Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Ruthless: RBG’s death has given Trump a Black Swan to exploit – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 19 in General
Ruthless: RBG’s death has given Trump a Black Swan to exploit – politicalbetting.com

“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” – Ruth Bader Ginsberg pic.twitter.com/7xQ4GsR3rw

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 33,190
    So...

    Let me preface this by saying that Roe vs Wade was the very worst thing that ever happened to 'liberals' in the US. It made what should have been a decision made in the ballot box, something that was made in the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court should not be in the business of making law.

    Trump is faced with a interesting choice:

    Does he attempt to push through with a nomination ahead of November 3rd. This is a tough one, because some Senators (*cough* Susan Collins, Cory Gardner) represent pro-Choice states are locked in difficult re-election battles. If Trump puts forward someone who has spoken out against Roe vs Wade in the past, then they will struggle to support him. Add in Susan Murkowski, and you have 50-50. (Albeit with Pence breaking the deadlock.)

    Now, he could get someone with more moderate views through... but where's the fun in that?

    Perhaps the best result for Trump would be to propose someone extremely pro-Life, to allow him (or her) to be defeated by the Senate. (Thus enabling Collins to demonstrate her independence)

    And then to put forward someone equally pro-Life in the lame duck session, irrespective of the results of the election. (Of course, Trump may be more concerned with finding someone who believes in the untrammelled power of the Executive... like... ummm... Mr Barr.)

    Alternatively, Trump could nominate someone, but not bring them to the Senate floor before the election. Ms Collins (and Mr Gardner) would likely have to opine on how they would vote.

    Interesting times.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,371
    Republicans in the Senate are utterly shameless and will confirm someone in the week before the election. They will have no qualms about voting for someone whose main qualification is supporting Trump in any post-election dispute.

    This will help Trump as so many Americans like to vote for a winner. They won't care about the hypocrisy compared to 2016, because they expect everyone to pull whatever tricks they can get away with to help their team. Indeed, they admire it (see also Johnson supporters posting here).
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,891
    The other angle to this is that Democrats are inevitably talking about adding two extra seats if the GOP force through their pick, which plays into Trump's message that if you vote for Biden you're emboldening a radical democrat agenda etc etc.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,891
    edited September 19
    I think this is more likely to work out badly for Trump than well. If he doesn't bring forward a nominee his base will be miffed, if he does Dem turnout will go bananas. However starting from where we are it helps him on balance because he's behind and he needs something to change, and this is something.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 27,844
    Sad news to wake up to. Cat well and truly thrown amongst the pigeons.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 35,161
    The 2020 election just got religion.

    Not sure that helps Biden.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,431
    Sad news to wake up to.

    My gut tells me Trump and his minions in the Senate will find a way of getting this done in time. Any republican senator who doesn't toe the line is toast, even in a relatively blue state, as they'll lose a decent fraction of their base.

    The Dem reaction will be dramatic. I wouldn't be surprised if we see an expansion of Supreme Court in future years.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,891
    rkrkrk said:

    My gut tells me Trump and his minions in the Senate will find a way of getting this done in time. Any republican senator who doesn't toe the line is toast, even in a relatively blue state, as they'll lose a decent fraction of their base.

    Isn't that a reason for the GOP Senate to let Trump name the pick but then leave the confirmation for the lame duck session? Why make things harder for Susan Collins?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,431
    rcs1000 said:

    So...

    Trump is faced with a interesting choice:

    Does he attempt to push through with a nomination ahead of November 3rd. This is a tough one, because some Senators (*cough* Susan Collins, Cory Gardner) represent pro-Choice states are locked in difficult re-election battles.

    You're overcomplicating.
    If Trump doesn't go all guns blazing for an anti abortion judge, he is done for with his base.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 1,371

    I think this is more likely to work out badly for Trump than well. If he doesn't bring forward a nominee his base will be miffed, if he does Dem turnout will go bananas. However starting from where we are it helps him on balance because he's behind and he needs something to change, and this is something.

    Maybe the best way to play it for Trump would be to nominate a black or Hispanic woman, McConnell allows the dems to use tactics to delay the nomination until the election. That gives conservatives more reason to turnout and vote, while making Dems look bad for trying to stop the nomination of the first black female Supreme Court judge.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,431

    rkrkrk said:

    My gut tells me Trump and his minions in the Senate will find a way of getting this done in time. Any republican senator who doesn't toe the line is toast, even in a relatively blue state, as they'll lose a decent fraction of their base.

    Isn't that a reason for the GOP Senate to let Trump name the pick but then leave the confirmation for the lame duck session? Why make things harder for Susan Collins?
    Susan Collins is going to vote in favour. I think she backed BK and NG previously?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,417
    Not a snowball's chance in hell of installing a replacement in six weeks or even by January.

    Do you have any knowledge about how the system works?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,396
    rcs1000 said:

    So...

    Let me preface this by saying that Roe vs Wade was the very worst thing that ever happened to 'liberals' in the US. It made what should have been a decision made in the ballot box, something that was made in the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court should not be in the business of making law.

    .

    At the time of the case the Southern Baptist Congress welcomed the decision saying it was a sensible pragmatic ruling that settled the issue.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,891
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    My gut tells me Trump and his minions in the Senate will find a way of getting this done in time. Any republican senator who doesn't toe the line is toast, even in a relatively blue state, as they'll lose a decent fraction of their base.

    Isn't that a reason for the GOP Senate to let Trump name the pick but then leave the confirmation for the lame duck session? Why make things harder for Susan Collins?
    Susan Collins is going to vote in favour. I think she backed BK and NG previously?
    Well, the way she generally tries to straddle the divide is to act very concerned and worried and troubled, but then nevertheless vote with the GOP. But if that's what she's going to do I think it's obvious she'd rather do it after the election than before?

    Also we're in this short window between the primary and the general election, which may make senators more inclined to rebel than they would be usually.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,076
    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 4,714
    edited September 19

    Not a snowball's chance in hell of installing a replacement in six weeks or even by January.

    Do you have any knowledge about how the system works?

    The system works by the GOP tearing up the rulebook for partisan advantage.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,396

    Not a snowball's chance in hell of installing a replacement in six weeks or even by January.

    Do you have any knowledge about how the system works?

    McConnell decides there will be a vote on the SC Justice.

    That's it. That's the process.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,076
    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?
  • Alistair said:

    Not a snowball's chance in hell of installing a replacement in six weeks or even by January.

    Do you have any knowledge about how the system works?

    McConnell decides there will be a vote on the SC Justice.

    That's it. That's the process.
    We should not forget that it is actually the Vice President, Mike Pence, who cares about right wing, anti-abortion judges, whereas Trump would nominate a rock if he thought there was something in it for him. Pence will want a conservative bottom on the bench before January.
  • isamisam Posts: 34,038
    edited September 19
    In this case it’s not really ‘one rule for the rich and another for everyone else’ is it? The ‘rich’ have paid for tests and the ‘everyone else’ haven’t, the government aren’t supplying free tests for Eton’s students. If we are going to treat state school kids the same, their parents would have to pay to send them to school.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,396

    Not a snowball's chance in hell of installing a replacement in six weeks or even by January.

    Do you have any knowledge about how the system works?

    McConnell decides there will be a vote on the SC Justice.

    That's it. That's the process.

    Alistair said:

    Not a snowball's chance in hell of installing a replacement in six weeks or even by January.

    Do you have any knowledge about how the system works?

    McConnell decides there will be a vote on the SC Justice.

    That's it. That's the process.
    We should not forget that it is actually the Vice President, Mike Pence, who cares about right wing, anti-abortion judges, whereas Trump would nominate a rock if he thought there was something in it for him. Pence will want a conservative bottom on the bench before January.
    Trump has just picked hacks off the Federalist Society list. Trump only cares about the Supreme Court in so much as it gives him wins.

    It is the main GOP machinery that cares about the Supreme Court which is why they voted in Kavanaugh in lock step.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 4,714
    edited September 19
    Deleted after blockquote fiasco.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,396
    Do I exit the winning party market Yes/No?
  • isamisam Posts: 34,038
    edited September 19
    A third of the population don’t support a second lockdown. They are represented in parliament by Boris, Sir Keir, Sir Ed, and the SNP, who only argue over how to implement it, not whether lockdown is the correct policy

    Four cheeks of the same arse! Shades of the early ‘10s and the EU debate.

  • Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Not a snowball's chance in hell of installing a replacement in six weeks or even by January.

    Do you have any knowledge about how the system works?

    McConnell decides there will be a vote on the SC Justice.

    That's it. That's the process.
    We should not forget that it is actually the Vice President, Mike Pence, who cares about right wing, anti-abortion judges, whereas Trump would nominate a rock if he thought there was something in it for him. Pence will want a conservative bottom on the bench before January.
    Trump has just picked hacks off the Federalist Society list. Trump only cares about the Supreme Court in so much as it gives him wins.

    It is the main GOP machinery that cares about the Supreme Court which is why they voted in Kavanaugh in lock step.
    That's what I meant. Even if Trump is tempted to play this for partisan advantage, Pence will want to guarantee a new judge to give the right a super-majority on the Supreme Court, and not endanger this with silly gimmicks to help Trump.

    ETA just last month VP Pence was complaining that Chief Justice Roberts has been "a disappointment".
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8600507/Mike-Pence-blasts-Chief-Justice-John-Roberts-disappointment-conservatives.html
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,891
    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,846
    isam said:

    A third of the population don’t support a second lockdown. They are represented in parliament by Boris, Sir Keir, Sir Ed, and the SNP, who only argue over how to implement it, not whether lockdown is the correct policy

    Four cheeks of the same arse! Shades of the early ‘10s and the EU debate.

    I was in this poll "somewhat opposed". I am happy to be represented by Ed Davey.

    Lockdown is a much abused word now. I dontthink that we will see anything like April again. A night time curfew and some travel restrictions are not lockdown.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,396
    Scott_xP said:
    Meh. This is 7D chess plus a whole bucket of wishful thinking.

    They can get the justice confirmed after the election even if the lose everything. The GOP options are limitless here.

    The GOP base cares about the SC, Dem voters do not. Trump and McConnell have loads of space to work in.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    How many people have to know about a superinjuction to stop stories appearing on the web? Does it apply outside the UK as well?

    Confused as to how it can all work, although it seems to do the job!
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,711

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    My gut tells me Trump and his minions in the Senate will find a way of getting this done in time. Any republican senator who doesn't toe the line is toast, even in a relatively blue state, as they'll lose a decent fraction of their base.

    Isn't that a reason for the GOP Senate to let Trump name the pick but then leave the confirmation for the lame duck session? Why make things harder for Susan Collins?
    Susan Collins is going to vote in favour. I think she backed BK and NG previously?
    Well, the way she generally tries to straddle the divide is to act very concerned and worried and troubled, but then nevertheless vote with the GOP. But if that's what she's going to do I think it's obvious she'd rather do it after the election than before?

    Also we're in this short window between the primary and the general election, which may make senators more inclined to rebel than they would be usually.
    Susan Collins is in a liberal State and is losing. If she backs a rushed right wing judge she will ensure a loss.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,396
    I have exited. Again.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 42,596
    Isn't the other theory that delaying the nomination until after the election helps Trump's GOTV among the evangelicals?

    For those who haven't seen them, the documentary "RBG" and the drama about her early career "On the Basis of Sex" are well worth watching.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,060
    edited September 19
    It’s true that this represents another opportunity for the orange haired loon to do something disastrous.

    But I have to say I can’t see it as a ‘black swan.’ An 87 year old in poor health dying isn’t exactly an unexpected event.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,155
    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,006
    If Trump gets his nominee approved before November 3 and gives the SC a conservative majority doesn't that actually remove one off the key reasons for some people to vote for him?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,060
    edited September 19
    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,155
    isam said:

    A third of the population don’t support a second lockdown. They are represented in parliament by Boris, Sir Keir, Sir Ed, and the SNP, who only argue over how to implement it, not whether lockdown is the correct policy

    Four cheeks of the same arse! Shades of the early ‘10s and the EU debate.


    What’s not to like? Free money for no work, no rent, no evictions...

    I wonder how many of the “supporters of a full lockdown repeat” are actually following the rules as they currently? In fact, whilst above comment was semi joking, there may actually be some who actually welcome a lockdown which makes breaking of current rules something they are entirely relaxed about!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 20,033
    alex_ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
    Smoke...... fire. However there was recent event which seemed 'normal'.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,155
    OllyT said:

    If Trump gets his nominee approved before November 3 and gives the SC a conservative majority doesn't that actually remove one off the key reasons for some people to vote for him?

    That’s what I was thinking. Which is why there’s a back up campaign running about the Democrats wanting to increase the size of the court if they can take the Senate.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 42,596
    Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.

    A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard.


    https://obama.medium.com/my-statement-on-the-passing-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-5a925b627457
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,060
    alex_ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,060

    Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.

    A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard.


    https://obama.medium.com/my-statement-on-the-passing-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-5a925b627457

    Asking Republican senators to show integrity, fairness or consistency would be like asking Richard Burgon to make a sane statement or a fox to be nice to chickens.

    It just isn’t in their nature.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,891
    alex_ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
    Sure. Just to be clear my previous post is entirely confected out of thin air on the basis only of the post it is replying to.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,076
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    Thanks, that would explain it. Replicating supermarket orders I placed in August for delivery in October, the same items cost in total between 5-10% more. This isn’t showing in the CPI given the reduction due to Rishi’s Covid dinners and other virus related price falls.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,076
    alex_ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
    Clearly it doesn’t exist, then.

    But if in an entirely different case where one did exist, if its mere existence is not to be reported or discussed, how are you supposed to know about it in the first place, so as to avoid inadvertently discussing the substantive issue?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,060
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    Thanks, that would explain it. Replicating supermarket orders I placed in August for delivery in October, the same items cost in total between 5-10% more. This isn’t showing in the CPI given the reduction due to Rishi’s Covid dinners and other virus related price falls.
    I am afraid that situation is going to get worse before it gets better. February looks alarmingly like the potential for a perfect storm in terms of food security, between the ongoing disruption of trade due to Covid, Brexit, poor global weather and a lack of port capacity. We could easily see really massive price hikes leading into next spring.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,396

    Isn't the other theory that delaying the nomination until after the election helps Trump's GOTV among the evangelicals?

    For those who haven't seen them, the documentary "RBG" and the drama about her early career "On the Basis of Sex" are well worth watching.

    Yes, the entire GOP con game is to imply they will make Aborition illegal but never actually do it to harvest votes from the Evangelicals but not lose their centerists
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,076
    edited September 19
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    Thanks, that would explain it. Replicating supermarket orders I placed in August for delivery in October, the same items cost in total between 5-10% more. This isn’t showing in the CPI given the reduction due to Rishi’s Covid dinners and other virus related price falls.
    I am afraid that situation is going to get worse before it gets better. February looks alarmingly like the potential for a perfect storm in terms of food security, between the ongoing disruption of trade due to Covid, Brexit, poor global weather and a lack of port capacity. We could easily see really massive price hikes leading into next spring.
    Tough on poor people, who need to buy food, but won’t be able to enjoy the price reductions in meals out, travel, and the rest. And will have any wage or benefit or pension income frozen if CPI stays negligible.

    Maybe I should fill the car with food before I return to the UK.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 7,887
    ydoethur said:

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    I missed the quote from Lord Keen

    "This is a really cunning plan. With 2 Ms"...
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,155
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    A third of the population don’t support a second lockdown. They are represented in parliament by Boris, Sir Keir, Sir Ed, and the SNP, who only argue over how to implement it, not whether lockdown is the correct policy

    Four cheeks of the same arse! Shades of the early ‘10s and the EU debate.

    I was in this poll "somewhat opposed". I am happy to be represented by Ed Davey.

    Lockdown is a much abused word now. I dontthink that we will see anything like April again. A night time curfew and some travel restrictions are not lockdown.
    I wouldn’t be so sure. It was only last week that the Govt was briefing that the “tough” new measures involving the “rule of six” were setting the framework to get us through to Christmas, possibly longer. The ink has barely dried on the new regulations before an entirely expected rise has got them talking about tougher measures/circuit breakers/possibilities of national lockdowns etc.

    Basically either the various rules they announce to great fanfare are based on no modelling whatsoever, or they simply aren’t prepared to wait to find out if their modelling is any good before moving on to the next stage of measures. And given that we’re practically back to daily briefings again, that means we’re also back to daily announcement of new measures to respond to that day’s rise in numbers. At that speed (as is argued by some was the case in March) we’ve reached full March style lockdown, before we find out if one of the earlier measures has been sufficient to slow or reverse the spread.

    And of course it could be worse this time around because nobody is paying much attention to whether there is a link between case numbers and actual serious negative health outcomes (eg hospitalisation). In March this was much more likely to be correlated due to most of the testing actually occurring in hospitals.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,846
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    I was chatting to the guys harvesting the fields while I was walking my lockdown pup.

    The wheat was very poor, but the barley fairly reasonable. Both nicely dry for harvesting.

    So bread prices may be up, but beer and whisky OK...
  • IanB2 said:

    alex_ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
    Clearly it doesn’t exist, then.

    But if in an entirely different case where one did exist, if its mere existence is not to be reported or discussed, how are you supposed to know about it in the first place, so as to avoid inadvertently discussing the substantive issue?
    It is a scandal that these rich barstewards can buy silence of their misdeeds in the courts and the corrupt media allow it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,060
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    I was chatting to the guys harvesting the fields while I was walking my lockdown pup.

    The wheat was very poor, but the barley fairly reasonable. Both nicely dry for harvesting.

    So bread prices may be up, but beer and whisky OK...
    The harvest in Scotland seems to have been OK, unlike the rest of the UK. So grain whisky supplies are secure.

    Consumption of that may well rocket.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,076
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    I was chatting to the guys harvesting the fields while I was walking my lockdown pup.

    The wheat was very poor, but the barley fairly reasonable. Both nicely dry for harvesting.

    So bread prices may be up, but beer and whisky OK...
    The Apple harvest is coming in now in the Alps; everywhere there are little tractors towing narrow trailers loaded with full crates of fruit. Looks like a very good harvest.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,076
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    I was chatting to the guys harvesting the fields while I was walking my lockdown pup.

    The wheat was very poor, but the barley fairly reasonable. Both nicely dry for harvesting.

    So bread prices may be up, but beer and whisky OK...
    The prices of puppies has more or less doubled this year. I doubt that is one of the components of CPI.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,060
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    Thanks, that would explain it. Replicating supermarket orders I placed in August for delivery in October, the same items cost in total between 5-10% more. This isn’t showing in the CPI given the reduction due to Rishi’s Covid dinners and other virus related price falls.
    I am afraid that situation is going to get worse before it gets better. February looks alarmingly like the potential for a perfect storm in terms of food security, between the ongoing disruption of trade due to Covid, Brexit, poor global weather and a lack of port capacity. We could easily see really massive price hikes leading into next spring.
    Tough on poor people, who need to buy food, but won’t be able to enjoy the price reductions in meals out, travel, and the rest. And will have any wage or benefit or pension income frozen if CPI stays negligible.

    Maybe I should fill the car with food before I return to the UK.
    I think it is going to be tough on rather more than just poor people. It’s going to hit food banks hard, of course, and those on benefits. But I can easily see a lot of middle income people being pulled into this as well given how insecure our food supples are looking. I’m expecting an awful lot of signs of undernourishment in children next year.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,191
    isam said:

    In this case it’s not really ‘one rule for the rich and another for everyone else’ is it? The ‘rich’ have paid for tests and the ‘everyone else’ haven’t, the government aren’t supplying free tests for Eton’s students. If we are going to treat state school kids the same, their parents would have to pay to send them to school.

    Off topic

    If there is anything that would make me change my mind, and conclude the Government are infact doing a grand job over Covid, it is a sentence from the tongue of Burgon.
  • Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    I was chatting to the guys harvesting the fields while I was walking my lockdown pup.

    The wheat was very poor, but the barley fairly reasonable. Both nicely dry for harvesting.

    So bread prices may be up, but beer and whisky OK...
    The prices of agricultural commodities are determined in international markets so if GBP is weaker food prices will be up regardless of the state of the harvest locally. It's different for perishable produce like veg, obviously, where local conditions are important. I am increasingly convinced there will be a Brexit deal, it must be obvious to Johnson that the country cannot handle no deal on top of Covid, I think he will overrule Cummings and the other ultras.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,096

    IanB2 said:

    alex_ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
    Clearly it doesn’t exist, then.

    But if in an entirely different case where one did exist, if its mere existence is not to be reported or discussed, how are you supposed to know about it in the first place, so as to avoid inadvertently discussing the substantive issue?
    It is a scandal that these rich barstewards can buy silence of their misdeeds in the courts and the corrupt media allow it.
    I’ll get my violin out and play it for you.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,915
    RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg; a truly remarkable woman.

    Are there four Republican senators with a functioning conscience ? Just about possible, but I doubt it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,060

    isam said:

    In this case it’s not really ‘one rule for the rich and another for everyone else’ is it? The ‘rich’ have paid for tests and the ‘everyone else’ haven’t, the government aren’t supplying free tests for Eton’s students. If we are going to treat state school kids the same, their parents would have to pay to send them to school.

    Off topic

    If there is anything that would make me change my mind, and conclude the Government are infact doing a grand job over Covid, it is a sentence from the tongue of Burgon.
    It is worth pointing out that Eton as a boarding school forms one bubble. So testing boarding pupils on arrival, just the once, makes sense. That means life can carry on more or less as normal for them.

    In the state sector for it to be of any value, we would have to test every day. Does he have any idea how long it would take to test maybe 2,500 pupils every day at some of our larger schools? We’d have no time for lessons.

    He should confine himself to the more general point that the current state system makes it impossible to be Covid secure and deliver anything other than a shite education, due to pupil numbers.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,142
    I hope Biden nominates Clinton to outtroll the troll.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 17,396
    edited September 19
    5.0 Earthquake around the LA area.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 223
    Thats what happens when a court becomes so politicized . The USA is sadly a sham democracy. When you see what’s happening there you look at the UK Supreme Court and feel a huge sense of relief !
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,846
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    I was chatting to the guys harvesting the fields while I was walking my lockdown pup.

    The wheat was very poor, but the barley fairly reasonable. Both nicely dry for harvesting.

    So bread prices may be up, but beer and whisky OK...
    The prices of puppies has more or less doubled this year. I doubt that is one of the components of CPI.
    Locally poodle-cross pups have been going for £3000, which is a crazy price, but having a pup or kitten has made lockdown bearable for many. There are half a dozen new puppies in the village, particularly with those working from home.

    An autumn morning out with the little hound is one of the simple pleasures wort savouring.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 7,887

    It is a scandal that these rich barstewards can buy silence of their misdeeds in the courts and the corrupt media allow it.

    The only Super-injunction that I have heard of recently is about Nippy.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,060
    edited September 19

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    I was chatting to the guys harvesting the fields while I was walking my lockdown pup.

    The wheat was very poor, but the barley fairly reasonable. Both nicely dry for harvesting.

    So bread prices may be up, but beer and whisky OK...
    The prices of agricultural commodities are determined in international markets so if GBP is weaker food prices will be up regardless of the state of the harvest locally. It's different for perishable produce like veg, obviously, where local conditions are important. I am increasingly convinced there will be a Brexit deal, it must be obvious to Johnson that the country cannot handle no deal on top of Covid, I think he will overrule Cummings and the other ultras.
    That would be true if our agricultural system was plugged into international markets. It isn’t. We export very little in terms of basic foodstuffs, so it is determined by wholesale prices, dominated by the requirements of the big supermarkets. That’s actually kept prices of things like bread and milk comparatively low by European standards.

    What we’re going to see this year is that system failing due to lack of supply. So food will have to be brought in, at higher prices, and with higher transport costs, at a time when the pound is at historic lows.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,155
    IanB2 said:

    alex_ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
    Clearly it doesn’t exist, then.

    But if in an entirely different case where one did exist, if its mere existence is not to be reported or discussed, how are you supposed to know about it in the first place, so as to avoid inadvertently discussing the substantive issue?
    It’s an interesting question (although no doubt easily answered by those with legal knowledge)as to whether a lack of knowledge of a hypothetical superinjunction gives you free reign to speculate (inadvertently) about the subject matter it involves. And whether, if taken to court, the Crown would need to prove knowledge. And whether “knowledge” included “gossip on twitter”.

    As opposed of course to the question of whether the speculation might constitute defamation. So I suppose the sweet spot one might need to hit would be to have no knowledge of an injunction, but speculate very accurately.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 3,891
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    I was chatting to the guys harvesting the fields while I was walking my lockdown pup.

    The wheat was very poor, but the barley fairly reasonable. Both nicely dry for harvesting.

    So bread prices may be up, but beer and whisky OK...
    The harvest in Scotland seems to have been OK, unlike the rest of the UK. So grain whisky supplies are secure.

    Consumption of that may well rocket.
    Scotch whisky does not have to be made of Scottish barley

    https://www.smws.com/blog/knowledge/education/types-grain-used-make-whisky-barley-come
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 42,596
    nichomar said:

    IanB2 said:

    alex_ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
    Clearly it doesn’t exist, then.

    But if in an entirely different case where one did exist, if its mere existence is not to be reported or discussed, how are you supposed to know about it in the first place, so as to avoid inadvertently discussing the substantive issue?
    It is a scandal that these rich barstewards can buy silence of their misdeeds in the courts and the corrupt media allow it.
    I’ll get my violin out and play it for you.
    Don't go rushin' in......
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,060
    Nigelb said:

    RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg; a truly remarkable woman.

    Are there four Republican senators with a functioning conscience ? Just about possible, but I doubt it.

    QTWTAIN.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,846

    nichomar said:

    IanB2 said:

    alex_ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
    Clearly it doesn’t exist, then.

    But if in an entirely different case where one did exist, if its mere existence is not to be reported or discussed, how are you supposed to know about it in the first place, so as to avoid inadvertently discussing the substantive issue?
    It is a scandal that these rich barstewards can buy silence of their misdeeds in the courts and the corrupt media allow it.
    I’ll get my violin out and play it for you.
    Don't go rushin' in......
    Let that be a lesson for us all.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 3,155

    IanB2 said:

    alex_ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
    Clearly it doesn’t exist, then.

    But if in an entirely different case where one did exist, if its mere existence is not to be reported or discussed, how are you supposed to know about it in the first place, so as to avoid inadvertently discussing the substantive issue?
    It is a scandal that these rich barstewards can buy silence of their misdeeds in the courts and the corrupt media allow it.
    I don’t know what the “corrupt media” have to do with it! Corrupt because, when told that reporting will break the law they, er, don’t break the law? You think they should all volunteer to go to prison to prove their incorruptibility?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 760
    FPT on housing.

    I’m surprised the question needs to be asked. The government and central bank have shown they will not allow a proper long term recalibration of prices in the housing market. The UK version of the Bernanke put.

    Zero rates (or lower) essentially now forever from the perspective of a house buyer.

    Huge stamp duty cut, not just to first time buyers or primary residence buyers, but including to BUY TO LET investors.

    No quibble universal mortgage holidays without affecting credit history. Think on that a moment.

    Even the furlough scheme is essentially putting state money in the pockets of home owners.

    Throw in the short term and long term justifications for moving from London to somewhere else ahead of the crowd. Whatever some say, the landscape has changed forever. You now need to be close enough to get to town when needed, not every day (and in most cases not never). There’s a limited pool of properties that tick the box of London refugees: close enough to the right station, the right schools and mix of amenities and reliable enough broadband. Somewhere to park the Discovery. Not backing onto a busy A Road but close enough to the road network to get about. Leave it too late and these properties are bid up, and the chosen school is full.

    The play lots of people are making is to take the stamp duty holiday to make the maths work on second (or third) property ownership. Keep the pad in London and figure out what to do with it another day. Leverage up on cheap debt and move the family outside to somewhere leafy.

    If you are a wannabe first time buyer this must all be very depressing, because it’s the people with proven borrowing capacity that are most able to take advantage.

    Those sitting on their hands would do well to consider late 2021, when everyone’s been vaccinated, Brexit is in the rear view mirror and the unprecedented flood of global qe is swooshing about global asset markets.
  • A fine woman, who achieved so much. Tragically, her legacy is almost certainly going to be entirely overturned and the majority of people in the US will have a highly partisan, immensely conservative Supreme Court imposing law on them which they do not want. Also very good news for Trump should the election come down to the courts, which it almost certainly will.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,161
    Here's a bit of good news for those railing against the dark side amidst the death of RBG.

    At last! We have an up to date Nebraska District 2 poll. The first for nearly 2 months. Biden remains 6 points ahead there, he was 7 ahead in the two polls in June/July.

    The poll confirms that Biden has a very plausible path to winning without Pennysylvania's 20 votes by picking up Arizona and one of either NE2 (or ME2) as well as Wisconsin and Michigan (with Biden already polling very strongly in both). The one vote in NE2 would take him to 270. Arizona already looked good for Biden but with the absence of polling in NE2 that route was still a bit of an unknown quantity. Now it's not.

    Basically, if Trump is to win then Biden now has to go backwards some way on the polling in BOTH Pennysylvania AND Arizona/NE2. As the two sets are quite different demographically (one rust belt, the other Latino and expanding City with suburbs) then you can't assume that happening from just a uniform swing.

    Biden also has a chance in ME 2 being ahead in the most recent polls there although it looks closer than NE2 and more vulnerable to a swing back to Trump.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 15,142
    Someone should quickly ask Trump whether Ivanka would be the right person.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 34,709
    edited September 19
    In other news, the overnight YouGov is interesting in that it shows the government's strategy of throwing out Brexit and culture wars red meat out there to keep its voting coalition together and to depress Labour support is not working. Should that become established, and with what is coming, what else do the Tories have except the nuclear option of changing leader?

    Notably, this was the first YouGov to give Labour 40% or more of the vote share since July 2018.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,191
    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    In this case it’s not really ‘one rule for the rich and another for everyone else’ is it? The ‘rich’ have paid for tests and the ‘everyone else’ haven’t, the government aren’t supplying free tests for Eton’s students. If we are going to treat state school kids the same, their parents would have to pay to send them to school.

    Off topic

    If there is anything that would make me change my mind, and conclude the Government are infact doing a grand job over Covid, it is a sentence from the tongue of Burgon.
    It is worth pointing out that Eton as a boarding school forms one bubble. So testing boarding pupils on arrival, just the once, makes sense. That means life can carry on more or less as normal for them.

    In the state sector for it to be of any value, we would have to test every day. Does he have any idea how long it would take to test maybe 2,500 pupils every day at some of our larger schools? We’d have no time for lessons.

    He should confine himself to the more general point that the current state system makes it impossible to be Covid secure and deliver anything other than a shite education, due to pupil numbers.
    But as a complete knob, why would Burgon want to make a practical criticism that, if resolved, could benefit the lives of millions, when a cheap class-warfare shot is an easier option.

    Ruth Bader-Ginsberg he is not!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 7,887
    This really is the darkest timeline
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,191
    Scott_xP said:

    It is a scandal that these rich barstewards can buy silence of their misdeeds in the courts and the corrupt media allow it.

    The only Super-injunction that I have heard of recently is about Nippy.
    Ooh! Is it salacious? (P.S. I am not anticipating an answer).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,076
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    I was chatting to the guys harvesting the fields while I was walking my lockdown pup.

    The wheat was very poor, but the barley fairly reasonable. Both nicely dry for harvesting.

    So bread prices may be up, but beer and whisky OK...
    The prices of puppies has more or less doubled this year. I doubt that is one of the components of CPI.
    Locally poodle-cross pups have been going for £3000, which is a crazy price, but having a pup or kitten has made lockdown bearable for many. There are half a dozen new puppies in the village, particularly with those working from home.

    An autumn morning out with the little hound is one of the simple pleasures wort savouring.

    For sure, you don’t need to convince me. My pup has travelled with me to nine countries including twenty US states.

    But charging thousands for a cockapoo is verging on the ridiculous.

    And I wonder how many of the lockdown new owners are fully prepared for the ten to fifteen year responsibility, particularly if life does return to ‘normal’.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 32,060

    ydoethur said:

    isam said:

    In this case it’s not really ‘one rule for the rich and another for everyone else’ is it? The ‘rich’ have paid for tests and the ‘everyone else’ haven’t, the government aren’t supplying free tests for Eton’s students. If we are going to treat state school kids the same, their parents would have to pay to send them to school.

    Off topic

    If there is anything that would make me change my mind, and conclude the Government are infact doing a grand job over Covid, it is a sentence from the tongue of Burgon.
    It is worth pointing out that Eton as a boarding school forms one bubble. So testing boarding pupils on arrival, just the once, makes sense. That means life can carry on more or less as normal for them.

    In the state sector for it to be of any value, we would have to test every day. Does he have any idea how long it would take to test maybe 2,500 pupils every day at some of our larger schools? We’d have no time for lessons.

    He should confine himself to the more general point that the current state system makes it impossible to be Covid secure and deliver anything other than a shite education, due to pupil numbers.
    But as a complete knob, why would Burgon want to make a practical criticism that, if resolved, could benefit the lives of millions, when a cheap class-warfare shot is an easier option.

    Ruth Bader-Ginsberg he is not!
    I think that’s a bit harsh.

    To complete knobs.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,076
    edited September 19
    alex_ said:

    IanB2 said:

    alex_ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    So, any legal PB’ers, what is the legal justification for the PM’s injunction, in the hypothetical case that it might be to prevent reporting of a new affair by our newly engaged new father PM? Isn’t there a public interest counterargument?

    Not heard of it, so I imagine it is a superinjunction and we aren't meant to know or say that it exists or who got it.

    Hypothetically there might be a child involved and an argument that the interests of that child outweighed the public interest argument if, hypothetically, the paternity of the child were in issue. But I have really no idea.
    Whenever rumours flood the internet about superinjunctions, you can bet that there will be a lot of people who think they *know* what the injunction is, but actually will have many of the crucial details wrong. I’ve read several versions of a current injunction, although all with common factors, also differing also in many fundamental respects. Including whether they represent reporting of recent or more historic events. People pick up snippets, but then fill in the gaps with speculation. Unless you have primary sources (which obviously most people don’t) it’s unwise to believe anything.
    Clearly it doesn’t exist, then.

    But if in an entirely different case where one did exist, if its mere existence is not to be reported or discussed, how are you supposed to know about it in the first place, so as to avoid inadvertently discussing the substantive issue?
    It’s an interesting question (although no doubt easily answered by those with legal knowledge)as to whether a lack of knowledge of a hypothetical superinjunction gives you free reign to speculate (inadvertently) about the subject matter it involves. And whether, if taken to court, the Crown would need to prove knowledge. And whether “knowledge” included “gossip on twitter”.

    As opposed of course to the question of whether the speculation might constitute defamation. So I suppose the sweet spot one might need to hit would be to have no knowledge of an injunction, but speculate very accurately.
    Well in almost every case there must surely be a handful of real world people who come by the information thorough normal real life activity, and unless the owner of the super injunction goes round telling everyone they meet about its existence (which kind of defeats the purpose) then the news could easily spread anyhow.

    It seems to be that basically it’s aimed at the press, who presumably have to be old about it in the first place.

    Anyhow, all this talk of food prices, enough of violins, I will go and check out the local Alpine farmers’ market.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 29,076
    edited September 19

    Scott_xP said:

    It is a scandal that these rich barstewards can buy silence of their misdeeds in the courts and the corrupt media allow it.

    The only Super-injunction that I have heard of recently is about Nippy.
    Ooh! Is it salacious? (P.S. I am not anticipating an answer).
    Google is your friend.(or would be, if it existed, which of course it doesn’t)(p.s. Google exists. I am sure you get my drift)
  • felixfelix Posts: 11,019
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    A third of the population don’t support a second lockdown. They are represented in parliament by Boris, Sir Keir, Sir Ed, and the SNP, who only argue over how to implement it, not whether lockdown is the correct policy

    Four cheeks of the same arse! Shades of the early ‘10s and the EU debate.

    I was in this poll "somewhat opposed". I am happy to be represented by Ed Davey.

    Lockdown is a much abused word now. I dontthink that we will see anything like April again. A night time curfew and some travel restrictions are not lockdown.
    Yes - I think once again people are resorting to extreme interpretations here. Even in Spain there is no return to full lockdown as we had in the first wave. The economy probably could not stand it. However, until vaccine/treatments arrive there will need to be na array of rstrictions probably applied in selective areas and to selective groups. There is no return to the status quo ante.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 25,915
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg; a truly remarkable woman.

    Are there four Republican senators with a functioning conscience ? Just about possible, but I doubt it.

    QTWTAIN.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,207
    Completely off-topic, but I’ve just checked the Bundesliga odds for this season. Bayern won 8-0 against Schalke last night and are 1/8 for the title.

    Football is the most important of the unimportant things in life. I feel sorry for German football fans that care more about competition than they do about club ownership.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,846
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    I was chatting to the guys harvesting the fields while I was walking my lockdown pup.

    The wheat was very poor, but the barley fairly reasonable. Both nicely dry for harvesting.

    So bread prices may be up, but beer and whisky OK...
    The prices of puppies has more or less doubled this year. I doubt that is one of the components of CPI.
    Locally poodle-cross pups have been going for £3000, which is a crazy price, but having a pup or kitten has made lockdown bearable for many. There are half a dozen new puppies in the village, particularly with those working from home.

    An autumn morning out with the little hound is one of the simple pleasures wort savouring.

    For sure, you don’t need to convince me. My pup has travelled with me to nine countries including twenty US states.

    But charging thousands for a cockapoo is verging on the ridiculous.

    And I wonder how many of the lockdown new owners are fully prepared for the ten to fifteen year responsibility, particularly if life does return to ‘normal’.
    One interesting phenomenon is that dog ownership has taken off with the Asian families in the village, not a dog owning demographic historically.

    I know most of the dogs in the village by name, but couldn't name most of the owners. Such is dog walking etiquette.
  • ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    Thanks, that would explain it. Replicating supermarket orders I placed in August for delivery in October, the same items cost in total between 5-10% more. This isn’t showing in the CPI given the reduction due to Rishi’s Covid dinners and other virus related price falls.
    I am afraid that situation is going to get worse before it gets better. February looks alarmingly like the potential for a perfect storm in terms of food security, between the ongoing disruption of trade due to Covid, Brexit, poor global weather and a lack of port capacity. We could easily see really massive price hikes leading into next spring.
    Tough on poor people, who need to buy food, but won’t be able to enjoy the price reductions in meals out, travel, and the rest. And will have any wage or benefit or pension income frozen if CPI stays negligible.

    Maybe I should fill the car with food before I return to the UK.
    I think it is going to be tough on rather more than just poor people. It’s going to hit food banks hard, of course, and those on benefits. But I can easily see a lot of middle income people being pulled into this as well given how insecure our food supples are looking. I’m expecting an awful lot of signs of undernourishment in children next year.
    The right wing zealots on here were claiming that all pensioners were rich and living the high life on the huge increases in pensions so at least they will be fine.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 7,191
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Food prices appear to have gone up considerable these last few weeks?

    We’ve had the worst harvest in many years in this country due to dry weather followed by raging storms. So all our food has to be imported.

    And while there is a surplus elsewhere in the world as Canada and Oz have done OK, our currency has been tanking due to Cummings being mad as a box of frogs, so prices of imports have gone up.

    It’s a good job we’re not planning to do anything reckless, like, say, cut off trading links with our largest suppliers of foodstuffs.

    Ah...

    https://www.eadt.co.uk/business/farming/east-anglian-cereal-yields-hit-by-extreme-weather-1-6781165

    Edit - this situation may also be why the government is panicking over the food security of Northern Ireland, of course.
    I was chatting to the guys harvesting the fields while I was walking my lockdown pup.

    The wheat was very poor, but the barley fairly reasonable. Both nicely dry for harvesting.

    So bread prices may be up, but beer and whisky OK...
    The prices of puppies has more or less doubled this year. I doubt that is one of the components of CPI.
    Locally poodle-cross pups have been going for £3000, which is a crazy price, but having a pup or kitten has made lockdown bearable for many. There are half a dozen new puppies in the village, particularly with those working from home.

    An autumn morning out with the little hound is one of the simple pleasures wort savouring.

    For sure, you don’t need to convince me. My pup has travelled with me to nine countries including twenty US states.

    But charging thousands for a cockapoo is verging on the ridiculous.

    And I wonder how many of the lockdown new owners are fully prepared for the ten to fifteen year responsibility, particularly if life does return to ‘normal’.
    Off topic (again)

    I have an issue with supporting commercial dog breeders. When we were less enlightened we acquired a pedigree Beagle, who due, in part, to genuine Crufts winning in-breeding, was as mad as a march-hare, and not in a good way. We later acquired a failed sniffer-dog Labrador from South Wales Police. Also bred by a Kennel Club authorised breeder but too small and out of specification for Crufts and again as mad as a neurotic bag of frogs.

    Our (now old) rescue Springer and our lockdown Beagle both came from Many Tears rescue, near Llanelli. I couldn't recommend them enough. They provide older, sometimes damaged, but nonetheless lovely pets just waiting for a home, for a donation of around £200.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,891
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg; a truly remarkable woman.

    Are there four Republican senators with a functioning conscience ? Just about possible, but I doubt it.

    QTWTAIN.
    This feels like the kind that Trump could turn into a fight with one of his own slightly vulnerable senators...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 18,846
    I am not one to have a good word for Johnson, who has made his own bed, and laid on it with a number of concubines over the years, but even I find him a rather sad and pathetic figure.

    The image of him in the bedroom at Number 10, slowly deterioting with covid, being fed from a tray outside his door in April. Not the triumph of ambition that he imagined.
This discussion has been closed.