" The BBC is certainly doing its best, and is treating his spat with the Daily Mail as if it were a national emergency. The debate about press regulation is impossible to understand in Britain without considering the BBC’s interests. It loathes Sky, and was keen to stop Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to buy the broadcaster outright. Murdoch’s News Corporation had a $12 billion cash pile, and it fancied putting rocket boosters under Sky. Mark Thompson, then head of the BBC, signed a letter begging the government to stop Murdoch. The BBC broke its own rules and became an actor in the drama. Even worse, it never admitted the fact.
Like a medieval army that believes it has to keep conquering or face defeat, the state-funded BBC has started to occupy new terrain and is now a hegemon in providing the printed word. More people get their news from the 18-year-old BBC website than from any newspaper, unfair competition which is crushing not just local newspapers but national ones, too ... Mr Grayling’s Bill of Rights should incorporate a clause about freedom of speech and the press, ideally giving Britons the same protection as afforded to Americans by their First Amendment to the Constitution. It would help judges such as Lord Justice Leveson to understand the importance and definition of a free press.> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/10353230/Press-freedom-and-fairness-should-be-enshrined-in-a-British-Bill-of-Rights.html
Right winger drones on about the BBC - hardly noteworthy,
Unusually, I disagree with a David Herdson thread header.
The US is down to the tune of a staggering $16 trillion. ObamaCare will make that figure much worse. Surely the sensible response by a right of centre party is to stop the non-essential spending whilst keeping the military operational? Hell, that's basically what we should be doing *all* of the time.
Shutdowns are great in that rather like our so-called "cuts" here, nobody would notice they were happening if it wasn't for the media saying so. That coverage in itself neatly reminds the public that government spends like a drunken sailor. When you stop doing it then the public are oddly shocked to find that things carry along just as they did beforehand.
In the 1996 shutdown, Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, so it really was a showdown between Republicans in Congress and a Democrat in the White House. Today with the RINO contingent it is not even clear that real Republicans control the House. But they certainly don't control the Senate. Democrats in Washington are at least two-thirds to blame for this.
I saw that. Pathetic and embarrassing Obama politics. They also sent out a tweet from the Voyager account saying that the spacecraft would not be responding to alien contact during the shutdown. Last time there was a cash freeze the White House continued to fund lavish summits and host dinners but stopped tours for schoolchildren blaming funding cuts.
It's all about the publicity. That veterans block had a happy ending though, which isn't in the BBC report. A Republican congressman distracted the Park Police whilst the veterans got over the barriers and re-took their memorial.
Isn't there an election coming up in Virginia which might prove a useful indicator of how the public perceives this row?
'Josie Channer owes more than £2,000 in parking and late payment fees to the Borough of Barking and Dagenham, where she also sits as a councillor.Councillor Channer said she thought the charges had been dealt with previously. She also chairs the local authority committee which scrutinises parking.
Is this 'entitlement political culture at work?'
Above the law & parking charges just for plebs?
How long has she been running up unpaid parking fines, don't councils send out warning letters?
Intriguing article as usual from David, but it's fairly clear reading between the lines that there aren't enough kamikazi Republicans to really go over the brink, let alone go over the brink AND then start an impeachment. At this point it's more about finding a face-saving escape.
Tea party identification among US voters is down to 22%, so the risks for individual Representatives in not going over the top are starting to decline, though in a solid GOP seat the optimum in cynical terms is presumanly to let someone else surrender.
"Stephen Moss’s report from the opening day of the conference helps to put the row about the Daily Mail and Ralph Miliband into context. The paper and its Editor are being targeted by the Left, as another round of Leveson looms, for sacking and censorship: a headline about hate has put it in the dock, charged with being an organ of hate. But where is the hate from the right – which, after all, has been roughly the same size electorally as the right since the war and before, if one tots up the totals at each general election? Where are the demonstrators wearing “Kill Labour scum” T-shirts outside that party’s conferences each year?" http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/10/the-hate-of-the-left.html
No, it's an absurd argument to claim that there these two cohesive organisations called "Left" and "Right". Saying that Labour is responsible for far-left protests demonstrations is like saying that the Tories are responsible for the EDL.
It's not like it at all. There is a very identifiable LeftThink. When did David Cameron stand next to a bloke wearing a T-Shirt inviting us to dance on the grave of Tony Blair? Yet those on the Left are cohesive and tribal in their hatred.
Good morning. Can a good PB'er, in the know, publish the full list of last nights by-election results. I beleive we only got two out of the 4 on offer.
"...a group which includes international investors."
The last time the debt limit was reached, several articles made the point that US government bonds take priority in spending allocations. It's actually written into their constitution.
"Labour tried to block the publication of a devastating report into appalling hospital neglect before the last election.
Ministers told the Care Quality Commission not to release its verdict on Basildon and Thurrock hospital in Essex, where patients were dying from poor care.
But hours before the CQC was due to publish the report in November 2009, the Department of Health told the watchdog to stop.
Newly-released emails show that the then Health Secretary Andy Burnham was furious when the report was later made public amid massive media coverage."
Good morning. Can a good PB'er, in the know, publish the full list of last nights by-election results. I beleive we only got two out of the 4 on offer.
Intriguing article as usual from David, but it's fairly clear reading between the lines that there aren't enough kamikazi Republicans to really go over the brink, let alone go over the brink AND then start an impeachment. At this point it's more about finding a face-saving escape.
This is why I think the pattern we need to be looking at is _not_ going over the brink, and then channelling the anger into an impeachment process instead. It would be in everyone's interests to give them something harmless like that to do to keep them out of trouble.
Not that one really. Cuccinelli is carrying the baggage of his boss being accused of corruption and McAuliffe is being investigated by the SEC for possible fraud. So it's a bad measurement of anything apart from who is least disliked.
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
"First, the choice of PM. In my latest survey Cameron trounced Miliband when it came to representing the UK, leading a team, and knowing what he wanted to achieve. Most thought Cameron would perform better overall, and one in five Labour voters said that even though they weren’t satisfied with him they would rather see him in the job than Ed Miliband.
Second, the economy. Things are starting to pick up, and my poll found voters now more likely to be optimistic than pessimistic. They trusted Cameron and Osborne to run things more than Miliband and Balls by a huge margin.
Third, Miliband is doing surprisingly little to address the worries people have about his party. Most voters, including two fifths of those who would vote Labour, fear the party would spend and borrow more than the country can afford, and has not learned the right lessons from its time in government.
"First, the choice of PM. In my latest survey Cameron trounced Miliband when it came to representing the UK, leading a team, and knowing what he wanted to achieve. Most thought Cameron would perform better overall, and one in five Labour voters said that even though they weren’t satisfied with him they would rather see him in the job than Ed Miliband.
Second, the economy. Things are starting to pick up, and my poll found voters now more likely to be optimistic than pessimistic. They trusted Cameron and Osborne to run things more than Miliband and Balls by a huge margin.
Third, Miliband is doing surprisingly little to address the worries people have about his party. Most voters, including two fifths of those who would vote Labour, fear the party would spend and borrow more than the country can afford, and has not learned the right lessons from its time in government.
I thought we were going to be spared these pages and pages of other peoples articles?
One thing's for dead sure - tim will still be talking about Mailibandsmeargate on Monday!
We had a brief glorious respite, a tim-free Indian summer, for a fleeting moment of PB zenlike calm around about the 10,000 post mark. Back to service as normal I'm afraid. :-(
Oh I dunno - we've seen progress - tim is now out and proud 100% pro Miliband - all of them. From the one that sunk the Graf Spree to the one that runs Thunderbirds right down to the one that - er wants to clamp down on a free press and nationalise the national grid.
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
That's the fundamental flaw with the modern "professionalisation" of politics: clever Enarques and PPEists and Kennedy Scholars all think that a short term tactical win is great and all that matters. And that's fine. Until you reach the point where no compromise can be implemented because you have a reputation for not delivering. I wonder whether we can see the same trend developing in the UK (think HoL reform, boundary reform, Syria). I hope not - but perhaps where the US goes we follow.
In Britain it's more a question of coalition politics - you can do almost anything with a majority and very little without one. Every one of the examples you quote except possibly Syria is about that.
TV 30 Years Ago @tv30yearsago ITV 6.35 Crossroads 7.00 Emmerdale Farm 7.30 Give Us A Clue 8.00 Entertainment Express 9.00 First Tuesday 10.00 News At Ten 10.30 Snooker
It would be in everyone's interests to give them something harmless like that to do to keep them out of trouble.
So, do something to actively sidestep the fact that your country is $16 trillion in the hole and ---> oh look, a squirrel.
Lefty thinking is amazing.
If the aim is practical deficit reduction steps then their full, undivided attention isn't particularly helpful, not least because they won't countenance raising any taxes.
They also turn out not to be keen on many specific spending cuts, as opposed to the abstract principle of spending cuts. The only things they're actually prepared to save money on are things like food stamps, which are hard to get past the Democratic Senate and president because of their ideological bias toward people being able to buy food.
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
Not necessarily insane because of the way rivers run across national boundaries, but for all I know they may have a point.
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
"Internal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards."
Incidently, some of you will recall I passed comment on a hospital stay I had back before the last election. At the time I was told by several people NOT to go to Basildon hospital as it had a reputation locally for not being the cleanest. considering what I saw in Chelmsford you have to wonder just how bad Basildon must have been.
It would be in everyone's interests to give them something harmless like that to do to keep them out of trouble.
So, do something to actively sidestep the fact that your country is $16 trillion in the hole and ---> oh look, a squirrel.
Lefty thinking is amazing.
The only things they're actually prepared to save money on are things like food stamps, which are hard to get past the Democratic Senate and president because of their ideological bias toward people being able to buy food.
Careful, EiT, you'll only provide ammunition on the dangerous Lefty groupthink point if you start referring to this collective obsession with preventing people from dying due to lack of food, shelter or healthcare.
I think you are missing a bit of the story. The Tea party is supported by the Koch brothers who can easily win you the republican nomination you want based on their cash and it is that cash that has ensured the Republican moves further and further to the right.
The current battle is down to a desire by certain Republicans to do their masters bidding and stop Obamacare by whatever means possible. While the general Republican leadership want a solution I think they are finding it very difficult to identify how to solve the problem with making an enemy of their financial backers.
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
The agreements regarding flood defences, damming and controlling the European river networks actually date back from well before the EU. I think the first controls covering the Rhine go back to the 19th Century
Just reading the story about the Kingswood PPC standing down. Something seems fishy, like the parking charges issue is just a smokescreen. Does anyone know if there has been a falling out or something similar?
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
Your dad did it to one of mine he didn't like :^ )
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
Your dad did it to one of mine he didn't like :^ )
I think Christmas might be a somewhat strained affair if I start automatically reformatting my dad's posts...
On-topic: thanks for the interesting article, Mr. Herdson. I was wondering what would happen if this crisis dragged on and the debt ceiling became a serious issue.
How would such an impeachment go, though? Would both not paying debts and unilaterally increasing the ceiling be illegal, and would that guarantee Obama's defeat or provide a cast-iron defence?
Absurdly, yes, without an increase in the Debt Ceiling, it's quite possible that making the debt repayment would be illegal and not making the debt repayment would be illegal!
Arguably, that's Obama's get-out clause. It's plainly unreasonable to say 'give us the moon on a stick and here's tuppence to do it with'. If Congress passes two contradictory pieces of legislation, then those who administer them have no choice but to prioritise. After all, the president's oath is to carry out the duties of his office "to the best of his ability".
However, none of that is necessarily going to stop an impeachment if the row does go on into the second half of the month. The power to initiate impeachment procedings lies solely with the House and chances are there'd be some mightily disgruntled Representatives looking for any outlet for their ire: a president who'd simply walked through what they'd believe were legally binding restrictions would provide an irresistable target.
How would it progress? That depends on how much momentum the vanguard could muster behind their campaign. I don't know enough about the composition of the members of the House Judiciary Committee to give a detailed answer but it's clear that Boehner is being pushed and pulled in all directions and other senior Republicans could too. Even if the House does vote to impeach, I don't think there's the remotest chance of the Senate convicting both because of the Democrat majority and what would be the plainly political nature of the charges.
FWIW, I think the odds on this going to and past the point of Obama having to make a call on whether to default or how to avoid it are about 6/1 and the chances of him being impeached are about 10/1 (i.e. if it goes to default - which it probably won't - it's about 4/7 he'd be impeached).
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
The agreements regarding flood defences, damming and controlling the European river networks actually date back from well before the EU. I think the first controls covering the Rhine go back to the 19th Century
Thanks Robert, that's a good extension of my point. Countries have (tried to) control flooding long before the EU turned up, and have also traditionally been able to pick up the telephone (email / letter / parchment / flaming watchtower - delete as appropriate) to the country next door quite easily without needing a layer of politicians above both.
"Internal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards."
Incidently, some of you will recall I passed comment on a hospital stay I had back before the last election. At the time I was told by several people NOT to go to Basildon hospital as it had a reputation locally for not being the cleanest. considering what I saw in Chelmsford you have to wonder just how bad Basildon must have been.
Unless a Miliband relative or a luvvie mate was involved Ed couldn't give a toss.
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
Your dad did it to one of mine he didn't like :^ )
I think Christmas might be a somewhat strained affair if I start automatically reformatting my dad's posts...
Are you open to applying automatic reformatting to selected posters in exchange for donations towards the cost of Vanilla?
It’s hardly a surprise that Ed Miliband has called for another inquiry following the row about the Daily Mail’s treatment of his father. The Labour leader is always calling for one inquiry or another. But normally these inquiries are led by someone outside the organisation that Miliband is taking issue with: his latest call is in fact for Lord Rothermere to investigate the culture and practices of his own newspapers.
Now, there is nothing wrong with the Labour leader wanting to defend his father: that is quite natural and few would disagree with such an instinctive reaction. And there is nothing wrong with him objecting to a reporter turning up at a family memorial service. But Ed Miliband, a politician, is trying to set the standards of ‘decency’ in the press by calling for an investigation. Before the allegations about the Mail on Sunday reporter, the Labour leader had already set up a petition calling for decency in British politics, although it wasn’t clear who he was petitioning. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/miliband-vs-mail-reveals-labour-leaders-belief-about-the-role-of-politicians/
On-topic: thanks for the interesting article, Mr. Herdson. I was wondering what would happen if this crisis dragged on and the debt ceiling became a serious issue.
How would such an impeachment go, though? Would both not paying debts and unilaterally increasing the ceiling be illegal, and would that guarantee Obama's defeat or provide a cast-iron defence?
Absurdly, yes, without an increase in the Debt Ceiling, it's quite possible that making the debt repayment would be illegal and not making the debt repayment would be illegal!
Arguably, that's Obama's get-out clause. It's plainly unreasonable to say 'give us the moon on a stick and here's tuppence to do it with'. If Congress passes two contradictory pieces of legislation, then those who administer them have no choice but to prioritise. After all, the president's oath is to carry out the duties of his office "to the best of his ability".
Technically he's probably allowed to comply with all his obligations by minting a trillion dollar coin, so they could impeach him for failing to do that...
Labour's Josie Channer stands down over parking fines
A Labour parliamentary candidate has stood down after it emerged she owed more than £2,000 in parking fines and late payment fees. Josie Channer accrued the penalties in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, where she is a councillor on a committee overseeing parking issues.
In a statement she expressed "regret" that she could not "devote the time and resources necessary" to the campaign. "It has been fantastic getting to know the residents of Kingswood and the local party members.
If she is still a Barking councillor why isn't she stepping down as well? Must be another case of elective amnesia.
Intriguing article as usual from David, but it's fairly clear reading between the lines that there aren't enough kamikazi Republicans to really go over the brink, let alone go over the brink AND then start an impeachment. At this point it's more about finding a face-saving escape.
Tea party identification among US voters is down to 22%, so the risks for individual Representatives in not going over the top are starting to decline, though in a solid GOP seat the optimum in cynical terms is presumanly to let someone else surrender.
22% is quite a lot when you look at the turn-out in congressional primaries and remember how TPers are disproportionately motivated.
By themselves, I agree that the hard-core last-ditch vanguard don't have the numbers. The question is whether they can make up in noise, activity and momentum (and hence shift the votes of wavering Republican congressment) what they lack in raw voting power.
On the first point, *is* there a face-saving escape? This I think is the major strategic mistake the Republicans have made: they've driven themselves and the country into a crisis from which there's no easy compromise and where one side is likely to end up with close to nothing. At what point do they cut their losses? Often the temptation of bad analysts (and bad gamblers) is to double-or-quit when the odds are against them.
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
That would be dangerous. These people would come after you:
"Internal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards."
Incidently, some of you will recall I passed comment on a hospital stay I had back before the last election. At the time I was told by several people NOT to go to Basildon hospital as it had a reputation locally for not being the cleanest. considering what I saw in Chelmsford you have to wonder just how bad Basildon must have been.
Unless a Miliband relative or a luvvie mate was involved Ed couldn't give a toss.
I guess Andy Burnham will soon have much more spare time.
'The CQC prepared a press release to brief newspapers about care failings at the hospital, but was contacted by the Department of Health and told not to publish the information. The email states: "DH emailed the press team just after 1pm and asked us to stop the press release." By that stage, however, the regulator had already briefed three newspapers about the problems at the hospital. When a report on the "graphic detail" of the appalling standards at the hospital was broadcast, Mr Burnham was said to be "furious".
Arguably, that's Obama's get-out clause. It's plainly unreasonable to say 'give us the moon on a stick and here's tuppence to do it with'. If Congress passes two contradictory pieces of legislation, then those who administer them have no choice but to prioritise. After all, the president's oath is to carry out the duties of his office "to the best of his ability".
But that's not how spending works in the US Constitution. Article I, section 7, clause 1: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” It’s followed by Section 7 Clause 9: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”
Congress was given the "power of the purse" as it is commonly known, and at the Constitutional Convention it was decided that the House of Representatives should hold more of that power than the Senate because the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”
Aside from this balancing of fiscal power somewhat in favour of the House over the Senate, another goal was to make sure the executive did not spend money without congressional authorisation. The framers of the Constitution had had experience with kings spending money without being directly answerable to the people, and they didn’t like it.
"Federal impeachment proceedings have been brought against six officials in the last thirty years: four were carried, one dropped after the judge in question resigned and the case against the other – President Clinton – dismissed. "
I thought it might make the point that it makes the site unreadable. Apart from which I can't understand the purpose of just being a conduit for other peoples articles which everyone can access themselves via a link and unedited. Surely better to just stay in bed?
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
Your dad did it to one of mine he didn't like :^ )
I think Christmas might be a somewhat strained affair if I start automatically reformatting my dad's posts...
Are you open to applying automatic reformatting to selected posters in exchange for donations towards the cost of Vanilla?
Congratulations, you guys just solved the problem of monetizing free content on the internet. Two bitcoin addresses per commenter, one to make their posts bigger and more important-looking and another to make them smaller and sillier. Implemented on any site with comments by adding a single link to an external CSS file.
I thought it might make the point that it makes the site unreadable. Apart from which I can't understand the purpose of just being a conduit for other peoples articles which everyone can access themselves via a link and unedited. Surely better to just stay in bed?
Good idea Roger, just stay in bed. It would make the site more readable.
"Federal impeachment proceedings have been brought against six officials in the last thirty years: four were carried, one dropped after the judge in question resigned and the case against the other – President Clinton – dismissed. "
What was the impact for the 4 that were carried ?
Wiki and others tell us that the House has initiated impeachment proceedings 64 times since 1789 with 19 resulting in the House passing Articles of Impeachment
Two presidents: Andrew Johnson, Democrat/National Union, was impeached and acquitted by one vote in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act, and Bill Clinton, Democrat, was acquitted in 1998 In 1876, cabinet officer William W. Belknap (former Secretary of War), resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction. One Senator, William Blount, in 1797. He was expelled by the Senate, which then declined to try the impeachment. One Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted by the Senate. Fourteen other federal judges. Seven of these have been convicted by the Senate and removed, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency and later won election to the House of Representatives from Florida as there isn't an automatic bar from public office.
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
Your dad did it to one of mine he didn't like :^ )
I think Christmas might be a somewhat strained affair if I start automatically reformatting my dad's posts...
Are you open to applying automatic reformatting to selected posters in exchange for donations towards the cost of Vanilla?
Congratulations, you guys just solved the problem of monetizing free content on the internet. Two bitcoin addresses per commenter, one to make their posts bigger and more important-looking and another to make them smaller and sillier. Implemented on any site with comments by adding a single link to an external CSS file.
If the lasting legacy of the EdStrop was the Mail implementing this policy above the line too then he'd have earned his place in history.
Arguably, that's Obama's get-out clause. It's plainly unreasonable to say 'give us the moon on a stick and here's tuppence to do it with'. If Congress passes two contradictory pieces of legislation, then those who administer them have no choice but to prioritise. After all, the president's oath is to carry out the duties of his office "to the best of his ability".
But that's not how spending works in the US Constitution. Article I, section 7, clause 1: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” It’s followed by Section 7 Clause 9: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”
Congress was given the "power of the purse" as it is commonly known, and at the Constitutional Convention it was decided that the House of Representatives should hold more of that power than the Senate because the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”
Aside from this balancing of fiscal power somewhat in favour of the House over the Senate, another goal was to make sure the executive did not spend money without congressional authorisation. The framers of the Constitution had had experience with kings spending money without being directly answerable to the people, and they didn’t like it.
You're missing David's point on the debt ceiling, which is that Congress has already passed the appropriations bills and mandated the president to pay them.
I thought it might make the point that it makes the site unreadable. Apart from which I can't understand the purpose of just being a conduit for other peoples articles which everyone can access themselves via a link and unedited. Surely better to just stay in bed?
Arguably, that's Obama's get-out clause. It's plainly unreasonable to say 'give us the moon on a stick and here's tuppence to do it with'. If Congress passes two contradictory pieces of legislation, then those who administer them have no choice but to prioritise. After all, the president's oath is to carry out the duties of his office "to the best of his ability".
But that's not how spending works in the US Constitution. Article I, section 7, clause 1: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.” It’s followed by Section 7 Clause 9: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”
Congress was given the "power of the purse" as it is commonly known, and at the Constitutional Convention it was decided that the House of Representatives should hold more of that power than the Senate because the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”
Aside from this balancing of fiscal power somewhat in favour of the House over the Senate, another goal was to make sure the executive did not spend money without congressional authorisation. The framers of the Constitution had had experience with kings spending money without being directly answerable to the people, and they didn’t like it.
You're missing David's point on the debt ceiling, which is that Congress has already passed the appropriations bills and mandated the president to pay them.
No I didn't miss the point at all. Obama is busy changing the spending goalposts by granting exemptions to companies and states post-signature. He doesn't have that executive power over spending, which is the point I was refuting.
And then he got screwed. Absolutely f*cked over by the Democrats - there were supposed to be spending cuts (which had been agreed in principle) but the Dems just refused to implement them.
Eh? What's sequestration all about then?
That was a different deal - because they couldn't agree on the previous round of spending cuts.
I thought it might make the point that it makes the site unreadable. Apart from which I can't understand the purpose of just being a conduit for other peoples articles which everyone can access themselves via a link and unedited. Surely better to just stay in bed?
And then he got screwed. Absolutely f*cked over by the Democrats - there were supposed to be spending cuts (which had been agreed in principle) but the Dems just refused to implement them.
Eh? What's sequestration all about then?
This is a reasonable article about the deal when it was originally struck:
WASHINGTON — The Senate, in a predawn vote two hours after the deadline passed to avert automatic tax increases, overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday that would allow tax rates to rise only on affluent Americans while temporarily suspending sweeping, across-the-board spending cuts.
Note the use of the word "temporarily" suspending the spending cuts
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
The agreements regarding flood defences, damming and controlling the European river networks actually date back from well before the EU. I think the first controls covering the Rhine go back to the 19th Century
Thanks Robert, that's a good extension of my point. Countries have (tried to) control flooding long before the EU turned up, and have also traditionally been able to pick up the telephone (email / letter / parchment / flaming watchtower - delete as appropriate) to the country next door quite easily without needing a layer of politicians above both.
Not politicians as such, but the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine is one of the oldest international institutions with a permanent staff, dating back to 1815 (though I don't know whether it was permanently staffed that far back).
That's the fundamental flaw with the modern "professionalisation" of politics: clever Enarques and PPEists and Kennedy Scholars all think that a short term tactical win is great and all that matters. And that's fine. Until you reach the point where no compromise can be implemented because you have a reputation for not delivering. I wonder whether we can see the same trend developing in the UK (think HoL reform, boundary reform, Syria). I hope not - but perhaps where the US goes we follow.
In Britain it's more a question of coalition politics - you can do almost anything with a majority and very little without one. Every one of the examples you quote except possibly Syria is about that.
That's fair.
I guess my concern is that despite all of EdM's bullsh1t about "one nation" were are begining to develop a bifurcated political system.
The Tories don't understand Scotland and the North; Labour doesn't understand the South ex London or rural England.
That is a dangerous recipe in an "elective dictatorship" (TM).
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. ... Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
Hmm, what's that got to do with the US crisis? (Finger hovers over "off-topic" button) :-)
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
No, it's insane that anyone with part of a river should want decisions on flood control to be made separately along each bit of the river. It's like someone arguing that each country around the North Sea should have a different fishing conservation policy. But OK, that's too mad for anyone to favour, isn't it?
And then he got screwed. Absolutely f*cked over by the Democrats - there were supposed to be spending cuts (which had been agreed in principle) but the Dems just refused to implement them.
Eh? What's sequestration all about then?
This is a reasonable article about the deal when it was originally struck:
WASHINGTON — The Senate, in a predawn vote two hours after the deadline passed to avert automatic tax increases, overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday that would allow tax rates to rise only on affluent Americans while temporarily suspending sweeping, across-the-board spending cuts.
Note the use of the word "temporarily" suspending the spending cuts
Right, the idea was that it would be so politically acceptable to both sides that they'd make a deal to avoid it. Although you have to wonder whether there were a bunch of policy wonks behind this who jumped at the opportunity to pass a load of good-policy, bad-politics cuts that were usually impossible because they upset some key constituency, without anybody on either side having to actually take responsibility for them.
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
The agreements regarding flood defences, damming and controlling the European river networks actually date back from well before the EU. I think the first controls covering the Rhine go back to the 19th Century
Indeed they do. And I can understand why Switzerland, Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands might want to agree on a mutually satisfactory system.
I don't understand Greece or Poland or Slovakia threatening to veto the proposal unless they get a swimming pool at the President's country house built.
Perhaps Barack Obama could have an ebay firesale? I'd put in a bid for a small Pacific island if I could get one at a reasonable price.
I suspect if Barry started selling Pacific islands on the cheap – they’d probably come with a half-life of 2 million years. – Best buy another London flat instead. : )
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
Your dad did it to one of mine he didn't like :^ )
I think Christmas might be a somewhat strained affair if I start automatically reformatting my dad's posts...
Are you open to applying automatic reformatting to selected posters in exchange for donations towards the cost of Vanilla?
Are you suggesting paying for reformatting of your posts. Or reformatting of someone else's...
I think I spot a good money-making wheeze here ;-)
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
What is the punishment for rhetorical tautology ?
Everyone sensible here knows that they are the most boring of all posts.
And then he got screwed. Absolutely f*cked over by the Democrats - there were supposed to be spending cuts (which had been agreed in principle) but the Dems just refused to implement them.
Eh? What's sequestration all about then?
This is a reasonable article about the deal when it was originally struck:
WASHINGTON — The Senate, in a predawn vote two hours after the deadline passed to avert automatic tax increases, overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday that would allow tax rates to rise only on affluent Americans while temporarily suspending sweeping, across-the-board spending cuts.
Note the use of the word "temporarily" suspending the spending cuts
Right, the idea was that it would be so politically acceptable to both sides that they'd make a deal to avoid it. Although you have to wonder whether there were a bunch of policy wonks behind this who jumped at the opportunity to pass a load of good-policy, bad-politics cuts that were usually impossible because they upset some key constituency, without anybody on either side having to actually take responsibility for them.
And then the issue was the Democrats refused to even consider the cuts.
The consequence was that Boehner took the pain of tax rises without getting anything in return.
And you think that makes him want to trust the other side again?
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. ... Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
Hmm, what's that got to do with the US crisis? (Finger hovers over "off-topic" button) :-)
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
No, it's insane that anyone with part of a river should want decisions on flood control to be made separately along each bit of the river. It's like someone arguing that each country around the North Sea should have a different fishing conservation policy. But OK, that's too mad for anyone to favour, isn't it?
No Nick, what is insane is that Spain should have any say in Rhine flood control or that Hungary (or again Spain for that matter) should have any say in North Sea Fisheries policy.
And I am afraid that the record of the EU when it comes to fisheries protection is nothing short of catastrophic. It is no coincidence that the country with the best record of fisheries protection in the North Sea is the one which is outside the CFP.
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. ... Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
Hmm, what's that got to do with the US crisis? (Finger hovers over "off-topic" button) :-)
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
No, it's insane that anyone with part of a river should want decisions on flood control to be made separately along each bit of the river. It's like someone arguing that each country around the North Sea should have a different fishing conservation policy. But OK, that's too mad for anyone to favour, isn't it?
Who said anything about decisions being made separately? You just made that up on the spot. No, it's insane to think that countries can't talk to each other without the EU involved.
How on Earth do other countries even *survive* without being members of the EU? Let alone communicate. It's quite baffling, I'm sure you agree. They probably eat each other too. And have non-standard screws.
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
Your dad did it to one of mine he didn't like :^ )
I think Christmas might be a somewhat strained affair if I start automatically reformatting my dad's posts...
Are you open to applying automatic reformatting to selected posters in exchange for donations towards the cost of Vanilla?
Are you suggesting paying for reformatting of your posts. Or reformatting of someone else's...
I think I spot a good money-making wheeze here ;-)
Certainly the latter. In anticipation of the likely victimisation that would result from the preferences of those richer than me, the cost should perhaps be proportionate to the targeted posters total number of posts.
I guess Andy Burnham will soon have much more spare time.
'The CQC prepared a press release to brief newspapers about care failings at the hospital, but was contacted by the Department of Health and told not to publish the information. The email states: "DH emailed the press team just after 1pm and asked us to stop the press release." By that stage, however, the regulator had already briefed three newspapers about the problems at the hospital. When a report on the "graphic detail" of the appalling standards at the hospital was broadcast, Mr Burnham was said to be "furious".
Interesting that Labour get "furious" about people looking at them and their actions but seem less than bothered about the people of the country.
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
What is the punishment for rhetorical tautology ?
Everyone sensible here knows that they are the most boring of all posts.
Also, what's the punishment for oxymorons like "sensible here"?
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
What is the punishment for rhetorical tautology ?
Everyone sensible here knows that they are the most boring of all posts.
fife and drum
Is that another pub you are banned from? Or some sort of Toxteth-ney ryhming slang ?
General Election @UKELECTIONS2015 LASTNIGHTS SHARE OF THE VOTE CON 21.6% (-9.3%) UKIP 20.7% (+11.3%) LD 19.7% (-0.1%) LAB 19.1% (+6.9%) IND 12.8% (-7.3%) GREEN 6.1% (-1.4%)
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
What is the punishment for rhetorical tautology ?
Everyone sensible here knows that they are the most boring of all posts.
Also, what's the punishment for oxymorons like "sensible here"?
I guess Andy Burnham will soon have much more spare time.
'The CQC prepared a press release to brief newspapers about care failings at the hospital, but was contacted by the Department of Health and told not to publish the information. The email states: "DH emailed the press team just after 1pm and asked us to stop the press release." By that stage, however, the regulator had already briefed three newspapers about the problems at the hospital. When a report on the "graphic detail" of the appalling standards at the hospital was broadcast, Mr Burnham was said to be "furious".
Interesting that Labour get "furious" about people looking at them and their actions but seem less than bothered about the people of the country.
Party first comrades!
Governments get furious about people looking at them. The present Government's ridiculous contortions to avoid complying with FOI requests give ample evidence that all sides are at it. It's unattractive when Labour do it, it's unattractive when Tories do it, and only the terminally biased would suggest that this kind of behaviour is a dividing line between the parties.
"With every day that passes, the shutdown bites another $300m out of the US economy, while America’s GDP is dragged down by an estimated 0.15pc per week."
I am tempramentally pro European, but very hard to disagree with RT on this. There are issues (such as pharmaceutical licensing) that benefit fro EU wide rules, but some things should be left to nation states. I want to stay in the EU but with a shift in powers back to nation states.
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. ... Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
Hmm, what's that got to do with the US crisis? (Finger hovers over "off-topic" button) :-)
IIUC the Dutch have said they'd like to repatriate responsibility for flood control, so if he can get Hague to make that Britain's big red line he'll already have one member state on side, and just has to persuade the other 26.
Insane that a country like that isn't allowed to run its own flood defence system anyway.
No, it's insane that anyone with part of a river should want decisions on flood control to be made separately along each bit of the river. It's like someone arguing that each country around the North Sea should have a different fishing conservation policy. But OK, that's too mad for anyone to favour, isn't it?
No Nick, what is insane is that Spain should have any say in Rhine flood control or that Hungary (or again Spain for that matter) should have any say in North Sea Fisheries policy.
And I am afraid that the record of the EU when it comes to fisheries protection is nothing short of catastrophic. It is no coincidence that the country with the best record of fisheries protection in the North Sea is the one which is outside the CFP.
If Miliband was to appear on Who do you think you are on BBC, he might wonder why it is so difficult to trace his family history given the wholesale destruction of archives, artefacts by the Soviets when they occupied Eastern Europe. He might do well to read Norman Davies on this, then wonder why is late father was so keen on Marxism.
I guess Andy Burnham will soon have much more spare time.
'The CQC prepared a press release to brief newspapers about care failings at the hospital, but was contacted by the Department of Health and told not to publish the information. The email states: "DH emailed the press team just after 1pm and asked us to stop the press release." By that stage, however, the regulator had already briefed three newspapers about the problems at the hospital. When a report on the "graphic detail" of the appalling standards at the hospital was broadcast, Mr Burnham was said to be "furious".
Interesting that Labour get "furious" about people looking at them and their actions but seem less than bothered about the people of the country.
Party first comrades!
Governments get furious about people looking at them. The present Government's ridiculous contortions to avoid complying with FOI requests give ample evidence that all sides are at it. It's unattractive when Labour do it, it's unattractive when Tories do it, and only the terminally biased would suggest that this kind of behaviour is a dividing line between the parties.
Agreed, but one party likes to claim the NHS is only safe with them and the other party are uncaring baby eaters who will destroy the perfection that is the NHS.
You have to point out the hypocrisy in that and their selective anger.
Thank god we have a relatively free press able to shine a light on areas politicians would rather we were kept in the dark about.
Comments
28 days offshore in the Atlantic in bloody big storms. 29th and supposedly final day I wake up and what do I hear?
Bloody fog horn!
Looks like my life on the ocean waves will go on for a bit longer yet :-(
http://www.theweek.co.uk/us/us-shutdown/55364/us-shutdown-republican-party-really-blame
You must have upset the Moderators big time.
Tea party identification among US voters is down to 22%, so the risks for individual Representatives in not going over the top are starting to decline, though in a solid GOP seat the optimum in cynical terms is presumanly to let someone else surrender.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/08/article-1384726-0BE4629D00000578-593_468x510.jpg
The last time the debt limit was reached, several articles made the point that US government bonds take priority in spending allocations. It's actually written into their constitution.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-cannot-constitutionally-default-its-debt-says-constitutional-scholar
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271329/constitutional-nonsense-debt-john-berlau
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2443051/Labours-cover-failing-hospitals-Ministers-tried-silence-watchdog-eve-general-election.html
"Labour tried to block the publication of a devastating report into appalling hospital neglect before the last election.
Ministers told the Care Quality Commission not to release its verdict on Basildon and Thurrock hospital in Essex, where patients were dying from poor care.
But hours before the CQC was due to publish the report in November 2009, the Department of Health told the watchdog to stop.
Newly-released emails show that the then Health Secretary Andy Burnham was furious when the report was later made public amid massive media coverage."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2443298/EU-president-warns-Camerons-plan-claw-power-Brussels-doomed-failure.html
St. Ednundsbury, Abbeygate
Con 359
Grn 236
UKIP 85
LD 83
Lab 76
In which case you deserve it.
Sorry old chap.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/10353235/The-American-Right-have-got-it-all-wrong.html
Lefty thinking is amazing.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lord-ashcroft-general-election-labour-2337024
"First, the choice of PM. In my latest survey Cameron trounced Miliband when it came to representing the UK, leading a team, and knowing what he wanted to achieve. Most thought Cameron would perform better overall, and one in five Labour voters said that even though they weren’t satisfied with him they would rather see him in the job than Ed Miliband.
Second, the economy. Things are starting to pick up, and my poll found voters now more likely to be optimistic than pessimistic. They trusted Cameron and Osborne to run things more than Miliband and Balls by a huge margin.
Third, Miliband is doing surprisingly little to address the worries people have about his party. Most voters, including two fifths of those who would vote Labour, fear the party would spend and borrow more than the country can afford, and has not learned the right lessons from its time in government.
I thought we were going to be spared these pages and pages of other peoples articles?
TV 30 Years Ago @tv30yearsago
ITV 6.35 Crossroads 7.00 Emmerdale Farm 7.30 Give Us A Clue 8.00 Entertainment Express 9.00 First Tuesday 10.00 News At Ten 10.30 Snooker
They also turn out not to be keen on many specific spending cuts, as opposed to the abstract principle of spending cuts. The only things they're actually prepared to save money on are things like food stamps, which are hard to get past the Democratic Senate and president because of their ideological bias toward people being able to buy food.
Every time anyone moderates a post as 'off-topic', or 'troll' or whatever, Vanilla sends me an email. The purpose of these moderations is to allow anyone to point out to me or pbmoderator, or Mike when someone has really stepped outside the boundary. (For example, by repeating the latest sub judice allegations.)
When I am trying to do some (real) work, and my phone is buzzing every 30 seconds because there are two posters constantly tagging each others posts as off-topic, I get really annoyed.
So, I'm going to repeat the threat I made a few days ago. Anyone who misuses the moderate buttons is going to get their posts automatically changed to
6pt pink comic sans serif.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10354527/Labour-accused-of-cover-up-over-failing-hospitals.html
"Internal emails from the Care Quality Commission show that Labour tried to stop the watchdog from informing the public about failings at Basildon University Hospital, where patients were dying needlessly on filthy wards."
Incidently, some of you will recall I passed comment on a hospital stay I had back before the last election. At the time I was told by several people NOT to go to Basildon hospital as it had a reputation locally for not being the cleanest. considering what I saw in Chelmsford you have to wonder just how bad Basildon must have been.
The current battle is down to a desire by certain Republicans to do their masters bidding and stop Obamacare by whatever means possible. While the general Republican leadership want a solution I think they are finding it very difficult to identify how to solve the problem with making an enemy of their financial backers.
Arguably, that's Obama's get-out clause. It's plainly unreasonable to say 'give us the moon on a stick and here's tuppence to do it with'. If Congress passes two contradictory pieces of legislation, then those who administer them have no choice but to prioritise. After all, the president's oath is to carry out the duties of his office "to the best of his ability".
However, none of that is necessarily going to stop an impeachment if the row does go on into the second half of the month. The power to initiate impeachment procedings lies solely with the House and chances are there'd be some mightily disgruntled Representatives looking for any outlet for their ire: a president who'd simply walked through what they'd believe were legally binding restrictions would provide an irresistable target.
How would it progress? That depends on how much momentum the vanguard could muster behind their campaign. I don't know enough about the composition of the members of the House Judiciary Committee to give a detailed answer but it's clear that Boehner is being pushed and pulled in all directions and other senior Republicans could too. Even if the House does vote to impeach, I don't think there's the remotest chance of the Senate convicting both because of the Democrat majority and what would be the plainly political nature of the charges.
FWIW, I think the odds on this going to and past the point of Obama having to make a call on whether to default or how to avoid it are about 6/1 and the chances of him being impeached are about 10/1 (i.e. if it goes to default - which it probably won't - it's about 4/7 he'd be impeached).
It’s hardly a surprise that Ed Miliband has called for another inquiry following the row about the Daily Mail’s treatment of his father. The Labour leader is always calling for one inquiry or another. But normally these inquiries are led by someone outside the organisation that Miliband is taking issue with: his latest call is in fact for Lord Rothermere to investigate the culture and practices of his own newspapers.
Now, there is nothing wrong with the Labour leader wanting to defend his father: that is quite natural and few would disagree with such an instinctive reaction. And there is nothing wrong with him objecting to a reporter turning up at a family memorial service. But Ed Miliband, a politician, is trying to set the standards of ‘decency’ in the press by calling for an investigation. Before the allegations about the Mail on Sunday reporter, the Labour leader had already set up a petition calling for decency in British politics, although it wasn’t clear who he was petitioning. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/miliband-vs-mail-reveals-labour-leaders-belief-about-the-role-of-politicians/
A Labour parliamentary candidate has stood down after it emerged she owed more than £2,000 in parking fines and late payment fees. Josie Channer accrued the penalties in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, where she is a councillor on a committee overseeing parking issues.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-24391278
In a statement she expressed "regret" that she could not "devote the time and resources necessary" to the campaign. "It has been fantastic getting to know the residents of Kingswood and the local party members.
If she is still a Barking councillor why isn't she stepping down as well? Must be another case of elective amnesia.
By themselves, I agree that the hard-core last-ditch vanguard don't have the numbers. The question is whether they can make up in noise, activity and momentum (and hence shift the votes of wavering Republican congressment) what they lack in raw voting power.
On the first point, *is* there a face-saving escape? This I think is the major strategic mistake the Republicans have made: they've driven themselves and the country into a crisis from which there's no easy compromise and where one side is likely to end up with close to nothing. At what point do they cut their losses? Often the temptation of bad analysts (and bad gamblers) is to double-or-quit when the odds are against them.
bancomicsans.com/main/
Indeed.
So why did you post the excerpt twice, Roger?
http://news.sky.com/story/1150139/labours-move-to-the-left-could-be-turn-off
I guess Andy Burnham will soon have much more spare time.
'The CQC prepared a press release to brief newspapers about care failings at the hospital, but was contacted by the Department of Health and told not to publish the information. The email states: "DH emailed the press team just after 1pm and asked us to stop the press release."
By that stage, however, the regulator had already briefed three newspapers about the problems at the hospital.
When a report on the "graphic detail" of the appalling standards at the hospital was broadcast, Mr Burnham was said to be "furious".
Congress was given the "power of the purse" as it is commonly known, and at the Constitutional Convention it was decided that the House of Representatives should hold more of that power than the Senate because the House “was more immediately the representatives of the people, and it was a maxim that the people ought to hold the purse-strings.”
Aside from this balancing of fiscal power somewhat in favour of the House over the Senate, another goal was to make sure the executive did not spend money without congressional authorisation. The framers of the Constitution had had experience with kings spending money without being directly answerable to the people, and they didn’t like it.
"Federal impeachment proceedings have been brought against six officials in the last thirty years: four were carried, one dropped after the judge in question resigned and the case against the other – President Clinton – dismissed. "
What was the impact for the 4 that were carried ?
"So why did you post it again Roger?"
I thought it might make the point that it makes the site unreadable. Apart from which I can't understand the purpose of just being a conduit for other peoples articles which everyone can access themselves via a link and unedited. Surely better to just stay in bed?
Two presidents: Andrew Johnson, Democrat/National Union, was impeached and acquitted by one vote in 1868 after violating the then-newly created Tenure of Office Act, and Bill Clinton, Democrat, was acquitted in 1998
In 1876, cabinet officer William W. Belknap (former Secretary of War), resigned before his trial, and was later acquitted. Allegedly most of those who voted to acquit him believed that his resignation had removed their jurisdiction.
One Senator, William Blount, in 1797. He was expelled by the Senate, which then declined to try the impeachment.
One Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted by the Senate.
Fourteen other federal judges. Seven of these have been convicted by the Senate and removed, including Alcee Hastings, who was impeached and convicted for taking over $150,000 in bribe money in exchange for sentencing leniency and later won election to the House of Representatives from Florida as there isn't an automatic bar from public office.
If not seven seasons of the West Wing are bogus...
WASHINGTON — The Senate, in a predawn vote two hours after the deadline passed to avert automatic tax increases, overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday that would allow tax rates to rise only on affluent Americans while temporarily suspending sweeping, across-the-board spending cuts.
Note the use of the word "temporarily" suspending the spending cuts
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/us/politics/senate-tax-deal-fiscal-cliff.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
'It’s hardly a surprise that Ed Miliband has called for another inquiry following the row about the Daily Mail’s treatment of his father.'
Did I miss Ed's call for an inquiry into the culture & practices in the Labour party 1997 - 2010?
I guess my concern is that despite all of EdM's bullsh1t about "one nation" were are begining to develop a bifurcated political system.
The Tories don't understand Scotland and the North; Labour doesn't understand the South ex London or rural England.
That is a dangerous recipe in an "elective dictatorship" (TM).
I don't understand Greece or Poland or Slovakia threatening to veto the proposal unless they get a swimming pool at the President's country house built.
I think I spot a good money-making wheeze here ;-)
Lord Jones said: “At the moment there is quite a war going on against business.
"I think we saw last week at the Labour conference an enormous hate of wealth creation in business which just terrifies me, it really does.
http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/regional-affairs/digby-jones-labour-waging-war-6134885
Everyone sensible here knows that they are the most boring of all posts.
The consequence was that Boehner took the pain of tax rises without getting anything in return.
And you think that makes him want to trust the other side again?
No Nick, what is insane is that Spain should have any say in Rhine flood control or that Hungary (or again Spain for that matter) should have any say in North Sea Fisheries policy.
And I am afraid that the record of the EU when it comes to fisheries protection is nothing short of catastrophic. It is no coincidence that the country with the best record of fisheries protection in the North Sea is the one which is outside the CFP.
How on Earth do other countries even *survive* without being members of the EU? Let alone communicate. It's quite baffling, I'm sure you agree. They probably eat each other too. And have non-standard screws.
Party first comrades!
LASTNIGHTS SHARE OF THE VOTE CON 21.6% (-9.3%) UKIP 20.7% (+11.3%) LD 19.7% (-0.1%) LAB 19.1% (+6.9%) IND 12.8% (-7.3%) GREEN 6.1% (-1.4%)
"With every day that passes, the shutdown bites another $300m out of the US economy, while America’s GDP is dragged down by an estimated 0.15pc per week."
0.15% per week ?!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10353761/Americans-dont-care-about-the-government-shutdown-because-its-in-slow-motion.html
It's an almighty scrap between the two Americas that the nation has become.
Obama's blue collar/black/hispanic coalition America and the repubs middle class angry white America.
They are complete anathema to each other. Which is why a default is a distinct possibility.
Personally I'd like to bet on when we get the headline 'who the f8ck does ed miliband think he is?'
A dictator complex before he's even got to government (is it OK if I say that, Ed?)
Hopefully the electorate will be able to smell it a mile off.
There are issues (such as pharmaceutical licensing) that benefit fro EU wide rules, but some things should be left to nation states. I want to stay in the EU but with a shift in powers back to nation states.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqbEsS5kFb8
RT @britishbullybee: First, they came for Murdoch. And the rest of the right-wing press did nothing. Then, they came for the Mail…
Agreed, but one party likes to claim the NHS is only safe with them and the other party are uncaring baby eaters who will destroy the perfection that is the NHS.
You have to point out the hypocrisy in that and their selective anger.
Thank god we have a relatively free press able to shine a light on areas politicians would rather we were kept in the dark about.
Destroyed your bullingdon club photo yet? must be pretty dog eared by now.
Now that bringing up politicians backgrounds is no longer 'fair' you understand....