As some of you will know, my nephew died earlier this year during the lockdown, by his own hand. His parents were unable to help him because of the restrictions.
As a family we have decided that they will not be left alone to bear their grief, especially at Xmas.
Just saving any marshals or curtain twitchers the bother of having to denounce us. Mind you, round here the police are as rare as wildebeest.
Yes, Christmas and Birthdays etc they need family.
Lots of depressed patients today resigned and fed up by the news of increasing cases and tightening restrictions despite the beautiful autumn weather here. Its going to be a long lonely winter for a lot of people.
I don't get this all or nothing attitude. Nothing stopping them meeting one half of their family on one day, and another half on another.
You are clearly an intelligent, decent bloke.
At what stage are you going to stop defending the ludicrous authoritarian policies of the incompetent idiots who purport to govern us?
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?
We’re all missing the important news today, Johnson is going bald, is it a side effect of covid? What should he do, ignore, go for a transplant or get a wig? Anybody capable of posting a picture of ‘bald boris’
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.
Because on this site we share our opinions.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.
We’re all missing the important news today, Johnson is going bald, is it a side effect of covid? What should he do, ignore, go for a transplant or get a wig? Anybody capable of posting a picture of ‘bald boris’
Of all the things one could criticise the clown for, losing his hair is not one of them.
Thanks Hyufd. That's Trump's best result on a day of many polls.
Is that a result that delivers the EC?
A 2% lead (assuming uniform swing) keeps Trump in the White House. If it's 2.5%, then it's 50/50. Any more than 3%, then Biden is much more likely to be President.
Of course, there are crazy scenarios where Trump increases his share in Florida (quite likely I'd have thought), Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, but loses ground in Texas and Arizona.
Under that scenario, it's possible that Trump wins the popular vote, but loses the Electoral College.
(Not a forecast, mind. It's just a possible, and not a very likely one at that.)
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
The “rule of law” covers the general principles of western liberal democracy. Such as that laws should be clear and accessible, they should not be backdated, that one should have the right to a defence and to know the evidence against them, etc etc. It also includes the principle that international law is complied with as we discussed earlier.
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.
Because on this site we share our opinions.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
Well said.
This poster’s tendency to act as some sort of site policeman is nauseating.
We’re all missing the important news today, Johnson is going bald, is it a side effect of covid? What should he do, ignore, go for a transplant or get a wig? Anybody capable of posting a picture of ‘bald boris’
Of all the things one could criticise the clown for, losing his hair is not one of them.
Not a criticism just an observation and a light hearted diversion.
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.
I thought you saw breaking the Withdrawal Agreement as a marvellous break with those customs?
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.
I thought you saw breaking the Withdrawal Agreement as a marvellous break with those customs?
I think Parliament doing what Parliament wants to do and then standing to be judged at the next election is fitting with our customs.
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.
Because on this site we share our opinions.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
"I can understand opinions."
You can't. You portentously tell us things like "The law is not intrinsically right or wrong" as if you had just confirmed the Riemann hypothesis. We know that already. All of us.
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but surely the level of cross-party exasperation provoked by your posts gives you some kind of clue about their value?
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
At this point in 2016 in PA: Hillary Clinton: 47.7% Donald Trump: 43.3% Gary Johnson: 8%
Actual outcome in 2016 in PA: Hillary Clinton: 47.8% Donald Trump: 48.6% Gary Johnson: 2.4%
Today’s NBC News / Marist poll has Biden on 53% and Trump on 44% amongst likely voters.
So Hillary’s vote share essentially stayed the same and the undecideds/3rd party supporters went for Trump.
So even if that happened this time, and NBC’s poll is correct, Biden still wins as he’s over 50%. (although 49% within the margin of error).
That’s interesting. I’ve been keeping an eye on shares rather than leads, as, I believe has @rcs1000 - who argues that Trumpton probably mops up most undecideds.
An interesting betting strategy (EC votes) could be to cover those states where Biden has 50%+.
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.
Because on this site we share our opinions.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
"I can understand opinions."
You can't. You portentously tell us things like "The law is not intrinsically right or wrong" as if you had just confirmed the Riemann hypothesis. We know that already. All of us.
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but surely the level of cross-party exasperation provoked by your posts gives you some kind of clue about their value?
No.
A number of people disagree with me, a number of people agree. That's called having a difference of opinion and is entirely reasonable.
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
You make my point for me, the point made in my article.
Parliamentary sovereignty - with no restraints - says that Parliament could do precisely that: pass a law authorising, for instance, the killing of everyone with a P in their name. And if that was in the manifesto and had been voted for, fine.
Whereas most people believe - and WW2 brought this into sharp relief - that there need to be restraints even on what a democratically elected government can do, hence the ECHR, for instance, and other international laws and conventions etc, to avoid what many (often Tories) called the tyranny of the majority.
Those who believe in pure unrestrained Parliamentary sovereignty are, IMO, the descendants of those who believed in the divine right of kings. Parliament seized power from the King but that does not mean that Parliament itself should be free to do whatever it wants. It too is subject to the law. “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.”
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.
I thought you saw breaking the Withdrawal Agreement as a marvellous break with those customs?
I think Parliament doing what Parliament wants to do and then standing to be judged at the next election is fitting with our customs.
So you supported the way successive EU treaties were ratified by parliament and you would have opposed referendums on them?
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
I think in general, regardless of a Left or Right, authoritarianism has gained against libertarianism in recent times. And I think that’s sad, and worrying. I’m instinctively nervous of governments, religions or other institutions telling people how to live their lives.
At this point in 2016 in PA: Hillary Clinton: 47.7% Donald Trump: 43.3% Gary Johnson: 8%
Actual outcome in 2016 in PA: Hillary Clinton: 47.8% Donald Trump: 48.6% Gary Johnson: 2.4%
Today’s NBC News / Marist poll has Biden on 53% and Trump on 44% amongst likely voters.
So Hillary’s vote share essentially stayed the same and the undecideds/3rd party supporters went for Trump.
So even if that happened this time, and NBC’s poll is correct, Biden still wins as he’s over 50%. (although 49% within the margin of error).
That's pretty much my default assumption: Trump will continue to eat into the share of undecideds, but unless Biden's share actually starts to go backward, then it's very hard for Trump.
At this point in 2016 in PA: Hillary Clinton: 47.7% Donald Trump: 43.3% Gary Johnson: 8%
Actual outcome in 2016 in PA: Hillary Clinton: 47.8% Donald Trump: 48.6% Gary Johnson: 2.4%
Today’s NBC News / Marist poll has Biden on 53% and Trump on 44% amongst likely voters.
So Hillary’s vote share essentially stayed the same and the undecideds/3rd party supporters went for Trump.
So even if that happened this time, and NBC’s poll is correct, Biden still wins as he’s over 50%. (although 49% within the margin of error).
That's pretty much my default assumption: Trump will continue to eat into the share of undecideds, but unless Biden's share actually starts to go backward, then it's very hard for Trump.
That only holds true if the polls have an accurate handle on turnout, otherwise what looks like over 50% could be less than that.
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.
I thought you saw breaking the Withdrawal Agreement as a marvellous break with those customs?
I think Parliament doing what Parliament wants to do and then standing to be judged at the next election is fitting with our customs.
No - it really isn’t. Even a cursory knowledge of our history should tell you that.
That's what President Trump needs to see: a narrowing gap. Let's see if the other pollsters pick it up.
Is it narrowing? The same pollster last ten weekly polls were 10 2 2 6 3 7 4 1 4 2
The polling average has been remarkably static in that time, so not sure what they're doing - and how they jumped from 10 to 2 in a week when the polling average was virtually unchanged suggests they're a bit wonky, a bit unlucky, or changed their methodology.
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
I don't think "the Left" has. There was an unusual period where the neo-Trots took over the Labour party, but the majority of the Left are Social Democrats, Fabians type soft Socialists, etc. Twitter has never been representative.
Starmer is not authoritarian, except perhaps intolerant of anti semites in the party etc, and the rest of the front bench are pretty similar too.
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
Do you think there should be any constraints on the majority?
I like the British syste of constraints being more by custom, common law and criticism than strict and set constitutional literalism. I think overly literal constitutionalism like the United States has is an inferior system in practice to our fudge.
I thought you saw breaking the Withdrawal Agreement as a marvellous break with those customs?
I think Parliament doing what Parliament wants to do and then standing to be judged at the next election is fitting with our customs.
So you supported the way successive EU treaties were ratified by parliament and you would have opposed referendums on them?
Yes and no. Yes Parliament ratifying treaties was within its remit, though I opposed Lisbon being ratified as it was since the Labour manifesto had said there would be a referendum.
No I wouldn't have opposed a referendum, had Parliament voted for a referendum it would be reasonable to have one.
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.
Because on this site we share our opinions.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
"I can understand opinions."
You can't. You portentously tell us things like "The law is not intrinsically right or wrong" as if you had just confirmed the Riemann hypothesis. We know that already. All of us.
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but surely the level of cross-party exasperation provoked by your posts gives you some kind of clue about their value?
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.
Porn passes ID Cards which seem to be back yet again The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size Having to use real ids on the internet Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
At this point in 2016 in PA: Hillary Clinton: 47.7% Donald Trump: 43.3% Gary Johnson: 8%
Actual outcome in 2016 in PA: Hillary Clinton: 47.8% Donald Trump: 48.6% Gary Johnson: 2.4%
Today’s NBC News / Marist poll has Biden on 53% and Trump on 44% amongst likely voters.
So Hillary’s vote share essentially stayed the same and the undecideds/3rd party supporters went for Trump.
So even if that happened this time, and NBC’s poll is correct, Biden still wins as he’s over 50%. (although 49% within the margin of error).
That's pretty much my default assumption: Trump will continue to eat into the share of undecideds, but unless Biden's share actually starts to go backward, then it's very hard for Trump.
That only holds true if the polls have an accurate handle on turnout, otherwise what looks like over 50% could be less than that.
Obviously.
However, given the major pollsters have gotten it broadly right in the past, one needs to have a compelling rationale for why they should get it very wrong this time.
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.
Porn passes ID Cards which seem to be back yet again The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size Having to use real ids on the internet Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.
Porn passes ID Cards which seem to be back yet again The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size Having to use real ids on the internet Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.
Porn passes ID Cards which seem to be back yet again The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size Having to use real ids on the internet Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.
Because on this site we share our opinions.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
"I can understand opinions."
You can't. You portentously tell us things like "The law is not intrinsically right or wrong" as if you had just confirmed the Riemann hypothesis. We know that already. All of us.
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but surely the level of cross-party exasperation provoked by your posts gives you some kind of clue about their value?
No.
A number of people disagree with me, a number of people agree. That's called having a difference of opinion and is entirely reasonable.
Odd argument. Seems to be confusing different definitions of 'freedom'. I'm free to go and stab someone, but just because the law can't physically stop me it doesn't follow that my act of free agency somehow takes some kind of moral precedence. What would the world look like if minsters weren't 'free' - in his sense of the word - to break international law?
It would be a very worrying and dangerous place as far as I'm concerned.
But you've nothing to worry about because governments are free, and will always be free, to break international law, in just the same way that I'm 'free' to go and commit murder. Of course, I don't do it for a number of reasons: moral scruples, fear of consequences, social opprobrium etc. International law has parallel reasons for not breaking it.
Of course, most of the time it is good to not break it, but some of the time it is. When that is, is a matter of politics.
Sticking by a bad law just because its the law is no more acceptable to me than "only following orders" as to why you killed innocent people.
What is "acceptable to you" is not, I am guessing, viewed as a moral yardstick by any reader of this blog, so why tell us about it? There are many obvious and unanswerable arguments as to why one should stick to bad laws, and you have been courteously directed to these arguments many times on here. If you still do not understand and accept them why not sign up to an online course in moral philosophy, and spend the time you spend here on that instead? That would really benefit everybody concerned.
Because on this site we share our opinions.
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
"I can understand opinions."
You can't. You portentously tell us things like "The law is not intrinsically right or wrong" as if you had just confirmed the Riemann hypothesis. We know that already. All of us.
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but surely the level of cross-party exasperation provoked by your posts gives you some kind of clue about their value?
No unpopular opinions allowed then?
Exasperation is a reaction to extreme silliness, not to unpopularity.
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.
Porn passes ID Cards which seem to be back yet again The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size Having to use real ids on the internet Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.
Porn passes ID Cards which seem to be back yet again The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size Having to use real ids on the internet Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?
Hardly the media companies more or less wrote the eu copyright directive. This is merely our politicians failing to understand how the internet works
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.
Porn passes ID Cards which seem to be back yet again The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size Having to use real ids on the internet Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?
I think it's more that the UK government is so distracted by Brexit that there's not a lot of scrutiny of proposals in a number of areas. Corporates, perhaps unsurprisingly, are using this as an opportunity to "help" write legislation.
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.
Porn passes ID Cards which seem to be back yet again The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size Having to use real ids on the internet Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?
I think it's more that the UK government is so distracted by Brexit that there's not a lot of scrutiny of proposals in a number of areas. Corporates, perhaps unsurprisingly, are using this as an opportunity to "help" write legislation.
Probably as to the EU Corporates love the EU instead of lobbing 28 different parliaments they only need to lobby one....the lobby is brussels is teaming with expensive meals
As an aside, the more I think about the Internal Markets Bill, the more it seems incompatible with a number of treaties the UK has signed, not just the Withdrawal Agreement.
Any treaty which requires UK courts to pay attention to the rulings of supranational bodies is basically verboten.
That would count membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership out, likewise the proposed international patent tribunal, it is probably incompatible with NATO membership, given the existence of the NATO Administrative Tribunal, ditto the International Telecoms Union and the International Postal Union.
And let's not even mention the World Trade Organisation.
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.
Porn passes ID Cards which seem to be back yet again The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size Having to use real ids on the internet Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?
I think it's more that the UK government is so distracted by Brexit that there's not a lot of scrutiny of proposals in a number of areas. Corporates, perhaps unsurprisingly, are using this as an opportunity to "help" write legislation.
Probably as to the EU Corporates love the EU instead of lobbing 28 different parliaments they only need to lobby one....the lobby is brussels is teaming with expensive meals
Hello again everyone. Been away a while. New phone.
I very much doubt Trump is skipping preparation.
What is everyone's headline prediction (12 words or fewer) for US elections? Broadly mine is 'Biden to squeak it because Great Lake states turn blue'.
"Trump out in Dem landslide but Florida stubbornly stays red".
That's about my take, though maybe less of the 'landslide'. It should be comfortable enough but Florida is different and will probably stay red.
Yes - decisive win would be a more accurate description. I'll be calling it a landslide though if I possibly can. ☺
If Texas flips, it's a landslide. Otherwise it's a normal win or a damn close thing.
I don't honestly think Texas will flip, but if it does the ECV distortion switches too. Instead of the ECV system favoring the GOP, it will then favor the Democrats. Cue bitter complaints about the system's unfairness!
If that does happen I imagine we'll hear far less of the argument about the unfairness of the US Constitution and the short-sightedness of the founding fathers.
Can someone please write a 500 page book on why the left have become so authoritarian over the last 20 years or so.
Is this an easy Left/Right thing?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
We do seem to have a large dose of authoritarian left wingers in this country and right wingers too. This does not seem to be so much the case in many other countries. Sadly our politicians of all stripes seem to get more authoritarian every day.
Porn passes ID Cards which seem to be back yet again The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size Having to use real ids on the internet Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
It is quite astonishing that our government has managed to take all that was wrong with the EU's copyright directive and is seeking to make it even worse.
Perhaps the media companies find it easier to get their way with a small out-of-its-depth country rather than taking on the EU?
I think it's more that the UK government is so distracted by Brexit that there's not a lot of scrutiny of proposals in a number of areas. Corporates, perhaps unsurprisingly, are using this as an opportunity to "help" write legislation.
Probably as to the EU Corporates love the EU instead of lobbing 28 different parliaments they only need to lobby one....the lobby is brussels is teaming with expensive meals
It is indeed.
Take the link with a small dash of salt it is techdirt and while they tend to be accurate with detail like all sites they have a slant
As an aside, the more I think about the Internal Markets Bill, the more it seems incompatible with a number of treaties the UK has signed, not just the Withdrawal Agreement.
Any treaty which requires UK courts to pay attention to the rulings of supranational bodies is basically verboten.
That would count membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership out, likewise the proposed international patent tribunal, it is probably incompatible with NATO membership, given the existence of the NATO Administrative Tribunal, ditto the International Telecoms Union and the International Postal Union.
And let's not even mention the World Trade Organisation.
So considering the QC here is hardly a Brexiteer but is saying exactly what I was saying, from before I saw him say it, please tell me what he has got wrong here?
Because - briefly - Parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law are not the same thing.
You think, wrongly, that the first is the same as the second and the only thing necessary for the second to exist.
If you really want to understand this topic, I can only advise you to read Tom Bingham’s The Rule of Law, available in paperback for £7.55. Not a long book, very wise and elegantly written and as clear an explanation as you can get without needing to train as a lawyer.
If there is a distinction to be drawn between 'parliamentary sovereignty'/democracy and 'the rule of law' then as a matter of principle I prefer the former.
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
You make my point for me, the point made in my article.
Parliamentary sovereignty - with no restraints - says that Parliament could do precisely that: pass a law authorising, for instance, the killing of everyone with a P in their name. And if that was in the manifesto and had been voted for, fine.
Whereas most people believe - and WW2 brought this into sharp relief - that there need to be restraints even on what a democratically elected government can do, hence the ECHR, for instance, and other international laws and conventions etc, to avoid what many (often Tories) called the tyranny of the majority.
Those who believe in pure unrestrained Parliamentary sovereignty are, IMO, the descendants of those who believed in the divine right of kings. Parliament seized power from the King but that does not mean that Parliament itself should be free to do whatever it wants. It too is subject to the law. “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.”
A good rule for any Conservative is "up to a point, yes".
We’re all missing the important news today, Johnson is going bald, is it a side effect of covid? What should he do, ignore, go for a transplant or get a wig? Anybody capable of posting a picture of ‘bald boris’
As an aside, the more I think about the Internal Markets Bill, the more it seems incompatible with a number of treaties the UK has signed, not just the Withdrawal Agreement.
Any treaty which requires UK courts to pay attention to the rulings of supranational bodies is basically verboten.
That would count membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership out, likewise the proposed international patent tribunal, it is probably incompatible with NATO membership, given the existence of the NATO Administrative Tribunal, ditto the International Telecoms Union and the International Postal Union.
And let's not even mention the World Trade Organisation.
I’d like to know if @Philip_Thompson values our membership or proposed membership of any of these organisations?
Thats all they really want out of this. Rows with the EU, the Lords, Judges to keep attention away from their incompetence, dishonesty and kleptocracy. Sadly it will work.
As an aside, the more I think about the Internal Markets Bill, the more it seems incompatible with a number of treaties the UK has signed, not just the Withdrawal Agreement.
Any treaty which requires UK courts to pay attention to the rulings of supranational bodies is basically verboten.
That would count membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership out, likewise the proposed international patent tribunal, it is probably incompatible with NATO membership, given the existence of the NATO Administrative Tribunal, ditto the International Telecoms Union and the International Postal Union.
And let's not even mention the World Trade Organisation.
I’d like to know if @Philip_Thompson values our membership or proposed membership of any of these organisations?
Yes I do - and I don't believe this law counts out those, that's an overly literal interpretation.
Thats all they really want out of this. Rows with the EU, the Lords, Judges to keep attention away from their incompetence, dishonesty and kleptocracy. Sadly it will work.
The Lords need one spokesman to control the narrative i.e. “the people voted for this Brexit deal to get Brexit done. Get on with it”.
The ERG should propose an amendment that says: "Notwithstanding any legislation to the contrary, the remaining members of the European Union shall allow free and unencumbered passage for all British goods, subjects, capital and services."
A basic rule of my life: I read everything before I sign it. If I sign something, I honour it. If I don't like it, I don't sign and I live with the consequences.
If I have no choice but still don't like it (T&Cs for some essential services) then I click "yes" but give feedback, campaign to change it or look for medium-long term alternatives but I still honour it.
The ERG should propose an amendment that says: "Notwithstanding any legislation to the contrary, the remaining members of the European Union shall allow free and unencumbered passage for all British goods, subjects, capital and services."
As an aside, the more I think about the Internal Markets Bill, the more it seems incompatible with a number of treaties the UK has signed, not just the Withdrawal Agreement.
Any treaty which requires UK courts to pay attention to the rulings of supranational bodies is basically verboten.
That would count membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership out, likewise the proposed international patent tribunal, it is probably incompatible with NATO membership, given the existence of the NATO Administrative Tribunal, ditto the International Telecoms Union and the International Postal Union.
And let's not even mention the World Trade Organisation.
This analogy just gets better and better with age.
Total bollocks as the conservative party doesnt speak for the country, its merely accidentally our government. No more did labour speak for all of us when blair decided that invading iraq was a brilliant idea
The ERG should propose an amendment that says: "Notwithstanding any legislation to the contrary, the remaining members of the European Union shall allow free and unencumbered passage for all British goods, subjects, capital and services."
And "Notwithstanding any unusual local languages, all EU citizens must address loyal British subjects, wherever they are, in Her Majesty the Queens English."
A basic rule of my life: I read everything before I sign it. If I sign something, I honour it. If I don't like it, I don't sign and I live with the consequences.
If I have no choice but still don't like it (T&Cs for some essential services) then I click "yes" but give feedback, campaign to change it or look for medium-long term alternatives but I still honour it.
God, Remainers really don't know how to play their cards, do they? They never have.
I'm in favour of a moderate practical sensible Brexit that respects reality and the rule of law. Like May's Deal. Or this one with a full FTA. I always have been.
I don't favour an ideological scorched earth approach to everything and everyone in the pursuit of its perfect purity. That's what's mad.
And, whenever I think I might finally be in a position to modify my views, up pops a Remainer like you to say "told you so" and reminds me why I voted Leave in the first place.
Remainers should just STFU. They haven't a clue and are too far up their own arseholes (as @Pulpstar so aptly put it earlier) to influence anything or anyone.
Midweek means a veritable onslaught of US polling. The State polling I'll leave to others - the three national polls are hugely variable. Rasmussen has Biden up 48-46 so a carbon copy of 2016 but with no crosstabs it's impossible to draw any conclusions.
CNBC/Change Research has published a large number of State polls and a national poll with Biden ahead 49-43. The battleground polls have Biden ahead everywhere and I'm struck by the very small number of Undecided voters.
My favourite poll every week is the Economist/YouGov. Exactly four years ago, the equivalent poll had Clinton ahead 46-44. Tonight, Biden leads 52-43 so that's a 4.5% swing to the Democrats and very much in line with what I'm seeing in many other polls.
Among men, Trump is up by one but Biden leads by fourteen among women. Among White voters Trump leads 51-42 but among Hispanics he trails 52-30. The latter is actually an improvement for Trump on 2016 but that's not because Hispanic voters are going to Trump, they just aren't committing to Biden.
Among White voters the swing to Biden is 6%.
Independents break 40-39 for Biden but with 11% undecided, there's still something to play for.
The sample breakdown is 38.7% Democrat, 34.7% Independent and 26.5% Republican which looks a little Republican-lite to me.
The ERG should propose an amendment that says: "Notwithstanding any legislation to the contrary, the remaining members of the European Union shall allow free and unencumbered passage for all British goods, subjects, capital and services."
And "Notwithstanding any unusual local languages, all EU citizens must address loyal British subjects, wherever they are, in Her Majesty the Queens English."
Now you're talking! This is what Cameron should have done instead of that renegotiation business.
God, Remainers really don't know how to play their cards, do they? They never have.
I'm in favour of a moderate practical sensible Brexit that respects reality and the rule of law. Like May's Deal. Or this one with a full FTA. I always have been.
I don't favour an ideological scorched earth approach to everything and everyone in the pursuit of its perfect purity. That's what's mad.
And, whenever I think I might finally be in a position to modify my views, up pops a Remainer like you to say "told you so" and reminds me why I voted Leave in the first place.
Remainers should just STFU. They haven't a clue and are too far up their own arseholes (as @Pulpstar so aptly put it earlier) to influence anything or anyone.
See my tweet from 2016 posted below, this is the inevitable consequence of the Vote Leave campaign strategy, the one you campaigned for and voted for.
Next you'll be telling us that Remain didn't warn leaving the EU had the potential to tear apart the Union.
@Casino_Royale with all due respect, you’re happy to criticise all “Remainers” based on the actions of a few bellends. In fact you do on a regular basis.
Now the government are acting very publicly like bellends so don’t be surprised if the whole of “your team” is criticised.
Leghslation to stop checks between England and Wales ?! It's not needed. Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England (Subsequently the Union) since roughly the 13th century. Wales doesn't even have its own legal system, it's entirely legally English.
Leghslation to stop checks between England and Wales ?! It's not needed. Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England (Subsequently the Union) since roughly the 13th century. Wales doesn't even have its own legal system, it's entirely legally English.
Remember Wales has a full Parliament now and ability to set its own laws. The E+W legal system will almost definitely diverge over time...
Thats all they really want out of this. Rows with the EU, the Lords, Judges to keep attention away from their incompetence, dishonesty and kleptocracy. Sadly it will work.
The problem is, the public's not in the same mood as last year. As I mentioned yesterday, It will only work for the Brexiteer ultras who are already locked in. Last year all these forces were just successfully cast as obstacles to a deal, for most of the rest of the public backing the Tories ; so they did so partly on the understanding that the Tories were the ones who would Brexit go away with the deal, as an issue.
@Casino_Royale with all due respect, you’re happy to criticise all “Remainers” based on the actions of a few bellends. In fact you do on a regular basis.
Now the government are acting very publicly like bellends so don’t be surprised if the whole of “your team” is criticised.
My behaviour is far from perfect.
But, you might want to find a better argument than "you started it".
God, Remainers really don't know how to play their cards, do they? They never have.
I'm in favour of a moderate practical sensible Brexit that respects reality and the rule of law. Like May's Deal. Or this one with a full FTA. I always have been.
I don't favour an ideological scorched earth approach to everything and everyone in the pursuit of its perfect purity. That's what's mad.
And, whenever I think I might finally be in a position to modify my views, up pops a Remainer like you to say "told you so" and reminds me why I voted Leave in the first place.
Remainers should just STFU. They haven't a clue and are too far up their own arseholes (as @Pulpstar so aptly put it earlier) to influence anything or anyone.
See my tweet from 2016 posted below, this is the inevitable consequence of the Vote Leave campaign strategy, the one you campaigned for and voted for.
Next you'll be telling us that Remain didn't warn leaving the EU had the potential to tear apart the Union.
There was nothing inevitable about ending in this place, as May showed.
You just want to be right and to be seen to be right.
Comments
Or else.
At what stage are you going to stop defending the ludicrous authoritarian policies of the incompetent idiots who purport to govern us?
If the law says we need to kill the firstborn child of every family I would rather break that law and get rid of it. The law is not intrinsically right or wrong.
Regardless of the name, I doubt I’d get many followers!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/08/linden-cameron-police-shooting-boy-autism-utah
I can understand opinions and have a different one, can I not? Or do we all need to have the same opinion?
At this point in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.7%
Donald Trump: 43.3%
Gary Johnson: 8%
Actual outcome in 2016 in PA:
Hillary Clinton: 47.8%
Donald Trump: 48.6%
Gary Johnson: 2.4%
Today’s NBC News / Marist poll has Biden on 53% and Trump on 44% amongst likely voters.
So Hillary’s vote share essentially stayed the same and the undecideds/3rd party supporters went for Trump.
So even if that happened this time, and NBC’s poll is correct, Biden still wins as he’s over 50%. (although 49% within the margin of error).
Of course, there are crazy scenarios where Trump increases his share in Florida (quite likely I'd have thought), Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, but loses ground in Texas and Arizona.
Under that scenario, it's possible that Trump wins the popular vote, but loses the Electoral College.
(Not a forecast, mind. It's just a possible, and not a very likely one at that.)
This poster’s tendency to act as some sort of site policeman is nauseating.
Carry on Philip.
But one serious adverse reaction - which resulted in temporary hospitalisation - out of 30,000 participants is probably about par for the course.
You can't. You portentously tell us things like "The law is not intrinsically right or wrong" as if you had just confirmed the Riemann hypothesis. We know that already. All of us.
I don't know if you are trolling or not, but surely the level of cross-party exasperation provoked by your posts gives you some kind of clue about their value?
Sweden is run by a left wing government, Germany by a right wing one.
Both can claim success - in different ways - for their handling of Coronavirus. But one did it via sweeping prohibitions, and the other via allowing people more freedom.
An interesting betting strategy (EC votes) could be to cover those states where Biden has 50%+.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12626249/animated-graphic-coronavirus-cases-rising-england/
A number of people disagree with me, a number of people agree. That's called having a difference of opinion and is entirely reasonable.
Biden 55%
Trump 40%
Biden +15
Parliamentary sovereignty - with no restraints - says that Parliament could do precisely that: pass a law authorising, for instance, the killing of everyone with a P in their name. And if that was in the manifesto and had been voted for, fine.
Whereas most people believe - and WW2 brought this into sharp relief - that there need to be restraints even on what a democratically elected government can do, hence the ECHR, for instance, and other international laws and conventions etc, to avoid what many (often Tories) called the tyranny of the majority.
Those who believe in pure unrestrained Parliamentary sovereignty are, IMO, the descendants of those who believed in the divine right of kings. Parliament seized power from the King but that does not mean that Parliament itself should be free to do whatever it wants. It too is subject to the law. “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.”
The polling average has been remarkably static in that time, so not sure what they're doing - and how they jumped from 10 to 2 in a week when the polling average was virtually unchanged suggests they're a bit wonky, a bit unlucky, or changed their methodology.
Starmer is not authoritarian, except perhaps intolerant of anti semites in the party etc, and the rest of the front bench are pretty similar too.
You are tilting at straw men.
No I wouldn't have opposed a referendum, had Parliament voted for a referendum it would be reasonable to have one.
Porn passes
ID Cards which seem to be back yet again
The replacement they are proposing for the eu copyright directive which somehow they have taken the awful and doubled down on
Appropriating 10% of businesses over a certain size
Having to use real ids on the internet
Everything that comes out of extinction rebellions mouth
thought crimes in the shape of hate speech laws where what you meant doesn't matter only that someone somewhere took offence
The current ridiculous tranche of covid policies
ASBO's
To name but a few some implemented some only suggested
However, given the major pollsters have gotten it broadly right in the past, one needs to have a compelling rationale for why they should get it very wrong this time.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200824/13595845171/intermediary-liability-responsibilities-post-brexit-graham-smith.shtml
just in case
Corporates love the EU instead of lobbing 28 different parliaments they only need to lobby one....the lobby is brussels is teaming with expensive meals
Any treaty which requires UK courts to pay attention to the rulings of supranational bodies is basically verboten.
That would count membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership out, likewise the proposed international patent tribunal, it is probably incompatible with NATO membership, given the existence of the NATO Administrative Tribunal, ditto the International Telecoms Union and the International Postal Union.
And let's not even mention the World Trade Organisation.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1303764170094137344
Did you go back to the 1730s to get it?
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1303767432981553153
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1303767434336362498
They're now going to bring the Lords and the Judges into the debate.
When do they start deporting non-English (born north of Watford Gap) people?
If I have no choice but still don't like it (T&Cs for some essential services) then I click "yes" but give feedback, campaign to change it or look for medium-long term alternatives but I still honour it.
Because I respect the bloody law.
Sometimes you do a funny.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/722391453599723520
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1303766809032695808?s=20
Funny that!
A Tory with principles.
God, Remainers really don't know how to play their cards, do they? They never have.
I'm in favour of a moderate practical sensible Brexit that respects reality and the rule of law. Like May's Deal. Or this one with a full FTA. I always have been.
I don't favour an ideological scorched earth approach to everything and everyone in the pursuit of its perfect purity. That's what's mad.
And, whenever I think I might finally be in a position to modify my views, up pops a Remainer like you to say "told you so" and reminds me why I voted Leave in the first place.
Remainers should just STFU. They haven't a clue and are too far up their own arseholes (as @Pulpstar so aptly put it earlier) to influence anything or anyone.
Midweek means a veritable onslaught of US polling. The State polling I'll leave to others - the three national polls are hugely variable. Rasmussen has Biden up 48-46 so a carbon copy of 2016 but with no crosstabs it's impossible to draw any conclusions.
CNBC/Change Research has published a large number of State polls and a national poll with Biden ahead 49-43. The battleground polls have Biden ahead everywhere and I'm struck by the very small number of Undecided voters.
My favourite poll every week is the Economist/YouGov. Exactly four years ago, the equivalent poll had Clinton ahead 46-44. Tonight, Biden leads 52-43 so that's a 4.5% swing to the Democrats and very much in line with what I'm seeing in many other polls.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/8nwf5tw7g2/econTabReport.pdf
Among men, Trump is up by one but Biden leads by fourteen among women. Among White voters Trump leads 51-42 but among Hispanics he trails 52-30. The latter is actually an improvement for Trump on 2016 but that's not because Hispanic voters are going to Trump, they just aren't committing to Biden.
Among White voters the swing to Biden is 6%.
Independents break 40-39 for Biden but with 11% undecided, there's still something to play for.
The sample breakdown is 38.7% Democrat, 34.7% Independent and 26.5% Republican which looks a little Republican-lite to me.
Next you'll be telling us that Remain didn't warn leaving the EU had the potential to tear apart the Union.
Now the government are acting very publicly like bellends so don’t be surprised if the whole of “your team” is criticised.
It's not needed. Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England (Subsequently the Union) since roughly the 13th century. Wales doesn't even have its own legal system, it's entirely legally English.
But, you might want to find a better argument than "you started it".
You just want to be right and to be seen to be right.
So please piss off - there's a good chap.