Off Topic. Overheard in my local tonight from two lads playing the quiz machine. "I thought Nebraska was in Canada"
When living in Toronto and visiting friends in Massachusetts many years back, someone in a gas station asked me when Ontario was going to apply for full statehood.
Fascinating to see Fox dither around trying to decide which GOP horse to back. The GOP debate is a bit like the Eurovision song contest with the 10 semi-finalists and then the 10 finalists on stage. Will it make any difference - hard to see any one of them getting a big boost though I presume most on finals night will be gunning for the Donald.
I imagine this field of selling platers and no-hopers will be thinned out via unnatural selection before the poor Iowans get their moment in the sun in the middle of winter.
The very interesting Observer piece quoted by someone on the last thread only shows part of the picture. In East Ham, the bookies are open from 7.30am to 10pm every night - you won't find many betting on the 3.30 at Chepstow but the FOBTs are in use a lot of the time. The bookies act as a quasi-community centre and each of the ethnic groups has its own shop or shops.
I view the FOBTs rather as I view the Lottery - a stealth tax on the poorest with the improbablilty of a life-changing win drawing those who can afford it least to gamble the most.
As for horse racing itself, the courses own the product in terms of media rights which they sell as pictures to the bookmakers. This will work only as long as the bookmakers decide they still need UK racing in the shops to make money. The day they stop believing that horse racing is in a world of trouble.
FPT - I managed to get the East Ham High Street in before you, for once! But you nailed it in more style. What a depressing place. For those who don't know, the only reason each chain there puts so many different shops in such close vicinity is that they are limited in how many FOBTs are allowed in their premises. The FOBTs are the profit centres, and the only way to cram more of them into the town is to run more shops.
There is an excellent book, maybe an e-book, by a US researcher titled "Addiction by Design" wherein she analyses just how FOBTs were designed to maximise revenue and profit by getting users into a zone of tranquility where they can block out thoughts about everything else. Compare to traditional gambling where there is often some element of excitement - this is designed to do the opposite, to deaden excitement or feelings. Problematically, because the machines are so cheap to run, extra revenue generation means direct wealth transfers from those who are unusually vulnerable.
Erm - have these researchers never been to say Las Vegas, a place noted for its quiet areas filled with smooth running one armed bandits? Or seen the poker machines in Australian sports clubs?
I am very pleased that some women are blind when it comes to men. I should never have managed to marry my wife otherwise.
Anyway, with regard to Mrs. Kelly looking at the link Mr. Root helpfully provided I see that it was she, when SoS for transport, who first put forward the third runway at Heathrow and that was on 2007. After eight years the project has progressed so far as to being discussed in government circles pending a decision. Eight years from a minister saying we think this is a jolly good idea to the point where a minister won't say whether the government thinks it's a good idea or not. Amazing, surely the most extreme example of cross-party pusillanimity in history.
Perhaps it's time for people to start hedging their Hillary positions with bets that she won't even make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Unless Hillary is literally put in handcuffs and carted off to jail she will stay in the race (even Berger did not do jail time) and unless Biden develops his recent Quinnipiac lead over Jeb Bush to a consistently larger lead over the GOP top tier than Hillary I would not rule out her getting the nomination either
Good evening, I was going to put £50 on the nose for Corbyn but the odds are so foul that it's not worth my while. I think he'll win. At least he is active and animated while Burnham looks and acts like a zombie, and not an especially clean one at that.
If Burnham is a zombie, Cooper is even more so
I miss Hazel "the robot" Blears. Always spouting her masters' message no matter how silly it was
''Hazel Blears could actually be quite charismatic when she wanted''
Perhaps it's time for people to start hedging their Hillary positions with bets that she won't even make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Unless Hillary is literally put in handcuffs and carted off to jail she will stay in the race (even Berger did not do jail time) and unless Biden develops his recent Quinnipiac lead over Jeb Bush to a consistently larger lead over the GOP top tier than Hillary I would not rule out her getting the nomination either
How close to jail (prison - I think in the states they're different) does she need to be before someone thinks "hang on a second, if I could beat Hillary, I could be President"?
Fox News makes the cut for the Cleveland debate tomorrow. The top 8 look set, so Christie, Kasich and Perry are fighting it out for the last two.
Sorry for being thick. This is all GOP right?
So there's a NH debate tonight, "all" 14 people, what time GMT?
Then one in Cleveland for Fox? And another Fox one?
Tonight's debate is sponsored by the local paper, the Union Leader. It might be shown live, but more likely the news networks will show snippets. Trump isn't there.
There are 2 debates on Thursday. The early one (5 edt I think) is for the not top ten. The big one is at 9 edt.
Perhaps it's time for people to start hedging their Hillary positions with bets that she won't even make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Unless Hillary is literally put in handcuffs and carted off to jail she will stay in the race (even Berger did not do jail time) and unless Biden develops his recent Quinnipiac lead over Jeb Bush to a consistently larger lead over the GOP top tier than Hillary I would not rule out her getting the nomination either
How close to jail (prison - I think in the states they're different) does she need to be before someone thinks "hang on a second, if I could beat Hillary, I could be President"?
The one thing that can Hillary's campaign stone dead is if DOJ moves on the email scandal. She is already - to use a Star Wars reference - in very deep sith. David Petraeus and Sandy Berger were both prosecuted for much less than what she has done.
So the only question is whether the sith hits the fan. Every tranche of emails released has lots of redacted confidential information. It's getting worse every time.
FPT, before anyone gets too excited about Michael Shrimpton's Ed-Heath-the-murderer allegations, here's an article from after his conviction for a barmy bomb hoax but before he was sentenced for 12 months:
At the start of the two-week trial, prosecutor Alan Blake said: "The information was extraordinary and dramatic, in essence Mr Shrimpton announced that a nuclear weapon stolen from the sunken Russian submarine the Kursk a number of years ago, that such a nuclear weapon had been smuggled into the UK and was being stored in a London hospital in preparation to be used during the Olympic games. ... etc etc ...
Interesting bit of history - clearly missed by our favorite news gathering organisation.
Perhaps it's time for people to start hedging their Hillary positions with bets that she won't even make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Unless Hillary is literally put in handcuffs and carted off to jail she will stay in the race (even Berger did not do jail time) and unless Biden develops his recent Quinnipiac lead over Jeb Bush to a consistently larger lead over the GOP top tier than Hillary I would not rule out her getting the nomination either
How close to jail (prison - I think in the states they're different) does she need to be before someone thinks "hang on a second, if I could beat Hillary, I could be President"?
The one thing that can Hillary's campaign stone dead is if DOJ moves on the email scandal. She is already - to use a Star Wars reference - in very deep sith. David Petraeus and Sandy Berger were both prosecuted for much less than what she has done.
So the only question is whether the sith hits the fan. Every tranche of emails released has lots of redacted confidential information. It's getting worse every time.
Yes, but this has been news now for weeks and she still leads the GOP top tier, on average, by a narrow margin or is tied. As I said unless she actually is jailed I would not rule out her getting the nomination or winning, for the average voter how she organised her emails is not Watergate (where Nixon authorised a burglary) unless she is deliberately seen to have endangered US lives as S of S. If that occurs then Biden will almost certainly replace her as nominee, and he could still win even if her candidacy is destroyed
Perhaps it's time for people to start hedging their Hillary positions with bets that she won't even make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Unless Hillary is literally put in handcuffs and carted off to jail she will stay in the race (even Berger did not do jail time) and unless Biden develops his recent Quinnipiac lead over Jeb Bush to a consistently larger lead over the GOP top tier than Hillary I would not rule out her getting the nomination either
How close to jail (prison - I think in the states they're different) does she need to be before someone thinks "hang on a second, if I could beat Hillary, I could be President"?
The one thing that can Hillary's campaign stone dead is if DOJ moves on the email scandal. She is already - to use a Star Wars reference - in very deep sith. David Petraeus and Sandy Berger were both prosecuted for much less than what she has done.
So the only question is whether the sith hits the fan. Every tranche of emails released has lots of redacted confidential information. It's getting worse every time.
Yes, but this has been news now for weeks and she still leads the GOP top tier, on average, by a narrow margin or is tied. As I said unless she actually is jailed I would not rule out her getting the nomination or winning, for the average voter how she organised her emails is not Watergate (where Nixon authorised a burglary) unless she is deliberately seen to have endangered US lives as S of S. If that occurs then Biden will almost certainly replace her as nominee, and he could still win even if her candidacy is destroyed
HYUFD, I won't engage you on this as you just don't get it.
Perhaps it's time for people to start hedging their Hillary positions with bets that she won't even make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Unless Hillary is literally put in handcuffs and carted off to jail she will stay in the race (even Berger did not do jail time) and unless Biden develops his recent Quinnipiac lead over Jeb Bush to a consistently larger lead over the GOP top tier than Hillary I would not rule out her getting the nomination either
How close to jail (prison - I think in the states they're different) does she need to be before someone thinks "hang on a second, if I could beat Hillary, I could be President"?
The one thing that can Hillary's campaign stone dead is if DOJ moves on the email scandal. She is already - to use a Star Wars reference - in very deep sith. David Petraeus and Sandy Berger were both prosecuted for much less than what she has done.
So the only question is whether the sith hits the fan. Every tranche of emails released has lots of redacted confidential information. It's getting worse every time.
Yes, but this has been news now for weeks and she still leads the GOP top tier, on average, by a narrow margin or is tied. As I said unless she actually is jailed I would not rule out her getting the nomination or winning, for the average voter how she organised her emails is not Watergate (where Nixon authorised a burglary) unless she is deliberately seen to have endangered US lives as S of S. If that occurs then Biden will almost certainly replace her as nominee, and he could still win even if her candidacy is destroyed
The email scandal is not a poll thing. It will only matter if she is indicted, in which case she is gone, regardless of polls. Until then it doesn't matter, and is just simmering away in the background.
It has been in the news for weeks, and will be for many more. State is under court order to release her emails on a regular schedule. Every time the heavily redacted ones lead the news. It's going to continue probably the rest of the year. It's already affecting her numbers.
Perhaps it's time for people to start hedging their Hillary positions with bets that she won't even make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Unless Hillary is literally put in handcuffs and carted off to jail she will stay in the race (even Berger did not do jail time) and unless Biden develops his recent Quinnipiac lead over Jeb Bush to a consistently larger lead over the GOP top tier than Hillary I would not rule out her getting the nomination either
How close to jail (prison - I think in the states they're different) does she need to be before someone thinks "hang on a second, if I could beat Hillary, I could be President"?
The one thing that can Hillary's campaign stone dead is if DOJ moves on the email scandal. She is already - to use a Star Wars reference - in very deep sith. David Petraeus and Sandy Berger were both prosecuted for much less than what she has done.
So the only question is whether the sith hits the fan. Every tranche of emails released has lots of redacted confidential information. It's getting worse every time.
Yes, but this has been news now for weeks and she still leads the GOP top tier, on average, by a narrow margin or is tied. As I said unless she actually is jailed I would not rule out her getting the nomination or winning, for the average voter how she organised her emails is not Watergate (where Nixon authorised a burglary) unless she is deliberately seen to have endangered US lives as S of S. If that occurs then Biden will almost certainly replace her as nominee, and he could still win even if her candidacy is destroyed
HYUFD, I won't engage you on this as you just don't get it.
What don't I get? Unless Hillary is jailed she can still run for office and it is up to voters to decide her fate
Perhaps it's time for people to start hedging their Hillary positions with bets that she won't even make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Unless Hillary is literally put in handcuffs and carted off to jail she will stay in the race (even Berger did not do jail time) and unless Biden develops his recent Quinnipiac lead over Jeb Bush to a consistently larger lead over the GOP top tier than Hillary I would not rule out her getting the nomination either
How close to jail (prison - I think in the states they're different) does she need to be before someone thinks "hang on a second, if I could beat Hillary, I could be President"?
The one thing that can Hillary's campaign stone dead is if DOJ moves on the email scandal. She is already - to use a Star Wars reference - in very deep sith. David Petraeus and Sandy Berger were both prosecuted for much less than what she has done.
So the only question is whether the sith hits the fan. Every tranche of emails released has lots of redacted confidential information. It's getting worse every time.
Yes, but this has been news now for weeks and she still leads the GOP top tier, on average, by a narrow margin or is tied. As I said unless she actually is jailed I would not rule out her getting the nomination or winning, for the average voter how she organised her emails is not Watergate (where Nixon authorised a burglary) unless she is deliberately seen to have endangered US lives as S of S. If that occurs then Biden will almost certainly replace her as nominee, and he could still win even if her candidacy is destroyed
The email scandal is not a poll thing. It will only matter if she is indicted, in which case she is gone, regardless of polls. Until then it doesn't matter, and is just simmering away in the background.
It has been in the news for weeks, and will be for many more. State is under court order to release her emails on a regular schedule. Every time the heavily redacted ones lead the news. It's going to continue probably the rest of the year. It's already affecting her numbers.
If you are concerned by Hillary's emails you will already be voting for her opponent in either the Democratic primaries or the general election, unless the emails clearly show she endangered American lives I don't see them making any significant further difference
Perhaps it's time for people to start hedging their Hillary positions with bets that she won't even make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
Unless Hillary is literally put in handcuffs and carted off to jail she will stay in the race (even Berger did not do jail time) and unless Biden develops his recent Quinnipiac lead over Jeb Bush to a consistently larger lead over the GOP top tier than Hillary I would not rule out her getting the nomination either
How close to jail (prison - I think in the states they're different) does she need to be before someone thinks "hang on a second, if I could beat Hillary, I could be President"?
The one thing that can Hillary's campaign stone dead is if DOJ moves on the email scandal. She is already - to use a Star Wars reference - in very deep sith. David Petraeus and Sandy Berger were both prosecuted for much less than what she has done.
So the only question is whether the sith hits the fan. Every tranche of emails released has lots of redacted confidential information. It's getting worse every time.
Yes, but this has been news now for weeks and she still leads the GOP top tier, on average, by a narrow margin or is tied. As I said unless she actually is jailed I would not rule out her getting the nomination or winning, for the average voter how she organised her emails is not Watergate (where Nixon authorised a burglary) unless she is deliberately seen to have endangered US lives as S of S. If that occurs then Biden will almost certainly replace her as nominee, and he could still win even if her candidacy is destroyed
The email scandal is not a poll thing. It will only matter if she is indicted, in which case she is gone, regardless of polls. Until then it doesn't matter, and is just simmering away in the background.
It has been in the news for weeks, and will be for many more. State is under court order to release her emails on a regular schedule. Every time the heavily redacted ones lead the news. It's going to continue probably the rest of the year. It's already affecting her numbers.
If you are concerned by Hillary's emails you will already be voting for her opponent in either the Democratic primaries or the general election, unless the emails clearly show she endangered American lives I don't see them making any significant further difference
For Pete's sake. The email scandal is not a political issue - it is a LEGAL issue.
There is no way she could run for office under indictment. None.
Perhaps it's time for people to start hedging their Hillary positions with bets that she won't even make it to Iowa and New Hampshire.
How close to jail (prison - I think in the states they're different) does she need to be before someone thinks "hang on a second, if I could beat Hillary, I could be President"?
The one thing that can Hillary's campaign stone dead is if DOJ moves on the email scandal. She is already - to use a Star Wars reference - in very deep sith. David Petraeus and Sandy Berger were both prosecuted for much less than what she has done.
So the only question is whether the sith hits the fan. Every tranche of emails released has lots of redacted confidential information. It's getting worse every time.
Yes, but this has been news now for weeks and she still leads the GOP top tier, on average, by a narrow margin or is tied. As I said unless she actually is jailed I would not rule out her getting the nomination or winning, for the average voter how she organised her emails is not Watergate (where Nixon authorised a burglary) unless she is deliberately seen to have endangered US lives as S of S. If that occurs then Biden will almost certainly replace her as nominee, and he could still win even if her candidacy is destroyed
The email scandal is not a poll thing. It will only matter if she is indicted, in which case she is gone, regardless of polls. Until then it doesn't matter, and is just simmering away in the background.
It has been in the news for weeks, and will be for many more. State is under court order to release her emails on a regular schedule. Every time the heavily redacted ones lead the news. It's going to continue probably the rest of the year. It's already affecting her numbers.
If you are concerned by Hillary's emails you will already be voting for her opponent in either the Democratic primaries or the general election, unless the emails clearly show she endangered American lives I don't see them making any significant further difference
For Pete's sake. The email scandal is not a political issue - it is a LEGAL issue.
There is no way she could run for office under indictment. None.
You clearly don't get it.
So let's leave it there
Actually, under USC 2381 only those convicted of treason or bribing public officials are ineligible to run for president or Federal Office, so unless Hillary is found guilty of one of those offences she will still be able to run
In a letter sent this afternoon, Monitor chief executive David Bennett has restated that the current financial forecasts for 2015-16 are “simply unaffordable”, and asked each foundation trust to revisit their plans.
David Bennett David Bennett has asked all providers ‘to look at what more can be done’ to reduce the sector’s deficit The letter, seen by HSJ, tells trusts to “ensure vacancies are filled only where essential”, and ensure that existing safe staffing guidance has been adopted in a “proportionate and appropriate way”.
It also advises that financial impact should be considered while managing waiting lists, as well as patient experience.
Foundation trusts with large deficits have been given specific new end of year outturn figures which Monitor believes they can achieve if they make the cost cuts outlined.
Clinical commissioning groups will also be ordered by NHS England to take a number of steps to ease the pressure on providers, the letter says.
These include a suspension of all fines and penalties relating to referral to treatment times, backdated to the start of the current financial year, and transparency over any uncommitted reserves.
A similar letter has been sent to non-FTs by the NHS Trust Development Authority, HSJ has been told.
As previously reported, the provider sector has forecast a total deficit of more than £2bn for 2015-16.
The letter also asks FTs to take the following steps:
implement fully the Agenda for Change 2013 agreement on pay progression; where there is insufficient capacity and where possible, to transfer activity to another provider that has already funded but underused capacity; ensure that contracts with commissioners provide for adequate levels of activity, and are agreed as soon as possible. Mr Bennett writes: “As you know, the NHS is facing an almost unprecedented financial challenge this year. Current plans are quite simply unaffordable.
“As I have said before, if we are to do the best we can for patients we must leave no stone unturned in our collective efforts to make the money we have go as far as possible.
“We are already reviewing and challenging the plans of the 46 foundation trusts with the biggest deficits.
“However, it is clear that this process will not close the funding gap and so we need all providers - even those planning for a surplus this year - to look again at their plans to see what more can be done.”
The letter also said: “Ministers have been sighted on these options and are ready to support all providers to reduce their deficits in a managed way
Fear not, Captain Jobsworth has written a letter. Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 5:37 Pm
Curious about the animosity towards Monitor's CEO writing a letter.
Feels appropriate, what with the circa £1bn (yes ONE BILLION) FT deficit in current plans, that their regulator might write to them asking for further action. Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 5:52 Pm
I believe it stems from the widespread frustration that Monitor have little to offer than letters requesting that people try hard.
A reasonable first step yes, but usefulness is limited if that is the only step on offer. Unsuitable or offensive? EMPH_ASIS | 3-Aug-2015 5:52 Pm
Interesting message on fines though - it would take a pressure off, but does not create cash in the NHS system. Rather it reinforces that waiting times do not truly matter when the chips are down. Other interesting one is moving work to places where already funded capacity not being used. So there are still block contracts not delivering what they have been paid for. What happened to PbR then? Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:02 Pm
Would be nice to get the letter it's not got to FTs yet. No problem we have got used to Monitor communicating via the HSJ. We did get an email from Helen Buckingham advising we would be getting a letter from DB later today though. It's great to be regulated by such a slimline responsive organisation. How many people does it take to email a letter? Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:09 Pm
I thought the operating framework mandated fining? Is this another flip flop policy? NHS England don't have the power to order CCGs to do something like this, although would love to see FTs being transparent as it might help CCGs provide better support. Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:12 Pm
Given NHSE can find money without impacting on CCG - surely there is a question about how much they have been holding back Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:13 Pm
How do you implement safe staffing guidance in a proportionate and appropriate way? Don't you either implement it, or not implement it? Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:13 Pm
Is this a letter of admission of failure? Don't Monitor set prices and rules with input from nhs England? Only 4 months in to the year and they are changing them. A clear indication of how out of touch the national leadership are. The 'we know best' approach prevails and is an abject failure.
I would be very surprised if FT boards are not aware of the financial situation and it seems unlikely that this letter will change behaviour.
Further evidence that Monitor is the Kremlin which micromanages FTs and that NEDs are fig leaves to cover naked centralism. Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:16 Pm
What are NHS Englands specialist commissioners going to do then? They seem most aggressive in wanting to apply fines etc. do as I say, not as I do... Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:26 Pm
If Monitor had done its job properly as a regulator in setting the tariff there would have been more realism and truth, instead of which they did their sums badly, ignoring key facts, and then put their heads firmly in the sand. You reap what you sow Mr Bennett. Monitor has lost all credibility as a regulator. Unsuitable or offensive? George Rook George Rook | 3-Aug-2015 6:52 Pm
So goodbye 18 week waiting, goodbye improving patient experience, about turn..."let 'em wait"
Oh and goodbye fines for trusts that don't manage booking and scheduling efficiently?
Not a great time to be a patient in the coming years?
But, as above, will or can Trusts take any notice? If they can't meet CIPs how can they do anything else? Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:56 Pm
I've had a light bulb moment. Why don't we give the NHS the money it needs to provide services in a safe and timely way to patients? That would solve these problems, surely ......... Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 7:03 Pm
Too little too late from a regulator that (a) promotes the NHS pricing system catastrophe and (b) bullies FTs to produce plans that are undeliverable. Monitor itself presided over a 12% increase in its own spending last year. Like to see DB swallow the tariff deflator! Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 7:07 Pm
6:26 right on the money.
This is petulant foot-stamping when the Monitor's magical thinking army of McKinsey's finest have been utterly humiliated by a nasty dose of reality
Thank you, Young Mr Grace. Nice to see how in touch you are with the frontline. We had no idea there was a financial problem. We now have all the answers. Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 8:15 Pm
The situation is very clear. Trusts can hit two out of three of waiting times, safety and financial balance targets. In less well funded areas such as the East od England and Oxfordshire they may only be able to hit one. Most Trusts have gone for safety and operational performance (ie putting patients first). If they are given a directive that they need to hit financial balance and safety targets that is achievable but at the cost of ever increasing waiting times. Unless there is a huge move to private insurance/self pay funding there is no other end in sight Unsuitable or offensive? Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 8:15 Pm
Sadiq Khan, the London mayoral hopeful, is of the soft left, as are shadow cabinet members Hilary Benn and Lucy Powell. Ms Cooper and Mr Burnham themselves increasingly match the description.
On May 8, these people had a lot to answer for. Three months on, they count as moderates. By standing still as their party spasms leftward, they have attained a spurious credibility. Labour’s proximate problem is Mr Corbyn but its ultimate problem is the soft left. When he burns out, these crack election-losers will still be there, looking plausible and being diligently wrong about things.
The "soft left" London Mayoral hopeful who wants South African style Affirmative Action for BAMEs in a city that has never had anti BAME legislation and where white Brits are now in the minority
Any candidate campaigning for people of his skin colour to receive preferential treatment to people of another skin colour is doomed to hand the election to the other party.
He's a "citizen of the United States" by virtue of statute 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g), being born abroad of a foreign father and American citizen mother.
The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) explained:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." (my bold)
We know that Cruz is not what the Framers intended an NBC to be since
i) the draft Constitution(s) rejected "citizen" (save for those who had participated in the Revolution), then rejected Hamilton's "born a citizen" before settling on "natural born citizen" as the requirement to be eligible for the Presidency, after John Jay wrote to George Washington advising that a "strong check against the admission of foreigners" (to the position Commander-in-Chief) was wise and desirable. A "natural born citizen" is one who is born a citizen by the operation of Nature (i.e. natural law) and needs no statute (man-made law) to make him or her so. Cruz needs a statute.
ii) The first Naturalization Acts from 1790 (legislated by many of the same Framers) specifically naturalized the children of American fathers born abroad. Between 1802 and 1855 the law changed so that such people were not even "citizens". Congress ignored completely the position of children of American mothers (such as Cruz) for over a century, before belatedly including them in later Naturalization Acts.
Cruz is a foreigner at birth, naturalized at birth as a mere citizen by virtue of a statute... Without that statute he would now be an alien living in the USA. In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) both majority and dissent said the same as Wong Kim Ark (1898) which was that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents become citizens of the United States only via Congress who made them citizens through a naturalization Act, without which those children would be aliens. It simply defies logic and reason and renders the natural born citizen clause a nullity to conclude that a person who would not be a citizen at all without a naturalization act of Congress is a natural born citizen. Including such a person as a natural born citizen effectively reads the natural born citizen clause out of the Constitution, but does so without constitutional amendment.
Actually, under USC 2381 only those convicted of treason or bribing public officials are ineligible to run for president or Federal Office, so unless Hillary is found guilty of one of those offences she will still be able to run
Wrong.
"What are the qualifications for President of the United States? (U.S. Const. Art. II § 1) An individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States, 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for 14 years. Active felons who have not had their citizenship rights fully restored (full completion of any felony sentence, including probation, restitution, etc.) are not eligible to be registered to vote or to run for elected office ..."
Both Petraeus and Berger got 2 years probation for 8 and 5 documents respectively. We are talking hundreds of documents in the case of Hillary. If found to be in breach of these regulations, it is inconceivable that she would receive shorter probation than either of these two gents, and so she will not have completed her sentence and had her citizenship rights restored.
the active felon bit is not in the Constitution. It appears to be (various) state law.
Yes. Good luck getting to the Presidency while being ineligible to run in a number of key states. Good luck persuading your party it's a good idea to try.
Correction, looking into it further, States may not add to the requirements for elections to federal office, so HYUFD is indeed correct that Hillary could run as a felon. But again, good luck with that. I would hazard a guess that she'd lose most independent and a fair few Democrat votes.
the active felon bit is not in the Constitution. It appears to be (various) state law.
Yes. Good luck getting to the Presidency while being ineligible to run in a number of key states. Good luck persuading your party it's a good idea to try.
Opinions are divided as to whether such laws conflict with the 8th, 14th, 15th and 24th Amendments of the Constitution...
Comments
Or seen the poker machines in Australian sports clubs?
I am very pleased that some women are blind when it comes to men. I should never have managed to marry my wife otherwise.
Anyway, with regard to Mrs. Kelly looking at the link Mr. Root helpfully provided I see that it was she, when SoS for transport, who first put forward the third runway at Heathrow and that was on 2007. After eight years the project has progressed so far as to being discussed in government circles pending a decision. Eight years from a minister saying we think this is a jolly good idea to the point where a minister won't say whether the government thinks it's a good idea or not. Amazing, surely the most extreme example of cross-party pusillanimity in history.
I just thought he was the better Miliband (and leader) for Labour.
EDIT: And David M is arguably far nicer looking than Ruth Kelly....
So there's a NH debate tonight, "all" 14 people, what time GMT?
Then one in Cleveland for Fox? And another Fox one?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BGWiYNiCMAE7BXA.jpg
Only to Iain Dale. He compared her to a chipmunk.
Chipmunks can be charismatic
There are 2 debates on Thursday. The early one (5 edt I think) is for the not top ten. The big one is at 9 edt.
So the only question is whether the sith hits the fan. Every tranche of emails released has lots of redacted confidential information. It's getting worse every time.
It has been in the news for weeks, and will be for many more. State is under court order to release her emails on a regular schedule. Every time the heavily redacted ones lead the news. It's going to continue probably the rest of the year. It's already affecting her numbers.
There is no way she could run for office under indictment. None.
You clearly don't get it.
So let's leave it there
http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/breaking-providers-ordered-to-take-tough-new-measures-to-cut-deficits/5089390.article?blocktitle=Latest-news&contentID=8803#.Vb_wi_lViko
David Bennett
David Bennett has asked all providers ‘to look at what more can be done’ to reduce the sector’s deficit
The letter, seen by HSJ, tells trusts to “ensure vacancies are filled only where essential”, and ensure that existing safe staffing guidance has been adopted in a “proportionate and appropriate way”.
It also advises that financial impact should be considered while managing waiting lists, as well as patient experience.
Foundation trusts with large deficits have been given specific new end of year outturn figures which Monitor believes they can achieve if they make the cost cuts outlined.
Clinical commissioning groups will also be ordered by NHS England to take a number of steps to ease the pressure on providers, the letter says.
These include a suspension of all fines and penalties relating to referral to treatment times, backdated to the start of the current financial year, and transparency over any uncommitted reserves.
A similar letter has been sent to non-FTs by the NHS Trust Development Authority, HSJ has been told.
As previously reported, the provider sector has forecast a total deficit of more than £2bn for 2015-16.
implement fully the Agenda for Change 2013 agreement on pay progression;
where there is insufficient capacity and where possible, to transfer activity to another provider that has already funded but underused capacity;
ensure that contracts with commissioners provide for adequate levels of activity, and are agreed as soon as possible.
Mr Bennett writes: “As you know, the NHS is facing an almost unprecedented financial challenge this year. Current plans are quite simply unaffordable.
“As I have said before, if we are to do the best we can for patients we must leave no stone unturned in our collective efforts to make the money we have go as far as possible.
“We are already reviewing and challenging the plans of the 46 foundation trusts with the biggest deficits.
“However, it is clear that this process will not close the funding gap and so we need all providers - even those planning for a surplus this year - to look again at their plans to see what more can be done.”
The letter also said: “Ministers have been sighted on these options and are ready to support all providers to reduce their deficits in a managed way
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 5:37 Pm
Curious about the animosity towards Monitor's CEO writing a letter.
Feels appropriate, what with the circa £1bn (yes ONE BILLION) FT deficit in current plans, that their regulator might write to them asking for further action.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 5:52 Pm
I believe it stems from the widespread frustration that Monitor have little to offer than letters requesting that people try hard.
A reasonable first step yes, but usefulness is limited if that is the only step on offer.
Unsuitable or offensive?
EMPH_ASIS | 3-Aug-2015 5:52 Pm
Interesting message on fines though - it would take a pressure off, but does not create cash in the NHS system.
Rather it reinforces that waiting times do not truly matter when the chips are down.
Other interesting one is moving work to places where already funded capacity not being used. So there are still block contracts not delivering what they have been paid for. What happened to PbR then?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:02 Pm
Would be nice to get the letter it's not got to FTs yet. No problem we have got used to Monitor communicating via the HSJ.
We did get an email from Helen Buckingham advising we would be getting a letter from DB later today though. It's great to be regulated by such a slimline responsive organisation. How many people does it take to email a letter?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:09 Pm
I thought the operating framework mandated fining? Is this another flip flop policy? NHS England don't have the power to order CCGs to do something like this, although would love to see FTs being transparent as it might help CCGs provide better support.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:12 Pm
Given NHSE can find money without impacting on CCG - surely there is a question about how much they have been holding back
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:13 Pm
How do you implement safe staffing guidance in a proportionate and appropriate way? Don't you either implement it, or not implement it?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:13 Pm
Is this a letter of admission of failure? Don't Monitor set prices and rules with input from nhs England? Only 4 months in to the year and they are changing them. A clear indication of how out of touch the national leadership are. The 'we know best' approach prevails and is an abject failure.
Further evidence that Monitor is the Kremlin which micromanages FTs and that NEDs are fig leaves to cover naked centralism.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:16 Pm
What are NHS Englands specialist commissioners going to do then? They seem most aggressive in wanting to apply fines etc. do as I say, not as I do...
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:26 Pm
If Monitor had done its job properly as a regulator in setting the tariff there would have been more realism and truth, instead of which they did their sums badly, ignoring key facts, and then put their heads firmly in the sand. You reap what you sow Mr Bennett. Monitor has lost all credibility as a regulator.
Unsuitable or offensive?
George Rook
George Rook | 3-Aug-2015 6:52 Pm
So goodbye 18 week waiting, goodbye improving patient experience, about turn..."let 'em wait"
Oh and goodbye fines for trusts that don't manage booking and scheduling efficiently?
Not a great time to be a patient in the coming years?
But, as above, will or can Trusts take any notice? If they can't meet CIPs how can they do anything else?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 6:56 Pm
I've had a light bulb moment. Why don't we give the NHS the money it needs to provide services in a safe and timely way to patients? That would solve these problems, surely .........
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 7:03 Pm
Too little too late from a regulator that (a) promotes the NHS pricing system catastrophe and (b) bullies FTs to produce plans that are undeliverable. Monitor itself presided over a 12% increase in its own spending last year. Like to see DB swallow the tariff deflator!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 7:07 Pm
6:26 right on the money.
This is petulant foot-stamping when the Monitor's magical thinking army of McKinsey's finest have been utterly humiliated by a nasty dose of reality
Thank you, Young Mr Grace. Nice to see how in touch you are with the frontline. We had no idea there was a financial problem. We now have all the answers.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 8:15 Pm
The situation is very clear. Trusts can hit two out of three of waiting times, safety and financial balance targets. In less well funded areas such as the East od England and Oxfordshire they may only be able to hit one. Most Trusts have gone for safety and operational performance (ie putting patients first). If they are given a directive that they need to hit financial balance and safety targets that is achievable but at the cost of ever increasing waiting times. Unless there is a huge move to private insurance/self pay funding there is no other end in sight
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 3-Aug-2015 8:15 Pm
Any candidate campaigning for people of his skin colour to receive preferential treatment to people of another skin colour is doomed to hand the election to the other party.
of course he's not an NBC.
He's a "citizen of the United States" by virtue of statute 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g), being born abroad of a foreign father and American citizen mother.
The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) explained:
“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." (my bold)
We know that Cruz is not what the Framers intended an NBC to be since
i) the draft Constitution(s) rejected "citizen" (save for those who had participated in the Revolution), then rejected Hamilton's "born a citizen" before settling on "natural born citizen" as the requirement to be eligible for the Presidency, after John Jay wrote to George Washington advising that a "strong check against the admission of foreigners" (to the position Commander-in-Chief) was wise and desirable. A "natural born citizen" is one who is born a citizen by the operation of Nature (i.e. natural law) and needs no statute (man-made law) to make him or her so. Cruz needs a statute.
ii) The first Naturalization Acts from 1790 (legislated by many of the same Framers) specifically naturalized the children of American fathers born abroad. Between 1802 and 1855 the law changed so that such people were not even "citizens". Congress ignored completely the position of children of American mothers (such as Cruz) for over a century, before belatedly including them in later Naturalization Acts.
Cruz is a foreigner at birth, naturalized at birth as a mere citizen by virtue of a statute... Without that statute he would now be an alien living in the USA.
In Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) both majority and dissent said the same as Wong Kim Ark (1898) which was that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents become citizens of the United States only via Congress who made them citizens through a naturalization Act, without which those children would be aliens. It simply defies logic and reason and renders the natural born citizen clause a nullity to conclude that a person who would not be a citizen at all without a naturalization act of Congress is a natural born citizen. Including such a person as a natural born citizen effectively reads the natural born citizen clause out of the Constitution, but does so without constitutional amendment.
"What are the qualifications for President of the United States? (U.S. Const. Art. II § 1)
An individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States, 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for 14 years. Active felons who have not had their citizenship rights fully restored (full completion of any felony sentence, including probation, restitution, etc.) are not eligible to be registered to vote or to run for elected office ..."
Both Petraeus and Berger got 2 years probation for 8 and 5 documents respectively. We are talking hundreds of documents in the case of Hillary. If found to be in breach of these regulations, it is inconceivable that she would receive shorter probation than either of these two gents, and so she will not have completed her sentence and had her citizenship rights restored.
the active felon bit is not in the Constitution. It appears to be (various) state law.
Labour & Tory voters think its bad.....