Nothing wrong with a song. If "Boris" wants to close every cabinet meeting with a hymn or a sea shanty, fine.
But no coercive chanting. That is to humiliate and infantalize his colleagues. It's gratuitous. It's cruel. And most importantly it will not lead to good governance.
No vaccine is 100% effective. For mumps, the figure is around 88%, so your daughter may just be one of the unlucky 1 in 8. Did she have booster shots? They are recommended every 3-6 years. Though once she is recovered, she should have lifelong immunity.
No vaccine is 100% effective. For mumps, the figure is around 88%, so your daughter may just be one of the unlucky 1 in 8. Did she have booster shots? They are recommended every 3-6 years. Though once she is recovered, she should have lifelong immunity.
My 25 year old daughter, despite having all the vaccinations, has just caught mumps.
How can that be?
Back to mothering duties again......
She had the boosters all through school. But, tbh, I didn't realise you needed them once you are an adult. Should my sons get a booster? Yikes...
The current WHO and CDC guidance is that the 2-shot childhood vaccine should suffice. Others doubt that this is the case - either because immunity fades with time (for which there is some evidence) or that there has been some genetic drift in the extant virus, so we might need new booster shots to ensure our immunity is extended to the current version of the virus.
I think there is a fair amount of discussion about booster shots for a number of different viruses, and differing views (even excluding the anti-vaxxers).
This refers to a scientific study on the effectiveness of the 2-shot vaccine during an actual outbreak:
No vaccine is 100% effective. For mumps, the figure is around 88%, so your daughter may just be one of the unlucky 1 in 8. Did she have booster shots? They are recommended every 3-6 years. Though once she is recovered, she should have lifelong immunity.
My 25 year old daughter, despite having all the vaccinations, has just caught mumps.
How can that be?
Back to mothering duties again......
She had the boosters all through school. But, tbh, I didn't realise you needed them once you are an adult. Should my sons get a booster? Yikes...
It does seem to be the Wakefield generation that have reduced herd immunity.
It is likely to be fairly mild if vaccinated, hopefully as there are at least some antibodies.
I bloody well vaccinated all my children. If Wakefield is responsible for this, he'd better not be found anywhere near me. He will end up a stain on a carpet somewhere.
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
No vaccine is 100% effective. For mumps, the figure is around 88%, so your daughter may just be one of the unlucky 1 in 8. Did she have booster shots? They are recommended every 3-6 years. Though once she is recovered, she should have lifelong immunity.
My 25 year old daughter, despite having all the vaccinations, has just caught mumps.
How can that be?
Back to mothering duties again......
She had the boosters all through school. But, tbh, I didn't realise you needed them once you are an adult. Should my sons get a booster? Yikes...
The current WHO and CDC guidance is that the 2-shot childhood vaccine should suffice. Others doubt that this is the case - either because immunity fades with time (for which there is some evidence) or that there has been some genetic drift in the extant virus, so we might need new booster shots to ensure our immunity is extended to the current version of the virus.
I think there is a fair amount of discussion about booster shots for a number of different viruses, and differing views (even excluding the anti-vaxxers).
This refers to a scientific study on the effectiveness of the 2-shot vaccine during an actual outbreak:
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
This isnt to cast any aspersion on your post, just an observation. When I read it I thought "ooh some good info" then I comsidered you could have just gone on holiday with your wife and met a couple at dinner who said they wanted Bloomberg! Did you speak to lots of different people? Attend a Dem husting of some sort?
As I said I am not having a knock, just curious to know
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
This isnt to cast any aspersion on your post, just an observation. When I read it I thought "ooh some good info" then I comsidered you could have just gone on holiday with your wife and met a couple at dinner who said they wanted Bloomberg! Did you speak to lots of different people? Attend a Dem husting of some sort?
As I said I am not having a knock, just curious to know
Clearly all anecdotal evidence, there is no scientific evidence to back my statements.
The demographic of people I talked to was generally retired or older working age non-Trump supporting professional types, male rather than female. I did not speak to students. I did not discuss this with cab drivers, and I met no red-necks. My observation is wholly unrepresentative of psephological science.
Nonetheless I found it surprising last week and now here we are suggesting Bloomberg could be favourite.
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
They might nominate a liberal son of a billionaire as they did with JFK but a self made billionaire capitalist no, agreed
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
This isnt to cast any aspersion on your post, just an observation. When I read it I thought "ooh some good info" then I comsidered you could have just gone on holiday with your wife and met a couple at dinner who said they wanted Bloomberg! Did you speak to lots of different people? Attend a Dem husting of some sort?
As I said I am not having a knock, just curious to know
Clearly all anecdotal evidence, there is no scientific evidence to back my statements.
The demographic of people I talked to was generally retired or older working age non-Trump supporting professional types, male rather than female. I did not speak to students. I did not discuss this with cab drivers, and I met no red-necks. My observation is wholly unrepresentative of psephological science.
Nonetheless I found it surprising last week and now here we are suggesting Bloomberg could be favourite.
Thanks, I was genuinely curious, not mocking in any way
It may well be better info than psephological pseudo science.
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
You may be right. I am just commenting upon what a number of people suggested to me over the course of a number of days. It may well be nothing more than wishful thinking.
To a man, the expectation was should Sanders get the nomination, he would get a spanking, the like of which has not been seen since Boris absolutely leathered Corbyn on December 12th 2019.
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
It is worse than a Labour Leadership event, because it's only for the nomination.
The position of Presidential Nominee carries no nominal political power. So no Democratic Party member is forced to follow the nominee under threat of expulsion. They will all scatter to the four corners of the horizon for a few months rather than follow Bloomberg.
In contrast being Labour Leader carries actual political power, second to none inside Labour.
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
You may be right. I am just commenting upon what a number of people suggested to me over the course of a number of days. It may well be nothing more than wishful thinking.
To a man, the expectation was should Sanders get the nomination, he would get a spanking, the like of which has not been seen since Boris absolutely leathered Corbyn on December 12th 2019.
Well Sanders would be the most left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972 who Nixon trounced, much as Corbyn was the most left-wing Labour leader since Michael Foot in 1983 who Thatcher trounced.
2019 saw the lowest number of Labour seats since 1983 which is not encouraging for the Democrats if they put up Sanders agreed, though he could do a Corbyn 2017 rather than Corbyn 2019 performance I suppose and make it closer hard to see him winning
Starmer just isn't going to be a very good leader. He's probably the best choice Labour have, but its really unclear whether he'll facilitate a better choice for his successor. And that's what Labour needs. Not a great leader now, but someone that will give them a great leader some way down the track.
If I switch hats and imagine myself to be a Labour supporter (admittedly I may not be so good at this in that I find myself barking at the moon when I do so) then Nandy is the choice I'd make. From my switched perspective I think she's very good, and even from my unswitched one I think she's quite sensible.
Starmer/Nandy isn't the fight that matters though. The deputy leader election is more important in many ways - Rayner, although almost sure to get the job, is a terrible choice. As a Tory I'm frankly delighted, but given there's a small risk that these people may get to power I worry enormously.
However - no Corbyn, no McDonnell - the nations fortunes are in the sunny uplands.
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
This isnt to cast any aspersion on your post, just an observation. When I read it I thought "ooh some good info" then I comsidered you could have just gone on holiday with your wife and met a couple at dinner who said they wanted Bloomberg! Did you speak to lots of different people? Attend a Dem husting of some sort?
As I said I am not having a knock, just curious to know
Clearly all anecdotal evidence, there is no scientific evidence to back my statements.
The demographic of people I talked to was generally retired or older working age non-Trump supporting professional types, male rather than female. I did not speak to students. I did not discuss this with cab drivers, and I met no red-necks. My observation is wholly unrepresentative of psephological science.
Nonetheless I found it surprising last week and now here we are suggesting Bloomberg could be favourite.
Thanks, I was genuinely curious, not mocking in any way
It may well be better info than psephological pseudo science.
Anecdote alert: My wife, who voted for Trump, is now anyone but Trump, even Bernie, but she'd really, really, really prefer it not be him. If Bloomberg is the only one who could beat Sanders, then he's her man. She'd be happy with Klobuchar or Mayor Pete.
The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
You may be right. I am just commenting upon what a number of people suggested to me over the course of a number of days. It may well be nothing more than wishful thinking.
To a man, the expectation was should Sanders get the nomination, he would get a spanking, the like of which has not been seen since Boris absolutely leathered Corbyn on December 12th 2019.
Well Sanders would be the most left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972 who Nixon trounced, much as Corbyn was the most left-wing Labour leader since Michael Foot in 1983 who Thatcher trounced.
2019 saw the lowest number of Labour seats since 1983 which is not encouraging for the Democrats if they put up Sanders agreed, though he could do a Corbyn 2017 rather than Corbyn 2019 performance I suppose and make it closer hard to see him winning
The only flicker of hope, should Bernie get the nom, is after Nixon hit McGovern out of the park, it all somewhat unravelled for Nixon. Maybe history will repeat itself?
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
You may be right. I am just commenting upon what a number of people suggested to me over the course of a number of days. It may well be nothing more than wishful thinking.
To a man, the expectation was should Sanders get the nomination, he would get a spanking, the like of which has not been seen since Boris absolutely leathered Corbyn on December 12th 2019.
Well Sanders would be the most left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972 who Nixon trounced, much as Corbyn was the most left-wing Labour leader since Michael Foot in 1983 who Thatcher trounced.
2019 saw the lowest number of Labour seats since 1983 which is not encouraging for the Democrats if they put up Sanders agreed, though he could do a Corbyn 2017 rather than Corbyn 2019 performance I suppose and make it closer hard to see him winning
The only flicker of hope, should Bernie get the nom, is after Nixon hit McGovern out of the park, it all somewhat unravelled for Nixon. Maybe history will repeat itself?
Perhaps but that means a Trump 2nd term even if a shorter one
The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
There were many influences on PMs in the past from their social circle. If you read Trollope's Palliser series then you get the general idea. We may actually have far better visibility as to these influences now, but perhaps they're less palatable.
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
Surprise, surprise, HYUFD treating polls as if they were Gospel. I think the barrage of Bloomberg ads, and it is a continuous barrage atm on all media, including for me this site, Facebook and any online game I play, is going to have an effect. He has borrowed from Boris's "Get Brexit Done!" slogan with "Mike Bloomberg will get it done"
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
I got 14. A couple of lucky guesses. At least one question is utter bollx.
66.7% so I failed.
It only makes sense as a test of determination - one can read up the textbook again and again. But many of the questions are obscure and one of the answers is actually wrong - to get the mark for that, you have to deliberately pick the wrong answer.
I genuinely have no idea why we don't ask difficult questions that would actually be useful for a resident to know.
Starmer just isn't going to be a very good leader. He's probably the best choice Labour have, but its really unclear whether he'll facilitate a better choice for his successor. And that's what Labour needs. Not a great leader now, but someone that will give them a great leader some way down the track.
If I switch hats and imagine myself to be a Labour supporter (admittedly I may not be so good at this in that I find myself barking at the moon when I do so) then Nandy is the choice I'd make. From my switched perspective I think she's very good, and even from my unswitched one I think she's quite sensible.
Starmer/Nandy isn't the fight that matters though. The deputy leader election is more important in many ways - Rayner, although almost sure to get the job, is a terrible choice. As a Tory I'm frankly delighted, but given there's a small risk that these people may get to power I worry enormously.
However - no Corbyn, no McDonnell - the nations fortunes are in the sunny uplands.
Not so sure about the importance of the Deputy role. Paedo-finder General didn't exactly clip Corbyn's wings.
So long as it is not Long-Bailey, and I still fear it might be, I don't mind who else becomes Leader, even if Burgon becomes Deputy!
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
Surprise, surprise, HYUFD treating polls as if they were Gospel. I think the barrage of Bloomberg ads, and it is a continuous barrage atm on all media, including for me this site, Facebook and any online game I play, is going to have an effect. He has borrowed from Boris's "Get Brexit Done!" slogan with "Mike Bloomberg will get it done"
Except I seem to recall the Boris polls were right
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
Surprise, surprise, HYUFD treating polls as if they were Gospel. I think the barrage of Bloomberg ads, and it is a continuous barrage atm on all media, including for me this site, Facebook and any online game I play, is going to have an effect. He has borrowed from Boris's "Get Brexit Done!" slogan with "Mike Bloomberg will get it done"
Except I seem to recall the Boris polls were right
And I seem to recall you making predictions about the Front National.
The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
The first SPADs were appointed over 50 years ago by Harold Wilson when the likes of Hugh Gaitskell said they needed more advisers to help them formulate policy from outside the civil service.
The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
They are seen as buttresses against civil servants. They can liaise with, cajole and bully the civil service and provide feedback as to what is and is not good from a career POV. Plus MPs are congenitally insecure and occasionally need their hand held.
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
The Democrats will never nominate a Wall Street Billionaire, it goes against their own reason to exist. In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
You are viewing the nomination process as though it were like the Labour leadership event. It is not. When Bloomberg's ad campaign hits home for this electorate, who knows?
Surprise, surprise, HYUFD treating polls as if they were Gospel. I think the barrage of Bloomberg ads, and it is a continuous barrage atm on all media, including for me this site, Facebook and any online game I play, is going to have an effect. He has borrowed from Boris's "Get Brexit Done!" slogan with "Mike Bloomberg will get it done"
Except I seem to recall the Boris polls were right
And I seem to recall you making predictions about the Front National.
I said Le Pen could win the first round and she did win most departments even if not the popular vote
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
Bloomberg is the answer if one thinks that the way to fight Trump is to be moderate, civilised (cf. Buttigieg) and extremely rich. The case for Sanders is that it's better to be radical, shouty and have extremely rich friends plus a big supporter base. I like Sanders but I do worry about the Corbyn parallel (not least as I also like Corbyn). At the same time, I have doubts about the civilised approach to Trump too.
The only flicker of hope, should Bernie get the nom, is after Nixon hit McGovern out of the park, it all somewhat unravelled for Nixon. Maybe history will repeat itself?
I doubt it. Because Democrats have already tried to impeach Trump and failed.
A lot of political scandals are simply pre-existing ones that are activated at a moment of choosing, but the Democrats have not followed that, instead they frontloaded everything against Trump and missed.
You should read Ted Kennedy's autobiography, and you will realise that about political scandals being known to everyone but not being published until it is convenient.
Ok, I'm beginning to panic now. I assumed Bloomberg as a vanity candidate whose approach was fatally flawed. But his opinion polls are climbing. Given the events to date, can he take the nomination? I'll be really miffed if he does. Trump ignored scrutiny and bullied his way in, Boris ignore scrutiny and plowed on, now Bloomberg might pull off the same trick?
Having just returned from Philadelphia, everyone I spoke with about the Dems nomination told me Bloomberg is the only hope they have to defeat Trump. The expectation is Bloomberg will get the nomination.
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
Bloomberg is the answer if one thinks that the way to fight Trump is to be moderate, civilised (cf. Buttigieg) and extremely rich. The case for Sanders is that it's better to be radical, shouty and have extremely rich friends plus a big supporter base. I like Sanders but I do worry about the Corbyn parallel (not least as I also like Corbyn). At the same time, I have doubts about the civilised approach to Trump too.
Bernie, can't win Nick. I am not sure who can. Bloomberg has the money to match Trump's spend.
The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
They are seen as buttresses against civil servants. They can liaise with, cajole and bully the civil service and provide feedback as to what is and is not good from a career POV. Plus MPs are congenitally insecure and occasionally need their hand held.
This is a subject that a very good history writer could produce some volumes on. There have been changes of the years in the nature of the civil service - the idea that the one of it's jobs is to prevent government enacting policy (Yes Minister is only slightly satirical in this respect) is actually quite new. The Spad system grew out of that concept of The Thing.
For example, the Naval Defence Act of 1889 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889) was not greeted with "well, minister....." but with an effective cooperation between the Treasury and Admiralty. The rapidly devised measures to stabilise the funding over the multi year life of the project were innovative and effective.
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!
I am glad not to be overexposed on this, but I cannot see Bloomberg picking up the nomination, though he may have enough delegates to influence who is nominated.
The only flicker of hope, should Bernie get the nom, is after Nixon hit McGovern out of the park, it all somewhat unravelled for Nixon. Maybe history will repeat itself?
I doubt it. Because Democrats have already tried to impeach Trump and failed.
A lot of political scandals are simply pre-existing ones that are activated at a moment of choosing, but the Democrats have not followed that, instead they frontloaded everything against Trump and missed.
You should read Ted Kennedy's autobiography, and you will realise that about political scandals being known to everyone but not being published until it is convenient.
Google Ted Kennedy Volkswagen (images) to see why Chappaquiddick cost him the election.
The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
You have to remember that was the age when an MP would schlep up to SW1 with his entire household upon election and stay in the vicinity of Westminster for the next 30 years, not a TV camera or a constituency clinic in sight.
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.
Absolutely agree.
I doubt it.
In every Presidential election you can make a reasonable assumption about who will win 11 months before. On that metric Trump is the favourate but only mildly over 50%.
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!
I am glad not to be overexposed on this, but I cannot see Bloomberg picking up the nomination, though he may have enough delegates to influence who is nominated.
I think I'll be shitting my pants all the way to July.
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.
Absolutely agree.
I doubt it.
In every Presidential election you can make a reasonable assumption about who will win 11 months before. On that metric Trump is the favourate but only mildly over 50%.
The only flicker of hope, should Bernie get the nom, is after Nixon hit McGovern out of the park, it all somewhat unravelled for Nixon. Maybe history will repeat itself?
I doubt it. Because Democrats have already tried to impeach Trump and failed.
A lot of political scandals are simply pre-existing ones that are activated at a moment of choosing, but the Democrats have not followed that, instead they frontloaded everything against Trump and missed.
You should read Ted Kennedy's autobiography, and you will realise that about political scandals being known to everyone but not being published until it is convenient.
Google Ted Kennedy Volkswagen (images) to see why Chappaquiddick cost him the election.
I don't need to. And I was not reffering to that scandal only, Kennedy was on the Senate committee that investigated Nixon before the 1972 election, the details that he wrote in his Autobiography about both are killer ones when cross-examined with other published information.
The Democratic party had all the goods but they didn't want McGovern to win the Presidency or Agnew to become President, so they worked methodically to avoid both, and then to get rid of Nixon.
The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
They are seen as buttresses against civil servants. They can liaise with, cajole and bully the civil service and provide feedback as to what is and is not good from a career POV. Plus MPs are congenitally insecure and occasionally need their hand held.
This is a subject that a very good history writer could produce some volumes on. There have been changes of the years in the nature of the civil service - the idea that the one of it's jobs is to prevent government enacting policy (Yes Minister is only slightly satirical in this respect) is actually quite new. The Spad system grew out of that concept of The Thing.
For example, the Naval Defence Act of 1889 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889) was not greeted with "well, minister....." but with an effective cooperation between the Treasury and Admiralty. The rapidly devised measures to stabilise the funding over the multi year life of the project were innovative and effective.
I think you're right. I'm raiding my memories of "The Blunders of our Governments" and "Britain Since 1918: the strange career of British Democracy" and there is an argument that the change of role in the Civil Service from partner and decelerator to obeyer of instructions has messed things up. Dom's plans to emasculate it further might just blow up in our faces...
(I recommend both books by the way: both about ten years out of date, but good reads nonetheless)
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!
I am glad not to be overexposed on this, but I cannot see Bloomberg picking up the nomination, though he may have enough delegates to influence who is nominated.
The errr... negative statement about minorities, being a registered Republican for a while, stop and search in NY while Mayor, billionaire buying the nomination... It all adds up to a candidate who might not get the whole base out. Shades of Clinton.
Some years ago, when I was at a gathering of my American relatives (NY Democrats since FDR and before), I was told that a big fear was that a *competent* billionaire (the Silicon Valley types were heavily mentioned) would buy the presidency - and Congress and the Senate. It would be easy, they thought, for such a person to run candidates in the various races who would only take his money. So they could avoid the entire Washington System - and be solely and utterly controlled by their benefactor.
Members of Congress are perpetually raising funds, for example, due to their very short terms. $10 million a pop, say. So you spend $4 billlion to buy a majority. Senators are a bit more pricey, but you only need to buy 60....
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.
Absolutely agree.
I doubt it.
In every Presidential election you can make a reasonable assumption about who will win 11 months before. On that metric Trump is the favourate but only mildly over 50%.
My 25 year old daughter, despite having all the vaccinations, has just caught mumps.
How can that be?
Back to mothering duties again......
Oh no! Best of luck to her.
Its the selfish bastards who don't immunise their kids fault. Immunisation doesn't have a 100% success rate, but so long as enough people do it then it creates a "herd immunity" as it irradicates it from the community so the ones it failed on [and the ones medically unable to take the immunisation themselves] are protected.
Because of the selfish ignorant dipshits who think they know better than the medical community and all scientists on the matter and deliberately don't immunise their child . . . as a result of that herd immunity has broken down greatly increasing the risk for those who are vulnerable for no fault of their own.
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!
I am glad not to be overexposed on this, but I cannot see Bloomberg picking up the nomination, though he may have enough delegates to influence who is nominated.
The errr... negative statement about minorities, being a registered Republican for a while, stop and search in NY while Mayor, billionaire buying the nomination... It all adds up to a candidate who might not get the whole base out. Shades of Clinton.
Some years ago, when I was at a gathering of my American relatives (NY Democrats since FDR and before), I was told that a big fear was that a *competent* billionaire (the Silicon Valley types were heavily mentioned) would buy the presidency - and Congress and the Senate. It would be easy, they thought, for such a person to run candidates in the various races who would only take his money. So they could avoid the entire Washington System - and be solely and utterly controlled by their benefactor.
Members of Congress are perpetually raising funds, for example, due to their very short terms. $10 million a pop, say. So you spend $4 billlion to buy a majority. Senators are a bit more pricey, but you only need to buy 60....
To such people Bloomberg *is* the nightmare....
Bloomberg is too fiscally conservative and capitalist for the Democrats, too socially liberal and pro abortion and pro immigration for the Republicans but I still would not rule out him changing his mind and running as an Independent if it is Trump v Sanders as looks increasingly likely
The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
They are seen as buttresses against civil servants. They can liaise with, cajole and bully the civil service and provide feedback as to what is and is not good from a career POV. Plus MPs are congenitally insecure and occasionally need their hand held.
This is a subject that a very good history writer could produce some volumes on. There have been changes of the years in the nature of the civil service - the idea that the one of it's jobs is to prevent government enacting policy (Yes Minister is only slightly satirical in this respect) is actually quite new. The Spad system grew out of that concept of The Thing.
For example, the Naval Defence Act of 1889 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889) was not greeted with "well, minister....." but with an effective cooperation between the Treasury and Admiralty. The rapidly devised measures to stabilise the funding over the multi year life of the project were innovative and effective.
I think you're right. I'm raiding my memories of "The Blunders of our Governments" and "Britain Since 1918: the strange career of British Democracy" and there is an argument that the change of role in the Civil Service from partner and decelerator to obeyer of instructions has messed things up. Dom's plans to emasculate it further might just blow up in our faces...
(I recommend both books by the way: both about ten years out of date, but good reads nonetheless)
It mirrors the transfer of power from the Monarch (which civil servants work in his/her name) to elected politicians.
At the same time, I have doubts about the civilised approach to Trump too.
It's not easy, because it would mean letting him, to a large degree, swing very hard and dirty at you without responding in quite the same fashion and that could be taken as yielding the field, sitting back and tacking it. On the other hand no one is going to beat Trump at his own game, he's not going to be shamed, his core supporters are not going to suddenly open their eyes at some great burn from his opponent. So trying to be the more civilized one, whilst being tough enough that it doesn't look like weakness, may be better.
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.
Absolutely agree.
I doubt it.
In every Presidential election you can make a reasonable assumption about who will win 11 months before. On that metric Trump is the favourate but only mildly over 50%.
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.
Absolutely agree.
I doubt it.
In every Presidential election you can make a reasonable assumption about who will win 11 months before. On that metric Trump is the favourate but only mildly over 50%.
Against Sanders I'd say at least 75%
I'd make it more like 95%
Yet it is not what some of the head-to-head polls imply. Some actually show Sanders ahead of Trump.
The errr... negative statement about minorities, being a registered Republican for a while, stop and search in NY while Mayor, billionaire buying the nomination... It all adds up to a candidate who might not get the whole base out. Shades of Clinton.
Some years ago, when I was at a gathering of my American relatives (NY Democrats since FDR and before), I was told that a big fear was that a *competent* billionaire (the Silicon Valley types were heavily mentioned) would buy the presidency - and Congress and the Senate. It would be easy, they thought, for such a person to run candidates in the various races who would only take his money. So they could avoid the entire Washington System - and be solely and utterly controlled by their benefactor.
Members of Congress are perpetually raising funds, for example, due to their very short terms. $10 million a pop, say. So you spend $4 billlion to buy a majority. Senators are a bit more pricey, but you only need to buy 60....
To such people Bloomberg *is* the nightmare....
I'm less convinced. It depends whether the prevailing mood is to defeat Trump or elect Bloomberg. What's better - living in a nightmare or waking up in hell? As we saw just a few weeks ago, despite having the choice of two terrible options, most people readily chose one or the other.
As an aside, £650k buys you a candidate in every UK seat but it doesn't buy you representation in a debate. That's the difference - money can't buy you the political record required to be a serious player from scratch.
If your new party won 150 seats in its first election it would be represented in the next election but to go from zero to 326 would require an insurgency level beyond anything credible in this country. As you say, in the US system, an outsider can buy his or her way to the WH though it hasn't yet happened.
The political upheaval of the last few days has focussed so much on the position of SPADs in our system of government.What is often lost sight of is that until relatively recent years, these positions did not exist. Who provided such advice to the likes of RA Butler, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell, Selwyn Lloyd, Hugh Dalton etc?These people were all able to function as Chancellors without them. Why are they so necessary now?
They are seen as buttresses against civil servants. They can liaise with, cajole and bully the civil service and provide feedback as to what is and is not good from a career POV. Plus MPs are congenitally insecure and occasionally need their hand held.
This is a subject that a very good history writer could produce some volumes on. There have been changes of the years in the nature of the civil service - the idea that the one of it's jobs is to prevent government enacting policy (Yes Minister is only slightly satirical in this respect) is actually quite new. The Spad system grew out of that concept of The Thing.
For example, the Naval Defence Act of 1889 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889) was not greeted with "well, minister....." but with an effective cooperation between the Treasury and Admiralty. The rapidly devised measures to stabilise the funding over the multi year life of the project were innovative and effective.
I think you're right. I'm raiding my memories of "The Blunders of our Governments" and "Britain Since 1918: the strange career of British Democracy" and there is an argument that the change of role in the Civil Service from partner and decelerator to obeyer of instructions has messed things up. Dom's plans to emasculate it further might just blow up in our faces...
(I recommend both books by the way: both about ten years out of date, but good reads nonetheless)
It mirrors the transfer of power from the Monarch (which civil servants work in his/her name) to elected politicians.
I am genuinely discomfited by his success. I thought he was a vanity candidate. My faith in my ability to predict things has been shaken. Aaargh!
I am glad not to be overexposed on this, but I cannot see Bloomberg picking up the nomination, though he may have enough delegates to influence who is nominated.
The errr... negative statement about minorities, being a registered Republican for a while, stop and search in NY while Mayor, billionaire buying the nomination... It all adds up to a candidate who might not get the whole base out. Shades of Clinton.
Some years ago, when I was at a gathering of my American relatives (NY Democrats since FDR and before), I was told that a big fear was that a *competent* billionaire (the Silicon Valley types were heavily mentioned) would buy the presidency - and Congress and the Senate. It would be easy, they thought, for such a person to run candidates in the various races who would only take his money. So they could avoid the entire Washington System - and be solely and utterly controlled by their benefactor.
Members of Congress are perpetually raising funds, for example, due to their very short terms. $10 million a pop, say. So you spend $4 billlion to buy a majority. Senators are a bit more pricey, but you only need to buy 60....
To such people Bloomberg *is* the nightmare....
The Primary system would make any such concentration of power only temporary.
Also Senators have 6 year terms and most of them want to become Presidents too.
And finally you would have the "Ukraine effect" of other billionaire oligarchs trying to organize against their competitor in power and of non-billionaires trying to get power through revolution.
In short, it would degenerate into a feudal state pretty quickly, with competing Dukes, Counts, Barrons, and Peasant Revolts, like Ukraine.
Comments
It is likely to be fairly mild if vaccinated, hopefully as there are at least some antibodies.
I think there is a fair amount of discussion about booster shots for a number of different viruses, and differing views (even excluding the anti-vaxxers).
This refers to a scientific study on the effectiveness of the 2-shot vaccine during an actual outbreak:
https://www.consumerreports.org/mumps/should-you-get-a-mumps-booster/
The former statement I agree with, and the latter is now gaining some traction.
As I said I am not having a knock, just curious to know
In contrast the Republicans are and have always been a pro-business party.
That is why Trump and Bloomberg switched to Republican from Democrat in order to advance themselves in politics.
The demographic of people I talked to was generally retired or older working age non-Trump supporting professional types, male rather than female. I did not speak to students. I did not discuss this with cab drivers, and I met no red-necks. My observation is wholly unrepresentative of psephological science.
Nonetheless I found it surprising last week and now here we are suggesting Bloomberg could be favourite.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228387915807498241?s=20
It may well be better info than psephological pseudo science.
To a man, the expectation was should Sanders get the nomination, he would get a spanking, the like of which has not been seen since Boris absolutely leathered Corbyn on December 12th 2019.
The position of Presidential Nominee carries no nominal political power.
So no Democratic Party member is forced to follow the nominee under threat of expulsion.
They will all scatter to the four corners of the horizon for a few months rather than follow Bloomberg.
In contrast being Labour Leader carries actual political power, second to none inside Labour.
2019 saw the lowest number of Labour seats since 1983 which is not encouraging for the Democrats if they put up Sanders agreed, though he could do a Corbyn 2017 rather than Corbyn 2019 performance I suppose and make it closer hard to see him winning
Re header:
Starmer just isn't going to be a very good leader. He's probably the best choice Labour have, but its really unclear whether he'll facilitate a better choice for his successor. And that's what Labour needs. Not a great leader now, but someone that will give them a great leader some way down the track.
If I switch hats and imagine myself to be a Labour supporter (admittedly I may not be so good at this in that I find myself barking at the moon when I do so) then Nandy is the choice I'd make. From my switched perspective I think she's very good, and even from my unswitched one I think she's quite sensible.
Starmer/Nandy isn't the fight that matters though. The deputy leader election is more important in many ways - Rayner, although almost sure to get the job, is a terrible choice. As a Tory I'm frankly delighted, but given there's a small risk that these people may get to power I worry enormously.
However - no Corbyn, no McDonnell - the nations fortunes are in the sunny uplands.
I didn't expect it to be so soon.
#fuckoffbloomberg
How can Biden now be second with over 25% of the vote when in reality he came fifth with 10% of the vote?
Something doesn't compute..
Surprise, surprise, HYUFD treating polls as if they were Gospel. I think the barrage of Bloomberg ads, and it is a continuous barrage atm on all media, including for me this site, Facebook and any online game I play, is going to have an effect. He has borrowed from Boris's "Get Brexit Done!" slogan with "Mike Bloomberg will get it done"
I misread it then. I thought it was a NH poll *after* the NH result.
Which doesn't make any sense to poll actually.
I genuinely have no idea why we don't ask difficult questions that would actually be useful for a resident to know.
So long as it is not Long-Bailey, and I still fear it might be, I don't mind who else becomes Leader, even if Burgon becomes Deputy!
Against Bernie a Trump second term is a foregone conclusion.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1228390458105221121?s=20
Because Democrats have already tried to impeach Trump and failed.
A lot of political scandals are simply pre-existing ones that are activated at a moment of choosing, but the Democrats have not followed that, instead they frontloaded everything against Trump and missed.
You should read Ted Kennedy's autobiography, and you will realise that about political scandals being known to everyone but not being published until it is convenient.
She isn't happy.
For example, the Naval Defence Act of 1889 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Defence_Act_1889) was not greeted with "well, minister....." but with an effective cooperation between the Treasury and Admiralty. The rapidly devised measures to stabilise the funding over the multi year life of the project were innovative and effective.
In every Presidential election you can make a reasonable assumption about who will win 11 months before.
On that metric Trump is the favourate but only mildly over 50%.
I think the 2.5k may have been Pulpstar.
And I was not reffering to that scandal only, Kennedy was on the Senate committee that investigated Nixon before the 1972 election, the details that he wrote in his Autobiography about both are killer ones when cross-examined with other published information.
The Democratic party had all the goods but they didn't want McGovern to win the Presidency or Agnew to become President, so they worked methodically to avoid both, and then to get rid of Nixon.
(I recommend both books by the way: both about ten years out of date, but good reads nonetheless)
Some years ago, when I was at a gathering of my American relatives (NY Democrats since FDR and before), I was told that a big fear was that a *competent* billionaire (the Silicon Valley types were heavily mentioned) would buy the presidency - and Congress and the Senate. It would be easy, they thought, for such a person to run candidates in the various races who would only take his money. So they could avoid the entire Washington System - and be solely and utterly controlled by their benefactor.
Members of Congress are perpetually raising funds, for example, due to their very short terms. $10 million a pop, say. So you spend $4 billlion to buy a majority. Senators are a bit more pricey, but you only need to buy 60....
To such people Bloomberg *is* the nightmare....
Its the selfish bastards who don't immunise their kids fault. Immunisation doesn't have a 100% success rate, but so long as enough people do it then it creates a "herd immunity" as it irradicates it from the community so the ones it failed on [and the ones medically unable to take the immunisation themselves] are protected.
Because of the selfish ignorant dipshits who think they know better than the medical community and all scientists on the matter and deliberately don't immunise their child . . . as a result of that herd immunity has broken down greatly increasing the risk for those who are vulnerable for no fault of their own.
It's basically a Who Governs question.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1222791504705589249
Today
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1228416541714198529
As an aside, £650k buys you a candidate in every UK seat but it doesn't buy you representation in a debate. That's the difference - money can't buy you the political record required to be a serious player from scratch.
If your new party won 150 seats in its first election it would be represented in the next election but to go from zero to 326 would require an insurgency level beyond anything credible in this country. As you say, in the US system, an outsider can buy his or her way to the WH though it hasn't yet happened.
https://twitter.com/clpnominations/status/1228417636289142784?s=21
Also Senators have 6 year terms and most of them want to become Presidents too.
And finally you would have the "Ukraine effect" of other billionaire oligarchs trying to organize against their competitor in power and of non-billionaires trying to get power through revolution.
In short, it would degenerate into a feudal state pretty quickly, with competing Dukes, Counts, Barrons, and Peasant Revolts, like Ukraine.
South Park was right.
Oh bloody hell. That's the Archers and Today and all the rest f**ked.