Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the latest Democratic debate watch Klobuchar

SystemSystem Posts: 11,736
edited December 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the latest Democratic debate watch Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar won the debate, writes @mattklewis https://t.co/gycj3wPEWj

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,401
    First
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,267
    Second.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,324
    The buys in the Democratic field are: Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar.
    The sells are: Bloomberg, Clinton, Yang and Sanders.

  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,161
    edited December 2019
    I liked the way Baemy handled herself, she's kind of leaning into the whole Cruella de Vil vibe. There were a couple of moments when other candidates got into little dog fights like a pair of cute little dalmations and she lets them go at it for a bit then breaks in and drowns them both in the bath.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    p.s. what Nate Silver ALSO said is that he thought Joe Biden had a good night:

    'The other candidate I thought did well was Biden, who really had his first gaffe-free debate all campaign. That’s perhaps damning with faint praise, but I think he actually had some real highs — his answer on immigration, for instance — in addition to the lack of obvious stumbles. And he probably benefits from the fighting among some of the other candidates.'
  • Options

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates? I didn't think they were particularly bitter as American politics goes, and this was the first debate that I've watched and actually found the whole field impressive. I guess part of it was that there were fewer of them and they had more time to develop a point, but also I think they've all got visibly more effective as the debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates?
    No. The impeachment.
  • Options

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Have you?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,170
    edited December 2019
    Good morning everyone. Still a long way out in the US election isn't it. Wasn't Howard Dean everyone's favourite outsider at this stage long, long ago?
    On a personal note, taking my wife to hospital today for a, so far, four times delayed gall-bladder removal. No cancellation phone call so far. After the last time I wrote to complain, so maybe........

    She's not due for admission though until 11.30 so still time for postponement, if past experience is any guide.
  • Options

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates?
    No. The impeachment.
    Ah, OK. I know Pelosi is aware of the danger, she didn't really want to go into the process at all, but Trump just kept on committing crimes.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Have you?
    I've only just finished collecting my winnings from the GE :wink: Pain in the arse that you can't access the betting sites in the Middle East and SE Asia so I had to wait until I flew back in. Even my VPN's didn't work.

    Which is a long way around of saying, not yet but I'm going to. I will probably wait until Day 1 of the impeachment hearings and then strike.

    The impeachment will go nowhere and Trump will use it annoyingly brilliantly to pump his people vs politicians meme. The rest will be history.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates?
    No. The impeachment.
    Ah, OK. I know Pelosi is aware of the danger, she didn't really want to go into the process at all, but Trump just kept on committing crimes.
    :smiley:

    It seems to be the most assured route to success nowadays. Lies, dishonesty and corruption. Perhaps it was ever thus and Nixon was just inept at it.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    I hope it all goes well Old King Cole. Very best wishes for your wife.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,324

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    There are two separate issues: Firstly, does a "robust" Primary, with lots of inter-party fighting help or hinder? Secondly, have the impeachment proceedings in the House helped President Trump?

    I suspect the answer to the first question is that it doesn't matter. Indeed, lots of people competing for the nomination (and getting vicious with each other) doesn't seem to have any negative impacts. (See Trump '16.)

    The second question I think works more in Trump's favour. Like it or not, most Americans don't think about Ukraine, and explaining what exactly Trump did that was impeachable... is not that easy.

    A much bigger (potential) issue for Trump is the claim that a Trump political appointee attempted to influence the auditing of the President's tax returns. If that turns out to be true, then that is much more serious. But we're probably six to nine months away from knowing the full story.

    One other thing: Christianity Today, one of the biggest Evangelical Christian magazines in the US and formerly a Trump supporter, has just come out with a blistering editorial against him. Now, you shouldn't read too much into this, but in many ways Trump has already delivered to the Evangelicals - he's given them the Judges they want (and that will influence the US for decades to come). What he offers from here on in is much more limited.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,170

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Have you?
    I've only just finished collecting my winnings from the GE :wink: Pain in the arse that you can't access the betting sites in the Middle East and SE Asia so I had to wait until I flew back in. Even my VPN's didn't work.

    Which is a long way around of saying, not yet but I'm going to. I will probably wait until Day 1 of the impeachment hearings and then strike.

    The impeachment will go nowhere and Trump will use it annoyingly brilliantly to pump his people vs politicians meme. The rest will be history.
    I really don't see the advantage to the Dems in going for an unachievable impeachment at this stage in the cycle. By this time next year there'll be a President-Elect, who may or may not be the current incumbent.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,170

    I hope it all goes well Old King Cole. Very best wishes for your wife.

    Thanks. Limbo is not an attractive place to be!
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,324

    p.s. what Nate Silver ALSO said is that he thought Joe Biden had a good night:

    'The other candidate I thought did well was Biden, who really had his first gaffe-free debate all campaign. That’s perhaps damning with faint praise, but I think he actually had some real highs — his answer on immigration, for instance — in addition to the lack of obvious stumbles. And he probably benefits from the fighting among some of the other candidates.'

    Biden is probably a 40% shot at the nomination here, with Warren and Buttigieg around 20% each, and Sanders and Baemy 5% shots. Bloomberg and Clinton are straight sells; the former simply isn't popular with most Democrats while the latter isn't standing. (And would lose if she did stand.)
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    The buys in the Democratic field are: Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar.
    The sells are: Bloomberg, Clinton, Yang and Sanders.

    Is there any real prospect of either Clinton or Bloomberg being a ‘compromise’ candidate in a convention, say, where the elected delegates split roughly 35:30:20:15 to Biden/Sanders/Buttigieg/Others?

    I’m trying to see how that works, and struggling.
  • Options


    I really don't see the advantage to the Dems in going for an unachievable impeachment at this stage in the cycle. By this time next year there'll be a President-Elect, who may or may not be the current incumbent.

    I think it was hard for them to avoid at this point, it's clearly justified, and their base obviously think it's justified, so they had to do it even though they know it'll die in the Senate.

    I don't think it'll do much with Trump either way; Their side support it, the other side oppose it. But there's probably a benefit to forcing purple-state GOP senators to side with Trump, especially as Trump is likely to go on to commit *more* crimes, especially if he loses and has 3 months as a lame duck with nothing to lose, and they can also pin those on the senators who voted to keep him in office.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    There are two separate issues: Firstly, does a "robust" Primary, with lots of inter-party fighting help or hinder? Secondly, have the impeachment proceedings in the House helped President Trump?

    I suspect the answer to the first question is that it doesn't matter. Indeed, lots of people competing for the nomination (and getting vicious with each other) doesn't seem to have any negative impacts. (See Trump '16.)

    The second question I think works more in Trump's favour. Like it or not, most Americans don't think about Ukraine, and explaining what exactly Trump did that was impeachable... is not that easy.

    A much bigger (potential) issue for Trump is the claim that a Trump political appointee attempted to influence the auditing of the President's tax returns. If that turns out to be true, then that is much more serious. But we're probably six to nine months away from knowing the full story.

    One other thing: Christianity Today, one of the biggest Evangelical Christian magazines in the US and formerly a Trump supporter, has just come out with a blistering editorial against him. Now, you shouldn't read too much into this, but in many ways Trump has already delivered to the Evangelicals - he's given them the Judges they want (and that will influence the US for decades to come). What he offers from here on in is much more limited.
    I can see Trump winning re-election.

    He’s delivered (or at least been seen and believed to deliver) for his base, and the Democrats are unlikely to put up anyone inspiring.

    The culture wars in the US will do the rest, on the basis he’s “our sack of shit”.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,936
    What might, just might, be significant in the impeachment is that Christianity Today (evangelical magazine) has come out and said Trump should be impeached.

    From the evangelical Christian perspective, you'd presumably much rather have Pence than Trump?
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,161
    edited December 2019

    rcs1000 said:

    The buys in the Democratic field are: Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar.
    The sells are: Bloomberg, Clinton, Yang and Sanders.

    Is there any real prospect of either Clinton or Bloomberg being a ‘compromise’ candidate in a convention, say, where the elected delegates split roughly 35:30:20:15 to Biden/Sanders/Buttigieg/Others?

    I’m trying to see how that works, and struggling.
    Picking someone who didn't run is just about thinkable, but I'm having a hard time seeing what either Clinton or Bloomberg represent a compromise between. It's likely to be a fight between an electability and radical change; You don't satisfy either side by picking someone opposed to radical change, who has empirically proven that they're unelectable.

    A better dark horse in that situation might be Al Gore, at least Dems generally think he won his election.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    p.s. what Nate Silver ALSO said is that he thought Joe Biden had a good night:

    'The other candidate I thought did well was Biden, who really had his first gaffe-free debate all campaign. That’s perhaps damning with faint praise, but I think he actually had some real highs — his answer on immigration, for instance — in addition to the lack of obvious stumbles. And he probably benefits from the fighting among some of the other candidates.'

    Biden is probably a 40% shot at the nomination here, with Warren and Buttigieg around 20% each, and Sanders and Baemy 5% shots. Bloomberg and Clinton are straight sells; the former simply isn't popular with most Democrats while the latter isn't standing. (And would lose if she did stand.)
    You can lay Bloomberg at 11 this morning.

    Utter insanity.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    The buys in the Democratic field are: Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar.
    The sells are: Bloomberg, Clinton, Yang and Sanders.

    Is there any real prospect of either Clinton or Bloomberg being a ‘compromise’ candidate in a convention, say, where the elected delegates split roughly 35:30:20:15 to Biden/Sanders/Buttigieg/Others?

    I’m trying to see how that works, and struggling.
    Picking someone who didn't run is just about thinkable, but I'm having a hard time seeing what either Clinton or Bloomberg represent a compromise between. It's likely to be a fight between an electability and radical change; You don't satisfy either side by picking someone opposed to radical change, who has empirically proven that they're unelectable.

    A better dark horse in that situation might be Al Gore, at least Dems generally think he won his election.
    That’s a good point, and I think many Democrats would also underline he’s been vindicated by what’s happened in the world since the 2000 presidential.

    Clinton carries too much baggage in my view, but what do I know.
  • Options
    Good morning, everyone.

    I hope she doesn't get it. I'd like to be green on one US election race...
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,193

    rcs1000 said:

    The buys in the Democratic field are: Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar.
    The sells are: Bloomberg, Clinton, Yang and Sanders.

    Is there any real prospect of either Clinton or Bloomberg being a ‘compromise’ candidate in a convention, say, where the elected delegates split roughly 35:30:20:15 to Biden/Sanders/Buttigieg/Others?

    I’m trying to see how that works, and struggling.
    If you are at the point where the likely nominee is drowning against Trump, and it looks like a free-for-all brokered convention, then that is where my money goes on Michelle Obama.....
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates?
    No. The impeachment.
    The impeachment is about firing up the Dem base.

    In the rust belt states that Hilary lost the Dems vote fell by up to 10 percentage points. Trump caused the Republican vote to rise by a point or 2.

    Pelosi's impeachment strategy is that it doesn't matter of Trump's base solidifies, that base is too low if the Dems even claw back just half their voter loses.
  • Options

    what do I know.

    A lot more than this market, apparently...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,324

    rcs1000 said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    There are two separate issues: Firstly, does a "robust" Primary, with lots of inter-party fighting help or hinder? Secondly, have the impeachment proceedings in the House helped President Trump?

    I suspect the answer to the first question is that it doesn't matter. Indeed, lots of people competing for the nomination (and getting vicious with each other) doesn't seem to have any negative impacts. (See Trump '16.)

    The second question I think works more in Trump's favour. Like it or not, most Americans don't think about Ukraine, and explaining what exactly Trump did that was impeachable... is not that easy.

    A much bigger (potential) issue for Trump is the claim that a Trump political appointee attempted to influence the auditing of the President's tax returns. If that turns out to be true, then that is much more serious. But we're probably six to nine months away from knowing the full story.

    One other thing: Christianity Today, one of the biggest Evangelical Christian magazines in the US and formerly a Trump supporter, has just come out with a blistering editorial against him. Now, you shouldn't read too much into this, but in many ways Trump has already delivered to the Evangelicals - he's given them the Judges they want (and that will influence the US for decades to come). What he offers from here on in is much more limited.
    I can see Trump winning re-election.

    He’s delivered (or at least been seen and believed to deliver) for his base, and the Democrats are unlikely to put up anyone inspiring.

    The culture wars in the US will do the rest, on the basis he’s “our sack of shit”.
    I think he's probably (right now) very slightly better than evens to be re-elected. There are a lot of unknowns out there: the tax return story, the US economy, Trump's mental state, who the Democrats choose, etc.

    If Warren is the candidate, I think Trump probably walks it. The others, it's a harder call.
  • Options
    HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185
    Finished my trawl of election analysis, well I have nothing else to do on the tram when there is no room to read my book so I may as well listen to podcasts.

    Ed Milliband has entirely missed the point, he views policy as a sliding scale of spending. 2015 wasn't enough, 2019 was too much and 2017 was juuuuust right. All of this ignores the context of whom they were facing, when and the parties reputation (which is borderline trashed at the moment). You can tell he is a wonk as a result.

    The FT had a really, really good breakdown of what happened and highlighted something that was partly missed by analysts in 2017; May was angling to move the party towards the more blue collar marker in her election, she failed but she built a base and direction. Johnson has capitalised on this by framing the election more clearly.

    The Labour party have not learnt from the result, in fact the rhetoric has gotten worse from some of the MP's. Angela Eagle tweeted that Dominic Cummings plans to reform Whitehall were 'alt-right', because of course the two things are directly linked. Other MP's and senior figures in and around the party keep talking about fear and disapointment about what has happened, not many of them talk about the defeat itself.

    I am no Johnson fan, haven't been since he failed in the Foreign Office but he is either the luckiest general alive or he knows how to use context and people to get what he wants. In Cummings he may have genuinely found someone who could change the way we do government, I mean it may be all nonsense but someone has to take on this change at some point so at least some kind of process can be started.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,324

    Good morning, everyone.

    I hope she doesn't get it. I'd like to be green on one US election race...

    Eh? She's still crazy long odds, so you can probably cover without much difficulty.
  • Options
    Watched it sporadically and agree with the header - also agree with EiT - this "protracted" process is helping inform the choice and hone the politicians' skills. Labour should do something similar.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Backed klobuchar just before the debate.

    I am wise.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    The problem with putting money where my mouth is, is that Trump is currently 19/20 to be re-elected President.

    Not the kind of odds which are attractive at such long range
  • Options

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    I agree entirely - Trump can hardly believe his luck.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited December 2019
    Alistair said:

    Backed klobuchar just before the debate.

    I am wise.

    You can still get 66-1 on her.

    I'm not overly tempted.

    (Edit. 66-1 to win the Presidency. 40-1 for the Dem nomination.)
  • Options
    HaroldOHaroldO Posts: 1,185

    Watched it sporadically and agree with the header - also agree with EiT - this "protracted" process is helping inform the choice and hone the politicians' skills. Labour should do something similar.

    Tories did something similar to replace Howard IIRC.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    There are two separate issues: Firstly, does a "robust" Primary, with lots of inter-party fighting help or hinder? Secondly, have the impeachment proceedings in the House helped President Trump?

    I suspect the answer to the first question is that it doesn't matter. Indeed, lots of people competing for the nomination (and getting vicious with each other) doesn't seem to have any negative impacts. (See Trump '16.)

    The second question I think works more in Trump's favour. Like it or not, most Americans don't think about Ukraine, and explaining what exactly Trump did that was impeachable... is not that easy.

    A much bigger (potential) issue for Trump is the claim that a Trump political appointee attempted to influence the auditing of the President's tax returns. If that turns out to be true, then that is much more serious. But we're probably six to nine months away from knowing the full story.

    One other thing: Christianity Today, one of the biggest Evangelical Christian magazines in the US and formerly a Trump supporter, has just come out with a blistering editorial against him. Now, you shouldn't read too much into this, but in many ways Trump has already delivered to the Evangelicals - he's given them the Judges they want (and that will influence the US for decades to come). What he offers from here on in is much more limited.
    I can see Trump winning re-election.

    He’s delivered (or at least been seen and believed to deliver) for his base, and the Democrats are unlikely to put up anyone inspiring.

    The culture wars in the US will do the rest, on the basis he’s “our sack of shit”.

    Sounds about right. The US is in a very dark place.

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,193
    edited December 2019
    The losing Conservative candidate in Houghton and Sunderland South is certain that the Brexit Party cost him - and many other Tories - their seats. And that their standing masked what should have been a 1997-style massacre for Labour.

    https://brexitcentral.com/the-brexit-party-actually-saved-the-labour-party-from-annihilation-last-week-in-places-like-sunderland/
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,053
    Is it time for Amy to have her day in the sun? If so then very well timed indeed. I saw a bit of the debate, and she was impressive, but does anyone actually watch a debate on PBS? Or do they just get snippets on social media.

    I am green on Warren, Buttigeig and Klobuchar, but the latter is my big winner for nominee. I shall see how the land lies for POTUS after the nominee is clear.

    On the one hand Trump is an appalling human being without a single redeeming feature, but on the other hand POTUS usually gets a second term, and he was just as appalling last time around. Amy just seems too normal to be in this freak show.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    rcs1000 said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    There are two separate issues: Firstly, does a "robust" Primary, with lots of inter-party fighting help or hinder? Secondly, have the impeachment proceedings in the House helped President Trump?

    I suspect the answer to the first question is that it doesn't matter. Indeed, lots of people competing for the nomination (and getting vicious with each other) doesn't seem to have any negative impacts. (See Trump '16.)

    The second question I think works more in Trump's favour. Like it or not, most Americans don't think about Ukraine, and explaining what exactly Trump did that was impeachable... is not that easy.

    A much bigger (potential) issue for Trump is the claim that a Trump political appointee attempted to influence the auditing of the President's tax returns. If that turns out to be true, then that is much more serious. But we're probably six to nine months away from knowing the full story.

    One other thing: Christianity Today, one of the biggest Evangelical Christian magazines in the US and formerly a Trump supporter, has just come out with a blistering editorial against him. Now, you shouldn't read too much into this, but in many ways Trump has already delivered to the Evangelicals - he's given them the Judges they want (and that will influence the US for decades to come). What he offers from here on in is much more limited.
    I can see Trump winning re-election.

    He’s delivered (or at least been seen and believed to deliver) for his base, and the Democrats are unlikely to put up anyone inspiring.

    The culture wars in the US will do the rest, on the basis he’s “our sack of shit”.

    Sounds about right. The US is in a very dark place.

    It truly is.

    And we're getting darker this side of the pond.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,324

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    I agree entirely - Trump can hardly believe his luck.
    My view from America is that impeachment is barely even noticed, not least because the big news event is the Senate trial... And it's entirely possible that that is indefinitely postponed.
  • Options

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates? I didn't think they were particularly bitter as American politics goes, and this was the first debate that I've watched and actually found the whole field impressive. I guess part of it was that there were fewer of them and they had more time to develop a point, but also I think they've all got visibly more effective as the debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,193
    In 2017 licence-fee evasion accounted for 30 per cent of all prosecutions against women, the single most common. In contrast only 4 per cent of prosecutions against men were for non-payment of the licence.

    So says The Times.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,401

    rcs1000 said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    There are two separate issues: Firstly, does a "robust" Primary, with lots of inter-party fighting help or hinder? Secondly, have the impeachment proceedings in the House helped President Trump?

    I suspect the answer to the first question is that it doesn't matter. Indeed, lots of people competing for the nomination (and getting vicious with each other) doesn't seem to have any negative impacts. (See Trump '16.)

    The second question I think works more in Trump's favour. Like it or not, most Americans don't think about Ukraine, and explaining what exactly Trump did that was impeachable... is not that easy.

    A much bigger (potential) issue for Trump is the claim that a Trump political appointee attempted to influence the auditing of the President's tax returns. If that turns out to be true, then that is much more serious. But we're probably six to nine months away from knowing the full story.

    One other thing: Christianity Today, one of the biggest Evangelical Christian magazines in the US and formerly a Trump supporter, has just come out with a blistering editorial against him. Now, you shouldn't read too much into this, but in many ways Trump has already delivered to the Evangelicals - he's given them the Judges they want (and that will influence the US for decades to come). What he offers from here on in is much more limited.
    I can see Trump winning re-election.

    He’s delivered (or at least been seen and believed to deliver) for his base, and the Democrats are unlikely to put up anyone inspiring.

    The culture wars in the US will do the rest, on the basis he’s “our sack of shit”.

    Sounds about right. The US is in a very dark place.

    It truly is.

    And we're getting darker this side of the pond.
    Yes , the left is moving ever further left, more crushing defeats likely and no substantive opposition.. Very worrying.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates? I didn't think they were particularly bitter as American politics goes, and this was the first debate that I've watched and actually found the whole field impressive. I guess part of it was that there were fewer of them and they had more time to develop a point, but also I think they've all got visibly more effective as the debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,053

    In 2017 licence-fee evasion accounted for 30 per cent of all prosecutions against women, the single most common. In contrast only 4 per cent of prosecutions against men were for non-payment of the licence.

    So says The Times.

    Surely that is just that a lot more men get prosecuted overall, enlarging the denominator.

    I am not convinced that "social conservatives" want to see the BBC trashed and privatised. It is one of the most respected UK brands worldwide,and Increasingly our exports are of the softer cultural type.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,936
    50/50 for me on Trump re-election.

    Looking at the map, even if we give him Florida, he needs to recreate his success in states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

    His net approval in those swing states don't look great at the moment either.
    OH (-5), MI (-14), PA (-7). https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    There are two separate issues: Firstly, does a "robust" Primary, with lots of inter-party fighting help or hinder? Secondly, have the impeachment proceedings in the House helped President Trump?

    I suspect the answer to the first question is that it doesn't matter. Indeed, lots of people competing for the nomination (and getting vicious with each other) doesn't seem to have any negative impacts. (See Trump '16.)

    The second question I think works more in Trump's favour. Like it or not, most Americans don't think about Ukraine, and explaining what exactly Trump did that was impeachable... is not that easy.

    A much bigger (potential) issue for Trump is the claim that a Trump political appointee attempted to influence the auditing of the President's tax returns. If that turns out to be true, then that is much more serious. But we're probably six to nine months away from knowing the full story.

    One other thing: Christianity Today, one of the biggest Evangelical Christian magazines in the US and formerly a Trump supporter, has just come out with a blistering editorial against him. Now, you shouldn't read too much into this, but in many ways Trump has already delivered to the Evangelicals - he's given them the Judges they want (and that will influence the US for decades to come). What he offers from here on in is much more limited.
    I can see Trump winning re-election.

    He’s delivered (or at least been seen and believed to deliver) for his base, and the Democrats are unlikely to put up anyone inspiring.

    The culture wars in the US will do the rest, on the basis he’s “our sack of shit”.

    Sounds about right. The US is in a very dark place.

    It truly is.

    And we're getting darker this side of the pond.

    Yep, the power grab by the executive has begun. Voter suppression and the constraining of the courts will follow. It’s all entirely predictable. And over here, an unwritten constitution and no formal separation of powers means it can be done very easily and with no oversight.

  • Options

    In 2017 licence-fee evasion accounted for 30 per cent of all prosecutions against women, the single most common. In contrast only 4 per cent of prosecutions against men were for non-payment of the licence.

    So says The Times.

    The TV Licensing Authority are rude and aggressive bullies.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    There are two separate issues: Firstly, does a "robust" Primary, with lots of inter-party fighting help or hinder? Secondly, have the impeachment proceedings in the House helped President Trump?

    I suspect the answer to the first question is that it doesn't matter. Indeed, lots of people competing for the nomination (and getting vicious with each other) doesn't seem to have any negative impacts. (See Trump '16.)

    The second question I think works more in Trump's favour. Like it or not, most Americans don't think about Ukraine, and explaining what exactly Trump did that was impeachable... is not that easy.

    A much bigger (potential) issue for Trump is the claim that a Trump political appointee attempted to influence the auditing of the President's tax returns. If that turns out to be true, then that is much more serious. But we're probably six to nine months away from knowing the full story.

    One other thing: Christianity Today, one of the biggest Evangelical Christian magazines in the US and formerly a Trump supporter, has just come out with a blistering editorial against him. Now, you shouldn't read too much into this, but in many ways Trump has already delivered to the Evangelicals - he's given them the Judges they want (and that will influence the US for decades to come). What he offers from here on in is much more limited.
    I can see Trump winning re-election.

    He’s delivered (or at least been seen and believed to deliver) for his base, and the Democrats are unlikely to put up anyone inspiring.

    The culture wars in the US will do the rest, on the basis he’s “our sack of shit”.

    Sounds about right. The US is in a very dark place.

    It truly is.

    And we're getting darker this side of the pond.

    Yep, the power grab by the executive has begun. Voter suppression and the constraining of the courts will follow. It’s all entirely predictable. And over here, an unwritten constitution and no formal separation of powers means it can be done very easily and with no oversight.

    Labour, crossbench and Lib Dem undead peers still have a majority in the Lords.

    So it won’t be all plain sailing.
  • Options

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates? I didn't think they were particularly bitter as American politics goes, and this was the first debate that I've watched and actually found the whole field impressive. I guess part of it was that there were fewer of them and they had more time to develop a point, but also I think they've all got visibly more effective as the debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I agree completely and am very grateful to them that they saved us from Theresa May's deal and helped deliver a proper Brexit.

    That not one of these Remainers prevaricated before voting with the ERG should have made them stop and think. It didn't.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,401
    I have only just noticed that Boris's Tory vote count is only slightly less than Major got in 1992...
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,053

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates? I didn't think they were particularly bitter as American politics goes, and this was the first debate that I've watched and actually found the whole field impressive. I guess part of it was that there were fewer of them and they had more time to develop a point, but also I think they've all got visibly more effective as the debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't much of a deal and would have been viewed as not a proper Brexit by the death eaters of the ERG and BXP.

    It is only by destroying our relationship with our friends and neighbours that we will learn to appreciate what we will lose, and come back to a more constructive approach. Tis a pity the damage done in the meantime.

    It is worth noting that while the parliamentary arithmetic has changed, the underlying electoral arithmetic has not. A week ago more people voted against BoZo's deal than for it. It is built on very fragile foundations.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    In 2017 licence-fee evasion accounted for 30 per cent of all prosecutions against women, the single most common. In contrast only 4 per cent of prosecutions against men were for non-payment of the licence.

    So says The Times.

    Surely that is just that a lot more men get prosecuted overall, enlarging the denominator.

    I am not convinced that "social conservatives" want to see the BBC trashed and privatised. It is one of the most respected UK brands worldwide,and Increasingly our exports are of the softer cultural type.
    No need to trash the BBC, just privatise it.

    And the sooner the abbheration of being taxed to watch TV in under to fund Radio ends the better.
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    Foxy said:

    In 2017 licence-fee evasion accounted for 30 per cent of all prosecutions against women, the single most common. In contrast only 4 per cent of prosecutions against men were for non-payment of the licence.

    So says The Times.

    Surely that is just that a lot more men get prosecuted overall, enlarging the denominator.

    I am not convinced that "social conservatives" want to see the BBC trashed and privatised. It is one of the most respected UK brands worldwide,and Increasingly our exports are of the softer cultural type.
    No need to trash the BBC, just privatise it.

    And the sooner the abbheration of being taxed to watch TV in under to fund Radio ends the better.
    Totally agree.

    Even socialists can have common sense :smiley:
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    There are two separate issues: Firstly, does a "robust" Primary, with lots of inter-party fighting help or hinder? Secondly, have the impeachment proceedings in the House helped President Trump?

    I suspect the answer to the first question is that it doesn't matter. Indeed, lots of people competing for the nomination (and getting vicious with each other) doesn't seem to have any negative impacts. (See Trump '16.)

    The second question I think works more in Trump's favour. Like it or not, most Americans don't think about Ukraine, and explaining what exactly Trump did that was impeachable... is not that easy.

    A much bigger (potential) issue for Trump is the claim that a Trump political appointee attempted to influence the auditing of the President's tax returns. If that turns out to be true, then that is much more serious. But we're probably six to nine months away from knowing the full story.

    One other thing: Christianity Today, one of the biggest Evangelical Christian magazines in the US and formerly a Trump supporter, has just come out with a blistering editorial against him. Now, you shouldn't read too much into this, but in many ways Trump has already delivered to the Evangelicals - he's given them the Judges they want (and that will influence the US for decades to come). What he offers from here on in is much more limited.
    I can see Trump winning re-election.

    He’s delivered (or at least been seen and believed to deliver) for his base, and the Democrats are unlikely to put up anyone inspiring.

    The culture wars in the US will do the rest, on the basis he’s “our sack of shit”.

    Sounds about right. The US is in a very dark place.

    It truly is.

    And we're getting darker this side of the pond.

    Yep, the power grab by the executive has begun. Voter suppression and the constraining of the courts will follow. It’s all entirely predictable. And over here, an unwritten constitution and no formal separation of powers means it can be done very easily and with no oversight.

    Labour, crossbench and Lib Dem undead peers still have a majority in the Lords.

    So it won’t be all plain sailing.

    That can be changed quite easily.

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,193

    In 2017 licence-fee evasion accounted for 30 per cent of all prosecutions against women, the single most common. In contrast only 4 per cent of prosecutions against men were for non-payment of the licence.

    So says The Times.

    The TV Licensing Authority are rude and aggressive bullies.
    They are truly shocking. We had a house empty for over a year as we rebuilt it. I watched with mounting annoyance as they got ever more shrill in their intentions of prosecution - at a property that had no TV, so was at no risk of breaking the law.

    I'm sure they will be just as adept at using the civil courts as the criminal, though.
  • Options

    Foxy said:

    In 2017 licence-fee evasion accounted for 30 per cent of all prosecutions against women, the single most common. In contrast only 4 per cent of prosecutions against men were for non-payment of the licence.

    So says The Times.

    Surely that is just that a lot more men get prosecuted overall, enlarging the denominator.

    I am not convinced that "social conservatives" want to see the BBC trashed and privatised. It is one of the most respected UK brands worldwide,and Increasingly our exports are of the softer cultural type.
    No need to trash the BBC, just privatise it.

    And the sooner the abbheration of being taxed to watch TV in under to fund Radio ends the better.
    Totally agree.

    Even socialists can have common sense :smiley:
    At the same time we both agreed with something the other wrote. Is one of us sick? 😉
  • Options
    MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    Foxy said:

    In 2017 licence-fee evasion accounted for 30 per cent of all prosecutions against women, the single most common. In contrast only 4 per cent of prosecutions against men were for non-payment of the licence.

    So says The Times.

    Surely that is just that a lot more men get prosecuted overall, enlarging the denominator.

    I am not convinced that "social conservatives" want to see the BBC trashed and privatised. It is one of the most respected UK brands worldwide,and Increasingly our exports are of the softer cultural type.
    No need to trash the BBC, just privatise it.

    And the sooner the abbheration of being taxed to watch TV in under to fund Radio ends the better.
    Totally agree.

    Even socialists can have common sense :smiley:
    At the same time we both agreed with something the other wrote. Is one of us sick? 😉
    :smiley::wink:
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates? I didn't think they were particularly bitter as American politics goes, and this was the first debate that I've watched and actually found the whole field impressive. I guess part of it was that there were fewer of them and they had more time to develop a point, but also I think they've all got visibly more effective as the debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't much of a deal and would have been viewed as not a proper Brexit by the death eaters of the ERG and BXP.

    It is only by destroying our relationship with our friends and neighbours that we will learn to appreciate what we will lose, and come back to a more constructive approach. Tis a pity the damage done in the meantime.

    It is worth noting that while the parliamentary arithmetic has changed, the underlying electoral arithmetic has not. A week ago more people voted against BoZo's deal than for it. It is built on very fragile foundations.
    The backstop wasn't a proper Brexit. You don't have to be a "death eater" to recognise that.

    Oh well its history now. Thanks a lot Soubry, Grieve and co for ensuring we get a proper Brexit.
  • Options
    Mr. 1000, ah, I thought they'd fallen a lot more. Thanks, covered that off now.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,054
    rkrkrk said:

    50/50 for me on Trump re-election.

    Looking at the map, even if we give him Florida, he needs to recreate his success in states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

    His net approval in those swing states don't look great at the moment either.
    OH (-5), MI (-14), PA (-7). https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/

    He'll win Ohio easily so if PA is close that's not terrible news for Trump
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    There are two separate issues: Firstly, does a "robust" Primary, with lots of inter-party fighting help or hinder? Secondly, have the impeachment proceedings in the House helped President Trump?

    I suspect the answer to the first question is that it doesn't matter. Indeed, lots of people competing for the nomination (and getting vicious with each other) doesn't seem to have any negative impacts. (See Trump '16.)

    The second question I think works more in Trump's favour. Like it or not, most Americans don't think about Ukraine, and explaining what exactly Trump did that was impeachable... is not that easy.

    A much bigger (potential) issue for Trump is the claim that a Trump political appointee attempted to influence the auditing of the President's tax returns. If that turns out to be true, then that is much more serious. But we're probably six to nine months away from knowing the full story.

    One other thing: Christianity Today, one of the biggest Evangelical Christian magazines in the US and formerly a Trump supporter, has just come out with a blistering editorial against him. Now, you shouldn't read too much into this, but in many ways Trump has already delivered to the Evangelicals - he's given them the Judges they want (and that will influence the US for decades to come). What he offers from here on in is much more limited.
    I can see Trump winning re-election.

    He’s delivered (or at least been seen and believed to deliver) for his base, and the Democrats are unlikely to put up anyone inspiring.

    The culture wars in the US will do the rest, on the basis he’s “our sack of shit”.

    Sounds about right. The US is in a very dark place.

    It truly is.

    And we're getting darker this side of the pond.

    Yep, the power grab by the executive has begun. Voter suppression and the constraining of the courts will follow. It’s all entirely predictable. And over here, an unwritten constitution and no formal separation of powers means it can be done very easily and with no oversight.

    Introduction of the voter identity approach used in Northern Ireland for years is voter suppression? Closing down the opportunity to fiddle postal votes is equally important.
  • Options
    The thing that stumps me is whenever the BBC comes up in discussion you get people inevitably saying "well I think the BBC is great because *insert show or radio station here*"

    Fine! If you think its great, you pay for it. What's stopping you? If it is on a voluntary subscription model rather than a compulsory subscription model then you will still be able to fund it if you want to.
  • Options
    Banterman said:

    Introduction of the voter identity approach used in Northern Ireland for years is voter suppression? Closing down the opportunity to fiddle postal votes is equally important.

    Especially when on election night there were multiple reports of Personation coming through and multiple reports of people going to vote only to be told they'd already voted.
  • Options

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates? I didn't think they were particularly bitter as American politics goes, and this was the first debate that I've watched and actually found the whole field impressive. I guess part of it was that there were fewer of them and they had more time to develop a point, but also I think they've all got visibly more effective as the debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes
    Alongside the DUP the SNP are the biggest losers from the failure of May's deal.

    With May's "no hard borders" between the EU and the UK Sindy could be quite straight forward (setting aside the money issues(!)) - now with a Boris Brexit there will be a border in the Irish sea, and if Sindy wanted to join the EU, between Scotland and its largest market (more than 3 times the size of the EU) too.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates? I didn't think they were particularly bitter as American politics goes, and this was the first debate that I've watched and actually found the whole field impressive. I guess part of it was that there were fewer of them and they had more time to develop a point, but also I think they've all got visibly more effective as the debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't much of a deal and would have been viewed as not a proper Brexit by the death eaters of the ERG and BXP.

    It is only by destroying our relationship with our friends and neighbours that we will learn to appreciate what we will lose, and come back to a more constructive approach. Tis a pity the damage done in the meantime.

    It is worth noting that while the parliamentary arithmetic has changed, the underlying electoral arithmetic has not. A week ago more people voted against BoZo's deal than for it. It is built on very fragile foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,936
    Pulpstar said:

    rkrkrk said:

    50/50 for me on Trump re-election.

    Looking at the map, even if we give him Florida, he needs to recreate his success in states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

    His net approval in those swing states don't look great at the moment either.
    OH (-5), MI (-14), PA (-7). https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/

    He'll win Ohio easily so if PA is close that's not terrible news for Trump
    I'm not so sure he'll win Ohio easily even though he did last time.

    For one thing, the Dems won the senate seat there in 2018, 53.4 to 46.6 (and a bigger margin than in 2012). For another, John Kasich might be a spoiler/endorse another candidate. Finally, Ohio has been targeted by China in the trade war - they may blame Trump for that.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,267

    Good morning everyone. Still a long way out in the US election isn't it. Wasn't Howard Dean everyone's favourite outsider at this stage long, long ago?
    On a personal note, taking my wife to hospital today for a, so far, four times delayed gall-bladder removal. No cancellation phone call so far. After the last time I wrote to complain, so maybe........

    She's not due for admission though until 11.30 so still time for postponement, if past experience is any guide.

    Best of luck to Mrs Cole. Hope all goes well for you both.

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates? I didn't think they were particularly bitter as American politics goes, and this was the first debate that I've watched and actually found the whole field impressive. I guess part of it was that there were fewer of them and they had more time to develop a point, but also I think they've all got visibly more effective as the debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    And without any Parliamentary scrutiny of either it or any FTAs he agrees. Honestly, if you want an unaccountable executive without scrutiny you may as well stay in the EU.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    Ah, so its Klobuchar's turn to get a bit of media attention I see, I love primary season. Even Yang will get a moment soon.
  • Options

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?
  • Options
    Mr. Observer, better ID for voting given various shenanigans is no bad thing (and I think postal voting should be curtailed).

    The trial had over a dozen different acceptable forms of ID, and for those who had none of them the council would provide a specific voter ID, for free, upon request.
  • Options

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139

    The thing that stumps me is whenever the BBC comes up in discussion you get people inevitably saying "well I think the BBC is great because *insert show or radio station here*"

    Fine! If you think its great, you pay for it. What's stopping you? If it is on a voluntary subscription model rather than a compulsory subscription model then you will still be able to fund it if you want to.

    I only really ever use its news services
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,054

    rcs1000 said:

    The buys in the Democratic field are: Biden, Warren, Buttigieg and Klobuchar.
    The sells are: Bloomberg, Clinton, Yang and Sanders.

    Is there any real prospect of either Clinton or Bloomberg being a ‘compromise’ candidate in a convention, say, where the elected delegates split roughly 35:30:20:15 to Biden/Sanders/Buttigieg/Others?

    I’m trying to see how that works, and struggling.
    Bloomberg - no chance I'd say. Clinton could be if she was running, which she isn't
  • Options

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,054
    The nominee is Biden I think (Following endorsements from Clinton and Obama) in that scenario I think.
    No malarkey
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    The thing that stumps me is whenever the BBC comes up in discussion you get people inevitably saying "well I think the BBC is great because *insert show or radio station here*"

    Fine! If you think its great, you pay for it. What's stopping you? If it is on a voluntary subscription model rather than a compulsory subscription model then you will still be able to fund it if you want to.

    I only really ever use its news services
    Indeed. I don't see why we need to pay for Home Under the Hammer or Pointless or whatever other crap they fill the day with via a poll tax.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,267

    Foxy said:

    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't much of a deal and would have been viewed as not a proper Brexit by the death eaters of the ERG and BXP.

    It is only by destroying our relationship with our friends and neighbours that we will learn to appreciate what we will lose, and come back to a more constructive approach. Tis a pity the damage done in the meantime.

    It is worth noting that while the parliamentary arithmetic has changed, the underlying electoral arithmetic has not. A week ago more people voted against BoZo's deal than for it. It is built on very fragile foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Yup. Depressing isn’t it. In what sense are we taking back control if our representatives get no say on what is going on?

    And it simply stores up trouble for the future. If the consequences of what is signed up to turn out to be less than optimal, the government has nowhere to hide and has no consensus for what it has agreed.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    Would be hilarious if Boris deal didn’t pass today. Of course that will not happen. But worth noting that Mays deal would still have failed its first MV with this majority.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,936
    If half a percentage point of turnout is the extent of the Tories' voter suppression efforts over the next 5 years - I think we'll have gotten off lightly.

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/five-things-we-have-learnt-about-englands-voter-id-trials-in-the-2019-local-elections/
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,053

    Foxy said:

    The Democrats appear to be committing exactly the same error that the British Opposition did.

    Labour and LibDems played politics - 'dicking around' and thus putting off a huge number of people. The Democrats are now doing exactly the same.

    I'd put money on Trump's re-election.

    Are you talking about the way they fought each other in the debates? I didn't think they were particularly bitter as American politics goes, and this was the first debate that I've watched and actually found the whole field impressive. I guess part of it was that there were fewer of them and they had more time to develop a point, but also I think they've all got visibly more effective as the debates went on.

    I know people get sick of drawn-out contests but Labour could really do with a process like this; Everybody gets a moment in the spotlight where they're properly tested, and they all come out of it better at politics than they were when they went in.
    I don't know what Mysticrose meant, but I meant, and assume she meant all the two years of parliamentary bullshitting. Oh, you can't do that because ..., ..., ... Dominic Grieve, Nick Boles style.
    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't much of a deal and would have been viewed as not a proper Brexit by the death eaters of the ERG and BXP.

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    I am not disputing that Britain Trump has the power to ensure it passes, the fragile thing is that he has not convinced the public.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't much of a deal and would have been viewed as not a proper Brexit by the death eaters of the ERG and BXP.

    It is only by destroying our relationship with our friends and neighbours that we will learn to appreciate what we will lose, and come back to a more constructive approach. Tis a pity the damage done in the meantime.

    It is worth noting that while the parliamentary arithmetic has changed, the underlying electoral arithmetic has not. A week ago more people voted against BoZo's deal than for it. It is built on very fragile foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Yup. Depressing isn’t it. In what sense are we taking back control if our representatives get no say on what is going on?

    And it simply stores up trouble for the future. If the consequences of what is signed up to turn out to be less than optimal, the government has nowhere to hide and has no consensus for what it has agreed.
    How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?

    How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
  • Options

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,543

    Good morning everyone. Still a long way out in the US election isn't it. Wasn't Howard Dean everyone's favourite outsider at this stage long, long ago?
    On a personal note, taking my wife to hospital today for a, so far, four times delayed gall-bladder removal. No cancellation phone call so far. After the last time I wrote to complain, so maybe........

    She's not due for admission though until 11.30 so still time for postponement, if past experience is any guide.

    Hope all goes well
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,053

    kle4 said:

    The thing that stumps me is whenever the BBC comes up in discussion you get people inevitably saying "well I think the BBC is great because *insert show or radio station here*"

    Fine! If you think its great, you pay for it. What's stopping you? If it is on a voluntary subscription model rather than a compulsory subscription model then you will still be able to fund it if you want to.

    I only really ever use its news services
    Indeed. I don't see why we need to pay for Home Under the Hammer or Pointless or whatever other crap they fill the day with via a poll tax.
    Sure, I would be happy to pay on subscription.

    Those CDE older folk in the Northern Wall may be rather more socially conservative and not see the Beeb broken up.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,267

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.
    That really isn’t scrutiny. Proper scrutiny would be to look in detail at all aspects as the negotiations are happening so that feedback and input can be provided and, hopefully, a better outcome is reached. Having no say and then being told that you have to take it or leave it at the end, especially when a 3-line whip is imposed is not an adequate substitute.

    We have not even had any discussion of Britain’s negotiating mandate or priorities during the election campaign and, unlike the US or EU, have not even set these out anywhere. And the executive in the WB is seeking to give itself extensive Henry VIII powers to do what it wants without regard to anyone else.

    How this is meant to be an improvement or any sort of meaningful taking back of control is a mystery to me.
  • Options

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,267

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Yes. It was ridiculous and I write that as someone pro-EU. I can't put 'remainer' because it's gone. History.

    They really did play silly buggers, much as I admire people like Dominic Grieve. Anna Soubry was one of the worst offenders.

    I said back in the day that they should have voted through Theresa May's deal which was a better Brexit than Johnson's. They got cocky and have now lost. Johnson has carte blanche to deliver any Brexit he wishes.

    I am sanguine about it. May's Brexit wasn't much of a deal and would have been viewed as not a proper Brexit by the death eaters of the ERG and BXP.

    It is only by destroying our relationship with our friends and neighbours that we will learn to appreciate what we will lose, and come back to a more constructive approach. Tis a pity the damage done in the meantime.

    It is worth noting that while the parliamentary arithmetic has changed, the underlying electoral arithmetic has not. A week ago more people voted against BoZo's deal than for it. It is built on very fragile foundations.

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Yup. Depressing isn’t it. In what sense are we taking back control if our representatives get no say on what is going on?

    And it simply stores up trouble for the future. If the consequences of what is signed up to turn out to be less than optimal, the government has nowhere to hide and has no consensus for what it has agreed.
    How do our representatives have no say in FTAs if they're having a straight up and down vote on whether to approve FTAs or not?

    How is that any worse than the scrutiny we had when the EU negotiated FTAs?
    See my other response. And wasn’t Brexit meant to make things better? Not well it’s no worse than before.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,139
    edited December 2019

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    Is that a power theyve always has before? I dont like big majority governments because of what they can therefore get away with, but it feels like people are presenting the existence of a big majority government as a diminution of our rights rather than how our system works. And fair enough not liking that, I dont like it, but the ability for the government to run riot doesnt seem a sign of malevolence, even if they might well do something malevolent.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913

    kle4 said:

    The thing that stumps me is whenever the BBC comes up in discussion you get people inevitably saying "well I think the BBC is great because *insert show or radio station here*"

    Fine! If you think its great, you pay for it. What's stopping you? If it is on a voluntary subscription model rather than a compulsory subscription model then you will still be able to fund it if you want to.

    I only really ever use its news services
    Indeed. I don't see why we need to pay for Home Under the Hammer or Pointless or whatever other crap they fill the day with via a poll tax.
    All because Andrew Neil dared to challenge Boris to an interview. Humility didn’t last long.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.
    That really isn’t scrutiny. Proper scrutiny would be to look in detail at all aspects as the negotiations are happening so that feedback and input can be provided and, hopefully, a better outcome is reached. Having no say and then being told that you have to take it or leave it at the end, especially when a 3-line whip is imposed is not an adequate substitute.

    We have not even had any discussion of Britain’s negotiating mandate or priorities during the election campaign and, unlike the US or EU, have not even set these out anywhere. And the executive in the WB is seeking to give itself extensive Henry VIII powers to do what it wants without regard to anyone else.

    How this is meant to be an improvement or any sort of meaningful taking back of control is a mystery to me.
    We choose the legislature which chooses the executive and if you don't like what either the executive or legislature have done you can reject it at the following election by choosing a new one. Something that can't be done within the EU as if the EU ratifies an FTA which you then want to reject at the next election you'd need to get the entire EU to renounce it not just the UK.

    Our taking back control happens at elections.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.
    That really isn’t scrutiny. Proper scrutiny would be to look in detail at all aspects as the negotiations are happening so that feedback and input can be provided and, hopefully, a better outcome is reached. Having no say and then being told that you have to take it or leave it at the end, especially when a 3-line whip is imposed is not an adequate substitute.

    We have not even had any discussion of Britain’s negotiating mandate or priorities during the election campaign and, unlike the US or EU, have not even set these out anywhere. And the executive in the WB is seeking to give itself extensive Henry VIII powers to do what it wants without regard to anyone else.

    How this is meant to be an improvement or any sort of meaningful taking back of control is a mystery to me.
    Oh, come on. Scrutiny of all aspects of the negotiations as they're going on? That's not what the legislature is for, and you know it. Negotiations of these sorts are clearly the domain of the executive - a confirmatory (or otherwise) vote on their outcome is an entirely appropriate level of parliamentary involvement. If the HoC feels strongly enough that the executive is pursuing the wrong course of action, well, that's what VoNC is for.
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    The thing that stumps me is whenever the BBC comes up in discussion you get people inevitably saying "well I think the BBC is great because *insert show or radio station here*"

    Fine! If you think its great, you pay for it. What's stopping you? If it is on a voluntary subscription model rather than a compulsory subscription model then you will still be able to fund it if you want to.

    I only really ever use its news services
    Indeed. I don't see why we need to pay for Home Under the Hammer or Pointless or whatever other crap they fill the day with via a poll tax.
    All because Andrew Neil dared to challenge Boris to an interview. Humility didn’t last long.
    Someone seems to be forgetting a number of us have been arguing for this for years
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,267

    We are heading for a sustained period of Tory rule, which will be bolstered by voter suppression, a strengthened executive and weaker courts. There is nothing fragile about Johnson’s deal. It is built on very solid foundations. The government can do exactly what it wants. And once the deal is done, our elected representatives become entirely redundant with regards to FTAs with the EU and anyone else. Negotiations and final outcomes will not be subject to any scrutiny.

    Doesn't Parliament have to ratify any FTAs? That is scrutiny isn't it?

    Not really. There is an up and down vote, potentially, once a deal has been done. And, of course, current legislation can be changed.

    An up and down vote is scrutiny. If they don't like the deal they can reject it.

    Scrutiny is the ability to hold the government to account throughout the entire negotiation process and to know the detail of what is being negotiated. An up and down vote is the ability to block. It’s not the same thing at all.

    That's nonsense. Negotiations are done by the executive because they're confidential but then the legislature determines the executives authority and priorities. If the legislature is unhappy with the executive it can choose a new one and then yes it can block the FTA if it isn't happy with it, that is scrutiny.

    The legislature holds the executive to account through multiple means and Select Committees etc
    No that isn’t scrutiny. The legislature is deliberately being given no role in setting the priorities for negotiations and there has been zero debate about them during the election campaign and precious little said in the manifestos either. Blocking is not scrutiny. A VoNC is not scrutiny.
This discussion has been closed.