Mr. grss, I'm sorry to hear of your loss. That must've been very difficult.
That was clearly a difference between your and your friend (for whom I also feel sympathy).
The Guardian spoke specifically of Cameron. As PM, which is clearly a critically important job and one in the full glare of the public spotlight, their writing was crass.
I was thinking this morning how Raab's interview on R4 could have occurred at any time during the past two years and under May although with the Oct 31st deadline instead of the March 29th one.
Yes, it's a great betting heat, the Dem nomination and WH2020. I'm doing some faffing around in and out - 'trading' shall we say - but my overall big picture view and position is that Trump loses - "once is enough" - and that he loses to a woman - "unfinished business".
Still more than happy with this. Kamala seems to be fading (but still just about a genuine contender) however Warren is going the other way. She is now, as the header says, a firm favourite for the nomination, and IMO that is well justified. So, net net, despite my 1st pick struggling, my 'Woman beats Trump' bet is looking in rude health.
Moral of this? It is always better to have 2 girls out there working for you.
I think we can all agree that the Guardian and isam are equally as bad as each other.
Why? Because they wrote it and I dislike it? How would that be equal in any way?
No, you're right in this instance. It's just, in general, you're an awful person.
Go cry about it to the mods
Maybe something awful will happen to my family to cheer you up
Now now, I don't approve of that kind of thing, and I have said you're right about this Guardian article. I wish your family health and longevity, and that one of them points out to you that Enoch Powell was an arsehole.
You joined this site on Sep 1st. I doubt I have mentioned any support of Enoch Powell’s view on immigration for over two years.
"I'm looking hard at Amy Klobuchar," Maher said. "You know why? Because -- this is not an insult to Amy Klobuchar -- I like you, but they put generic Democrat on the ballot, they win."
I was thinking this morning how Raab's interview on R4 could have occurred at any time during the past two years and under May although with the Oct 31st deadline instead of the March 29th one.
I wonder how the spinners will spin it if Boris makes it work.
Join in with Nige calling it betrayal is fav in my book
I think we can all agree that the Guardian and isam are equally as bad as each other.
Why? Because they wrote it and I dislike it? How would that be equal in any way?
No, you're right in this instance. It's just, in general, you're an awful person.
Go cry about it to the mods
Maybe something awful will happen to my family to cheer you up
Now now, I don't approve of that kind of thing, and I have said you're right about this Guardian article. I wish your family health and longevity, and that one of them points out to you that Enoch Powell was an arsehole.
You joined this site on Sep 1st. I doubt I have mentioned any support of Enoch Powell’s view on immigration for over two years.
🤔
But you still do support them, don't you?
All I can say is well done to you in passing the lefty exam in how to argue poorly. Someone you like says something awful, so try to find something to get at the person who spotted it to save face for your masters. 👏🏻 👏🏻
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
Trump does hold Michigan though in the latest Firehouse strategies poll against Warren or Sanders (but not Biden) even if he is narrowly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Michigan is likely the key state.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
It’s highly unlikely Trump will win Michigan again. Dems won the 2018 midterms by 8 points there and easily held the senate seat. And the Dems will certainly give it more attention this time round.
Latest Michigan poll has Trump beating Sanders 43% to 40% and Trump beating Warren 42% to 41% actually though Biden beats Trump 42% to 41%.
Talk about burying the lede... EXCLUSIVE SURVEY: Democrats Lead Trump in Key Swing States
...Overall, Trump continues to struggle in these three states. He trails Biden in all three states, and only leads Warren and Sanders in Michigan. His approval rating is also underwater by 4 points in Michigan, 9 points in Pennsylvania, and 12 points in Wisconsin....
If Trump holds Michigan he wins the Electoral College if he holds his other 2016 states even if he loses Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Trump beats Warren and Sanders in Michigan even if not Biden on that poll
I was thinking this morning how Raab's interview on R4 could have occurred at any time during the past two years and under May although with the Oct 31st deadline instead of the March 29th one.
I wonder how the spinners will spin it if Boris makes it work.
Join in with Nige calling it betrayal is fav in my book
If they are not complete berks they will realise that there are many important battles ahead in deciding Britain's future relationship with the EU and prepare for those.
How does it go? Something about not the end, or even the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.
Trump is going for the George W Bush strategy of starting a war just before the election
This is less about the Yemen war, and far more about taking down the Saudi Aramco IPO. I can fully believe that Iran would make it a strategic aim to blow that off course. Whilst making a killing themselves on betting the oil price was going to spike sharply after 5m barrels a day went out of production.
I said when this news came through that the expectation was the drones used would trace back to Iran. As such, that is a fairly solid basis for the Saudis to declare war on Iran. Whether they go that far remains to be seen. Oh how John Bolton must be wishing he was still in post.....
I think we can all agree that the Guardian and isam are equally as bad as each other.
Why? Because they wrote it and I dislike it? How would that be equal in any way?
No, you're right in this instance. It's just, in general, you're an awful person.
Go cry about it to the mods
Maybe something awful will happen to my family to cheer you up
Now now, I don't approve of that kind of thing, and I have said you're right about this Guardian article. I wish your family health and longevity, and that one of them points out to you that Enoch Powell was an arsehole.
You joined this site on Sep 1st. I doubt I have mentioned any support of Enoch Powell’s view on immigration for over two years.
🤔
But you still do support them, don't you?
All I can say is well done to you in passing the lefty exam in how to argue poorly. Someone you like says something awful, so try to find something to get at the person who spotted it to save face for your masters. 👏🏻 👏🏻
I'm not left wing. The fact that you think I am might be more reflective of where you're at politically.
I think we can all agree that the Guardian and isam are equally as bad as each other.
Why? Because they wrote it and I dislike it? How would that be equal in any way?
No, you're right in this instance. It's just, in general, you're an awful person.
Go cry about it to the mods
Maybe something awful will happen to my family to cheer you up
Now now, I don't approve of that kind of thing, and I have said you're right about this Guardian article. I wish your family health and longevity, and that one of them points out to you that Enoch Powell was an arsehole.
You joined this site on Sep 1st. I doubt I have mentioned any support of Enoch Powell’s view on immigration for over two years.
🤔
But you still do support them, don't you?
All I can say is well done to you in passing the lefty exam in how to argue poorly. Someone you like says something awful, so try to find something to get at the person who spotted it to save face for your masters. 👏🏻 👏🏻
I'm not left wing. The fact that you think I am might be more reflective of where you're at politically.
Who said you were?
Anyway, you’ve managed to shift the focus away from the filth from The Guardian and on to me, your work is done. The factory will be proud. 🙌🏻
On topic I really can't help feeling that Pocahontas is the Donald's dream opponent. But then I don't think any of them will scare him much.
He needs to keep the consumer bubble inflated until November next year. Not easy but bullying the Fed to cut interest rates to zero is probably the best way of achieving it. My guess, FWIW, is that it won't be as close as it was the last time.
This time he’ll lose by 8m votes ?
Oh, he'll probably lose the popular vote again thanks to California but I think he will win more EC votes than he did the last time.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
Trump does hold Michigan though in the latest Firehouse strategies poll against Warren or Sanders (but not Biden) even if he is narrowly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Michigan is likely the key state.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
It’s highly unlikely Trump will win Michigan again. Dems won the 2018 midterms by 8 points there and easily held the senate seat. And the Dems will certainly give it more attention this time round.
Latest Michigan poll has Trump beating Sanders 43% to 40% and Trump beating Warren 42% to 41% actually though Biden beats Trump 42% to 41%.
Talk about burying the lede... EXCLUSIVE SURVEY: Democrats Lead Trump in Key Swing States
...Overall, Trump continues to struggle in these three states. He trails Biden in all three states, and only leads Warren and Sanders in Michigan. His approval rating is also underwater by 4 points in Michigan, 9 points in Pennsylvania, and 12 points in Wisconsin....
If Trump holds Michigan he wins the Electoral College if he holds his other 2016 states even if he loses Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Trump beats Warren and Sanders in Michigan even if not Biden on that poll
I think we can all agree that the Guardian and isam are equally as bad as each other.
Why? Because they wrote it and I dislike it? How would that be equal in any way?
No, you're right in this instance. It's just, in general, you're an awful person.
Go cry about it to the mods
Maybe something awful will happen to my family to cheer you up
Now now, I don't approve of that kind of thing, and I have said you're right about this Guardian article. I wish your family health and longevity, and that one of them points out to you that Enoch Powell was an arsehole.
You joined this site on Sep 1st. I doubt I have mentioned any support of Enoch Powell’s view on immigration for over two years.
🤔
But you still do support them, don't you?
All I can say is well done to you in passing the lefty exam in how to argue poorly. Someone you like says something awful, so try to find something to get at the person who spotted it to save face for your masters. 👏🏻 👏🏻
I'm not left wing. The fact that you think I am might be more reflective of where you're at politically.
Who said you were?
Anyway, you’ve managed to shift the focus away from the filth from The Guardian and on to me, your work is done. The factory will be proud.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
Trump does hold Michigan though in the latest Firehouse strategies poll against Warren or Sanders (but not Biden) even if he is narrowly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Michigan is likely the key state.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
It’s highly unlikely Trump will win Michigan again. Dems won the 2018 midterms by 8 points there and easily held the senate seat. And the Dems will certainly give it more attention this time round.
Latest Michigan poll has Trump beating Sanders 43% to 40% and Trump beating Warren 42% to 41% actually though Biden beats Trump 42% to 41%.
Talk about burying the lede... EXCLUSIVE SURVEY: Democrats Lead Trump in Key Swing States
...Overall, Trump continues to struggle in these three states. He trails Biden in all three states, and only leads Warren and Sanders in Michigan. His approval rating is also underwater by 4 points in Michigan, 9 points in Pennsylvania, and 12 points in Wisconsin....
If Trump holds Michigan he wins the Electoral College if he holds his other 2016 states even if he loses Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Trump beats Warren and Sanders in Michigan even if not Biden on that poll
Yes, it's a great betting heat, the Dem nomination and WH2020. I'm doing some faffing around in and out - 'trading' shall we say - but my overall big picture view and position is that Trump loses - "once is enough" - and that he loses to a woman - "unfinished business".
Still more than happy with this. Kamala seems to be fading (but still just about a genuine contender) however Warren is going the other way. She is now, as the header says, a firm favourite for the nomination, and IMO that is well justified. So, net net, despite my 1st pick struggling, my 'Woman beats Trump' bet is looking in rude health.
Moral of this? It is always better to have 2 girls out there working for you.
Harris looks so glum on the podiums, as President Harris becomes a distant dream.
Everyone is using deliveroo (delivering from kitchens in industrial units) so they don't have to brave the rain?
That or imminent economic collapse.
I was in a mid-market chain restaurant just a couple of days ago and they were handing out discount vouchers with gay abandon. It is not just Jamie Oliver feeling the pinch.
She is right in a sense that those less exposed to immigration are more likely to be xenophobic and it’s clear that xenophobia had a part to play in the Leave vote.
Yes, it's a great betting heat, the Dem nomination and WH2020. I'm doing some faffing around in and out - 'trading' shall we say - but my overall big picture view and position is that Trump loses - "once is enough" - and that he loses to a woman - "unfinished business".
Still more than happy with this. Kamala seems to be fading (but still just about a genuine contender) however Warren is going the other way. She is now, as the header says, a firm favourite for the nomination, and IMO that is well justified. So, net net, despite my 1st pick struggling, my 'Woman beats Trump' bet is looking in rude health.
Moral of this? It is always better to have 2 girls out there working for you.
That last line sounds so wrong this day and age, 🤔
Feel free to shoot me but it's possible the Graun has been a little misunderstood. 'Privileged pain' is a stupid phrase I've never heard before but I'm not sure they meant that his son's death was less painful because he was privileged. Rather the disparity in the NHS between care for young versus old. I don't know the answer to that.
I do think the Guardian has moved to the left of late and it does speak to the left's difficulty with the issue of privilege and perhaps rather silly postmodern ideas.
I am sure that I trust this government's interpretation of the law. 100% no doubt.
What I've always wondered about the Benn Act is - who pays for its implementation? The current extension ends on 31st October. So does any commitment to pay into the EU. That is provided for in the WA. If the WA falls, so does the £1 billion a month we pay.
Boris can say "well, you can give us a lengthy extension if you want. But it's not in our Budget, so our membership is then a freebie.... Or you can say no more extensions and force the House to pass the new improved deal you agree with me. (You have worried about my ability to deliver it through the House. But against No Deal, it is a slam dunk.) Or you can give me no improvements on the Backstop - but then I can force a No Deal through because the Benn Act is flawed - and makes no provision for money to be paid to the EU from 1st November.... Choose."
Then the states decide with one vote each. As trump is almost guaranteed to win the most states he would win.. There are those who insist it goes to the house of representatives to vote on but this is not constitutionally true and it is decided on a state basis though a vote of each states Congress representatives.
She is right in a sense that those less exposed to immigration are more likely to be xenophobic and it’s clear that xenophobia had a part to play in the Leave vote.
I think that "sense" might just be lost on the Devon doorsteps. And boy are we Tories going to be plugging her views for all they are worth....in Leave voting Devon.
Then the states decide with one vote each. As trump is almost guaranteed to win the most states he would win.. There are those who insist it goes to the house of representatives to vote on but this is not constitutionally true and it is decided on a state basis though a vote of each states Congress representatives.
Everyone is using deliveroo (delivering from kitchens in industrial units) so they don't have to brave the rain?
That or imminent economic collapse.
I was in a mid-market chain restaurant just a couple of days ago and they were handing out discount vouchers with gay abandon. It is not just Jamie Oliver feeling the pinch.
Surely both sides share the same lazy assumptions about Leave voters. If this is about immigration, as for instance Nigel Farage as well as many lefties believe, then why is this almost 100 per cent native seat supporting Brexit?
Boris wants a snap election because he knows Brexit won't improve the lives of Brexit voters. He needs to go to the polls before the electorate notices too.
I can see him grabbing Virginia, but other than that, I can't see any other pickups.
Really? Virginia has been blue since 2008 and is trending away from the GOP in the past few elections when you account for the national picture, and the Republicans did poorly in the midterms there in 2017. Fairfax county is full of federal workers and it continues to grow.
Worth seeing what happens there in November when VA has its state midterms.
My personal opinion is that the 2020 election will be won and lost in Pennsylvania. I don’t see Trump holding WI.
Trump does hold Michigan though in the latest Firehouse strategies poll against Warren or Sanders (but not Biden) even if he is narrowly behind in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So Michigan is likely the key state.
I think Virginia and Nevada are possible Trump pickups
It’s highly unlikely Trump will win Michigan again. Dems won the 2018 midterms by 8 points there and easily held the senate seat. And the Dems will certainly give it more attention this time round.
Latest Michigan poll has Trump beating Sanders 43% to 40% and Trump beating Warren 42% to 41% actually though Biden beats Trump 42% to 41%.
Talk about burying the lede... EXCLUSIVE SURVEY: Democrats Lead Trump in Key Swing States
...Overall, Trump continues to struggle in these three states. He trails Biden in all three states, and only leads Warren and Sanders in Michigan. His approval rating is also underwater by 4 points in Michigan, 9 points in Pennsylvania, and 12 points in Wisconsin....
If Trump holds Michigan he wins the Electoral College if he holds his other 2016 states even if he loses Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Trump beats Warren and Sanders in Michigan even if not Biden on that poll
Then the states decide with one vote each. As trump is almost guaranteed to win the most states he would win.. There are those who insist it goes to the house of representatives to vote on but this is not constitutionally true and it is decided on a state basis though a vote of each states Congress representatives.
So Utah negates California? Crikey...that is going to play well!
I am sure that I trust this government's interpretation of the law. 100% no doubt.
What I've always wondered about the Benn Act is - who pays for its implementation? The current extension ends on 31st October. So does any commitment to pay into the EU. That is provided for in the WA. If the WA falls, so does the £1 billion a month we pay.
Boris can say "well, you can give us a lengthy extension if you want. But it's not in our Budget, so our membership is then a freebie.... Or you can say no more extensions and force the House to pass the new improved deal you agree with me. (You have worried about my ability to deliver it through the House. But against No Deal, it is a slam dunk.) Or you can give me no improvements on the Backstop - but then I can force a No Deal through because the Benn Act is flawed - and makes no provision for money to be paid to the EU from 1st November.... Choose."
I assume EU membership fees are already included in the latest budget. Boris could try and pass another budget but he has no majority so it would be voted down.
Then the states decide with one vote each. As trump is almost guaranteed to win the most states he would win.. There are those who insist it goes to the house of representatives to vote on but this is not constitutionally true and it is decided on a state basis though a vote of each states Congress representatives.
So Utah negates California? Crikey...that is going to play well!
Never mind Utah - Wyoming (pop. 579,315) negates California (pop. 39,536,653)
This phrase from the Guardian is a good one when applied to one of the examples quoted in the editorial - the privations of early age boarding school. It works less well for the other example - the ordeal of watching the NHS try and ultimately fail to prolong the life of your sick child. However it is important to note with this second example that the reference is to the NHS experience. Specifically it is contrasting the well funded ('privileged') part of the system which tends to children with the underfunded horror of that which deals with social care for the elderly. This is a valid point. What it is NOT is a reference to the suffering or death of the child. It is NOT saying or inferring that the pain of this is in any way lessened by being rich. Nevertheless, given that the reading and comprehension skills of the average person are rather less developed than mine, I can totally understand the furore. Amending the wording was therefore the correct decision.
Feel free to shoot me but it's possible the Graun has been a little misunderstood. 'Privileged pain' is a stupid phrase I've never heard before but I'm not sure they meant that his son's death was less painful because he was privileged. Rather the disparity in the NHS between care for young versus old. I don't know the answer to that.
I do think the Guardian has moved to the left of late and it does speak to the left's difficulty with the issue of privilege and perhaps rather silly postmodern ideas.
My guess is what it really proves is that editorials are written by spotty oiks just out of Oxbridge with first class degrees and no common sense or even common decency. Also that the senior staff take the weekend off.
I am sure that I trust this government's interpretation of the law. 100% no doubt.
What I've always wondered about the Benn Act is - who pays for its implementation? The current extension ends on 31st October. So does any commitment to pay into the EU. That is provided for in the WA. If the WA falls, so does the £1 billion a month we pay.
Boris can say "well, you can give us a lengthy extension if you want. But it's not in our Budget, so our membership is then a freebie.... Or you can say no more extensions and force the House to pass the new improved deal you agree with me. (You have worried about my ability to deliver it through the House. But against No Deal, it is a slam dunk.) Or you can give me no improvements on the Backstop - but then I can force a No Deal through because the Benn Act is flawed - and makes no provision for money to be paid to the EU from 1st November.... Choose."
I assume EU membership fees are already included in the latest budget. Boris could try and pass another budget but he has no majority so it would be voted down.
They may well be contingent upon the WA passing though. Anybody know?
Trump most likely wins due to having a 26-22 (2 tied) edge in state Congressional House delegations
A tie would be nightmare as there would be a high risk of it being decided by faithless electors.
Unless an elector switches to the other major candidate it doesn't actually matter. 270 electoral college votes are needed to win. In a 269-269 nominal tie, faithless electors can switch to Colin Powell, John Kasich, Ron Paul or Faith Spotted Eagle - it is only a switch from Dem Nominee to GOP nominee that screws things up. A 264-267 result (If electors act in the same way for Biden/Warren/Sanders as they did for Clinton and the same way as in 2016 for Trump) is precisely the same constitutionally as 269-269. The issue with faithless electors is much more of a problem if there is a very narrow, say 270-268 win and electors switch away from the candidate with 270 electoral college votes. That precipitates an actual electoral college crisis I think and the Supreme Court gets involved.
This phrase from the Guardian is a good one when applied to one of the examples quoted in the editorial - the privations of early age boarding school. It works less well for the other example - the ordeal of watching the NHS try and ultimately fail to prolong the life of your sick child. However it is important to note with this second example that the reference is to the NHS experience. Specifically it is contrasting the well funded ('privileged') part of the system which tends to children with the underfunded horror of that which deals with social care for the elderly. This is a valid point. What it is NOT is a reference to the suffering or death of the child. It is NOT saying or inferring that the pain of this is in any way lessened by being rich. Nevertheless, given that the reading and comprehension skills of the average person are rather less developed than mine, I can totally understand the furore. Amending the wording was therefore the correct decision.
So if Cameron had been poor he would still be feeling ‘privileged pain’, because his child was treated at a well funded part of the NHS system?
Everyone is using deliveroo (delivering from kitchens in industrial units) so they don't have to brave the rain?
That or imminent economic collapse.
I was in a mid-market chain restaurant just a couple of days ago and they were handing out discount vouchers with gay abandon. It is not just Jamie Oliver feeling the pinch.
It always looked like the Commons and the Speaker were over-reaching themselves with this law.
Interesting few weeks ahead.
Of course it can be challenged. Anything can be challenged. As I asked earlier, Who is "Govt" in this instance? The Attorney General? Treasury Counsel? Boris and Cummings over a bottle of red?
Then the states decide with one vote each. As trump is almost guaranteed to win the most states he would win.. There are those who insist it goes to the house of representatives to vote on but this is not constitutionally true and it is decided on a state basis though a vote of each states Congress representatives.
So Utah negates California? Crikey...that is going to play well!
Never mind Utah - Wyoming (pop. 579,315) negates California (pop. 39,536,653)
I assume the Dems are likely to win the popular vote again in this scenario?
Harris looks so glum on the podiums, as President Harris becomes a distant dream.
And Warren does look the better candidate. Just so long as she slays the monster, that's what matters. Ditto Sanders, Biden, whoever. Trump gone is really the ONLY thing about WH2020 that I care about. The betting, although I'm not holding back, is less than secondary.
On to geopolitics - would Iran really want to risk all out war?
Would Saudi Arabia?
Neither side may want war, but both may miscalculate the readiness of the other side to back down to avoid it.
Just as well we listened to the Greens and made a rapid transition away from our previous reliance on fossil fuels... Oh.
Both nations benefit from a higher oil price - unless a substantial part of their capability to produce at that price is taken out financially it may well be a net positive for them....
So if Cameron had been poor he would still be feeling ‘privileged pain’, because his child was treated at a well funded part of the NHS system?
Yes.
The 'PP' term is therefore clumsy in that context.
It works better for the boarding school example.
The Guardian shouldn't have gone near it. Any converstion about his son in terms of political judgement is tasteless. DJ got it right. Someone wasn't thinking.
She is right in a sense that those less exposed to immigration are more likely to be xenophobic and it’s clear that xenophobia had a part to play in the Leave vote.
And I am sure her political opponents in North Devon are going to make sure her 'rightness' is going to be played over and over and over again to the xenophobes and racists in the constituency she is contesting.
In fact, it is so 'right' that i've no doubt it will get a good airing elsewhere in the region.
The Guardian shouldn't have gone near it. Any converstion about his son in terms of political judgement is tasteless. DJ got it right. Someone wasn't thinking.
So Trump gets back in 270-268. Faithless electors take both candidates below 269. Effective state legislature count gives Trump the win
A plausible very narrow DEM win is much tougher to engineer - essentially you need New Hampshire and some other swing state (WI ?) to go against the national grain. Faithless electors are a huge problem if that occurs because by the letter of the law right now Trump wins even if the DEM nominee crosses the 269 threshold on the night. I think electors would stick by what they need to though if that occurs and a very narrow DEM win is unlikely anyway.
The Electoral College is an absolutely stupid system.
It's currently working against the Democrats because of the shear margin of victory that is likely for them on the west coast. If Texas ever flips blue against the national grain then it may well work for them again. But for the moment it works bigly for the GOP.
This phrase from the Guardian is a good one when applied to one of the examples quoted in the editorial - the privations of early age boarding school. It works less well for the other example - the ordeal of watching the NHS try and ultimately fail to prolong the life of your sick child. However it is important to note with this second example that the reference is to the NHS experience. Specifically it is contrasting the well funded ('privileged') part of the system which tends to children with the underfunded horror of that which deals with social care for the elderly. This is a valid point. What it is NOT is a reference to the suffering or death of the child. It is NOT saying or inferring that the pain of this is in any way lessened by being rich. Nevertheless, given that the reading and comprehension skills of the average person are rather less developed than mine, I can totally understand the furore. Amending the wording was therefore the correct decision.
I think you are probably right, but it's appalling writing. And anyone reading it before it was published should have picked up on that. The Guardian should apologise.
Has there ever been a case of a government seeking to challenge the validity of an Act passed by Parliament?
Anyone know?
I would assume that, previously, any government would have had the Confidence of the House and so could amend, or repeal, any Act which it no longer wished to abide by, so the question of challenging the validity of an Act in the courts would not have arisen.
The current oddity occurs because the anti no deal majority in the Commons is unwilling or unable to install an anti no deal PM in Number 10.
Since Boris is now Parliament's puppet can Grieve et al pass a law that tells him to feed the No 10 cat with Whiskas each day?
IANAL, but sure, they could require that the Prime Minister do that. If they tried to require that Boris personally do that even if he resigned I imagine he'd have a case under European human rights law.
This phrase from the Guardian is a good one when applied to one of the examples quoted in the editorial - the privations of early age boarding school. It works less well for the other example - the ordeal of watching the NHS try and ultimately fail to prolong the life of your sick child. However it is important to note with this second example that the reference is to the NHS experience. Specifically it is contrasting the well funded ('privileged') part of the system which tends to children with the underfunded horror of that which deals with social care for the elderly. This is a valid point. What it is NOT is a reference to the suffering or death of the child. It is NOT saying or inferring that the pain of this is in any way lessened by being rich. Nevertheless, given that the reading and comprehension skills of the average person are rather less developed than mine, I can totally understand the furore. Amending the wording was therefore the correct decision.
I think you are probably right, but it's appalling writing. And anyone reading it before it was published should have picked up on that. The Guardian should apologise.
They have, to Buzzfeed. Not to their readers however. They just state "this editorial was amended on 15 September 2019".
Has there ever been a case of a government seeking to challenge the validity of an Act passed by Parliament?
Anyone know?
Probably not. But on the other hand the way Paliament and the Speaker have been behaving is very unusual too...
MPs other than Ministers bringing in legislation is not at all unusual.
And in response to @Benpointer, the government being challenged by others on its interpretation or implementation of a law is also pretty common.
But I have never heard of a government being the one challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament. It does seem unprecedented to me but I don’t know whether this is my lack of knowledge hence the question.
Forgetting the immediate issues arising from the Benn Act, why would any third party - be it government, international institution, company or individual - trust anything this government says about anything if the Prime Minister goes round publicly saying that he won’t obey a law passed by Parliament?
Then the states decide with one vote each. As trump is almost guaranteed to win the most states he would win.. There are those who insist it goes to the house of representatives to vote on but this is not constitutionally true and it is decided on a state basis though a vote of each states Congress representatives.
So Utah negates California? Crikey...that is going to play well!
Never mind Utah - Wyoming (pop. 579,315) negates California (pop. 39,536,653)
I assume the Dems are likely to win the popular vote again in this scenario?
I am not sure that's a given. The electoral college reflects the population in each state, albeit with two extra reps for each state regardless of population.
If you add up the populations of the states based on that 269-269 split* it comes to about 159m for the Dem states versus 167m for the Rep states.
Ultimately, it will depend on how partisan each state is.
Has there ever been a case of a government seeking to challenge the validity of an Act passed by Parliament?
Anyone know?
Probably not. But on the other hand the way Paliament and the Speaker have been behaving is very unusual too...
MPs other than Ministers bringing in legislation is not at all unusual.
And in response to @Benpointer, the government being challenged by others on its interpretation or implementation of a law is also pretty common.
But I have never heard of a government being the one challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament. It does seem unprecedented to me but I don’t know whether this is my lack of knowledge hence the question.
Forgetting the immediate issues arising from the Benn Act, why would any third party - be it government, international institution, company or individual - trust anything this government says about anything if the Prime Minister goes round publicly saying that he won’t obey a law passed by Parliament?
I suspect it’s crap and the Government is simply trying to pressurise the EU to agree a deal at the 17th-18th October summit.
The Guardian shouldn't have gone near it. Any converstion about his son in terms of political judgement is tasteless. DJ got it right. Someone wasn't thinking.
I think you are probably right, but it's appalling writing. And anyone reading it before it was published should have picked up on that. The Guardian should apologise.
Yes, you had to work quite hard to see the non-offensive meaning. Which is not what you want in a broadsheet editorial.
The Electoral College is an absolutely stupid system.
It's currently working against the Democrats because of the shear margin of victory that is likely for them on the west coast. If Texas ever flips blue against the national grain then it may well work for them again. But for the moment it works bigly for the GOP.
In a way the Electoral College does work. It forces candidates to campaign across the country. If Hillary had shown up for the odd rally in the rust belt, she'd be president now. Or she could have sent Bill or even Chelsea.
What is remarkable is that Hillary's no doubt very expensive campaign team of political consultants and advisors had made the very same mistake when she lost against Obama -- of counting votes not delegates.
Comments
That was clearly a difference between your and your friend (for whom I also feel sympathy).
The Guardian spoke specifically of Cameron. As PM, which is clearly a critically important job and one in the full glare of the public spotlight, their writing was crass.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/16/more-than-1400-uk-restaurants-close-as-casual-dining-crunch-bites
The research also found that the UK’s top 100 restaurants made a £82m loss in the last year, down from a pre-tax profit of £102m 12 months earlier...
Still more than happy with this. Kamala seems to be fading (but still just about a genuine contender) however Warren is going the other way. She is now, as the header says, a firm favourite for the nomination, and IMO that is well justified. So, net net, despite my 1st pick struggling, my 'Woman beats Trump' bet is looking in rude health.
Moral of this? It is always better to have 2 girls out there working for you.
https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1173508874739101696?s=20
Join in with Nige calling it betrayal is fav in my book
That or imminent economic collapse.
Boris Johnson's not fit to be in the Cabinet. That in no way affects the argument about whether we should stay or go, and in what manner.
Trump beats Warren and Sanders in Michigan even if not Biden on that poll
How does it go? Something about not the end, or even the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.
I said when this news came through that the expectation was the drones used would trace back to Iran. As such, that is a fairly solid basis for the Saudis to declare war on Iran. Whether they go that far remains to be seen. Oh how John Bolton must be wishing he was still in post.....
The fact that you think I am might be more reflective of where you're at politically.
Anyway, you’ve managed to shift the focus away from the filth from The Guardian and on to me, your work is done. The factory will be proud. 🙌🏻
I guess the LDs must have done some polling on how their policy will play.
Very interesting.
Wow.
https://www.270towin.com/maps/K8eBk is the most plausible route in my opinion.
I do think the Guardian has moved to the left of late and it does speak to the left's difficulty with the issue of privilege and perhaps rather silly postmodern ideas.
Boris can say "well, you can give us a lengthy extension if you want. But it's not in our Budget, so our membership is then a freebie.... Or you can say no more extensions and force the House to pass the new improved deal you agree with me. (You have worried about my ability to deliver it through the House. But against No Deal, it is a slam dunk.) Or you can give me no improvements on the Backstop - but then I can force a No Deal through because the Benn Act is flawed - and makes no provision for money to be paid to the EU from 1st November.... Choose."
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201909160005.html
Surely both sides share the same lazy assumptions about Leave voters. If this is about immigration, as for instance Nigel Farage as well as many lefties believe, then why is this almost 100 per cent native seat supporting Brexit?
Boris wants a snap election because he knows Brexit won't improve the lives of Brexit voters. He needs to go to the polls before the electorate notices too.
This phrase from the Guardian is a good one when applied to one of the examples quoted in the editorial - the privations of early age boarding school. It works less well for the other example - the ordeal of watching the NHS try and ultimately fail to prolong the life of your sick child. However it is important to note with this second example that the reference is to the NHS experience. Specifically it is contrasting the well funded ('privileged') part of the system which tends to children with the underfunded horror of that which deals with social care for the elderly. This is a valid point. What it is NOT is a reference to the suffering or death of the child. It is NOT saying or inferring that the pain of this is in any way lessened by being rich. Nevertheless, given that the reading and comprehension skills of the average person are rather less developed than mine, I can totally understand the furore. Amending the wording was therefore the correct decision.
A 264-267 result (If electors act in the same way for Biden/Warren/Sanders as they did for Clinton and the same way as in 2016 for Trump) is precisely the same constitutionally as 269-269.
The issue with faithless electors is much more of a problem if there is a very narrow, say 270-268 win and electors switch away from the candidate with 270 electoral college votes. That precipitates an actual electoral college crisis I think and the Supreme Court gets involved.
Interesting few weeks ahead.
Neither side may want war, but both may miscalculate the readiness of the other side to back down to avoid it.
Just as well we listened to the Greens and made a rapid transition away from our previous reliance on fossil fuels... Oh.
The 'PP' term is therefore clumsy in that context.
It works better for the boarding school example.
Thought I'd risk it anyway.
Hearing that Rod Liddle's speccy column might be up for grabs and wanted to get a marker down.
Anyone know?
In fact, it is so 'right' that i've no doubt it will get a good airing elsewhere in the region.
If there is a 0.38% swing from Trump to DEM then you may well have this https://www.270towin.com/maps/Db1vd
So Trump gets back in 270-268. Faithless electors take both candidates below 269. Effective state legislature count gives Trump the win
A plausible very narrow DEM win is much tougher to engineer - essentially you need New Hampshire and some other swing state (WI ?) to go against the national grain. Faithless electors are a huge problem if that occurs because by the letter of the law right now Trump wins even if the DEM nominee crosses the 269 threshold on the night.
I think electors would stick by what they need to though if that occurs and a very narrow DEM win is unlikely anyway.
They could have revoked. But they won't do that. They could have voted for a deal? They wouldn't do that. The alternative is the clock runs down.
If Texas ever flips blue against the national grain then it may well work for them again. But for the moment it works bigly for the GOP.
The current oddity occurs because the anti no deal majority in the Commons is unwilling or unable to install an anti no deal PM in Number 10.
And in response to @Benpointer, the government being challenged by others on its interpretation or implementation of a law is also pretty common.
But I have never heard of a government being the one challenging the validity of an Act of Parliament. It does seem unprecedented to me but I don’t know whether this is my lack of knowledge hence the question.
Forgetting the immediate issues arising from the Benn Act, why would any third party - be it government, international institution, company or individual - trust anything this government says about anything if the Prime Minister goes round publicly saying that he won’t obey a law passed by Parliament?
If you add up the populations of the states based on that 269-269 split* it comes to about 159m for the Dem states versus 167m for the Rep states.
Ultimately, it will depend on how partisan each state is.
(*https://www.270towin.com/maps/K8eBk)
Who knows if it will fly.
What is remarkable is that Hillary's no doubt very expensive campaign team of political consultants and advisors had made the very same mistake when she lost against Obama -- of counting votes not delegates.