Judges and the rule of law are infallible according to plenty on here. It's complete tosh in the USA and it's an absurd position here.
Yup - the law is an ass.
There's two different point here. Judges at some level have to have the final *legal* word, or you get infinite regresses. Hence you can neither appeal from the supreme court nor sue its members for getting it wrong (nor your own legal team). But the courts don't do executive shit so they don't have immunity for anything interesting like assassination. Executive wise we have the principle that the king is above the criminal and civil law, rex non potest errare. Whether that extends to PMs doing stuff under royal prerogative and whether the prerogative covers assassination I have no idea, though the case of Thomas a Becket is instructive
I think you make a very good point. Moreover, US Constitutional Interpretations stand heavily on English Law and Equity - more that UK decisions do. And as the President stands in loco Rex then he too cannot err. A Prime Minister, well any minister would need the specific and unique grant of the power to act. Spider Woman went into this and tried to restrict the Prerogative - in this she herself erred seriously. However, if a minister were granted a power then as Spider Woman would have pointed out, and this time correctly that minister could not pass on the decison making aspect to an underling, Delegator non delegans.
This US Supreme Court Decision is probably one of the wisest in our lifetimes and 50 years over due. The US Courts and the Legislative have tried to fetter the Executive for far too long. Nixon was a fool but not a bad president, a bigger man that his two immediate successors.
At 250/1 Frances Tiafoe (as amusing long bets) At 100/1 Casper Ruud At 40/1 Stafanos Tsitsipas At 33/1 Tommy Paul At 12/5 Carlos Alcaraz (Just because I support him)
(Actually, I took all these each-way, at half odds for the second place part).
Anyone else betting on Wimbledon?
Good bets
Yes but on the ladies.
I’ve been tipping the two Brits: Katie Boulter 70/1 and Emma Raducanu 30/1 odds last week. Both in very good form.
Elena Rybakina is one to watch at decent odds I think 9/2
King Edward and Princess Elizabeth are black, but that sort-of becomes inconsequential when it is revealed that Lady Jane Grey marries a horse.
Sounds like a knock off of The Great
Asking for a friend - how intimately is lady Jane's marriage portrayed?
May I ask what "The Great" is/was?
In the TV series, Jane's marriage starts off as an arranged/forced one, but she and Dudley grow to love each other as it goes on. And as for intimately; yes, there is a fair amount of sex in it, as well as sexual references. Although never when Dudley is a horse...
It is such a dumb approach to combatting Farage. Stick to pointing out he doesn't actually have any workable policies for dealing with real concerns people have than labelling a load of voters Nazi sympathisers.
On the contrary, the Tories should have been clear all along that these people were neo-Nazis, rather than pandering to them in the hope of gaining a few miserable votes.
The 15-20% who might vote Reform aren't neo-nazis. The number of genuine far right people in the UK is very small, much smaller than say France or Germany. Labelling the voters as such doesn't help you get their vote back.
The problem is, as Naomi Shulman wrote, "nice people make the best Nazis":
“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbours were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”
I can never say with 100% certainty that anyone who supports Reform or Farage or whichever party it is is, in their heart, a Neo-Nazi or a fascist. But the thing is if they would sit back and watch as a "strong man" gets swept into power and "sorts everything out" there's no real difference between them and ideological Nazis. They may have been duped, they may have been bamboozled, they may have believed lies or promises. But they would have ushered the fascists into power just as much as any tatted bonehead.
I agree, with the proviso that the same goes for the extreme left. Both right and left extremes appeal to the primal fears that lurk deep inside us, of the other, of non-conformity, and present us with simplistic solutions to our problems. But they are mirages, and they lead every society that follows this path to disaster. When the rational centre is abandoned, we are lost.
See, this is where horseshoe bullshit turns up and "centrists" refuse to see the ideology they swim in. The "rational centre" is as ideological as anything else. And the far left don't want the same things the far right does - the far left want material equality for people so that everyone can live a dignified life. The far right want to purge all the people who they consider to be "outsiders" to create a pure dog-eat-dog society of the strong and powerful. Those are not the same thing.
Yes Stalin was materially committed to equality for all, he just had the royal family and a few million kulaks murdered on the way to ease the path to utopia
The idea horseshoe theory is nonsense because ideologies purport to want different things is one of the most absurd things I've ever read.
Horseshoe theory is not nonsense precisely because it looks at what the very ideological actually say, do, and believe, not what they claim.
I’ve read so much about the election but so little is talked about the elephant in the room
Rishi Sunak is not white
Some voters will not vote or be v reluctant to vote for a minority PM even if most won’t admit it
It is reflected in the CON polling and the final election result though
It’s taboo to even mention it because it’s not PC to mention race and people in their bubbles like to deny racism exists
Just so we can cut to the chase, what are your view on Gay Rights? And on Ukraine?
Gay rights are an important civil liberty as people should be able to do they want but some people are obsessed with an issue that doesn’t matter to most people
You do bring up a relevent point. I don’t think the UK would vote for a gay man as a leader either . They wouldn’t publicly admit that though !
From what I saw Ukraine weren’t very good in the euros but thats to be expected given the invasion
The problem with the whole closet racism theory is that
1) Rishi was initially somewhat popular, before he started serially torpedoing himself. 2) There was barely any mention of race - even from the actual Roderick Spode Reenactment Club. 3) His potential challengers inside the Tory party have a bit of sun tan on average.
Arguably Rishi's biggest problem is not his ethnicity, its his wealth. Its just too easy to slate him for not understanding the common experience of most of the country. Hence the Sky TV anecdote.
Not so much his wealth as him being so out of touch.
I’ve met actual billionaires who appeared quite mundane.
It is such a dumb approach to combatting Farage. Stick to pointing out he doesn't actually have any workable policies for dealing with real concerns people have than labelling a load of voters Nazi sympathisers.
On the contrary, the Tories should have been clear all along that these people were neo-Nazis, rather than pandering to them in the hope of gaining a few miserable votes.
The 15-20% who might vote Reform aren't neo-nazis. The number of genuine far right people in the UK is very small, much smaller than say France or Germany. Labelling the voters as such doesn't help you get their vote back.
The problem is, as Naomi Shulman wrote, "nice people make the best Nazis":
“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbours were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”
I can never say with 100% certainty that anyone who supports Reform or Farage or whichever party it is is, in their heart, a Neo-Nazi or a fascist. But the thing is if they would sit back and watch as a "strong man" gets swept into power and "sorts everything out" there's no real difference between them and ideological Nazis. They may have been duped, they may have been bamboozled, they may have believed lies or promises. But they would have ushered the fascists into power just as much as any tatted bonehead.
I agree, with the proviso that the same goes for the extreme left. Both right and left extremes appeal to the primal fears that lurk deep inside us, of the other, of non-conformity, and present us with simplistic solutions to our problems. But they are mirages, and they lead every society that follows this path to disaster. When the rational centre is abandoned, we are lost.
See, this is where horseshoe bullshit turns up and "centrists" refuse to see the ideology they swim in. The "rational centre" is as ideological as anything else. And the far left don't want the same things the far right does - the far left want material equality for people so that everyone can live a dignified life. The far right want to purge all the people who they consider to be "outsiders" to create a pure dog-eat-dog society of the strong and powerful. Those are not the same thing.
Yes Stalin was materially committed to equality for all, he just had the royal family and a few million kulaks murdered on the way to ease the path to utopia
As I've said many times - I'm an anarchist not a state communist - so I'm going to agree with many of the criticisms of Stalinism.
IIRC, isn't your attitude to seamen in the Red Sea a little hypocritical though? It's fine for Houthis to kill them, because the Houthis 'claim' to be doing it coz Gaza.
Are the deaths of those seamen worth it because of a vague and tenuous possibility of Gazans/Hamas victory?
And the horseshoe stuff is not bullshit - unless you're saying that extreme left and right are not quite similar in many ways, and especially the way they run things?
I’ve read so much about the election but so little is talked about the elephant in the room
Rishi Sunak is not white
Some voters will not vote or be v reluctant to vote for a minority PM even if most won’t admit it
It is reflected in the CON polling and the final election result though
It’s taboo to even mention it because it’s not PC to mention race and people in their bubbles like to deny racism exists
Just so we can cut to the chase, what are your view on Gay Rights? And on Ukraine?
Gay rights are an important civil liberty as people should be able to do they want but some people are obsessed with an issue that doesn’t matter to most people
You do bring up a relevent point. I don’t think the UK would vote for a gay man as a leader either . They wouldn’t publicly admit that though !
From what I saw Ukraine weren’t very good in the euros but thats to be expected given the invasion
The problem with the whole closet racism theory is that
1) Rishi was initially somewhat popular, before he started serially torpedoing himself. 2) There was barely any mention of race - even from the actual Roderick Spode Reenactment Club. 3) His potential challengers inside the Tory party have a bit of sun tan on average.
Arguably Rishi's biggest problem is not his ethnicity, its his wealth. Its just too easy to slate him for not understanding the common experience of most of the country. Hence the Sky TV anecdote.
Not so much his wealth as him being so out of touch.
I’ve met actual billionaires who appeared quite mundane.
The Sky comment, however unfair / slightly taken out of context, is something that has really cut through with normies I know. Constant memes go round.
Here it is. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf ..Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclu- sive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presump- tive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts...
So basically Biden could order the Supreme court and Trump to be killed and there is no comeback..
Yes.
It is an abominable decision, which basically dares Presidents to abuse their powers for fear of their opponents doing so in turn.
Only if an official act within the powers of the Presidency, the SC affirmed there is no immunity for private, unofficial acts outside the constitutional powers of the Presidency. So lots of room for lawyers to debate which of Trump's acts were official and which unofficial
https://x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1807788025008587061 There's an important sub-part of the Trump immunity ruling in which #SCOTUS holds that "protected conduct" (that can't be prosecuted) also can't be used as *evidence* to establish other charges.
Justice Barrett, otherwise concurring, agrees with the dissenters that that's wrong...
..This is a big part of why the ruling is a bigger win for Trump than many of us had been expecting. It’s not just which acts will be immune; it’s how this will hamstring efforts to prosecute even those acts for which there *isn’t* immunity. That’s why Barrett concurs only in part...
(Note Barrett's partial dissent has no effect on any part the decision, which stands in its entirety.)
Further: "Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial."
So private records - which are no part of official acts - are excluded as evidence.
Nixon would have continued as President with this Supreme Court.
THAT one is targeted at the notes made by Trump's lawyers about him in the Florida case (theft of official documents), which were released to the prosecution overruling client-attorney confidentiality for use in the trial because 'a crime had likely been committed in Trump's relationship with his lawyer' as found by the Chief Judge for that region - Trump tried to persuade his lawyer just to 'lose' or 'vanish' the documents he had stolen, such as war plans.
Judge Cannon (the Trump patsy in the Florida case) is currently trying to 'review' that ruling so the prosecution lose the key planks of their evidence.
They were the holdouts at 25%. So the upper bound of Tory polling is down a notch with that poll.
Not quite, Survation, MiC and Ipsos latest MRPs are 25% plus (25, 28, 25)
The vote shares from MRPs are methodologically different enough that I'm not considering them with traditional polls in the same way. The MRPs are designed to predict seat totals, not nationwide vote shares.
Not awful for the Conservatives, particularly if Reform is slightly overcooked.
LDs look a bit low and Labour too high, FWIW.
Personal opinion is that Reform IS overcooked, and will not poll more than 10%, Labour will be 38%, the tories probably arpund 25% (those damn shy Tories, yet again). Huge Labour majority, but not a wipeout of the blues, reform to fade as their hopes of surplanting the Tories on the right crumble.
I think the 14/1 on Betfair for them to get 10-12% of the vote is good value.
For example: ...But whatever additional power the majority’s new Presi dential accountability model gives to the Presidency, it gives doubly to the Court itself, for the majority provides no meaningful guidance about how to apply this new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct. For instance, its opinion lists some examples of the “core” constitutional powers with respect to which the President is now entitled to absolute immunity—a list that apparently includes the removal power, the power to recognize foreign nations, and the pardon power. Ante, at 6–9. However, the majority does not—and likely cannot—supply any useful or admin istrable definition of the scope of that “core.” For what it’s worth, the Constitution’s text is no help either; Article II does not contain a Core Powers Clause.6 So the actual metes and bounds of the “core” Presidential powers are really anyone’s guess.
Nor does the majority explain how to consistently distinguish between official and unofficial acts. Quite the opposite, in fact. While acknowledging that this is a critical line that courts must draw in order for its new accountability model to work properly, the majority simultaneously cautions that making this distinction “can be difficult”—likely a gross understatement given the recognized “breadth of the President’s ‘discretionary responsibilities’ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Ante, at 17. The majority likewise provides no guidance as to when, how, or why the President’s “presumptive” immunity for noncore official acts might be rebutted, saying only that applying the criminal law to a President’s acts must pose “no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’”..
"Anyone's guess". That is the considered opinion about the boundaries of this decision from one of the leading jurists in the land.
At 250/1 Frances Tiafoe (as amusing long bets) At 100/1 Casper Ruud At 40/1 Stafanos Tsitsipas At 33/1 Tommy Paul At 12/5 Carlos Alcaraz (Just because I support him)
(Actually, I took all these each-way, at half odds for the second place part).
Anyone else betting on Wimbledon?
Good bets
Yes but on the ladies.
I’ve been tipping the two Brits: Katie Boulter 70/1 and Emma Raducanu 30/1 odds last week. Both in very good form.
Elena Rybakina is one to watch at decent odds I think 9/2
Radacanu is just starting on Centre Court right now.
King Edward and Princess Elizabeth are black, but that sort-of becomes inconsequential when it is revealed that Lady Jane Grey marries a horse.
Sounds like a knock off of The Great
Asking for a friend - how intimately is lady Jane's marriage portrayed?
May I ask what "The Great" is/was?
In the TV series, Jane's marriage starts off as an arranged/forced one, but she and Dudley grow to love each other as it goes on. And as for intimately; yes, there is a fair amount of sex in it, as well as sexual references. Although never when Dudley is a horse...
My sense is the Lib Dems are becoming the party of the well-to-do English upper middle classes in the posh areas.
They don't register very much anywhere else.
Yes, generally the higher the LD voteshare in general and local elections now, the more likely the area is to have a Waitrose, a Gail's and a well above average house price
The LDs/Liberals have always been strongest in those types of seats, going back to the 1970s. Richmond was always their strongest seat in London for instance.
Tim Farron's seat has no Waitrose. But of course has a Booths. It may be that, like the two species of crows in Britain, you will get one but not both. My chavish bit of Cumbria has none of these, but no-one will want to know about our ultra local butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, etc.
An exercise for someone: What is the closest distance between a branch of Waitrose and a branch of Booths?
Booths Chorley. Waitrose Charnock Richard. Say 5 miles (if you illicitly exit the service area). Mr Speaker spoilt for choice.
Wilmslow Waitrose / Knutsford Booths probably similar (may be more like 6 or 7 miles) - sums up the difference between the two towns in my opinion.
Booths Fullwood and Waitrose Walton le Dale are 4 miles apart close to Preston.
Here it is. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf ..Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclu- sive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presump- tive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts...
So basically Biden could order the Supreme court and Trump to be killed and there is no comeback..
Yes.
It is an abominable decision, which basically dares Presidents to abuse their powers for fear of their opponents doing so in turn.
For example: ...But whatever additional power the majority’s new Presi dential accountability model gives to the Presidency, it gives doubly to the Court itself, for the majority provides no meaningful guidance about how to apply this new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct. For instance, its opinion lists some examples of the “core” constitutional powers with respect to which the President is now entitled to absolute immunity—a list that apparently includes the removal power, the power to recognize foreign nations, and the pardon power. Ante, at 6–9. However, the majority does not—and likely cannot—supply any useful or admin istrable definition of the scope of that “core.” For what it’s worth, the Constitution’s text is no help either; Article II does not contain a Core Powers Clause.6 So the actual metes and bounds of the “core” Presidential powers are really anyone’s guess.
Nor does the majority explain how to consistently distinguish between official and unofficial acts. Quite the opposite, in fact. While acknowledging that this is a critical line that courts must draw in order for its new accountability model to work properly, the majority simultaneously cautions that making this distinction “can be difficult”—likely a gross understatement given the recognized “breadth of the President’s ‘discretionary responsibilities’ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Ante, at 17. The majority likewise provides no guidance as to when, how, or why the President’s “presumptive” immunity for noncore official acts might be rebutted, saying only that applying the criminal law to a President’s acts must pose “no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’”..
"Anyone's guess". That is the considered opinion about the boundaries of this decision from one of the leading jurists in the land.
They were the holdouts at 25%. So the upper bound of Tory polling is down a notch with that poll.
Not quite, Survation, MiC and Ipsos latest MRPs are 25% plus (25, 28, 25)
The vote shares from MRPs are methodologically different enough that I'm not considering them with traditional polls in the same way. The MRPs are designed to predict seat totals, not nationwide vote shares.
In which case yes, it's the 24 club now at top end
My sense is the Lib Dems are becoming the party of the well-to-do English upper middle classes in the posh areas.
They don't register very much anywhere else.
Yes, generally the higher the LD voteshare in general and local elections now, the more likely the area is to have a Waitrose, a Gail's and a well above average house price
The LDs/Liberals have always been strongest in those types of seats, going back to the 1970s. Richmond was always their strongest seat in London for instance.
Tim Farron's seat has no Waitrose. But of course has a Booths. It may be that, like the two species of crows in Britain, you will get one but not both. My chavish bit of Cumbria has none of these, but no-one will want to know about our ultra local butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, etc.
An exercise for someone: What is the closest distance between a branch of Waitrose and a branch of Booths?
Booths Chorley. Waitrose Charnock Richard. Say 5 miles (if you illicitly exit the service area). Mr Speaker spoilt for choice.
Wilmslow Waitrose / Knutsford Booths probably similar (may be more like 6 or 7 miles) - sums up the difference between the two towns in my opinion.
Booths Fullwood and Waitrose Walton le Dale are 4 miles apart close to Preston.
Booths Ilkley and Waitrose Otley are abut 5 miles apart, in what Liz Truss would probably call 'the Red Wall'.
My sense is the Lib Dems are becoming the party of the well-to-do English upper middle classes in the posh areas.
They don't register very much anywhere else.
Yes, generally the higher the LD voteshare in general and local elections now, the more likely the area is to have a Waitrose, a Gail's and a well above average house price
For example: ...But whatever additional power the majority’s new Presi dential accountability model gives to the Presidency, it gives doubly to the Court itself, for the majority provides no meaningful guidance about how to apply this new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct. For instance, its opinion lists some examples of the “core” constitutional powers with respect to which the President is now entitled to absolute immunity—a list that apparently includes the removal power, the power to recognize foreign nations, and the pardon power. Ante, at 6–9. However, the majority does not—and likely cannot—supply any useful or admin istrable definition of the scope of that “core.” For what it’s worth, the Constitution’s text is no help either; Article II does not contain a Core Powers Clause.6 So the actual metes and bounds of the “core” Presidential powers are really anyone’s guess.
Nor does the majority explain how to consistently distinguish between official and unofficial acts. Quite the opposite, in fact. While acknowledging that this is a critical line that courts must draw in order for its new accountability model to work properly, the majority simultaneously cautions that making this distinction “can be difficult”—likely a gross understatement given the recognized “breadth of the President’s ‘discretionary responsibilities’ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Ante, at 17. The majority likewise provides no guidance as to when, how, or why the President’s “presumptive” immunity for noncore official acts might be rebutted, saying only that applying the criminal law to a President’s acts must pose “no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’”..
"Anyone's guess". That is the considered opinion about the boundaries of this decision from one of the leading jurists in the land.
The majority is unhinged, or worse.
..the Court today transfers from the political branches to itself the power to decide when the President can be held accountable. What is left in its wake is a greatly weakened Congress, which must stand idly by as the Preident disregards its criminal prohibitions and uses the powers of his office to push the envelope, while choosing to follow (or not) existing laws, as he sees fit. We also now havea greatly empowered Court, which can opt to allow Congress’s policy judgments criminalizing conduct to stand (or not) with respect to a former President, as a matter of its own prerogative. If the structural consequences of today’s paradigm shift mark a step in the wrong direction, then the practical consequences are a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our Government...
Not awful for the Conservatives, particularly if Reform is slightly overcooked.
LDs look a bit low and Labour too high, FWIW.
Personal opinion is that Reform IS overcooked, and will not poll more than 10%, Labour will be 38%, the tories probably arpund 25% (those damn shy Tories, yet again). Huge Labour majority, but not a wipeout of the blues, reform to fade as their hopes of surplanting the Tories on the right crumble.
I think the 14/1 on Betfair for them to get 10-12% of the vote is good value.
Uefa is investigating England midfielder Jude Bellingham for a gesture he made following his late equaliser against Slovakia in the Euro 2024 last-16 tie on Sunday. European football's governing body said it is looking into a "potential violation" of "the basic rules of decent conduct" by Bellingham. If found to have breached the rules, the 21-year-old could face a suspension, a fine or both.
Not awful for the Conservatives, particularly if Reform is slightly overcooked.
LDs look a bit low and Labour too high, FWIW.
Personal opinion is that Reform IS overcooked, and will not poll more than 10%, Labour will be 38%, the tories probably arpund 25% (those damn shy Tories, yet again). Huge Labour majority, but not a wipeout of the blues, reform to fade as their hopes of surplanting the Tories on the right crumble.
I believe you have hit the nail on the head. Let's see if you are correct on Friday.
Not awful for the Conservatives, particularly if Reform is slightly overcooked.
LDs look a bit low and Labour too high, FWIW.
Personal opinion is that Reform IS overcooked, and will not poll more than 10%, Labour will be 38%, the tories probably arpund 25% (those damn shy Tories, yet again). Huge Labour majority, but not a wipeout of the blues, reform to fade as their hopes of surplanting the Tories on the right crumble.
I think the 14/1 on Betfair for them to get 10-12% of the vote is good value.
Who is a better prognosticator than Leon: ..In September 2018, Dean warned against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the United States Supreme Court, a main concern being that the appointment would result in "the most presidential-powers-friendly court" in modern times...
Uefa is investigating England midfielder Jude Bellingham for a gesture he made following his late equaliser against Slovakia in the Euro 2024 last-16 tie on Sunday. European football's governing body said it is looking into a "potential violation" of "the basic rules of decent conduct" by Bellingham. If found to have breached the rules, the 21-year-old could face a suspension, a fine or both.
Not like UEFA to be quite so blatant as to try to get our best player banned. I know we haven't played well, but "Are you not entertained" (by the drama of a last minute overhead kick).
Not awful for the Conservatives, particularly if Reform is slightly overcooked.
LDs look a bit low and Labour too high, FWIW.
Personal opinion is that Reform IS overcooked, and will not poll more than 10%, Labour will be 38%, the tories probably arpund 25% (those damn shy Tories, yet again). Huge Labour majority, but not a wipeout of the blues, reform to fade as their hopes of surplanting the Tories on the right crumble.
I think the 14/1 on Betfair for them to get 10-12% of the vote is good value.
Not awful for the Conservatives, particularly if Reform is slightly overcooked.
LDs look a bit low and Labour too high, FWIW.
Personal opinion is that Reform IS overcooked, and will not poll more than 10%, Labour will be 38%, the tories probably arpund 25% (those damn shy Tories, yet again). Huge Labour majority, but not a wipeout of the blues, reform to fade as their hopes of surplanting the Tories on the right crumble.
I believe you have hit the nail on the head. Let's see if you are correct on Friday.
Yes, I'd agree with that too. Bet365 has 4s for Lab under 38%, which I think is generous given the number of parties taking a bite of the pie.
It is such a dumb approach to combatting Farage. Stick to pointing out he doesn't actually have any workable policies for dealing with real concerns people have than labelling a load of voters Nazi sympathisers.
On the contrary, the Tories should have been clear all along that these people were neo-Nazis, rather than pandering to them in the hope of gaining a few miserable votes.
The 15-20% who might vote Reform aren't neo-nazis. The number of genuine far right people in the UK is very small, much smaller than say France or Germany. Labelling the voters as such doesn't help you get their vote back.
The problem is, as Naomi Shulman wrote, "nice people make the best Nazis":
“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbours were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”
I can never say with 100% certainty that anyone who supports Reform or Farage or whichever party it is is, in their heart, a Neo-Nazi or a fascist. But the thing is if they would sit back and watch as a "strong man" gets swept into power and "sorts everything out" there's no real difference between them and ideological Nazis. They may have been duped, they may have been bamboozled, they may have believed lies or promises. But they would have ushered the fascists into power just as much as any tatted bonehead.
I agree, with the proviso that the same goes for the extreme left. Both right and left extremes appeal to the primal fears that lurk deep inside us, of the other, of non-conformity, and present us with simplistic solutions to our problems. But they are mirages, and they lead every society that follows this path to disaster. When the rational centre is abandoned, we are lost.
See, this is where horseshoe bullshit turns up and "centrists" refuse to see the ideology they swim in. The "rational centre" is as ideological as anything else. And the far left don't want the same things the far right does - the far left want material equality for people so that everyone can live a dignified life. The far right want to purge all the people who they consider to be "outsiders" to create a pure dog-eat-dog society of the strong and powerful. Those are not the same thing.
Wow total bollocks the far left is the far left because after the revolution they imagine they will be on top which has happened in every country ever that has a far left revolution. The idea you are all nice guys who only want the best for everyone has never been borne out by history....you just want to be on top and are upset because you aren't
My sense is the Lib Dems are becoming the party of the well-to-do English upper middle classes in the posh areas.
They don't register very much anywhere else.
Yes, generally the higher the LD voteshare in general and local elections now, the more likely the area is to have a Waitrose, a Gail's and a well above average house price
What is a Gail's?
If you don't know, you are Not Posh.
Apparently.
I don't want to be controversial, but Gail's isn't all that. It's just Costa for affluent middle class people, the cakes are very dear and absolutely tiny.
if you're in central Manchester, there are scores of better options for a decent coffee.
Labour now below Corbyn 2017 levels let alone Blair 1997 levels with JLP then and the LDs also now below 2019 levels.
However the split on the right between Tories and Reform will still ensure a Labour landslide
JLP results are interesting. They are far worse for left of centre parties than all the others. They could be on to something - always interesting to see outliers.
This is LLG 54%, RefCon 40%. The smallest gap by far of any pollster.
Still a Labour majority but pretty disappointing for them and the Lib Dems, and a much smaller Green vote too.
My sense is the Lib Dems are becoming the party of the well-to-do English upper middle classes in the posh areas.
They don't register very much anywhere else.
Yes, generally the higher the LD voteshare in general and local elections now, the more likely the area is to have a Waitrose, a Gail's and a well above average house price
What is a Gail's?
If you don't know, you are Not Posh.
Apparently.
I don't want to be controversial, but Gail's isn't all that. It's just Costa for affluent middle class people, the cakes are very dear and absolutely tiny.
if you're in central Manchester, there are scores of better options for a decent coffee.
I agree. To sum up they are making a great profit margin and coning a nieve clientele in the process.
It is such a dumb approach to combatting Farage. Stick to pointing out he doesn't actually have any workable policies for dealing with real concerns people have than labelling a load of voters Nazi sympathisers.
On the contrary, the Tories should have been clear all along that these people were neo-Nazis, rather than pandering to them in the hope of gaining a few miserable votes.
The 15-20% who might vote Reform aren't neo-nazis. The number of genuine far right people in the UK is very small, much smaller than say France or Germany. Labelling the voters as such doesn't help you get their vote back.
The problem is, as Naomi Shulman wrote, "nice people make the best Nazis":
“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbours were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”
I can never say with 100% certainty that anyone who supports Reform or Farage or whichever party it is is, in their heart, a Neo-Nazi or a fascist. But the thing is if they would sit back and watch as a "strong man" gets swept into power and "sorts everything out" there's no real difference between them and ideological Nazis. They may have been duped, they may have been bamboozled, they may have believed lies or promises. But they would have ushered the fascists into power just as much as any tatted bonehead.
I agree, with the proviso that the same goes for the extreme left. Both right and left extremes appeal to the primal fears that lurk deep inside us, of the other, of non-conformity, and present us with simplistic solutions to our problems. But they are mirages, and they lead every society that follows this path to disaster. When the rational centre is abandoned, we are lost.
See, this is where horseshoe bullshit turns up and "centrists" refuse to see the ideology they swim in. The "rational centre" is as ideological as anything else. And the far left don't want the same things the far right does - the far left want material equality for people so that everyone can live a dignified life. The far right want to purge all the people who they consider to be "outsiders" to create a pure dog-eat-dog society of the strong and powerful. Those are not the same thing.
Wow total bollocks the far left is the far left because after the revolution they imagine they will be on top which has happened in every country ever that has a far left revolution. The idea you are all nice guys who only want the best for everyone has never been borne out by history....you just want to be on top and are upset because you aren't
Thank you for the intro to modern political ideologies, professor
The far right are no different nor the anarchists which he claims to be, when the majority don't want to go along with it they start culling dissidents
I know someone here (sorry, can't remember who) was a bit rude about Robert Hutton in the Critic the other day, but his latest on Liz Truss has some lovely lines:
"I am picking up a sense that however much the rest of Britain may feel it dislikes Truss, there are people in South West Norfolk who have disliked her longer, harder, and with greater specificity. By a stroke of good fortune, these are also the only people in the country who actually get a vote on her future."
"We get newspaper articles about the way young men are radicalised online by Andrew Tate, but no one is talking about the way the over-50s are being lured into extreme centrism by Old Etonian podcasters."
It is such a dumb approach to combatting Farage. Stick to pointing out he doesn't actually have any workable policies for dealing with real concerns people have than labelling a load of voters Nazi sympathisers.
On the contrary, the Tories should have been clear all along that these people were neo-Nazis, rather than pandering to them in the hope of gaining a few miserable votes.
The 15-20% who might vote Reform aren't neo-nazis. The number of genuine far right people in the UK is very small, much smaller than say France or Germany. Labelling the voters as such doesn't help you get their vote back.
The problem is, as Naomi Shulman wrote, "nice people make the best Nazis":
“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbours were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”
I can never say with 100% certainty that anyone who supports Reform or Farage or whichever party it is is, in their heart, a Neo-Nazi or a fascist. But the thing is if they would sit back and watch as a "strong man" gets swept into power and "sorts everything out" there's no real difference between them and ideological Nazis. They may have been duped, they may have been bamboozled, they may have believed lies or promises. But they would have ushered the fascists into power just as much as any tatted bonehead.
I agree, with the proviso that the same goes for the extreme left. Both right and left extremes appeal to the primal fears that lurk deep inside us, of the other, of non-conformity, and present us with simplistic solutions to our problems. But they are mirages, and they lead every society that follows this path to disaster. When the rational centre is abandoned, we are lost.
See, this is where horseshoe bullshit turns up and "centrists" refuse to see the ideology they swim in. The "rational centre" is as ideological as anything else. And the far left don't want the same things the far right does - the far left want material equality for people so that everyone can live a dignified life. The far right want to purge all the people who they consider to be "outsiders" to create a pure dog-eat-dog society of the strong and powerful. Those are not the same thing.
Wow total bollocks the far left is the far left because after the revolution they imagine they will be on top which has happened in every country ever that has a far left revolution. The idea you are all nice guys who only want the best for everyone has never been borne out by history....you just want to be on top and are upset because you aren't
Thank you for the intro to modern political ideologies, professor
The far right are no different nor the anarchists which he claims to be, when the majority don't want to go along with it they start culling dissidents
Yes, it's well known that anarchists are always interfering with the way we live our lives
You think if they manage a revolution (which is unlikely) and 70% of people didn't agree with their version of anarchy they would just go ok then and pack up? I don't because I think they would say people are just wrong and not seeing their best interests and we need to rehabilate them, a lot of that will be rehabilitation from being live people with different opinions to dead people with no opinions
My sense is the Lib Dems are becoming the party of the well-to-do English upper middle classes in the posh areas.
They don't register very much anywhere else.
Yes, generally the higher the LD voteshare in general and local elections now, the more likely the area is to have a Waitrose, a Gail's and a well above average house price
What is a Gail's?
If you don't know, you are Not Posh.
Apparently.
I don't want to be controversial, but Gail's isn't all that. It's just Costa for affluent middle class people, the cakes are very dear and absolutely tiny.
if you're in central Manchester, there are scores of better options for a decent coffee.
Quite separate from the discussion of Waitrose, Gail's and Booths, I'm now wondering if we can define the Red Wall/Blue Wall as having food banks that have been renamed food pantries.
I’ve read so much about the election but so little is talked about the elephant in the room
Rishi Sunak is not white
Some voters will not vote or be v reluctant to vote for a minority PM even if most won’t admit it
It is reflected in the CON polling and the final election result though
It’s taboo to even mention it because it’s not PC to mention race and people in their bubbles like to deny racism exists
Just so we can cut to the chase, what are your view on Gay Rights? And on Ukraine?
Gay rights are an important civil liberty as people should be able to do they want but some people are obsessed with an issue that doesn’t matter to most people
You do bring up a relevent point. I don’t think the UK would vote for a gay man as a leader either . They wouldn’t publicly admit that though !
From what I saw Ukraine weren’t very good in the euros but thats to be expected given the invasion
The problem with the whole closet racism theory is that
1) Rishi was initially somewhat popular, before he started serially torpedoing himself. 2) There was barely any mention of race - even from the actual Roderick Spode Reenactment Club. 3) His potential challengers inside the Tory party have a bit of sun tan on average.
1) Not really I don’t remember a honeymoon 2) Racism isn’t overt name calling esp middle class racism. You might not call names but you can instantly dislike and not vote for someone in the polling booth 3) So what (ignoring the wording)? MPs control that. Rishi didn’t win a contest.
Remember it only takes 5-10% of voters to have a BIG impact on the result doesn’t have to be everyone
It doesn’t explain everything but does neatly explain the record bad Tory polling which is worse than anyone thought possible
i do love the idea of the Britain where there is no racism or homophobia and everyone is enlightened though. It Sounds great, meanwhile in the real world
Uefa is investigating England midfielder Jude Bellingham for a gesture he made following his late equaliser against Slovakia in the Euro 2024 last-16 tie on Sunday. European football's governing body said it is looking into a "potential violation" of "the basic rules of decent conduct" by Bellingham. If found to have breached the rules, the 21-year-old could face a suspension, a fine or both.
Are 4 people out of 10 really passionate about Labour in The UK. 3 I would say. In London Msnchester and Birmingham I would say 4.5. to 5.0.Taking them out of figures. 3 out of ten with the red wall and everywhere else included.
Are 4 people out of 10 really passionate about Labour in The UK. 3 I would say. In London Msnchester and Birmingham I would say 4.5. to 5.0.Taking them out of figures. 3 out of ten with the red wall and everywhere else included.
Are 4 people out of 10 really passionate about Labour in The UK. 3 I would say. In London Msnchester and Birmingham I would say 4.5. to 5.0.Taking them out of figures. 3 out of ten with the red wall and everywhere else included.
Birmingham less so since they bankrupted it
Suspect this will have little effect on Birmingham voting patterns this time. Pro-gaza candidates will damage the Labour vote much more.
Are 4 people out of 10 really passionate about Labour in The UK. 3 I would say. In London Msnchester and Birmingham I would say 4.5. to 5.0.Taking them out of figures. 3 out of ten with the red wall and everywhere else included.
That's probably being generous, but I think we're discovering that nobody needs to be enthusiastic about Labour for them to prosper, provided that the voters loathe the Tories enough.
It is such a dumb approach to combatting Farage. Stick to pointing out he doesn't actually have any workable policies for dealing with real concerns people have than labelling a load of voters Nazi sympathisers.
On the contrary, the Tories should have been clear all along that these people were neo-Nazis, rather than pandering to them in the hope of gaining a few miserable votes.
The 15-20% who might vote Reform aren't neo-nazis. The number of genuine far right people in the UK is very small, much smaller than say France or Germany. Labelling the voters as such doesn't help you get their vote back.
The problem is, as Naomi Shulman wrote, "nice people make the best Nazis":
“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbours were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”
I can never say with 100% certainty that anyone who supports Reform or Farage or whichever party it is is, in their heart, a Neo-Nazi or a fascist. But the thing is if they would sit back and watch as a "strong man" gets swept into power and "sorts everything out" there's no real difference between them and ideological Nazis. They may have been duped, they may have been bamboozled, they may have believed lies or promises. But they would have ushered the fascists into power just as much as any tatted bonehead.
I agree, with the proviso that the same goes for the extreme left. Both right and left extremes appeal to the primal fears that lurk deep inside us, of the other, of non-conformity, and present us with simplistic solutions to our problems. But they are mirages, and they lead every society that follows this path to disaster. When the rational centre is abandoned, we are lost.
See, this is where horseshoe bullshit turns up and "centrists" refuse to see the ideology they swim in. The "rational centre" is as ideological as anything else. And the far left don't want the same things the far right does - the far left want material equality for people so that everyone can live a dignified life. The far right want to purge all the people who they consider to be "outsiders" to create a pure dog-eat-dog society of the strong and powerful. Those are not the same thing.
Wow total bollocks the far left is the far left because after the revolution they imagine they will be on top which has happened in every country ever that has a far left revolution. The idea you are all nice guys who only want the best for everyone has never been borne out by history....you just want to be on top and are upset because you aren't
Generally speaking, most of their co-riders also get eliminated as well.
Not awful for the Conservatives, particularly if Reform is slightly overcooked.
LDs look a bit low and Labour too high, FWIW.
Personal opinion is that Reform IS overcooked, and will not poll more than 10%, Labour will be 38%, the tories probably arpund 25% (those damn shy Tories, yet again). Huge Labour majority, but not a wipeout of the blues, reform to fade as their hopes of surplanting the Tories on the right crumble.
Are 4 people out of 10 really passionate about Labour in The UK. 3 I would say. In London Msnchester and Birmingham I would say 4.5. to 5.0.Taking them out of figures. 3 out of ten with the red wall and everywhere else included.
Birmingham less so since they bankrupted it
Suspect this will have little effect on Birmingham voting patterns this time. Pro-gaza candidates will damage the Labour vote much more.
Are 4 people out of 10 really passionate about Labour in The UK. 3 I would say. In London Msnchester and Birmingham I would say 4.5. to 5.0.Taking them out of figures. 3 out of ten with the red wall and everywhere else included.
That's probably being generous, but I think we're discovering that nobody needs to be enthusiastic about Labour for them to prosper, provided that the voters loathe the Tories enough.
Are 4 people out of 10 really passionate about Labour in The UK. 3 I would say. In London Msnchester and Birmingham I would say 4.5. to 5.0.Taking them out of figures. 3 out of ten with the red wall and everywhere else included.
That's probably being generous, but I think we're discovering that nobody needs to be enthusiastic about Labour for them to prosper, provided that the voters loathe the Tories enough.
And when labour is the next government and 5 years later and facing a vote and nothing is actually better which is what I expect as they don't plan to change very much of anything? The tories will still rightfully hated, labour will be equally despised, the lib dems are also seen as more of the same, the greens are seen still as a joke as are reform? What then
Are 4 people out of 10 really passionate about Labour in The UK. 3 I would say. In London Msnchester and Birmingham I would say 4.5. to 5.0.Taking them out of figures. 3 out of ten with the red wall and everywhere else included.
Are 4 people out of 10 really passionate about Labour in The UK. 3 I would say. In London Msnchester and Birmingham I would say 4.5. to 5.0.Taking them out of figures. 3 out of ten with the red wall and everywhere else included.
That's probably being generous, but I think we're discovering that nobody needs to be enthusiastic about Labour for them to prosper, provided that the voters loathe the Tories enough.
And when labour is the next government and 5 years later and facing a vote and nothing is actually better which is what I expect as they don't plan to change very much of anything? The tories will still rightfully hated, labour will be equally despised, the lib dems are also seen as more of the same, the greens are seen still as a joke as are reform? What then
For example: ...But whatever additional power the majority’s new Presi dential accountability model gives to the Presidency, it gives doubly to the Court itself, for the majority provides no meaningful guidance about how to apply this new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct. For instance, its opinion lists some examples of the “core” constitutional powers with respect to which the President is now entitled to absolute immunity—a list that apparently includes the removal power, the power to recognize foreign nations, and the pardon power. Ante, at 6–9. However, the majority does not—and likely cannot—supply any useful or admin istrable definition of the scope of that “core.” For what it’s worth, the Constitution’s text is no help either; Article II does not contain a Core Powers Clause.6 So the actual metes and bounds of the “core” Presidential powers are really anyone’s guess.
Nor does the majority explain how to consistently distinguish between official and unofficial acts. Quite the opposite, in fact. While acknowledging that this is a critical line that courts must draw in order for its new accountability model to work properly, the majority simultaneously cautions that making this distinction “can be difficult”—likely a gross understatement given the recognized “breadth of the President’s ‘discretionary responsibilities’ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Ante, at 17. The majority likewise provides no guidance as to when, how, or why the President’s “presumptive” immunity for noncore official acts might be rebutted, saying only that applying the criminal law to a President’s acts must pose “no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’”..
"Anyone's guess". That is the considered opinion about the boundaries of this decision from one of the leading jurists in the land.
The majority is unhinged, or worse.
..the Court today transfers from the political branches to itself the power to decide when the President can be held accountable. What is left in its wake is a greatly weakened Congress, which must stand idly by as the Preident disregards its criminal prohibitions and uses the powers of his office to push the envelope, while choosing to follow (or not) existing laws, as he sees fit. We also now havea greatly empowered Court, which can opt to allow Congress’s policy judgments criminalizing conduct to stand (or not) with respect to a former President, as a matter of its own prerogative. If the structural consequences of today’s paradigm shift mark a step in the wrong direction, then the practical consequences are a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our Government...
One thing she is wrong about is this:
..For my part, I simply cannot abide the majority’s senseless discarding of a model of accountability for criminal acts that treats every citizen of this country as being equally subject to the law—as the Rule of Law requires. That core principle has long prevented our Nation from devolving into despotism. Yet the Court now opts to let down the guardrails of the law for one extremely powerful category of citizen: any future President who has the will to flout Congress’s established boundaries...
There is another category of citizen - those offered rewards and pardons in exchange for carrying out illegal acts on Presidential orders. And of course the majority on this Court have said that the Presidential pardons are also official acts not to be questioned by the courts.
It is such a dumb approach to combatting Farage. Stick to pointing out he doesn't actually have any workable policies for dealing with real concerns people have than labelling a load of voters Nazi sympathisers.
On the contrary, the Tories should have been clear all along that these people were neo-Nazis, rather than pandering to them in the hope of gaining a few miserable votes.
The 15-20% who might vote Reform aren't neo-nazis. The number of genuine far right people in the UK is very small, much smaller than say France or Germany. Labelling the voters as such doesn't help you get their vote back.
The problem is, as Naomi Shulman wrote, "nice people make the best Nazis":
“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbours were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”
I can never say with 100% certainty that anyone who supports Reform or Farage or whichever party it is is, in their heart, a Neo-Nazi or a fascist. But the thing is if they would sit back and watch as a "strong man" gets swept into power and "sorts everything out" there's no real difference between them and ideological Nazis. They may have been duped, they may have been bamboozled, they may have believed lies or promises. But they would have ushered the fascists into power just as much as any tatted bonehead.
I agree, with the proviso that the same goes for the extreme left. Both right and left extremes appeal to the primal fears that lurk deep inside us, of the other, of non-conformity, and present us with simplistic solutions to our problems. But they are mirages, and they lead every society that follows this path to disaster. When the rational centre is abandoned, we are lost.
See, this is where horseshoe bullshit turns up and "centrists" refuse to see the ideology they swim in. The "rational centre" is as ideological as anything else. And the far left don't want the same things the far right does - the far left want material equality for people so that everyone can live a dignified life. The far right want to purge all the people who they consider to be "outsiders" to create a pure dog-eat-dog society of the strong and powerful. Those are not the same thing.
It is amazing how much of 20th Century history just seems to have passed you by without impinging on your consciousness. Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge. All just meaningless names to you. I bet you still think Che Guevara was a brave freedom fighter saving the oppressed minorities who would never dream of sending homosexuals to labour camps.
It is such a dumb approach to combatting Farage. Stick to pointing out he doesn't actually have any workable policies for dealing with real concerns people have than labelling a load of voters Nazi sympathisers.
On the contrary, the Tories should have been clear all along that these people were neo-Nazis, rather than pandering to them in the hope of gaining a few miserable votes.
The 15-20% who might vote Reform aren't neo-nazis. The number of genuine far right people in the UK is very small, much smaller than say France or Germany. Labelling the voters as such doesn't help you get their vote back.
The problem is, as Naomi Shulman wrote, "nice people make the best Nazis":
“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbours were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”
I can never say with 100% certainty that anyone who supports Reform or Farage or whichever party it is is, in their heart, a Neo-Nazi or a fascist. But the thing is if they would sit back and watch as a "strong man" gets swept into power and "sorts everything out" there's no real difference between them and ideological Nazis. They may have been duped, they may have been bamboozled, they may have believed lies or promises. But they would have ushered the fascists into power just as much as any tatted bonehead.
I agree, with the proviso that the same goes for the extreme left. Both right and left extremes appeal to the primal fears that lurk deep inside us, of the other, of non-conformity, and present us with simplistic solutions to our problems. But they are mirages, and they lead every society that follows this path to disaster. When the rational centre is abandoned, we are lost.
See, this is where horseshoe bullshit turns up and "centrists" refuse to see the ideology they swim in. The "rational centre" is as ideological as anything else. And the far left don't want the same things the far right does - the far left want material equality for people so that everyone can live a dignified life. The far right want to purge all the people who they consider to be "outsiders" to create a pure dog-eat-dog society of the strong and powerful. Those are not the same thing.
Wow total bollocks the far left is the far left because after the revolution they imagine they will be on top which has happened in every country ever that has a far left revolution. The idea you are all nice guys who only want the best for everyone has never been borne out by history....you just want to be on top and are upset because you aren't
Generally speaking, most of their co-riders also get eliminated as well.
There are very few spaces at the top.
Revolutions rarely help most who take part in them, ask the indians who fought for the revolution in the usa
Comments
This US Supreme Court Decision is probably one of the wisest in our lifetimes and 50 years over due. The US Courts and the Legislative have tried to fetter the Executive for far too long. Nixon was a fool but not a bad president, a bigger man that his two immediate successors.
Yes but on the ladies.
I’ve been tipping the two Brits: Katie Boulter 70/1 and Emma Raducanu 30/1 odds last week. Both in very good form.
Elena Rybakina is one to watch at decent odds I think 9/2
About Catherine the Great. Very funny, very lewd, lots of historically unlikely black Russian aristocrats
Horseshoe theory is not nonsense precisely because it looks at what the very ideological actually say, do, and believe, not what they claim.
I’ve met actual billionaires who appeared quite mundane.
Are the deaths of those seamen worth it because of a vague and tenuous possibility of Gazans/Hamas victory?
And the horseshoe stuff is not bullshit - unless you're saying that extreme left and right are not quite similar in many ways, and especially the way they run things?
Judge Cannon (the Trump patsy in the Florida case) is currently trying to 'review' that ruling so the prosecution lose the key planks of their evidence.
For example:
...But whatever additional power the majority’s new Presi dential accountability model gives to the Presidency, it gives doubly to the Court itself, for the majority provides no meaningful guidance about how to apply this new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct. For instance, its opinion lists some examples of the “core” constitutional powers with respect to which the President is now entitled to absolute immunity—a list that apparently includes the removal power, the power to recognize foreign nations, and the pardon power. Ante, at 6–9. However, the majority does not—and likely cannot—supply any useful or admin istrable definition of the scope of that “core.” For what it’s worth, the Constitution’s text is no help either; Article II does not contain a Core Powers Clause.6 So the actual metes and bounds of the “core” Presidential powers are really anyone’s guess.
Nor does the majority explain how to consistently distinguish between official and unofficial acts. Quite the opposite, in fact. While acknowledging that this is a critical line that courts must draw in order for its new accountability model to work properly, the majority simultaneously cautions that making this distinction “can be difficult”—likely a gross understatement given the recognized “breadth of the President’s ‘discretionary responsibilities’ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Ante, at 17.
The majority likewise provides no guidance as to when, how, or why the President’s “presumptive” immunity for noncore official acts might be rebutted, saying only that applying the criminal law to a President’s acts must pose “no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.’”..
"Anyone's guess".
That is the considered opinion about the boundaries of this decision from one of the leading jurists in the land.
The majority is unhinged, or worse.
It then jumped the shark.
Apparently.
If the structural consequences of today’s paradigm shift mark a step in the wrong direction, then the practical consequences are a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our Government...
However the split on the right between Tories and Reform will still ensure a Labour landslide
Uefa is investigating England midfielder Jude Bellingham for a gesture he made following his late equaliser against Slovakia in the Euro 2024 last-16 tie on Sunday. European football's governing body said it is looking into a "potential violation" of "the basic rules of decent conduct" by Bellingham. If found to have breached the rules, the 21-year-old could face a suspension, a fine or both.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cyj4n9d9yjno
If the ref from last night's game has anything to do with it, given he gave out yellow cards for normal tackles, it will be a 10 game suspension.
https://x.com/JohnWDean/status/1807796806937375198
“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Richard Nixon, 1974
Affirmed, US Supreme Court, 2024
Who is a better prognosticator than Leon:
..In September 2018, Dean warned against Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the United States Supreme Court, a main concern being that the appointment would result in "the most presidential-powers-friendly court" in modern times...
Bet365 has 4s for Lab under 38%, which I think is generous given the number of parties taking a bite of the pie.
What I wonder might the Cons be tempted to offer Reform voters as Cons + Reform > Lab. In that one poll, that said.
if you're in central Manchester, there are scores of better options for a decent coffee.
This is LLG 54%, RefCon 40%. The smallest gap by far of any pollster.
Still a Labour majority but pretty disappointing for them and the Lib Dems, and a much smaller Green vote too.
I love how some on the Right are in denial about the shellacking
That's not how it works.
https://thecritic.co.uk/going-on-a-truss-hunt/
"I am picking up a sense that however much the rest of Britain may feel it dislikes Truss, there are people in South West Norfolk who have disliked her longer, harder, and with greater specificity. By a stroke of good fortune, these are also the only people in the country who actually get a vote on her future."
"We get newspaper articles about the way young men are radicalised online by Andrew Tate, but no one is talking about the way the over-50s are being lured into extreme centrism by Old Etonian podcasters."
"Immune", as Sotomayor says.
Will you stay on as an MP? "Yes"
Will you stay on as party leader? "That would be an ecumenical matter"
2) Racism isn’t overt name calling esp middle class racism. You might not call names but you can instantly dislike and not vote for someone in the polling booth
3) So what (ignoring the wording)? MPs control that. Rishi didn’t win a contest.
Remember it only takes 5-10% of voters to have a BIG impact on the result doesn’t have to be everyone
It doesn’t explain everything but does neatly
explain the record bad Tory polling which is worse than anyone thought possible
i do love the idea of the Britain where there is no racism or homophobia and everyone is enlightened though. It Sounds great, meanwhile in the real world
First black African (Eritrea) stage win. Excellent news.
There are very few spaces at the top.
..For my part, I simply cannot abide the majority’s senseless discarding of a model of accountability for criminal acts that treats every citizen of this country as being equally subject to the law—as the Rule of Law requires. That core principle has long prevented our Nation from devolving into despotism. Yet the Court now opts to let down the guardrails of the law for one extremely powerful category of citizen: any future President who has the will to flout Congress’s established boundaries...
There is another category of citizen - those offered rewards and pardons in exchange for carrying out illegal acts on Presidential orders.
And of course the majority on this Court have said that the Presidential pardons are also official acts not to be questioned by the courts.