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.
He is a young person and sees himself as an intellectual because he works in education....bless
The Supreme Court has very carefully ensured that Trump can do whatever he likes as President but that other Presidents cannot.
However, I wonder if this judgment may work against Trump and the GOP in the way that the Roe v Wade reversal has. Americans must now decide whether they want to put Trump in the White House with what is essentially limitless power.
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
Yes. That is true.
Birmingham is a prime example that you can remain solvent far longer than people expect - the equal pay ruling (and impact) was bubbling along for over a decade and bankruptcy was inevitable once the court case was finished. It just took a very long time...
"The polls are wrong because they *feel* too different from 2019*"
without any evidence as to why.
Labour aren't going to win 350 seats just because that 'feels' a safer bet. Give some evidence as to why and then fair enough, we can have a good discussion, but at the moment, it seems like people are just seeing the polls and assuming they are wrong.
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.
The Supreme Court has very carefully ensured that Trump can do whatever he likes as President but that other Presidents cannot.
However, I wonder if this judgment may work against Trump and the GOP in the way that the Roe v Wade reversal has. Americans must now decide whether they want to put Trump in the White House with what is essentially limitless power.
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
Yes. That is true.
Birmingham is a prime example that you can remain solvent far longer than people expect - the equal pay ruling (and impact) was bubbling along for over a decade and bankruptcy was inevitable once the court case was finished. It just took a very long time...
Wasn't it a combination of things. The equal pay award was huge part of it, but they a) didn't budget for proper for payouts and b) continued to spunk stupid money on things they couldn't afford like a flawed IT system amongst other things.
They were the holdouts at 25%. So the upper bound of Tory polling is down a notch with that poll.
JLP has by far the most Tory-friendly methodology out there in the way that it handles Don't Knows and weights on turnout. But if this is the firm's last poll, the Labour lead is bigger now than it was at the start of the GE campaign.
"The polls are wrong because they *feel* too different from 2019*"
without any evidence as to why.
Labour aren't going to win 350 seats just because that 'feels' a safer bet. Give some evidence as to why and then fair enough, we can have a good discussion, but at the moment, it seems like people are just seeing the polls and assuming they are wrong.
I don't know what's going to happen.
But I am looking for value either side of clustering around the mean.
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
Yes. That is true.
Birmingham is a prime example that you can remain solvent far longer than people expect - the equal pay ruling (and impact) was bubbling along for over a decade and bankruptcy was inevitable once the court case was finished. It just took a very long time...
Wasn't it a combination of things. The equal pay award was huge part of it, but they a) didn't budget for proper for payouts and b) continued to spunk stupid money on things they couldn't afford like a flawed IT system amongst other things.
Did they stay solvent or did they just stave of declaring bankruptcy for many years, often letting it fester makes things worse in the long run than dealing with it early
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.
The problem with this position 'reform are neo nazis and we've got to block them at any cost' is that they are basically a long overdue and rather timid response from the right to a cultural revolution on the left for the last 5 years, which many people posting on this website either sympathise with or support. Generally support was strong for Black Lives Matter riots; pulling down/vandalising statues nearly completely supported, blocking roads by net zero supporters was generally supported. Cancelling of opponents based on 'allegations' also generally supported. Basically it just seems like people's progressive instincts have been manipulated in to supporting criminal damage, violence and totalitarian laws in the service of a revolutionary agenda. Against this, the stuff from reform about stopping ULEZ and low traffic zones and 'net zero immigration' is laughably harmless. It could rapidly get worse and probably will, but is all part of a cycle of reaction which has been carelessly escalated by the political left and their 'centrist' fellow travellers.
@BarbMcQuade Some good news in SCOTUS opinion: 1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify; 2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table. 3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
"The polls are wrong because they *feel* too different from 2019*"
without any evidence as to why.
Labour aren't going to win 350 seats just because that 'feels' a safer bet. Give some evidence as to why and then fair enough, we can have a good discussion, but at the moment, it seems like people are just seeing the polls and assuming they are wrong.
I don't know what's going to happen.
But I am looking for value either side of clustering around the mean.
Even though you do not know what is going to happen. Polls aside what does your intuition say?
I would have offered up the Ilkley Booths to Otley Waitrose as closest too. Sad not to have a Booths where I am. Nearest is in Ripon which is quite far east for the company given Booths is a Lancashire company.
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
Yep but to be honest that is 5 years away and a lot can happen bwteeen now and then. This is why the Tory attack lines of 'if you vote Labour they will be in for decades' is stupid. The size of the majority now will have no impact on how likely it is that Labour are reelected in 5 years. Lots of very informed and clever people were on here a few months back telling us it was incredibly unlikely, almost impossible, that Labour would get a majority because it has never happened before that a party so far behind in seats jumps into an overall majority in one election. And yet now we would honestly be staggered if that didn't happen on Thursday.
Rather than fighting the battles of five years ago or five years hence, it would be far better for the country if we fought the battles of here and now.
"This morning I advised laying Boris Johnson as next Tory leader" - you did? At what odds? I'm sure that some sensible chap like @tse would want to try to have posters say quite what they're recommending.
They were the holdouts at 25%. So the upper bound of Tory polling is down a notch with that poll.
JLP has by far the most Tory-friendly methodology out there in the way that it handles Don't Knows and weights on turnout. But if this is the firm's last poll, the Labour lead is bigger now than it was at the start of the GE campaign.
Last poll from JLP before the election was called was also a 15 point lead 41 to 26, they had that one 12 point lead but that was after the campaign began. Essentially its T May nothing has changed
"The polls are wrong because they *feel* too different from 2019*"
without any evidence as to why.
Labour aren't going to win 350 seats just because that 'feels' a safer bet. Give some evidence as to why and then fair enough, we can have a good discussion, but at the moment, it seems like people are just seeing the polls and assuming they are wrong.
I don't know what's going to happen.
But I am looking for value either side of clustering around the mean.
Even though you do not know what is going to happen. Polls aside what does your intuition say?
LDs will do well, Reform will underperfom, Labour will underperfom a bit (although with a massive majority), Greens will do quite well and Conservatives will do ever so slightly better than expected.
"The polls are wrong because they *feel* too different from 2019*"
without any evidence as to why.
Labour aren't going to win 350 seats just because that 'feels' a safer bet. Give some evidence as to why and then fair enough, we can have a good discussion, but at the moment, it seems like people are just seeing the polls and assuming they are wrong.
I don't know what's going to happen.
But I am looking for value either side of clustering around the mean.
Even though you do not know what is going to happen. Polls aside what does your intuition say?
LDs will do well, Reform will underperfom, Labour will underperfom a bit (although with a massive majority), Greens will do quite well and Conservatives will do ever so slightly better than expected.
"The polls are wrong because they *feel* too different from 2019*"
without any evidence as to why.
Labour aren't going to win 350 seats just because that 'feels' a safer bet. Give some evidence as to why and then fair enough, we can have a good discussion, but at the moment, it seems like people are just seeing the polls and assuming they are wrong.
I don't know what's going to happen.
But I am looking for value either side of clustering around the mean.
Even though you do not know what is going to happen. Polls aside what does your intuition say?
LDs will do well, Reform will underperfom, Labour will underperfom a bit (although with a massive majority), Greens will do quite well and Conservatives will do ever so slightly better than expected.
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
Yep but to be honest that is 5 years away and a lot can happen bwteeen now and then. This is why the Tory attack lines of 'if you vote Labour they will be in for decades' is stupid. The size of the majority now will have no impact on how likely it is that Labour are reelected in 5 years. Lots of very informed and clever people were on here a few months back telling us it was incredibly unlikely, almost impossible, that Labour would get a majority because it has never happened before that a party so far behind in seats jumps into an overall majority in one election. And yet now we would honestly be staggered if that didn't happen on Thursday.
Rather than fighting the battles of five years ago or five years hence, it would be far better for the country if we fought the battles of here and now.
I am of the opinion we have had centrism for the last 40 years and it has landed us where we are now. Most Peoples lives have been getting shitter under centrism and its support for globalisation and we have now reached the point where its begun to affect just not the poorer 2 deciles but the lower to middle classes who find their pay stagnating but costs of food and housing ever rising.
Centrism does not hold the answer because its just more of the same policies, I despise the people who blame it on brexit because we weren't actually doing any better in the eu. What our direction should be I don't know. I do know politicians must start taking a view on how to better the lives of those in the uk however rather that selling out to who ever funds them else they are going to become ever more hated and that won't end well for them
Not much movement with MiC 🆕 Our penultimate @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Reform UK back up 2 points & little other change - Labour lead of 15 🔵 Con - 24% (-) 🔴 Lab - 39% (-) 🟠 LD - 12% (-1) 🟣 Reform - 15% (+2) 🟢 Green - 5% (-) N 4,523 | Fieldwork 28-30 June | Tables moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
7% of the LABOUR 2019 vote? Meaning people who didn't even vote Brexit party or for BoJo in 2019 are now voting reform? 🤔
It obviously subsample, so caveat...but there is nought as strange as folk. Remember Lib Dems despite being absolutely anti-Brexit in every way possible and wanting to overturn the result still had a decent percentage of Brexit voters in 2017.
Will you stay on as party leader? "That would be an ecumenical matter"
I once replied "That is an Ecumenical matter" to a particularly sensitive question in a very tense client meeting.
Everyone fell around laughing and it was left at that.
I have no idea what it even means in that context. Is this some Sir Humphrey Speak amongst washed-up politicians?
What he actually means is: "That's for the arse brigade" ie the rump Tory MPs.
It's a quote from Father Ted. Ted coaches Jack to say it as one of two possible answers to any question a bishop might ask (the other answer being "yes".)
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.
38+25+10=73. Where's the other 27% votes going to go?
Will you stay on as party leader? "That would be an ecumenical matter"
I once replied "That is an Ecumenical matter" to a particularly sensitive question in a very tense client meeting.
Everyone fell around laughing and it was left at that.
I have no idea what it even means in that context. Is this some Sir Humphrey Speak amongst washed-up politicians?
What he actually means is: "That's for the arse brigade" ie the rump Tory MPs.
It's a quote from Father Ted. Ted coaches Jack to say it as one of two possible answers to any question a bishop might ask (the other answer being "yes".)
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.
The problem with this position 'reform are neo nazis and we've got to block them at any cost' is that they are basically a long overdue and rather timid response from the right to a cultural revolution on the left for the last 5 years, which many people posting on this website either sympathise with or support. Generally support was strong for Black Lives Matter riots; pulling down/vandalising statues nearly completely supported, blocking roads by net zero supporters was generally supported. Cancelling of opponents based on 'allegations' also generally supported. Basically it just seems like people's progressive instincts have been manipulated in to supporting criminal damage, violence and totalitarian laws in the service of a revolutionary agenda. Against this, the stuff from reform about stopping ULEZ and low traffic zones and 'net zero immigration' is laughably harmless. It could rapidly get worse and probably will, but is all part of a cycle of reaction which has been carelessly escalated by the political left and their 'centrist' fellow travellers.
Will you stay on as party leader? "That would be an ecumenical matter"
I once replied "That is an Ecumenical matter" to a particularly sensitive question in a very tense client meeting.
Everyone fell around laughing and it was left at that.
I have no idea what it even means in that context. Is this some Sir Humphrey Speak amongst washed-up politicians?
What he actually means is: "That's for the arse brigade" ie the rump Tory MPs.
It's a quote from Father Ted. Ted coaches Jack to say it as one of two possible answers to any question a bishop might ask (the other answer being "yes".)
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.
The problem with this position 'reform are neo nazis and we've got to block them at any cost' is that they are basically a long overdue and rather timid response from the right to a cultural revolution on the left for the last 5 years, which many people posting on this website either sympathise with or support. Generally support was strong for Black Lives Matter riots; pulling down/vandalising statues nearly completely supported, blocking roads by net zero supporters was generally supported. Cancelling of opponents based on 'allegations' also generally supported. Basically it just seems like people's progressive instincts have been manipulated in to supporting criminal damage, violence and totalitarian laws in the service of a revolutionary agenda. Against this, the stuff from reform about stopping ULEZ and low traffic zones and 'net zero immigration' is laughably harmless. It could rapidly get worse and probably will, but is all part of a cycle of reaction which has been carelessly escalated by the political left and their 'centrist' fellow travellers.
This ludicrous wankery also ends with actual Nazis, because, by suppressing the tiniest hint of rightwingery, you end up with very very hard right wingers who don’t care what you call them: indeed they exult in it - like the Nazis
TikTok is filled with young French, Dutch and German kids saying “fuck yeah I’m racist, lol” - at the moment it is half joking, half to shock their parents, and half serious
One day soon it will become 90% serious unless populist demands - much lower immigration, a very firm rebuff to any kind of Islamism - are met via democracy. Ie democratic parties like Reform
Will you stay on as party leader? "That would be an ecumenical matter"
I once replied "That is an Ecumenical matter" to a particularly sensitive question in a very tense client meeting.
Everyone fell around laughing and it was left at that.
I have no idea what it even means in that context. Is this some Sir Humphrey Speak amongst washed-up politicians?
What he actually means is: "That's for the arse brigade" ie the rump Tory MPs.
It's a quote from Father Ted. Ted coaches Jack to say it as one of two possible answers to any question a bishop might ask (the other answer being "yes".)
Thank-you - that's a new one for me.
Presumably it will now replace 'Up to a point, Lord Copper'. But such is progress. We must steel ourselves.
I have also never heard of Gail's. I don't remember any in the West Midlands either in my time there. Is it geographically limited like Baker's Oven used to be in Scotland?
7% of the LABOUR 2019 vote? Meaning people who didn't even vote Brexit party or for BoJo in 2019 are now voting reform? 🤔
It obviously subsample, so caveat...but there is nought as strange as folk. Remember Lib Dems despite being absolutely anti-Brexit in every way possible and wanting to overturn the result still had a decent percentage of Brexit voters in 2017.
It's one reason why the arguments in favour of PR that might make perfect sense to politically-engaged people who think in partisan terms fall down when applied to normal people who don't have remotely coherent affiliations.
I would have offered up the Ilkley Booths to Otley Waitrose as closest too. Sad not to have a Booths where I am. Nearest is in Ripon which is quite far east for the company given Booths is a Lancashire company.
Are we the only people who, when travelling to the North of England, check to see where the nearest Booths is?
Something has gone wrong with the polls. SKS's personal ratings continue to improve/be positive and yet the polls are going backwards.
LAB certainty to vote wobbling? Or complacency allowing for votes to be shed to smaller parties?
I think it would really suit Labour to get a 40%+ score on Thursday as it’s much better optics. That said Cameron entered government on 36% in 2010 (albeit a coalition) so it’s not practically an issue.
Bojo. I forgot about him. Next venture will be opening a pub chain to rival Tim's Spoons chain.Farage will be the national area manager. Reform voters welcome. ERG Tories voters can pop in as well. Haters in general can come on down. For the people who want to top themselves a machine will be installed in each branch. Just leave your net worth to the chain in your will. Net debtors cannot participate in the scheme.
@BarbMcQuade Some good news in SCOTUS opinion: 1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify; 2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table. 3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
Not much good news there.
Good luck on 2. ...Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 869. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging...
Also with 2) as official act in respect of "core powers" have absolute immunity. The limits of "core powers" aren't defined - though the pardon power (for example) is a core power. Also good luck proving wrongdoing, since any conduct which is an official act can't now be cited in evidence to prove an "unofficial act".
Google tells me Bakers Oven was acquired by Greggs and was actually mainly in the south, not Scotland. Guess as a northerner who went to uni in Scotland, I wouldn't have known. I never saw a Safeway until Scotland and then Morrisons bought them out pronto
Will you stay on as party leader? "That would be an ecumenical matter"
I once replied "That is an Ecumenical matter" to a particularly sensitive question in a very tense client meeting.
Everyone fell around laughing and it was left at that.
I have no idea what it even means in that context. Is this some Sir Humphrey Speak amongst washed-up politicians?
What he actually means is: "That's for the arse brigade" ie the rump Tory MPs.
It's a quote from Father Ted. Ted coaches Jack to say it as one of two possible answers to any question a bishop might ask (the other answer being "yes".)
Thank-you - that's a new one for me.
Presumably it will now replace 'Up to a point, Lord Copper'. But such is progress. We must steel ourselves.
Not really. "Up to a point Lord Copper" is a "well there's a bit more to it than that" answer. Ecumenical is when you are asked a question you have no answer to at all.
I have also never heard of Gail's. I don't remember any in the West Midlands either in my time there. Is it geographically limited like Baker's Oven used to be in Scotland?
Until you vote LDem they wont even consider opening one. And a by-election LD win does not count.
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.
The problem with this position 'reform are neo nazis and we've got to block them at any cost' is that they are basically a long overdue and rather timid response from the right to a cultural revolution on the left for the last 5 years, which many people posting on this website either sympathise with or support. Generally support was strong for Black Lives Matter riots; pulling down/vandalising statues nearly completely supported, blocking roads by net zero supporters was generally supported. Cancelling of opponents based on 'allegations' also generally supported. Basically it just seems like people's progressive instincts have been manipulated in to supporting criminal damage, violence and totalitarian laws in the service of a revolutionary agenda. Against this, the stuff from reform about stopping ULEZ and low traffic zones and 'net zero immigration' is laughably harmless. It could rapidly get worse and probably will, but is all part of a cycle of reaction which has been carelessly escalated by the political left and their 'centrist' fellow travellers.
In a word, Brexit. Reform and fellow travellers had their chance for a right wing reaction and blew it. It's why fortunately they aren't getting a lot of traction amongst young people right now.
I have also never heard of Gail's. I don't remember any in the West Midlands either in my time there. Is it geographically limited like Baker's Oven used to be in Scotland?
I live in Cornwall North. Minimal boundary changes since 2019, when it was a comfortable CON gain by 30% over LD. This time around, LD is 3/1 on, Con is 9/4 at WHills. Similar money on the exchanges.
Electoral calculus has LD winning here by 22% UK Polling report has CON winning by 8% ElectionMaps Nowcast has LD winning by 8% ElectionPolling has CON up 6% PrincipalFish has LD up 3% Economist has LD up 1%
On the ground I have seen no campaigners, and the garden signs are a little bit yellower than they were in 2019. Tory MP not thought of very highly - been very quiet on local stuff since he became a whip. Plenty of leaflets from both CON and LD, and two from RFM, all very boring. Everyone still hates labour here - the genuine trots I know are voting GRN. The seat voted 60% leave.
I think CON hold at 9/4 is value here. Any thoughts?
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.
There's a full Booths dark store (alongside Whole Foods) in the Amazon warehouse at Bow, about 3km from Waitrose at Stratford.
You might even consider the larger branches of Amazon Fresh that carry the full Booths range. Maybe White City or Ealing, both less than 1km from the nearest Waitrose.
@BarbMcQuade Some good news in SCOTUS opinion: 1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify; 2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table. 3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
Not much good news there.
Good luck on 2. ...Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 869. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging...
Also with 2) as official act in respect of "core powers" have absolute immunity. The limits of "core powers" aren't defined - though the pardon power (for example) is a core power. Also good luck proving wrongdoing, since any conduct which is an official act can't now be cited in evidence to prove an "unofficial act".
Nor now can a president's private papers.
Also regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the election:
"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
That part of the case against him disappears completely.
@BarbMcQuade Some good news in SCOTUS opinion: 1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify; 2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table. 3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
Not much good news there.
Good luck on 2. ...Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 869. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging...
Also with 2) as official act in respect of "core powers" have absolute immunity. The limits of "core powers" aren't defined - though the pardon power (for example) is a core power. Also good luck proving wrongdoing, since any conduct which is an official act can't now be cited in evidence to prove an "unofficial act".
Nor now can a president's private papers.
Also regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the election:
"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
That part of the case against him disappears completely.
Biden may as well offer Trump a pardon and be done with it.
Bojo. I forgot about him. Next venture will be opening a pub chain to rival Tim's Spoons chain.Farage will be the national area manager. Reform voters welcome. ERG Tories voters can pop in as well. Haters in general can come on down. For the people who want to top themselves a machine will be installed in each branch. Just leave your net worth to the chain in your will. Net debtors cannot participate in the scheme.
Bojo was a remainer I believe. I have no evidence to prove it. He jumped on the Leave bandwagon because being a opportunist he thought it would propel him to leader and then PM.
Finally had a leaflet from the LDs, a second from the Tories, and one from an independent socialist. That means only the Greens have so far failed to send something thus far.
Despite being an Independent the chap is backed by something call Transform, which it transpires according to wiki was a merger of, among others, Left Unity (or at least a part of Left Unity - yes, Left Unity split).
We have a very nice Gail’s in Camden, it occupies the premises of Winston Churchill’s favourite pet shop
It’s a highly agreeable, Waitrosey place to work - airy and bright and big. But the savoury snacks are often overpriced and a bit stodgy. Nice sourdough bread
Keir Starmer was in Oxfordshire this afternoon. His chosen venue: a sourdough bakery three miles from Soho Farmhouse. I think the Gail's Political Singularity is fast approaching.
One literally flew into the terrace of this brasserie and snatched the supper off a plate and then fought back as waiters tried to shoo it away. Jeez. And they are enormous - like condors, but more muscular
@BarbMcQuade Some good news in SCOTUS opinion: 1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify; 2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table. 3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
Not much good news there.
Good luck on 2. ...Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 869. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging...
Also with 2) as official act in respect of "core powers" have absolute immunity. The limits of "core powers" aren't defined - though the pardon power (for example) is a core power. Also good luck proving wrongdoing, since any conduct which is an official act can't now be cited in evidence to prove an "unofficial act".
Nor now can a president's private papers.
Also regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the election:
"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
That part of the case against him disappears completely.
Biden may as well offer Trump a pardon and be done with it.
Can someone reject a pardon? I never thought Trump would serve a day in prison, but the documents case was pretty clear cut so conviction looked likely, but other than the completed NY case the rest of it looks pretty unlikely to see an outcome, with years of delays and litigation to follow, even if Trump does not win re-election. So he has little reason to accept one.
I live in Cornwall North. Minimal boundary changes since 2019, when it was a comfortable CON gain by 30% over LD. This time around, LD is 3/1 on, Con is 9/4 at WHills. Similar money on the exchanges.
Electoral calculus has LD winning here by 22% UK Polling report has CON winning by 8% ElectionMaps Nowcast has LD winning by 8% ElectionPolling has CON up 6% PrincipalFish has LD up 3% Economist has LD up 1%
On the ground I have seen no campaigners, and the garden signs are a little bit yellower than they were in 2019. Tory MP not thought of very highly - been very quiet on local stuff since he became a whip. Plenty of leaflets from both CON and LD, and two from RFM, all very boring. Everyone still hates labour here - the genuine trots I know are voting GRN. The seat voted 60% leave.
I think CON hold at 9/4 is value here. Any thoughts?
Subsample caveat and warning but generally SW subsamples have held up for Tories a little better than UK wide. At evens each I'd lean Tory for N and SE Cornwall, so it's a question of how persuaded you are by the slight LD betting tilt......
@BarbMcQuade Some good news in SCOTUS opinion: 1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify; 2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table. 3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
Not much good news there.
Good luck on 2. ...Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 869. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging...
Also with 2) as official act in respect of "core powers" have absolute immunity. The limits of "core powers" aren't defined - though the pardon power (for example) is a core power. Also good luck proving wrongdoing, since any conduct which is an official act can't now be cited in evidence to prove an "unofficial act".
Nor now can a president's private papers.
Also regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the election:
"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
That part of the case against him disappears completely.
Biden may as well offer Trump a pardon and be done with it.
Trump would refuse it, as that would require him to admit guilt.
@BarbMcQuade Some good news in SCOTUS opinion: 1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify; 2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table. 3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
Not much good news there.
Good luck on 2. ...Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 869. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging...
Also with 2) as official act in respect of "core powers" have absolute immunity. The limits of "core powers" aren't defined - though the pardon power (for example) is a core power. Also good luck proving wrongdoing, since any conduct which is an official act can't now be cited in evidence to prove an "unofficial act".
Nor now can a president's private papers.
Also regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the election:
"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
That part of the case against him disappears completely.
Biden may as well offer Trump a pardon and be done with it.
Can someone reject a pardon? I never thought Trump would serve a day in prison, but the documents case was pretty clear cut so conviction looked likely, but other than the completed NY case the rest of it looks pretty unlikely to see an outcome, with years of delays and litigation to follow, even if Trump does not win re-election.
If they refuse to admit guilt, then it's pretty likely that would be an effective refusal.
@BarbMcQuade Some good news in SCOTUS opinion: 1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify; 2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table. 3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
Not much good news there.
Good luck on 2. ...Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 869. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging...
Also with 2) as official act in respect of "core powers" have absolute immunity. The limits of "core powers" aren't defined - though the pardon power (for example) is a core power. Also good luck proving wrongdoing, since any conduct which is an official act can't now be cited in evidence to prove an "unofficial act".
Nor now can a president's private papers.
Also regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the election:
"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
That part of the case against him disappears completely.
Biden may as well offer Trump a pardon and be done with it.
Can someone reject a pardon? I never thought Trump would serve a day in prison, but the documents case was pretty clear cut so conviction looked likely, but other than the completed NY case the rest of it looks pretty unlikely to see an outcome, with years of delays and litigation to follow, even if Trump does not win re-election. So he has little reason to accept one.
With this ruling, it's quite likely that Trump's lawyers will use the new "official acts" defence to further muddy the waters. Cannon will certainly go along with that.
One literally flew into the terrace of this brasserie and snatched the supper off a plate and then fought back as waiters tried to shoo it away. Jeez. And they are enormous - like condors, but more muscular
What was supper? The oysters you've been talking about?
I live in Cornwall North. Minimal boundary changes since 2019, when it was a comfortable CON gain by 30% over LD. This time around, LD is 3/1 on, Con is 9/4 at WHills. Similar money on the exchanges.
Electoral calculus has LD winning here by 22% UK Polling report has CON winning by 8% ElectionMaps Nowcast has LD winning by 8% ElectionPolling has CON up 6% PrincipalFish has LD up 3% Economist has LD up 1%
On the ground I have seen no campaigners, and the garden signs are a little bit yellower than they were in 2019. Tory MP not thought of very highly - been very quiet on local stuff since he became a whip. Plenty of leaflets from both CON and LD, and two from RFM, all very boring. Everyone still hates labour here - the genuine trots I know are voting GRN. The seat voted 60% leave.
I think CON hold at 9/4 is value here. Any thoughts?
Subsample caveat and warning but generally SW subsamples have held up for Tories a little better than UK wide. At evens each I'd lean Tory for N and SE Cornwall, so it's a question of how persuaded you are by the slight LD betting tilt......
Living in an SW area which used to be LD second but has been UKIP and Labour in second more recently, and judging by the lack of activity even compared to last time (when most local activists decamped en masse to target seats), I am not sure they will increase their vote share in general across the area as they might hope. So for their sakes the targeting had better be effective.
One literally flew into the terrace of this brasserie and snatched the supper off a plate and then fought back as waiters tried to shoo it away. Jeez. And they are enormous - like condors, but more muscular
What was supper? The oysters you've been talking about?
Not my supper, some poor traumatised woman. A savoury crepe I suspect
@BarbMcQuade Some good news in SCOTUS opinion: 1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify; 2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table. 3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
Not much good news there.
Good luck on 2. ...Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 869. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging...
Also with 2) as official act in respect of "core powers" have absolute immunity. The limits of "core powers" aren't defined - though the pardon power (for example) is a core power. Also good luck proving wrongdoing, since any conduct which is an official act can't now be cited in evidence to prove an "unofficial act".
Nor now can a president's private papers.
Also regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the election:
"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
That part of the case against him disappears completely.
Biden may as well offer Trump a pardon and be done with it.
Can someone reject a pardon? I never thought Trump would serve a day in prison, but the documents case was pretty clear cut so conviction looked likely, but other than the completed NY case the rest of it looks pretty unlikely to see an outcome, with years of delays and litigation to follow, even if Trump does not win re-election. So he has little reason to accept one.
At a minimum it ends the claim that it is Biden going after Trump in the courts. I think it may have some positive impact with the few swing voters as a potential olive branch. And it will save a load of time and energy from the courts when we know the SC will just reject whatever they do.
@BarbMcQuade Some good news in SCOTUS opinion: 1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify; 2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table. 3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
Not much good news there.
Good luck on 2. ...Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest. He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 869. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging...
Also with 2) as official act in respect of "core powers" have absolute immunity. The limits of "core powers" aren't defined - though the pardon power (for example) is a core power. Also good luck proving wrongdoing, since any conduct which is an official act can't now be cited in evidence to prove an "unofficial act".
Nor now can a president's private papers.
Also regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the election:
"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
That part of the case against him disappears completely.
Biden may as well offer Trump a pardon and be done with it.
Can someone reject a pardon? I never thought Trump would serve a day in prison, but the documents case was pretty clear cut so conviction looked likely, but other than the completed NY case the rest of it looks pretty unlikely to see an outcome, with years of delays and litigation to follow, even if Trump does not win re-election. So he has little reason to accept one.
With this ruling, it's quite likely that Trump's lawyers will use the new "official acts" defence to further muddy the waters. Cannon will certainly go along with that.
Oh definitely - that case was pretty dead anyway, and she is primed to accept further arguments.
The other cases weren't happenign pre-election anyway, so in practical terms it still comes down to a frail old man and a dangerous and vindictive old man duking it out.
One literally flew into the terrace of this brasserie and snatched the supper off a plate and then fought back as waiters tried to shoo it away. Jeez. And they are enormous - like condors, but more muscular
For the future, look at these presidential powers for "official act" shenanigans. These are very likely to fall within the "core powers" absolute immunity finding.
For example: ..Designations of officials. First appearing in 1941, these are used to designate individuals to hold specified official positions, and have also been used to delegate presidential authority..
..Military orders. Twelve military orders were issued between 1939 and 1948. No such directives were published in the Federal Register until 2001, when George W. Bush issued a controversial military order on the detention, treatment, and trial by military tribunals of noncitizens alleged to be terrorists...
Executive orders: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order ..Presidential executive orders, once issued, remain in force until they are canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their terms. At any time, the president may revoke, modify or make exceptions from any executive order, whether the order was made by the current president or a predecessor. Typically, a new president reviews in-force executive orders in the first few weeks in office..
Why are young French women turning to the hard right? Here is the account, supposedly, from a young Frenchwoman in Lyon
"I am 26 years old, blonde, with light eyes, and I have always lived in the 6th arrondissement of Lyon, which is thought of as the poshest area in Lyon, and my daily life has become unbearable. I write this because, ten years ago, I could go out with my friends in the evening, at any hour, without being bothered, insulted, followed, or stabbed.
I mention stabbing because, three years ago, my boyfriend, along with two of his friends, on their way home, were approached by a group of men. They surrounded them, stole one of their cell phones. They tried to fight back, and my boyfriend, in spite of being a strong rugbyman, got stabbed, in the arm--while protecting his neck, which was the target. Someone tried to cut his throat.
As for myself, on a regular basis, men follow me, insult me because I refuse to talk back or because I say I have a boyfriend. One day, one spit on me. More and more, I am whistled at like a dog, or "ksksks"'d like I am a cat. Acts of this nature have happened to me perhaps thirty times in the past year.
Six months ago, we adopted a puppy. One evening, my boyfriend went out to walk him at 9pm, and three men tried to steal the puppy. Since then, we only go out in the evening as a couple, and I always carry pepper spray in my purse.
In our neighborhood, just in our block, there are three drug dealing spots, which work constantly. Day and night. With everything that entails: watchmen loitering outside our house, milling about, shouting, getting high and bothering people, especially women.
Every single one of the actions I mentioned (and they are only a part of what we have gone through) is the fact of men of sub-Saharan African or North African origin. A white man has never behaved towards me the way they have.
[snip: there is much more, she laments that this sounds racist]
Therefore, for your future, and those of your children or your children-to-be: cast the right vote.”
is this all made up? Perhaps. This is not direct from the woman “Lili R”
However, here is the thing. This is basically identical to the account I heard in Egypt from a blonde Australian girl who moved, by mistake, to the “wrong part” of London. Right down to the endless cat calling and the rest. The Australian said she could only get out of her flat by Uber, she felt immensely guilty because her sister was actually sexually assaulted when she came to stay
That was not 2nd hand evidence, that was her first person account of her own life, in London. And she only admitted to it when she was very drunk and tearful, she was aware it sounded “racist”
There ya go. That’s what multiculturalism is REALLY like for young people, especially girls, in big western cities
Comments
However, I wonder if this judgment may work against Trump and the GOP in the way that the Roe v Wade reversal has. Americans must now decide whether they want to put Trump in the White House with what is essentially limitless power.
"The polls are wrong because they *feel* too different from 2019*"
without any evidence as to why.
Labour aren't going to win 350 seats just because that 'feels' a safer bet. Give some evidence as to why and then fair enough, we can have a good discussion, but at the moment, it seems like people are just seeing the polls and assuming they are wrong.
Oh, sorry, were we not talking about the ref?'
Donald Trump: I’ll be a dictator on day one.
Supreme Court: That's covered.
NEW: 🚨 Labour to Reform switchers on the rise 🚨
Reform UK is now taking 7% of the Labour 2019 vote, a statistically significant increase from 3% last week
28th June - 1st July, 2,028 GB adults,
@JLPartnersPolls
for
@restispolitics
https://x.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1807798029925142709
But I am looking for value either side of clustering around the mean.
@BarbMcQuade
Some good news in SCOTUS opinion:
1. No immunity for unofficial acts; pressuring state officials, fake electors scheme, public statements made as a candidate likely qualify;
2. Immunity for official acts is only presumptive. Conduct must fall within “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” Meetings with VP Pence still on the table.
3. POTUS need not be impeached and convicted first.
Rather than fighting the battles of five years ago or five years hence, it would be far better for the country if we fought the battles of here and now.
"This morning I advised laying Boris Johnson as next Tory leader" - you did? At what odds? I'm sure that some sensible chap like @tse would want to try to have posters say quite what they're recommending.
Edit: My God - that's you!
Resistance is futile.
Everyone fell around laughing and it was left at that.
What he actually means is: "That's for the arse brigade" ie the rump Tory MPs.
Centrism does not hold the answer because its just more of the same policies, I despise the people who blame it on brexit because we weren't actually doing any better in the eu. What our direction should be I don't know. I do know politicians must start taking a view on how to better the lives of those in the uk however rather that selling out to who ever funds them else they are going to become ever more hated and that won't end well for them
🆕 Our penultimate @Moreincommon_ voting intention. Reform UK back up 2 points & little other change - Labour lead of 15
🔵 Con - 24% (-)
🔴 Lab - 39% (-)
🟠 LD - 12% (-1)
🟣 Reform - 15% (+2)
🟢 Green - 5% (-)
N 4,523 | Fieldwork 28-30 June | Tables moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/votin…
The latest TRIP/
@JLPartnersPolls
has just dropped 💥
Tune into tomorrow's podcast release for the full analysis.
https://x.com/RestIsPolitics/status/1807813917638320433
Something has gone wrong with the polls. SKS's personal ratings continue to improve/be positive and yet the polls are going backwards.
The only big drop in that subsample, is in the Lab>Green switch.
Therefore ex-Labour voters who were leaning Green, have now gone Reform?
Either that or that klaxon is most definitely withstanding.
That's how northern I am.
TikTok is filled with young French, Dutch and German kids saying “fuck yeah I’m racist, lol” - at the moment it is half joking, half to shock their parents, and half serious
One day soon it will become 90% serious unless populist demands - much lower immigration, a very firm rebuff to any kind of Islamism - are met via democracy. Ie democratic parties like Reform
If the pollsters are going to start herding then the others are going to have to show a fair uptick in the Tory vote.
I must have missed a hoop.
I think it would really suit Labour to get a 40%+ score on Thursday as it’s much better optics. That said Cameron entered government on 36% in 2010 (albeit a coalition) so it’s not practically an issue.
Good luck on 2.
...Indeed, a long-recognized aspect of Presidential power is using the office’s “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest.
He is even expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.
There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 869. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging...
Also with 2) as official act in respect of "core powers" have absolute immunity.
The limits of "core powers" aren't defined - though the pardon power (for example) is a core power.
Also good luck proving wrongdoing, since any conduct which is an official act can't now be cited in evidence to prove an "unofficial act".
Nor now can a president's private papers.
I live in Cornwall North. Minimal boundary changes since 2019, when it was a comfortable CON gain by 30% over LD. This time around, LD is 3/1 on, Con is 9/4 at WHills. Similar money on the exchanges.
Electoral calculus has LD winning here by 22%
UK Polling report has CON winning by 8%
ElectionMaps Nowcast has LD winning by 8%
ElectionPolling has CON up 6%
PrincipalFish has LD up 3%
Economist has LD up 1%
On the ground I have seen no campaigners, and the garden signs are a little bit yellower than they were in 2019. Tory MP not thought of very highly - been very quiet on local stuff since he became a whip. Plenty of leaflets from both CON and LD, and two from RFM, all very boring. Everyone still hates labour here - the genuine trots I know are voting GRN. The seat voted 60% leave.
I think CON hold at 9/4 is value here. Any thoughts?
You might even consider the larger branches of Amazon Fresh that carry the full Booths range. Maybe White City or Ealing, both less than 1km from the nearest Waitrose.
So London wins again.
"Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
That part of the case against him disappears completely.
Despite being an Independent the chap is backed by something call Transform, which it transpires according to wiki was a merger of, among others, Left Unity (or at least a part of Left Unity - yes, Left Unity split).
It’s a highly agreeable, Waitrosey place to work - airy and bright and big. But the savoury snacks are often overpriced and a bit stodgy. Nice sourdough bread
One literally flew into the terrace of this brasserie and snatched the supper off a plate and then fought back as waiters tried to shoo it away. Jeez. And they are enormous - like condors, but more muscular
Cannon will certainly go along with that.
So I need £10 of bets that will settle on July 3rd or 4th
Or that can be placed on July 5th
The other cases weren't happenign pre-election anyway, so in practical terms it still comes down to a frail old man and a dangerous and vindictive old man duking it out.
Wish there was an election on or something.
These are very likely to fall within the "core powers" absolute immunity finding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_directive#Homeland_Security_Presidential_Directive
For example:
..Designations of officials. First appearing in 1941, these are used to designate individuals to hold specified official positions, and have also been used to delegate presidential authority..
..Military orders. Twelve military orders were issued between 1939 and 1948. No such directives were published in the Federal Register until 2001, when George W. Bush issued a controversial military order on the detention, treatment, and trial by military tribunals of noncitizens alleged to be terrorists...
Executive orders:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
..Presidential executive orders, once issued, remain in force until they are canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their terms. At any time, the president may revoke, modify or make exceptions from any executive order, whether the order was made by the current president or a predecessor. Typically, a new president reviews in-force executive orders in the first few weeks in office..
"I am 26 years old, blonde, with light eyes, and I have always lived in the 6th arrondissement of Lyon, which is thought of as the poshest area in Lyon, and my daily life has become unbearable. I write this because, ten years ago, I could go out with my friends in the evening, at any hour, without being bothered, insulted, followed, or stabbed.
I mention stabbing because, three years ago, my boyfriend, along with two of his friends, on their way home, were approached by a group of men. They surrounded them, stole one of their cell phones. They tried to fight back, and my boyfriend, in spite of being a strong rugbyman, got stabbed, in the arm--while protecting his neck, which was the target. Someone tried to cut his throat.
As for myself, on a regular basis, men follow me, insult me because I refuse to talk back or because I say I have a boyfriend. One day, one spit on me. More and more, I am whistled at like a dog, or "ksksks"'d like I am a cat. Acts of this nature have happened to me perhaps thirty times in the past year.
Six months ago, we adopted a puppy. One evening, my boyfriend went out to walk him at 9pm, and three men tried to steal the puppy. Since then, we only go out in the evening as a couple, and I always carry pepper spray in my purse.
In our neighborhood, just in our block, there are three drug dealing spots, which work constantly. Day and night. With everything that entails: watchmen loitering outside our house, milling about, shouting, getting high and bothering people, especially women.
Every single one of the actions I mentioned (and they are only a part of what we have gone through) is the fact of men of sub-Saharan African or North African origin. A white man has never behaved towards me the way they have.
[snip: there is much more, she laments that this sounds racist]
Therefore, for your future, and those of your children or your children-to-be: cast the right vote.”
https://x.com/pegobry_en/status/1807800058597044229?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
is this all made up? Perhaps. This is not direct from the woman “Lili R”
However, here is the thing. This is basically identical to the account I heard in Egypt from a blonde Australian girl who moved, by mistake, to the “wrong part” of London. Right down to the endless cat calling and the rest. The Australian said she could only get out of her flat by Uber, she felt immensely guilty because her sister was actually sexually assaulted when she came to stay
That was not 2nd hand evidence, that was her first person account of her own life, in London. And she only admitted to it when she was very drunk and tearful, she was aware it sounded “racist”
There ya go. That’s what multiculturalism is REALLY like for young people, especially girls, in big western cities
Alas red backed "No Parking" and yellow backed Danger 230 V.
Vote Nopar King for a better Bedfordshire.