYOR 👍
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/what-difference-will-the-new-constituency-boundaries-make/
"some voters also appear willing to vote tactically for whichever opposition party is best placed to defeat the Conservatives locally"
Really, I wonder why?
People who take it seriously are on a hiding to nothing.
I don’t think there’s bad faith on either side. It’s a genuine misunderstanding around an email exchange. Maybe our differing comms styles and personalities have contributed.
Here is my summary on this little tumble:
We do the bet. Around April 22, I think.
You disappear because you’re banned and I haven’t a clue if you’re coming back. Hence my occasional perturbed references to our bet, most of them jokey but not always and not totally.
Aug 23 you reappear with an email to me and RCS and Quincel. You talk about a bet with RCS, feeling hard done by on it, maybe getting RCS to take the bet with me off your hands. By this time our bet looks a surefire £300 loser for you. You make the point that it’s unfair for you to have to keep the losing bet with me but void the bet with RCS (which you say is now looking good for you).
I reply to this email. I’m all chatty and happyface, pleased you’re back, pleased our bet is being acknowledged, I ask about your bet with RCS, and I say I’m flexible, giving it the big Mr Cool, say I’m happy whatever, keep, void or transfer to RCS if he’s ok with that.
I wait for the continuation. RCS getting back to us about taking it or not, If so, fine. If not, me and you discussing further and agreeing to either keep it or void it. If the former, “Cheers, Islam, and again welcome back.” If the latter, “Cheers Kinabalu, voided then, you’re a gentleman and a scholar.”
But nothing happens. Silence. Nothing from RCS. Nothing from you. Hmm. Disappointing. We haven’t resolved the issue. It’s left hanging. I feel a bit put out. A bit disrespected. I’m now inclined to insist on keeping the bet. That’s my mindset after that exchange.
Fast forward to now. I decide to bring it up again. See where we stand. I do it by offering a cashout (to me) at £250 and then rather than settling a double or quits on size of Lab majority at the GE, me saying 3 digits, you saying less. I slant it in your favour a little bit to tempt you into it. But what I’m really trying to tease out is where you think we are on our Starmer bet (after the unsatisfactory email exchange).
I’m hoping for you to say, Ok done. But what I’m more expecting is you to say, “Hang on, we haven’t agreed what we’re doing with that Starmer bet.” I’m prepared for both.
But what you come back with is, “You what? That bet is void. You agreed to void it!” You then stick rigidly to this (relying on that one sentence of mine in the email) in the face of my protestations that there was no such agreement, that it was left hanging.
This rather hardens me in wanting to keep the bet.
Nevertheless I try to break the impasse by suggesting arbitration. You turn that down.
After some back & forth you say “fuck it, keep the bet, but you’re dishonest.”
Back to top.
You operate your business, you charge your customers, no subsidies. You make a profit, or you go bankrupt and lose your assets.
I don't think politicians should try to get the opposition leader banned on grounds that are spurious. Trump's 2016 campaign slogan of "lock her up" was, thusly, outrageous. This year, Biden isn't trying to get Trump banned. The attempts to have Trump excluded from the ballot are not coming from the Democratic party leadership, but from a variety of interested groups representing individual voters, some Dem voting, some Rep voting. These people are bringing lawsuits. It would be inappropriate to ban people from bringing lawsuits, even if the lawsuits seem spurious and not in the spirit of democracy, as with the dozens of lawsuits Trump brought after the 2020 vote. The law suits over Trump's eligibility, however, do not appear spurious. Those who are empowered to react to those lawsuits have found them valid. That is how the rule of law works: you bring a case, the appropriate person considers the case, a decision is made, appeals are possible. The law in question, the 14th amendment, is clearly poorly worded, but that's not the fault of the today's politicians. The constitutional precedent seems pretty clear that you don't need to be convicted of insurgency. Again, blame those who wrote the 14th amendment.
People being prevented on campus from speaking: I don't know what kjh has said on the subject. I've certainly repeatedly decried the horrendous censorship on campus, particularly in deSantis's Florida.
Isam said will you void the bet. Kinabalu said sure, void it, put it back to RCS, whatever. There was no response, not from RCS, nor from Isam saying ok thanks consider it void then or thanks, RCS has taken it on. Under such circumstances it is understandable that in the absence of any confirmation of one course of action or the other, Kinabalu believed the matter hadn't been concluded but was happy and probably minded not to push the matter ("well what did you decide") because he was sitting on a likely winning bet.
Isam, meanwhile has, understandably taken the acknowledgement from kinabalu that he (Kinabalu) is prepared to void the bet as confirmation that it is voided, with the rest being details. He didn't feel it necessary to confirm it as the principle that it could be voided was sufficient with the understanding that if it wasn't put back to RCS it would be voided, either way it was off Isam's hands.
The "whatever" is crucial here. It invites a response. It is not conclusive and doesn't conclusively end the exchange. While Isam's view is understandable, in common usage, as presented, Kinabalu's response required a response (it was in effect saying "ok that's cool let me know what you decide"). No response was forthcoming and hence on balance I find as follows:
Kinabalu: 65%; ISAM 35%
5 Tories currently saying they'll vote against at 3rd reading
Miriam Cates
Marco Longhi
Robert Jenrick
Suella Braverman
Simon Clarke
* Gvt formal majority 54
* So 28 (/2 +1) needed to defeat gvt
* Abstentions count as half
* But some independent Tories (Matt Hancock) expected to vote with gvt, while others staying away abstain, so real hurdle slightly higher than 28
Re what I have said on people being prevented on campus from speaking - Nothing. Not a dicky bird. Zilch. It would appear however that to be able to comment here @TheKitchenCabinet requires me to read every comment, everyday, and give my opinion on every damn one of them. Otherwise (s)he will infer what my views are on those posts.
Should be (28/2) + 1?
I can also see why you might be peeved he didn't come straight back and say 'Yes please, let's void it'.
Then again email (or even more, PB PMing) is a notoriously flaky way to get a definite response. Emails get missed, deleted, filed incorrectly (at least, mine do).
However, it was clearly a sincere bet once and you would be definitely be well-placed to collect £300 if it stood, given where we are now.
How about this as a compromise: @ISAM donates half the stake, so £150, to a charity of your choice?
'Must be a different Charles, I think'
'Are you telling me I don't know my own brother?'
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2024/01/16/horizon-system-data-still-used-in-court-proceedings-fujitsu-employee-says/
accepted that?
This is like telling a date you don’t want to see them again, but they’ve got a mate who might be right for them, and maybe could set you it up. The person being let down says “I’d like to see you again, but fair enough if not, and I’m up for meeting your mate” then six months later you get a text saying “Are we still on for that drink?”
The Parliament Act gives the Lords an absolute veto on extending the length of a parliament beyond 5 years; it's not just a 'last 13 months' thing (though obviously we're in that now too).
Besides, at the rate he's losing MPs, he wouldn't have a majority before all that long.
And he would have enough support (even if a minority) to cause vast problems.
I doubt Trump would really be daft enough to cancel the 2028 election; but it would just be gerrymandered to heck (or outright fraud). California has its EC votes reduced to 1 by Presidential decree. California threatens to cede if that happens.... and then you end up in a civil war.
A lot of people 'support law and order', even if those laws are round up the jews and invade Poland.
I need to narrow the Labour lead down to just 6% to get a bare majority of just 4 seats (C 31%, L 37%, LD 10.9%, Ref 9.0%, Green 5.9%, SNP 3.7%, PC 0.8%, Other 1.6%).
So who's right, Curtis or Electoral Calculus?
Edit: Oh, also... the YouGov MRP from a few days ago says Labour on track to win a 120 seat majority on a lead of... 13.5%
Thanks for opining. Yes, I do see the @isam pov as well as my own. As I said, it's a genuine misunderstanding, neither of us is being a dick.
So no gripes about a compromise, which to avoid 'winner' and 'loser' can be 50/50, ie half the bet cancelled, half stands.
Meaning, £50 to isam if SKS is not the PM post the GE, £150 to me if he is.
That's good for me. If isam agrees, it's done.
r = rebels voting against
s = opposition voting for
a = govt MP abstentions
z = opposition abstentions
and half 54 is 27, not 28.
*The rebels prepared to vote down the Rwanda Bill*
Marco Longhi
Miriam Cates
Nick Fletcher
Robert Jenrick
Sarah Dines
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
Sir John Hayes
Sir Simon Clarke
Suella Braverman
+ four more MPs who spoke off the record
But in addition to what you said, or to shed a bit of light on it, your “ occasional perturbed references to our bet, most of them jokey but not always and not totally.” were actually you making snide comments like “Where’s Sam, HE OWES ME £300” giving the impression that I had knocked you on a bet that had won, when in fact I was banned from the site, couldn’t reply, and our bet hadn’t even finished. It still hasn’t now, it’s just gone your way.
Thinking back, that’s why I didn’t reply in August; I thought you were being a bit of a dickhead with those comments, and you saying it was now void (it was you who actually first suggested voiding) was end of, and we didn’t have to talk anymore
Still, if you were reading PB whilst banned and anything I wrote looked snide to you, I apologise. It wasn't meant that way.
Anyhow, this 50/50 resolution. It seems fair enough. I'm ok with it and hopefully you are?
For more details on the swingometer, see this BBC archive entry https://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/swingometer/zdrrhbk
It is vaguely interesting that maths & classics were recently listed as subjects where boys outdo girls which suggests there might be some relationship between them but on reflection, it probably just means classics are mainly taught in boys' public schools.
One right-winger tells us that the govt has been describing their wing of the party a spent force.
“No 10 believes rebels are a ‘paper tiger’ and that they won’t follow through to vote against."
So far around a dozen Tory MPs appear to be prepared to vote against 3rd reading.
First, is that a lot of the things associated with Trump in terms of using executive power actually came from Obama, which is the main reason why I think he is actually one of the most damaging Presidents the US has had. It was Obama who pushed his "pen and paper" policy i.e. the excessive use of executive orders to bypass Congress. It was Obama who pushed for the filibuster to be abolished for federal judges below the SC and for Cabinet officials, which then led a Republican-led Senate to retaliate by abolishing it for the SC. It was Obama who set state institutions like the IRS onto groups he opposed. The list goes on. If you want to look at someone who truly did undermine US democracy and its institutions, although with a smiling face and an agreeable persona, look no further.
Second, maybe Trump should not have said 'lock her up' but the point is, once he became President, he didn't nor did he take action against his opponents (if he did, please let me know). Put simply, while he may talk about revenge, the only people he actually did take revenge against were the people in his own party - who he merely froze out or encouraged primary opponents to run against.
Third, if you want to push a narrative of 'stealing the election', there is no better accelerant than banning the clear favourite of one party from standing. If you think he is an insurrectionist, it should go through the proper process and, if he is found guilty, then I agree he can banned.
Why was the withdrawal from Afghanistan a debacle? Because the Trump Whitehouse did a deal with the Taliban and cut out the Afghan government. Biden should have put a stop to it but the origin of the mess is Trump.
Why is Iran and their proxies being a pain in the arse again? Because the Trump Whitehouse dumped the nuclear deal and assassinated Soleimani, undoing a couple of decades of careful diplomacy.
Why did Russia further its invasion of Ukraine? Because Trump has consistently backed Putin — even to the degree of taking Putin's side against the US intelligence community — and tried to blackmail Ukraine, so Putin thought he had the green light from a friendly US President, and Russia likely would have attacked sooner if not for Covid. Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt, and is now plainly hoping for Trump being elected again.
The idea that "the Trump era, it's actually quite blissful foreign policy-wise" is genuinely a take that I'd only expect to come from one of our enemies. Trump managed to do a lot of damage without even starting any new wars. Trump being elected in 2024 would be a potential calamity of a scale that hardly anyone alive can remember.
Unfortunately, since the Great Solar Event of 2123 wiped out all internet data from before that time, we will never know the truth of this legend.
(1) Betting: a pastime where people won or (more usually) lost money by predicting the future; a pastime no longer practical since the invention of accurate FV (Future Viewing)."
I was actually thinking of the 18th century and no doubt some of the 19th - not sure if this was reformed in the 1850s wave ...
If they go bust, they go bust. That's a healthy part of the free market: inefficient businesses go bust and then their assets go in a firesale at pennies in the pound to someone else to manage better.
Moreover, Russia invaded in February 2022, more than a year after Trump was defeated. Therefore your comment that "Putin was probably too committed by the time that Trump lost the election to his plans to halt" is just not right - he had plenty of time. The fact was he thought that he could get away with it.
I think you are trying to weave an illogical story to avoid what is closer to the truth - Putin thought Trump was genuinely unpredictable and so he didn't want to risk a war (which is implicitly what the article someone posted the other day about war in Europe being closer than we think - Russia believes Europe or the US will be willing to defend Eastern Europe with force, which they would have been less sure of if Trump was in power).
What had changed by 2019? Well three things:
1. Labour lost an enormous number of seats in Scotland in 2015, even though the loss of its GB vote share during the Scotland collapse was relatively small.
2. Tactical voting between Labour and the Lib Dems ceased, initially in 2015 on account of the Lib Dems getting into bed with the Conservatives, and later the effect of Lib Dems fearing a government led by Corbyn.
3. Labour's collapse was particularly heavy in its Red Wall heartlands in 2019, and cost a disproportionate number of seats in 2019 although the effect was also apparent in 2015.
In 2024, Labour will recover strongly in Scotland, if not to 2010 levels, tactical Lab-LD voting will be back big time, and Labour will have also recovered strongly enough in the Red Wall to recapture seats lost in 2019 at least. The 2024 boundary changes will also not have much of a net effect, because their effect in favouring the Conservatives will be countered by demographic shifts favouring Labour since 2019. i.e. the shift of Labour voters into the suburbs and beyond.
The evidence of 2015 is that the direction of bias in the electoral system can change pretty quickly. With the factors that worked to Labour's disbenefit now going into reverse, anyone who even begins to predict the 2024 result on the basis of uniform national swing should not be believed. Labour will pick up many more seats, and the Conservatives will lose many more, than UNS will suggest. Whether that is enough to wholly eliminate the current bias towards the Conservatives may be a matter of doubt, but the scale of the bias will be nothing like it is currently. So the idea that Labour will need anything close to a 13.7% lead to win a majority is utter nonsense.
Nixon - a far smarter man than Trump - was held back by checks and balances, and common assumptions about the importance of the law, that have steadily eroded since his time.
Rick Perstein's outstanding series of histories - Before the Storm;
Nixonland; The Invisible Bridge; Reaganland - while obviously written from a liberal perspective, given some idea of the progression.
The state should NEVER bailout* firms to avoid bankruptcy.
It's not the states job to ensure firms avoid bankruptcy, its the firms job. If they fail, they fail, they need to take responsibility. Privatise the gains, privatise the losses.
The second the state starts picking winners, or equally badly preventing losers, you have a problem.
* That's not to be confused with eg having a furlough scheme during COVID etc. That's not a bailout, that's compensation.
@GBNEWS
has learned 66 Tory MPs have signed the rebel amendments to strengthen the Rwanda Bill.
A leader of the rebels tells me: “It is growing. There are people joining rather than leaving.”
A senior Tory tells me it is all about momentum going into the votes tomorrow night.
By contrast, Trump's actions and rejection of those norms and conventions have been out in the open. He's made no secret about wanting to change how politics is done, to his own benefit.