You've made quite a big category mistake. This is a focus group of Trump-supporting women voters, not independent or floating voters.
Nevertheless I expect Kamala to be bigged up on here over the next few months, and Trump support to be played down, because that’s what people want to happen.
The market, though, is one bitten twice shy.
Unless we see some big shifts in the coming days then I think we have to say Kamala is doing a bit better than Biden, but she is still behind.
I think she has what it takes but I am not at this stage seeing what some pundits and others seem to be which is that she is poised ready to sweep to victory. The signs just aren’t there yet.
There are some little positives that might prove to be significant: the poll that shows her closing the gap in Georgia. Higher favourability than Trump in one poll. A good performance in her speech yesterday. The fundraising boost showing a renewed vigor/optimism in the party. Things could sprout from these little seeds. But we need more data, and we need the conventions out of the way and the race proper to start.
Honeymoon period. This will last a while.
With luck at least until First Tuesday after the First Monday in November.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
I am struggling to discern whether you're being sarcastic, but there was nothing wrong with the Law Lords. The 'supreme court' is a failed experiment and should be abolished.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Absolutely. If Starmer murders someone or orders schools to stop educating people with ginger hair, he should have the right to do so, and no court in the land should have the right to stop him. Makes perfect fucking sense to me.
You do understand parliamentary sovereignty, yes? An executive decision on the ginge point can be challenged in the courts, the Ginge Education Act 2024 sure as fuck cannot.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Is that that remarkable? High functioning sociopatholgy is probably quite useful to play politics (as opposed to government) well. And for all her manifest faults, she did get to the top of the greasy pole. Not many people get to say that.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
I am struggling to discern whether you're being sarcastic, but there was nothing wrong with the Law Lords. The 'supreme court' is a failed experiment and should be abolished.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Absolutely. If Starmer murders someone or orders schools to stop educating people with ginger hair, he should have the right to do so, and no court in the land should have the right to stop him. Makes perfect fucking sense to me.
You do understand parliamentary sovereignty, yes? An executive decision on the ginge point can be challenged in the courts, the Ginge Education Act 2024 sure as fuck cannot.
Yes. I’m a lawyer, The Cabinet, part of the Executive, is not Parliament. The above post was a sarcastic response to the idea that the Cabinet (at the top of the Executive) should also be the Supreme Court - thus making it the top of the Judiciary too, thus absurdly adjudicating on the lawfulness of its own executive decisions. As there is no Ginge Education Act I felt safe in this hyperbolic example.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
One of the maddest things on PB in a while.
It’s got to compete with “all the NHS’s problems are because the staff are indolent” from earlier.
The courts are absolutely under the power of a PM with a 170 seat majority. If he gets a law passed, that's the law. End of. There's a perpetual misunderstanding on here, worrying given the supposed sophistication of the commentariat, that Acts of Parliament can be challenged in the courts. Not so.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Absolutely. If Starmer murders someone or orders schools to stop educating people with ginger hair, he should have the right to do so, and no court in the land should have the right to stop him. Makes perfect fucking sense to me.
If he passes a bill of attainder for the first and primary legislation for the second with explicit repeal of any conflicting acts, using the parliament act if necessary, he could do exactly that and the courts could do nothing.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
I am struggling to discern whether you're being sarcastic, but there was nothing wrong with the Law Lords. The 'supreme court' is a failed experiment and should be abolished.
As I have pointed out to you before there is no meaningful difference between the powers of the Law Lords and the Supreme Court. The first bench of the SC was made up of the existing Law Lords. That you fail to understand this is why acolytes of Truss will continue to be laughed at. They don’t understand the constitution.
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky SEVEN candidates have asked for & been given Tory leadership packs so far:
James Cleverly Priti Patel Robert Jenrick Kemi Badenoch Tom Tugendhat Mel Stride Suella Braverman
Not exactly 5* recruits.
Mel Stride is a weird one. He's obviously a pawn sacrifice for the wet faction.
Kemi being a Goveite plant, I would have imagined the plan is to get a leftie vs. Kemi, Kemi wins.
But if they're worried about Kemi going rogue, then it really looks desperate. Stride, Tugendhat and Cleverly are fairly uninspiring choices.
I've told you many times Michael and Kemi have had a major falling out.
She isn't a Goveite plant.
I’ve heard Kemi falls out with a lot of people.
One of the rumours I have heard is one of her ministers may do an Ann Widdecombe to her Michael Howard.
May even be about the Post Office scandal.
Saying there’s ‘something of the night’ about Kemi Badenoch could prove, um, controversial.
That was just such a cracking phrase. One which, when analysed, cannot really be logically explained. But one which had just about everyone nodding along. It summed up an overall impression. They are always best.
Can anyone explain to me why a man being kicked in the head by a police officer is a bigger story than a soldier in uniform being stabbed up to seventy times. I notice the latter is no longer on the BBC front page.
I have my own suspicions but I've never been involved in news production.
The latter is not regarded as a terrorist incident, apparently.
Whereas dog bites man, or polis beats someone up in public, is more of a story than the other way round ...
Why isn't John Mayall passing on BBC front page.
The history of rock would be v different but for him...
Passing?
"Passing on BBC front page" to whom?
PS Never heard of him. His death, whilst very sad for his friends and family, is hardly front page news.
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky SEVEN candidates have asked for & been given Tory leadership packs so far:
James Cleverly Priti Patel Robert Jenrick Kemi Badenoch Tom Tugendhat Mel Stride Suella Braverman
Not exactly 5* recruits.
Mel Stride is a weird one. He's obviously a pawn sacrifice for the wet faction.
Kemi being a Goveite plant, I would have imagined the plan is to get a leftie vs. Kemi, Kemi wins.
But if they're worried about Kemi going rogue, then it really looks desperate. Stride, Tugendhat and Cleverly are fairly uninspiring choices.
I've told you many times Michael and Kemi have had a major falling out.
She isn't a Goveite plant.
I don't dispute that you've heard what you've heard, and if true, it would certainly jazz things up. It's about an affair, right?
But I also don't think a private spat would necessarily derail what is essentially a political project.
Re: final sentence, are you familiar with the "spat" between Herbert Asquith and David Lloyd, and it's impact on the "political project" then known as the Liberal Party?
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
I am struggling to discern whether you're being sarcastic, but there was nothing wrong with the Law Lords. The 'supreme court' is a failed experiment and should be abolished.
The Law Lords and the so-called Supreme Court are the same thing. It is His Majesties Final Court of Appeal as it has been since 18xx when such matters ceased to be dealt with by a vote of the whole house. It should be renamed "His Majesties Final Court of Appeal" though, to remind them as to who is actually supreme.
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky SEVEN candidates have asked for & been given Tory leadership packs so far:
James Cleverly Priti Patel Robert Jenrick Kemi Badenoch Tom Tugendhat Mel Stride Suella Braverman
So that's two potential damp candidates (Tugendhat, Stride), two offering shades of continuity (Cleverly, Badenoch), three red-meaters (Patel, Jenrick and Braverman). Winning post to be sure of getting to the final round is 40. (What happens if it's 41:40:40? Do they have a play-off?)
Who wins each lane, and which two lanes make it to the membership?
5 dimensional chess innit. Especially with one candidate doing the old good Enoch bad Enoch routine.
On the plus side it's utterly irrelevant and nobody gives a fuck. Probably not even the contestants.
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky SEVEN candidates have asked for & been given Tory leadership packs so far:
James Cleverly Priti Patel Robert Jenrick Kemi Badenoch Tom Tugendhat Mel Stride Suella Braverman
Not exactly 5* recruits.
Mel Stride is a weird one. He's obviously a pawn sacrifice for the wet faction.
Kemi being a Goveite plant, I would have imagined the plan is to get a leftie vs. Kemi, Kemi wins.
But if they're worried about Kemi going rogue, then it really looks desperate. Stride, Tugendhat and Cleverly are fairly uninspiring choices.
I've told you many times Michael and Kemi have had a major falling out.
She isn't a Goveite plant.
I’ve heard Kemi falls out with a lot of people.
One of the rumours I have heard is one of her ministers may do an Ann Widdecombe to her Michael Howard.
May even be about the Post Office scandal.
Saying there’s ‘something of the night’ about Kemi Badenoch could prove, um, controversial.
That was just such a cracking phrase. One which, when analysed, cannot really be logically explained. But one which had just about everyone nodding along. It summed up an overall impression. They are always best.
One of Dave’s better jokes was that quote was misinterpreted, Ann Widdecombe was praising Michael Howard
It’s saying something when you start to wonder whether Priti Patel might be the best choice for Tory leader right now, out of those interested…
There is no universe in which Priti Patel might be the best choice for Tory leader.
Seeing as my previous tip of Hunt @ 40/1 has gone down the swanny (now 130/1), The tories could do worse than Patel. Not sure 10/1 is tempting, but as LOTO, she'd be alright, I recon. She'd probably gain a respectable number of seats in 5 years and play a Hague, or IDS type role if the tories ever make it back into government. Hard opponent for Farage.
Smart enough to guide the tories back to sanity and should the opportunity arise to make bid for the centre, she'd make a decent fist of it.
I wonder if Harris might do a Starmer 2024, ie. winning lots of states by small margins, including ones the Republicans are expecting to carry at the moment.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Absolutely. If Starmer murders someone or orders schools to stop educating people with ginger hair, he should have the right to do so, and no court in the land should have the right to stop him. Makes perfect fucking sense to me.
You do understand parliamentary sovereignty, yes? An executive decision on the ginge point can be challenged in the courts, the Ginge Education Act 2024 sure as fuck cannot.
Yes but the Ginge Education Act 2024 could only be passed by parliament, not by a Prime Minister, and there is no conceivable parliament that would pass it.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
I am struggling to discern whether you're being sarcastic, but there was nothing wrong with the Law Lords. The 'supreme court' is a failed experiment and should be abolished.
As I have pointed out to you before there is no meaningful difference between the powers of the Law Lords and the Supreme Court. The first bench of the SC was made up of the existing Law Lords. That you fail to understand this is why acolytes of Truss will continue to be laughed at. They don’t understand the constitution.
Law Lords were appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, and sat within parliament. Supreme Court judges are appointed by 'an independent body', so they're a self-perpetuating bureaucratic appendage that is not democratically accountable. That's a very simple and very important distinction, and you shouldn't project your own lack of intellectual curiosity on to others.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Absolutely. If Starmer murders someone or orders schools to stop educating people with ginger hair, he should have the right to do so, and no court in the land should have the right to stop him. Makes perfect fucking sense to me.
If he passes a bill of attainder for the first and primary legislation for the second with explicit repeal of any conflicting acts, using the parliament act if necessary, he could do exactly that and the courts could do nothing.
I said murder, not attainder, and in any event “He” (Starmer) can’t do that either. Parliament can, theoretically, pass such a bill but “He” can’t. No bills of attainder have been passed since 1820 in the UK and I don’t think even Starmer’s party discipline would enable him to get one through now.
Shall I find a music video to illustrate the constitution for you?
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Absolutely. If Starmer murders someone or orders schools to stop educating people with ginger hair, he should have the right to do so, and no court in the land should have the right to stop him. Makes perfect fucking sense to me.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
I am struggling to discern whether you're being sarcastic, but there was nothing wrong with the Law Lords. The 'supreme court' is a failed experiment and should be abolished.
Apologies. I thought it was clear. I was being sarcastic. (Apart from the no one having more political smarts than Liz Truss. That bit is 100% true)
It’s saying something when you start to wonder whether Priti Patel might be the best choice for Tory leader right now, out of those interested…
There is no universe in which Priti Patel might be the best choice for Tory leader.
Seeing as my previous tip of Hunt @ 40/1 has gone down the swanny (now 130/1), The tories could do worse than Patel. Not sure 10/1 is tempting, but as LOTO, she'd be alright, I recon. She'd probably gain a respectable number of seats in 5 years and play a Hague type role if the tories ever make it back into government. Hard opponent for Farage.
Smart enough to guide the tories back to sanity and should the opportunity arise to make bid for the centre, she'd make a decent fist of it.
Unlikely. But not value at 10/1.
But I still kinda like her. Always have done.
I thought I was alone in having time for Priti! She was a lone non yes person to BoJo at the height of his powers.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Absolutely. If Starmer murders someone or orders schools to stop educating people with ginger hair, he should have the right to do so, and no court in the land should have the right to stop him. Makes perfect fucking sense to me.
If they do they are enemies of the popular will.
Who determines what the “popular will” is in a court case and would you trust it to try you if you were up for some heinous offence you hadn’t committed but the media were convinced you had? Who are currently “enemies of the popular will”? Is there an unpopular will?
Priti Patel takes aim at Suella Braverman as she says multiculturalism speech may have been made 'to get attention'
Former home secretary Priti Patel tells Sky News the country should be "proud" of its diverse communities, and the government should focus on delivering its policies.
It’s saying something when you start to wonder whether Priti Patel might be the best choice for Tory leader right now, out of those interested…
There is no universe in which Priti Patel might be the best choice for Tory leader.
Seeing as my previous tip of Hunt @ 40/1 has gone down the swanny (now 130/1), The tories could do worse than Patel. Not sure 10/1 is tempting, but as LOTO, she'd be alright, I recon. She'd probably gain a respectable number of seats in 5 years and play a Hague type role if the tories ever make it back into government. Hard opponent for Farage.
Smart enough to guide the tories back to sanity and should the opportunity arise to make bid for the centre, she'd make a decent fist of it.
Unlikely. But not value at 10/1.
But I still kinda like her. Always have done.
I thought I was alone in having time for Priti! She was a lone non yes person to BoJo at the height of his powers.
Her problem is she's too bloody brown for the membership.
And the whole East African Asian thing resonates worse than a flood in richer sounds, post-Rishi.
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky SEVEN candidates have asked for & been given Tory leadership packs so far:
James Cleverly Priti Patel Robert Jenrick Kemi Badenoch Tom Tugendhat Mel Stride Suella Braverman
Not exactly 5* recruits.
Mel Stride is a weird one. He's obviously a pawn sacrifice for the wet faction.
Kemi being a Goveite plant, I would have imagined the plan is to get a leftie vs. Kemi, Kemi wins.
But if they're worried about Kemi going rogue, then it really looks desperate. Stride, Tugendhat and Cleverly are fairly uninspiring choices.
I've told you many times Michael and Kemi have had a major falling out.
She isn't a Goveite plant.
I’ve heard Kemi falls out with a lot of people.
One of the rumours I have heard is one of her ministers may do an Ann Widdecombe to her Michael Howard.
May even be about the Post Office scandal.
Saying there’s ‘something of the night’ about Kemi Badenoch could prove, um, controversial.
That was just such a cracking phrase. One which, when analysed, cannot really be logically explained. But one which had just about everyone nodding along. It summed up an overall impression. They are always best.
One of Dave’s better jokes was that quote was misinterpreted, Ann Widdecombe was praising Michael Howard
‘There’s something of the knight about him.’
It was of course a very effective phrase because it drew on culturally deeply embedded antisemitic imagery. Whether done intentionally or not (and I suspect intentionally, given her Catholicism), the power of the antisemitic trope is that it’s so woven into European psychology that people don’t notice it’s happening. They just “get” that of course there is something of the night about him.
Mmm. They are all going to have to have a thorough schooling in the bald fact that what they are "ready" to do has about as much relevance as my readiness to squire Margot Robbie and Scarlett Johansson this Sunday.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
I am struggling to discern whether you're being sarcastic, but there was nothing wrong with the Law Lords. The 'supreme court' is a failed experiment and should be abolished.
As I have pointed out to you before there is no meaningful difference between the powers of the Law Lords and the Supreme Court. The first bench of the SC was made up of the existing Law Lords. That you fail to understand this is why acolytes of Truss will continue to be laughed at. They don’t understand the constitution.
Law Lords were appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, and sat within parliament. Supreme Court judges are appointed by 'an independent body', so they're a self-perpetuating bureaucratic appendage that is not democratically accountable. That's a very simple and very important distinction, and you shouldn't project your own lack of intellectual curiosity on to others.
But for decades the PM had just ratified what a commitee of Lawyers suggested, so it was just making De Jure what had been De Facto for decades.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Absolutely. If Starmer murders someone or orders schools to stop educating people with ginger hair, he should have the right to do so, and no court in the land should have the right to stop him. Makes perfect fucking sense to me.
If they do they are enemies of the popular will.
Who determines what the “popular will” is in a court case and would you trust it to try you if you were up for some heinous offence you hadn’t committed but the media were convinced you had? Who are currently “enemies of the popular will”? Is there an unpopular will?
The "popular will" is whatever Nigel Garage says it is, surely?
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Absolutely. If Starmer murders someone or orders schools to stop educating people with ginger hair, he should have the right to do so, and no court in the land should have the right to stop him. Makes perfect fucking sense to me.
Not surprising. Like Hunt going on about the EU being like the USSR. They end up worshipping at the altar of the current thing. Which happens to be leaving the ECHR. Never mind that nobody can actually articulate a concrete way in which leaving it would make Britain richer or happier, it’s the current thing.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
I am struggling to discern whether you're being sarcastic, but there was nothing wrong with the Law Lords. The 'supreme court' is a failed experiment and should be abolished.
As I have pointed out to you before there is no meaningful difference between the powers of the Law Lords and the Supreme Court. The first bench of the SC was made up of the existing Law Lords. That you fail to understand this is why acolytes of Truss will continue to be laughed at. They don’t understand the constitution.
Law Lords were appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, and sat within parliament. Supreme Court judges are appointed by 'an independent body', so they're a self-perpetuating bureaucratic appendage that is not democratically accountable. That's a very simple and very important distinction, and you shouldn't project your own lack of intellectual curiosity on to others.
Again, you’re completely, 100%, wrong. Amazing.
SC justices are appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, who in turn is appointed by the PM, based on the advice of an appointment committee. In the old days the Law Lords were appointed by the King on the advice of the PM who, in turn, relied on the advice of s self-perpetuating clique of judges. The current system thus retains the old veto of the executive on appointments which should really be abolished. It has, however, removed the self-perpetuating bureaucracy bit. For someone with “intellect curiosity” you don’t half rely on discredited rightist talking points.
You do realise that there was a questionnaire which mistakenly asked Have you ever been decapitated and 4% of respondents answered yes? A constant is a constant.
Mmm. They are all going to have to have a thorough schooling in the bald fact that what they are "ready" to do has about as much relevance as my readiness to squire Margot Robbie and Scarlett Johansson this Sunday.
I have this image of a short you on a short horse trotting alongside them with a jousting pole carrying their armour. 😃
Mmm. They are all going to have to have a thorough schooling in the bald fact that what they are "ready" to do has about as much relevance as my readiness to squire Margot Robbie and Scarlett Johansson this Sunday.
That’s why it’s got to be Stride.
After the success of Davey’s gimmick campaign, he could do something similar. Lead a shadow Ministry of Silly Walks, say.
I wonder if Harris might do a Starmer 2024, ie. winning lots of states by small margins, including ones the Republicans are expecting to carry at the moment.
More importantly, losing votes in California (but not enough that she has to worry about losing the state) but gaining them in middle America.
Can anyone explain to me why a man being kicked in the head by a police officer is a bigger story than a soldier in uniform being stabbed up to seventy times. I notice the latter is no longer on the BBC front page.
I have my own suspicions but I've never been involved in news production.
Tell us your suspicions.
I expect the reasons are
1) There's video footage of the GMP rozzer
2) We expect better of the police (stop sniggering at the back.)
3) Last week there was a horrific report about the shameful behaviour of GMP where they promised lessons had been learned then they do something like this.
Bring back James Anderton.
But he’s just retired having taken more test wickets thanks any other fast bowler in history. Oh, AnderTON, you say? As you were.
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky SEVEN candidates have asked for & been given Tory leadership packs so far:
James Cleverly Priti Patel Robert Jenrick Kemi Badenoch Tom Tugendhat Mel Stride Suella Braverman
Not exactly 5* recruits.
Mel Stride is a weird one. He's obviously a pawn sacrifice for the wet faction.
Kemi being a Goveite plant, I would have imagined the plan is to get a leftie vs. Kemi, Kemi wins.
But if they're worried about Kemi going rogue, then it really looks desperate. Stride, Tugendhat and Cleverly are fairly uninspiring choices.
I've told you many times Michael and Kemi have had a major falling out.
She isn't a Goveite plant.
I’ve heard Kemi falls out with a lot of people.
One of the rumours I have heard is one of her ministers may do an Ann Widdecombe to her Michael Howard.
May even be about the Post Office scandal.
Saying there’s ‘something of the night’ about Kemi Badenoch could prove, um, controversial.
That was just such a cracking phrase. One which, when analysed, cannot really be logically explained. But one which had just about everyone nodding along. It summed up an overall impression. They are always best.
One of Dave’s better jokes was that quote was misinterpreted, Ann Widdecombe was praising Michael Howard
‘There’s something of the knight about him.’
It was of course a very effective phrase because it drew on culturally deeply embedded antisemitic imagery. Whether done intentionally or not (and I suspect intentionally, given her Catholicism), the power of the antisemitic trope is that it’s so woven into European psychology that people don’t notice it’s happening. They just “get” that of course there is something of the night about him.
Sounds like bollocks to me Tim.
I wasn't aware Michael Howard was Jewish but the 'something of the night' comment made sense to me - he just seemed to have an aura of menace.
Damian Green on Newsnight: "Tom Tugendhat hasn't said that he'd like to leave the ECHR". So he doesn't like the idea of it, but wants to do it anyway, in a regrettable sort of way.
I wonder if Harris might do a Starmer 2024, ie. winning lots of states by small margins, including ones the Republicans are expecting to carry at the moment.
More importantly, losing votes in California (but not enough that she has to worry about losing the state) but gaining them in middle America.
Well, that's broadly what happened at the midterms: the Democrat vote got more efficient because they lost share disproportionately in New York and California.
It's entirely possible it happens again in November.
Mmm. They are all going to have to have a thorough schooling in the bald fact that what they are "ready" to do has about as much relevance as my readiness to squire Margot Robbie and Scarlett Johansson this Sunday.
The key people who need that schooling are the Conservative members and media ecosystem. (I can't imagine TT making a statement like this if he didn't need positive headlines in the Telegraph to reach Conservative members.)
Yes, you can push your politicians as far down the rabbit hole as you like. Some of them will go down that burrow willingly, others will need a firm kick. But it all means nothing if they're on the opposition benches.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Absolutely. If Starmer murders someone or orders schools to stop educating people with ginger hair, he should have the right to do so, and no court in the land should have the right to stop him. Makes perfect fucking sense to me.
You do understand parliamentary sovereignty, yes? An executive decision on the ginge point can be challenged in the courts, the Ginge Education Act 2024 sure as fuck cannot.
Yes, but Parliament is not the Prime Minister. Parliament constrains the power of the Prime Minister.
A prime minister with a majority of 170? No it fucking doesn't. Ask hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Or because that's impossible ask the indeterminate prison sentence victims (those who have not committed suicide).
You've made quite a big category mistake. This is a focus group of Trump-supporting women voters, not independent or floating voters.
Nevertheless I expect Kamala to be bigged up on here over the next few months, and Trump support to be played down, because that’s what people want to happen.
The market, though, is one bitten twice shy.
I think that's true.
But I also think that the Democrats will do better with a candidate who does not have dementia. I would still make Trump clear favorite - not because he's Trump, but because (as everywhere in the developed world) voters have got poorer over the last four years.
I wonder if Harris might do a Starmer 2024, ie. winning lots of states by small margins, including ones the Republicans are expecting to carry at the moment.
More importantly, losing votes in California (but not enough that she has to worry about losing the state) but gaining them in middle America.
Well, that's broadly what happened at the midterms: the Democrat vote got more efficient because they lost share disproportionately in New York and California.
It's entirely possible it happens again in November.
Would laugh my ass off if Trump won the EV but lost the EC.
Ha. Media reports that Buttigieg is also among those officially being considered for the VO slot.
"Officially condsidered" and actually under consideration being TWO different things.
As we learned re: Marco Rubio who was on the VP shortlist announced by Trump campaign.
In his case, the constitutional limitation on Electors voting for more than ONE national ticket candidate clearly made him unavailable, unless Sen. Rubio was willing to move to some other state. REAL reason he was on list, was to appeal to Latino voters - hey, Trump gave one of us serious consideration.
Yeah, right. Or rather, wrong.
No such structural impediment for Buttigieg. However, not only has he NOT be lighting the woods on fire with a Sec. of Trans (!) but he's changed his home state similar to the way Hillary Clinton used to change her baseball caps.
Plus Harris needs another Biden administration insider as running mate, as much as she needs to adopt Hunter OR vouch for the former Secret Service chief.
IMHO the real reason why Buttigieg's name as suddenly popped up, is so Harris campaign can say to LGBT voters & donors - hey, Harris gave one of us serious consideration.
Damian Green on Newsnight: "Tom Tugendhat hasn't said that he'd like to leave the ECHR". So he doesn't like the idea of it, but wants to do it anyway, in a regrettable sort of way.
Truss makes a very powerful point about the growing power of institutions under the Blairite constitutional settlement - civil service, quangos, the courts - making it very difficult for those Thatcherite policies that you admire ever to be implemented again. Whoever tries to unravel the gordian knot is going to have to have a lot more political smarts than Truss,
I’m struggling to think of anyone with more political smarts than Truss. Which is remarkable as a Consultant Psychiatrist told me she was a classic high functioning sociopath.
I do agree with you that the Courts have way too much power and should be under the control of whoever is elected Prime Minister. Makes me wonder whether we need to spend that £££ on the Supreme Court and should just replace it with the Cabinet.
Steve
Absolutely. If Starmer murders someone or orders schools to stop educating people with ginger hair, he should have the right to do so, and no court in the land should have the right to stop him. Makes perfect fucking sense to me.
If they do they are enemies of the popular will.
Who determines what the “popular will” is in a court case and would you trust it to try you if you were up for some heinous offence you hadn’t committed but the media were convinced you had? Who are currently “enemies of the popular will”? Is there an unpopular will?
Sigh. The wise and just editors of the Daily Mail. Have some faith.
Can anyone explain to me why a man being kicked in the head by a police officer is a bigger story than a soldier in uniform being stabbed up to seventy times. I notice the latter is no longer on the BBC front page.
I have my own suspicions but I've never been involved in news production.
It’s a fucking disgrace is what it is. The guardian doesn’t even mention the poor soldier. At all. Despite audio of his wife screaming in hellish agony as her husband is stabbed SEVENTY TIMES by an alleged terrorist who then licks the blood off his knife
The copper with the boot is story 4. The guardian is far far worse than the daily mail. Waaaaay more damaging to British society
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky SEVEN candidates have asked for & been given Tory leadership packs so far:
James Cleverly Priti Patel Robert Jenrick Kemi Badenoch Tom Tugendhat Mel Stride Suella Braverman
Not exactly 5* recruits.
Mel Stride is a weird one. He's obviously a pawn sacrifice for the wet faction.
Kemi being a Goveite plant, I would have imagined the plan is to get a leftie vs. Kemi, Kemi wins.
But if they're worried about Kemi going rogue, then it really looks desperate. Stride, Tugendhat and Cleverly are fairly uninspiring choices.
I've told you many times Michael and Kemi have had a major falling out.
She isn't a Goveite plant.
I’ve heard Kemi falls out with a lot of people.
One of the rumours I have heard is one of her ministers may do an Ann Widdecombe to her Michael Howard.
May even be about the Post Office scandal.
Saying there’s ‘something of the night’ about Kemi Badenoch could prove, um, controversial.
That was just such a cracking phrase. One which, when analysed, cannot really be logically explained. But one which had just about everyone nodding along. It summed up an overall impression. They are always best.
One of Dave’s better jokes was that quote was misinterpreted, Ann Widdecombe was praising Michael Howard
‘There’s something of the knight about him.’
It was of course a very effective phrase because it drew on culturally deeply embedded antisemitic imagery. Whether done intentionally or not (and I suspect intentionally, given her Catholicism), the power of the antisemitic trope is that it’s so woven into European psychology that people don’t notice it’s happening. They just “get” that of course there is something of the night about him.
Sounds like bollocks to me Tim.
I wasn't aware Michael Howard was Jewish but the 'something of the night' comment made sense to me - he just seemed to have an aura of menace.
As I said, that’s the power of antisemitic tropes. They are often subconscious. Certainly a lot of British Jewish commentators felt it at the time.
Can anyone explain to me why a man being kicked in the head by a police officer is a bigger story than a soldier in uniform being stabbed up to seventy times. I notice the latter is no longer on the BBC front page.
I have my own suspicions but I've never been involved in news production.
It’s a fucking disgrace is what it is. The guardian doesn’t even mention the poor soldier. At all. Despite audio of his wife screaming in hellish agony as her husband is stabbed SEVENTY TIMES by an alleged terrorist who then licks the blood off his knife
The copper with the boot is story 4. The guardian is far far worse than the daily mail. Waaaaay more damaging to British society
Really ! Given some of the loathsome front pages from the DM over the years I think you’re talking tripe .
Damian Green on Newsnight: "Tom Tugendhat hasn't said that he'd like to leave the ECHR". So he doesn't like the idea of it, but wants to do it anyway, in a regrettable sort of way.
Can anyone explain to me why a man being kicked in the head by a police officer is a bigger story than a soldier in uniform being stabbed up to seventy times. I notice the latter is no longer on the BBC front page.
I have my own suspicions but I've never been involved in news production.
It’s a fucking disgrace is what it is. The guardian doesn’t even mention the poor soldier. At all. Despite audio of his wife screaming in hellish agony as her husband is stabbed SEVENTY TIMES by an alleged terrorist who then licks the blood off his knife
The copper with the boot is story 4. The guardian is far far worse than the daily mail. Waaaaay more damaging to British society
Really ! Given some of the loathsome front pages from the DM over the years I think you’re talking tripe .
Go look at the guardian website now. Copper with boot major story. Poor stabbed soldier - invisible
Currant Bun say stabber come from Nigerian Christian family, is a student with known issues with mental health and whose brother happens to work at the barracks.
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky SEVEN candidates have asked for & been given Tory leadership packs so far:
James Cleverly Priti Patel Robert Jenrick Kemi Badenoch Tom Tugendhat Mel Stride Suella Braverman
Not exactly 5* recruits.
Mel Stride is a weird one. He's obviously a pawn sacrifice for the wet faction.
Kemi being a Goveite plant, I would have imagined the plan is to get a leftie vs. Kemi, Kemi wins.
But if they're worried about Kemi going rogue, then it really looks desperate. Stride, Tugendhat and Cleverly are fairly uninspiring choices.
I've told you many times Michael and Kemi have had a major falling out.
She isn't a Goveite plant.
I’ve heard Kemi falls out with a lot of people.
One of the rumours I have heard is one of her ministers may do an Ann Widdecombe to her Michael Howard.
May even be about the Post Office scandal.
Saying there’s ‘something of the night’ about Kemi Badenoch could prove, um, controversial.
That was just such a cracking phrase. One which, when analysed, cannot really be logically explained. But one which had just about everyone nodding along. It summed up an overall impression. They are always best.
One of Dave’s better jokes was that quote was misinterpreted, Ann Widdecombe was praising Michael Howard
‘There’s something of the knight about him.’
It was of course a very effective phrase because it drew on culturally deeply embedded antisemitic imagery. Whether done intentionally or not (and I suspect intentionally, given her Catholicism), the power of the antisemitic trope is that it’s so woven into European psychology that people don’t notice it’s happening. They just “get” that of course there is something of the night about him.
Sounds like bollocks to me Tim.
I wasn't aware Michael Howard was Jewish but the 'something of the night' comment made sense to me - he just seemed to have an aura of menace.
Morally unacceptable, surely? People don't have auras of menace except in horror films. Outside that context they should be judged on what they do and what they say, and nothing else.
If you go down the aura route you end up applauding good old Tone's murder of all those brownies because he did it in such a refreshingly left of centre sort of way. Cool Britannia several hundred thousand Iraq nil. Huzzah.
Can anyone explain to me why a man being kicked in the head by a police officer is a bigger story than a soldier in uniform being stabbed up to seventy times. I notice the latter is no longer on the BBC front page.
I have my own suspicions but I've never been involved in news production.
It’s a fucking disgrace is what it is. The guardian doesn’t even mention the poor soldier. At all. Despite audio of his wife screaming in hellish agony as her husband is stabbed SEVENTY TIMES by an alleged terrorist who then licks the blood off his knife
The copper with the boot is story 4. The guardian is far far worse than the daily mail. Waaaaay more damaging to British society
Really ! Given some of the loathsome front pages from the DM over the years I think you’re talking tripe .
Go look at the guardian website now. Copper with boot major story. Poor stabbed soldier - invisible
That might be the case . You can moan about a story not getting sufficient attention , but that’s altogether different from some of the poisonous headlines the DM has delivered over the years .
Can anyone explain to me why a man being kicked in the head by a police officer is a bigger story than a soldier in uniform being stabbed up to seventy times. I notice the latter is no longer on the BBC front page.
I have my own suspicions but I've never been involved in news production.
It’s a fucking disgrace is what it is. The guardian doesn’t even mention the poor soldier. At all. Despite audio of his wife screaming in hellish agony as her husband is stabbed SEVENTY TIMES by an alleged terrorist who then licks the blood off his knife
The copper with the boot is story 4. The guardian is far far worse than the daily mail. Waaaaay more damaging to British society
Really ! Given some of the loathsome front pages from the DM over the years I think you’re talking tripe .
Go look at the guardian website now. Copper with boot major story. Poor stabbed soldier - invisible
That might be the case . You can moan about a story not getting sufficient attention , but that’s altogether different from some of the poisonous headlines the DM has delivered over the years .
The guardian is a corrosive drizzle of acid turned into a newspaper
Comments
Is it a plastic toy, some crayons, a colouring book, and a big, shiny Vote for me badge?
But I also don't think a private spat would necessarily derail what is essentially a political project.
It summed up an overall impression. They are always best.
"Passing on BBC front page" to whom?
PS Never heard of him. His death, whilst very sad for his friends and family, is hardly front page news.
On the plus side it's utterly irrelevant and nobody gives a fuck. Probably not even the contestants.
Is that my popcorn? 🍿 🍿 🍿 🤔
‘There’s something of the knight about him.’
Smart enough to guide the tories back to sanity and should the opportunity arise to make bid for the centre, she'd make a decent fist of it.
Unlikely. But not value at 10/1.
But I still kinda like her. Always have done.
Shall I find a music video to illustrate the constitution for you?
#Priti4Leader
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/02/18/i-agree-with-david-gauke/
Too true Ron, Ron.
She was a lone non yes person to BoJo at the height of his powers.
"Tom Tugendhat: I’m ready to leave the ECHR"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/24/tom-tugendhat-im-ready-to-leave-the-echr/
I expect it’s between Mark Kelly and Josh Shapiro .
Priti Patel takes aim at Suella Braverman as she says multiculturalism speech may have been made 'to get attention'
Former home secretary Priti Patel tells Sky News the country should be "proud" of its diverse communities, and the government should focus on delivering its policies.
Gotta talk to the 4% of people who said the shooter wasn't responsible for shooting Trump
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1816158501938307203?t=QutkqETCJbQkL8tRd5r5Aw&s=19
And the whole East African Asian thing resonates worse than a flood in richer sounds, post-Rishi.
At 10/1, she's probably a technical lay, sadly.
They are all going to have to have a thorough schooling in the bald fact that what they are "ready" to do has about as much relevance as my readiness to squire Margot Robbie and Scarlett Johansson this Sunday.
Lol autocorrect. But seems apt so I'm leaving it.
SC justices are appointed by the King on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, who in turn is appointed by the PM, based on the advice of an appointment committee. In the old days the Law Lords were appointed by the King on the advice of the PM who, in turn, relied on the advice of s self-perpetuating clique of judges. The current system thus retains the old veto of the executive on appointments which should really be abolished. It has, however, removed the self-perpetuating bureaucracy bit. For someone with “intellect curiosity” you don’t half rely on discredited rightist talking points.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appointments-of-justices.html
After the success of Davey’s gimmick campaign, he could do something similar. Lead a shadow Ministry of Silly Walks, say.
I wasn't aware Michael Howard was Jewish but the 'something of the night' comment made sense to me - he just seemed to have an aura of menace.
Pres:
Trump (R): 47%
Harris (D): 45%
Senate:
Casey (D): 49%
McCormick (R): 41%
North Star Opinion Research / July 23, 2024 / n=600
(Republican Commissioner)
Tump was up 8 on Biden in their last Pennsylvania poll, so the Kamalagasm is real, even in the rust belt.
It's entirely possible it happens again in November.
Yes, you can push your politicians as far down the rabbit hole as you like. Some of them will go down that burrow willingly, others will need a firm kick. But it all means nothing if they're on the opposition benches.
The membership needs to be proscribed as a terrorist organization and banned !
But I also think that the Democrats will do better with a candidate who does not have dementia. I would still make Trump clear favorite - not because he's Trump, but because (as everywhere in the developed world) voters have got poorer over the last four years.
As we learned re: Marco Rubio who was on the VP shortlist announced by Trump campaign.
In his case, the constitutional limitation on Electors voting for more than ONE national ticket candidate clearly made him unavailable, unless Sen. Rubio was willing to move to some other state. REAL reason he was on list, was to appeal to Latino voters - hey, Trump gave one of us serious consideration.
Yeah, right. Or rather, wrong.
No such structural impediment for Buttigieg. However, not only has he NOT be lighting the woods on fire with a Sec. of Trans (!) but he's changed his home state similar to the way Hillary Clinton used to change her baseball caps.
Plus Harris needs another Biden administration insider as running mate, as much as she needs to adopt Hunter OR vouch for the former Secret Service chief.
IMHO the real reason why Buttigieg's name as suddenly popped up, is so Harris campaign can say to LGBT voters & donors - hey, Harris gave one of us serious consideration.
… of a defeated rabble.
The copper with the boot is story 4. The guardian is far far worse than the daily mail. Waaaaay more damaging to British society
Don't you worry about that.
If you go down the aura route you end up applauding good old Tone's murder of all those brownies because he did it in such a refreshingly left of centre sort of way. Cool Britannia several hundred thousand Iraq nil. Huzzah.