Amy Coney Barrett seems to be a serious legal figure, I can't see her helping Trump in some dodgy scheme to rig the election.
It might depend whether the Dems try to “do a Kavanaugh” on her during the confirmation hearings. If they’re sensible, they’ll focus on keeping the election as a referendum on Trump.
I think they will concentrate on her views rather than her character, which is not questionable in the manner Kavanagh’s is.
What is her view on Gibraltar?
No doubt as good (read that crazed) Catholic, she supports claims of Most Catholic King versus Heretic of Windsor.
Alternatively just let California secede and become an independent nation, it would be a top 10 global economy on its own and Trump in 2016 and Bush in 2000 would have then won the overall US popular vote in the remaining 49 states anyway
Your knowledge of America is very lacking and naive if you think secession is a simple or easy thing to suggest there.
Alternatively just let California secede and become an independent nation, it would be a top 10 global economy on its own and Trump in 2016 and Bush in 2000 would have then won the overall US popular vote in the remaining 49 states anyway
Your knowledge of America is very lacking and naive if you think secession is a simple or easy thing to suggest there.
Well they did fight a civil war last time it was tried but many Republicans might be willing to let California go and have a more conservative nation remaining much as some Tories, though not me, would accept losing Scotland in order to make a Tory majority more likely in the remainder of the UK.
If Scotland could become independent so most certainly could California, an independent California would be the 5th largest economy on the planet
It's always good to be reminded just how small and self-selecting our bubbles are. I'm in the 25-49 age group and can't think of one person I know socially who would be in favour of stopping students going home for Christmas. I'm sire there are probably people at work who'd agree with it, but they're keeping very quiet if they do.
Nowhere near sufficient to get the Constitution changed.
Needs 75% of States, not 61% of the population. I expect that 61% probably don't even make it a majority of States let alone 3/4 of States.
If you do it the Popular Vote Compact way you strictly speaking only need states representing 51% of electoral votes, although I guess you'd want a bit of a safety margin in case a state commits to the compact then reneges after the vote.
Oh a Zoom call with some manchester friends now. They can't say they're surprised given what they've seen in Manchester City centre.
It will happen across the UK. It is inevitable.
The question will be: were the students duped. That's what makes Glasgow a unique case (so far). Their students were told to expect blended online and face to face education, they were asked to attend (or face expulsion), they were requested to pay unrefundable deposits for accommodation, THEN they were told education was actually all online and now they are locked down, pointlessly, in tiny rooms, when they could be at home, saving all that money and getting the same digital education.
If English universities have tried the same con trick then they will be as guilty as Glasgow. And all will be rightly sued.
To be fair to MMU. My eldest is in final year there. Was in one of the affected halls 2 years ago. They have been absolutely clear that it would be once a week in person for at least 6 weeks now. Not ideal, but they appear to have been reasonably up front.
Nowhere near sufficient to get the Constitution changed.
Needs 75% of States, not 61% of the population. I expect that 61% probably don't even make it a majority of States let alone 3/4 of States.
If you do it the Popular Vote Compact way you strictly speaking only need states representing 51% of electoral votes, although I guess you'd want a bit of a safety margin in case a state commits to the compact then reneges after the vote.
Would also be issue of the constitutionality of such a compact. Which is to satisfaction of sponsors but maybe not SCOTUS.
BUT the real problem re: replacing the Electoral College is, with what?
Ironically, main argument of case AGAINST replacing EC with nationwide FPTP popular vote, has been potential for national recount with resulting problems, turmoil, chaos and possible meltdown.
At least the EC would spare us that! That was the case in a nutshell.
Nowhere near sufficient to get the Constitution changed.
Needs 75% of States, not 61% of the population. I expect that 61% probably don't even make it a majority of States let alone 3/4 of States.
If you do it the Popular Vote Compact way you strictly speaking only need states representing 51% of electoral votes, although I guess you'd want a bit of a safety margin in case a state commits to the compact then reneges after the vote.
Would also be issue of the constitutionality of such a compact. Which is to satisfaction of sponsors but maybe not SCOTUS.
BUT the real problem re: replacing the Electoral College is, with what?
Ironically, main argument of case AGAINST replacing EC with nationwide FPTP popular vote, has been potential for national recount with resulting problems, turmoil, chaos and possible meltdown.
At least the EC would spare us that! That was the case in a nutshell.
Odds of getting a tie with a hundred million electors must be quite small though?
Nowhere near sufficient to get the Constitution changed.
Needs 75% of States, not 61% of the population. I expect that 61% probably don't even make it a majority of States let alone 3/4 of States.
If you do it the Popular Vote Compact way you strictly speaking only need states representing 51% of electoral votes, although I guess you'd want a bit of a safety margin in case a state commits to the compact then reneges after the vote.
Would also be issue of the constitutionality of such a compact. Which is to satisfaction of sponsors but maybe not SCOTUS.
BUT the real problem re: replacing the Electoral College is, with what?
Ironically, main argument of case AGAINST replacing EC with nationwide FPTP popular vote, has been potential for national recount with resulting problems, turmoil, chaos and possible meltdown.
At least the EC would spare us that! That was the case in a nutshell.
It is very bizarre talking with Americans. Almost all of them, of whatever political affiliation, regard their constitution as profoundly benign, if needing a bit of tinkering. Whereas most non-Americans regard it is slightly quaint, or bordering on nuts. If you are electing a Federal President the one with the most votes wins! Or at least a run off till you get 50%. Simple. Why on Earth would needing a recount cause issues? We regularly have them and we have a change of administration usually by next morning, never mind 2 months without many problems.
Nowhere near sufficient to get the Constitution changed.
Needs 75% of States, not 61% of the population. I expect that 61% probably don't even make it a majority of States let alone 3/4 of States.
If you do it the Popular Vote Compact way you strictly speaking only need states representing 51% of electoral votes, although I guess you'd want a bit of a safety margin in case a state commits to the compact then reneges after the vote.
Would also be issue of the constitutionality of such a compact. Which is to satisfaction of sponsors but maybe not SCOTUS.
BUT the real problem re: replacing the Electoral College is, with what?
Ironically, main argument of case AGAINST replacing EC with nationwide FPTP popular vote, has been potential for national recount with resulting problems, turmoil, chaos and possible meltdown.
At least the EC would spare us that! That was the case in a nutshell.
Odds of getting a tie with a hundred million electors must be quite small though?
Correct. IF election systems of thousands of jurisdictions in 50 states from sea to shining sea can establish WHO go the most votes.
IF margin was less than say half of one percent (750k if 150m total votes cast) then would need some kind of recount, that might not (or might) include all states, but would be nationwide in scope and complexity.
Nowhere near sufficient to get the Constitution changed.
Needs 75% of States, not 61% of the population. I expect that 61% probably don't even make it a majority of States let alone 3/4 of States.
If you do it the Popular Vote Compact way you strictly speaking only need states representing 51% of electoral votes, although I guess you'd want a bit of a safety margin in case a state commits to the compact then reneges after the vote.
Would also be issue of the constitutionality of such a compact. Which is to satisfaction of sponsors but maybe not SCOTUS.
BUT the real problem re: replacing the Electoral College is, with what?
Ironically, main argument of case AGAINST replacing EC with nationwide FPTP popular vote, has been potential for national recount with resulting problems, turmoil, chaos and possible meltdown.
At least the EC would spare us that! That was the case in a nutshell.
It is very bizarre talking with Americans. Almost all of them, of whatever political affiliation, regard their constitution as profoundly benign, if needing a bit of tinkering. Whereas most non-Americans regard it is slightly quaint, or bordering on nuts. If you are electing a Federal President the one with the most votes wins! Or at least a run off till you get 50%. Simple. Why on Earth would needing a recount cause issues? We regularly have them and we have a change of administration usually by next morning, never mind 2 months without many problems.
Concept is simple, but implementation complex due to extremely decentralized nature of US election systems. Which creates LOT of weak links from the boondocks to the Big Apple.
We COULD do it. But getting it done will be very heavy lifting.
Nowhere near sufficient to get the Constitution changed.
Needs 75% of States, not 61% of the population. I expect that 61% probably don't even make it a majority of States let alone 3/4 of States.
If you do it the Popular Vote Compact way you strictly speaking only need states representing 51% of electoral votes, although I guess you'd want a bit of a safety margin in case a state commits to the compact then reneges after the vote.
Would also be issue of the constitutionality of such a compact. Which is to satisfaction of sponsors but maybe not SCOTUS.
BUT the real problem re: replacing the Electoral College is, with what?
Ironically, main argument of case AGAINST replacing EC with nationwide FPTP popular vote, has been potential for national recount with resulting problems, turmoil, chaos and possible meltdown.
At least the EC would spare us that! That was the case in a nutshell.
Odds of getting a tie with a hundred million electors must be quite small though?
Correct. IF election systems of thousands of jurisdictions in 50 states from sea to shining sea can establish WHO go the most votes.
IF margin was less than say half of one percent (750k if 150m total votes cast) then would need some kind of recount, that might not (or might) include all states, but would be nationwide in scope and complexity.
Nowhere near sufficient to get the Constitution changed.
Needs 75% of States, not 61% of the population. I expect that 61% probably don't even make it a majority of States let alone 3/4 of States.
If you do it the Popular Vote Compact way you strictly speaking only need states representing 51% of electoral votes, although I guess you'd want a bit of a safety margin in case a state commits to the compact then reneges after the vote.
Would also be issue of the constitutionality of such a compact. Which is to satisfaction of sponsors but maybe not SCOTUS.
BUT the real problem re: replacing the Electoral College is, with what?
Ironically, main argument of case AGAINST replacing EC with nationwide FPTP popular vote, has been potential for national recount with resulting problems, turmoil, chaos and possible meltdown.
At least the EC would spare us that! That was the case in a nutshell.
It is very bizarre talking with Americans. Almost all of them, of whatever political affiliation, regard their constitution as profoundly benign, if needing a bit of tinkering. Whereas most non-Americans regard it is slightly quaint, or bordering on nuts. If you are electing a Federal President the one with the most votes wins! Or at least a run off till you get 50%. Simple. Why on Earth would needing a recount cause issues? We regularly have them and we have a change of administration usually by next morning, never mind 2 months without many problems.
Concept is simple, but implementation complex due to extremely decentralized nature of US election systems. Which creates LOT of weak links from the boondocks to the Big Apple.
We COULD do it. But getting it done will be very heavy lifting.
If you are having a centralised Federal election, maybe having a centralised Federal system of voting? Just an idea?
Nowhere near sufficient to get the Constitution changed.
Needs 75% of States, not 61% of the population. I expect that 61% probably don't even make it a majority of States let alone 3/4 of States.
If you do it the Popular Vote Compact way you strictly speaking only need states representing 51% of electoral votes, although I guess you'd want a bit of a safety margin in case a state commits to the compact then reneges after the vote.
Would also be issue of the constitutionality of such a compact. Which is to satisfaction of sponsors but maybe not SCOTUS.
BUT the real problem re: replacing the Electoral College is, with what?
Ironically, main argument of case AGAINST replacing EC with nationwide FPTP popular vote, has been potential for national recount with resulting problems, turmoil, chaos and possible meltdown.
At least the EC would spare us that! That was the case in a nutshell.
Odds of getting a tie with a hundred million electors must be quite small though?
Correct. IF election systems of thousands of jurisdictions in 50 states from sea to shining sea can establish WHO go the most votes.
IF margin was less than say half of one percent (750k if 150m total votes cast) then would need some kind of recount, that might not (or might) include all states, but would be nationwide in scope and complexity.
France for example seems to cope.
I think the margin would have to be a whole lot closer than 0.5% to force a recount. Unless you expect a very large fraction of counting stations to have their counts wrong.
Nowhere near sufficient to get the Constitution changed.
Needs 75% of States, not 61% of the population. I expect that 61% probably don't even make it a majority of States let alone 3/4 of States.
If you do it the Popular Vote Compact way you strictly speaking only need states representing 51% of electoral votes, although I guess you'd want a bit of a safety margin in case a state commits to the compact then reneges after the vote.
Would also be issue of the constitutionality of such a compact. Which is to satisfaction of sponsors but maybe not SCOTUS.
BUT the real problem re: replacing the Electoral College is, with what?
Ironically, main argument of case AGAINST replacing EC with nationwide FPTP popular vote, has been potential for national recount with resulting problems, turmoil, chaos and possible meltdown.
At least the EC would spare us that! That was the case in a nutshell.
This is inevitably going to take a few cycles - I think you need a Dem win on a minority vote before you can get any GOP states involved - and now we've got so much postal voting and enforced ballot secrecy is no longer a thing, I think voting tech will look quite different in 10 or 20 years.
I think there will be working systems that are fully open source, have no role for a trusted party except for issuing credentials, and have been used in real life in adversarial situations involving vast sums of money. At this point the only thing the state has to be able to do is register people and issue them login keys - they won't need or want to be involved with the actual vote counting.
I think a lot of people don’t appreciate quite how sh*t/depressing student accommodation is. Which, due to the loan system they have to pay absolutely scandalous/extortionate amounts of money (which obviously wasn’t the case historically when the poor quality of student accommodation was reflected in the cost). The fact that these days it is probably mostly single rooms and en-suite doesn’t change the fact that it is basically a pokey single bed room with no space to swing a cat. And a kitchen not designed to simultaneously accommodate all those with access to it.
And for all the talk about “isolating” accommodation blocks, people still need to source food regularly (little storage space) and/or use mass shared canteen facilities regularly.
I am increasingly of the view that the transition period will be extended. We are over a barrel and we know it.
An extension request now will require the consent of the EC, the EP, the EU27 member states and I think those regional parliaments that are accorded a veto by their member states like Walloonia.
If Spain is ever going to seriously push to get Gibraltar back for real, that will be the time.
If they got it back then it would remove the governments distraction from domestic problems option. It’s not really in their interests to get it ‘back’ too many people benefit from the current arrangement both legally and illegally.
Not to mention any attempt to get it back without the consent of the rock's people would in effect be a declaration of war which would require Boris to do a Thatcher and send a task force to southern Spain
Whilst you are in fantasy land I’m afraid a task force would get absolutely nowhere, have you been to Gibraltar? The spanish could put thousands of armed personnel on the streets if it came to it. It won’t happen so rather silly to discuss it.
So what, we would send the Queen Elizabeth to the Mediterrenean to launch bombing raids on Spanish positions, land the SAS and the parachute regiment onto the rock and they would in turn arm the local population for guerrilla war
I refer to my earlier comments about this comment stream containing items that would be ‘unfortunate’ for any future political career.
"Coronavirus: Vitamin D reduces infection and impact of COVID-19, studies find People are being urged to take a vitamin D supplement to reduce their risk of becoming infected with COVID-19."
I am increasingly of the view that the transition period will be extended. We are over a barrel and we know it.
An extension request now will require the consent of the EC, the EP, the EU27 member states and I think those regional parliaments that are accorded a veto by their member states like Walloonia.
If Spain is ever going to seriously push to get Gibraltar back for real, that will be the time.
If they got it back then it would remove the governments distraction from domestic problems option. It’s not really in their interests to get it ‘back’ too many people benefit from the current arrangement both legally and illegally.
Not to mention any attempt to get it back without the consent of the rock's people would in effect be a declaration of war which would require Boris to do a Thatcher and send a task force to southern Spain
Whilst you are in fantasy land I’m afraid a task force would get absolutely nowhere, have you been to Gibraltar? The spanish could put thousands of armed personnel on the streets if it came to it. It won’t happen so rather silly to discuss it.
So what, we would send the Queen Elizabeth to the Mediterrenean to launch bombing raids on Spanish positions, land the SAS and the parachute regiment onto the rock and they would in turn arm the local population for guerrilla war
I refer to my earlier comments about this comment stream containing items that would be ‘unfortunate’ for any future political career.
To play a bit of devil’s advocate, i’m wondering if we’re all being a bit harsh/failing to read between the lines a bit with HYUFD as he launches his latest war on Boris’s behalf.
Is it possible that what we’re seeing here is actually his deep dissatisfaction with Johnson and what his efforts have done to the Tory Party over the course of the last 4-5 years? Have you noticed how every time he goes off on his latest flight of military or economic fancy, he prefaces his words by saying that this will happen because “no U.K./Tory PM could survive the alternative”?
Of course until 5 years ago, the thought that the only thing standing between an independent Scotland, the economic subjugation of Northern Ireland, the loss of Gibraltar, the secession of Kent to France... might be the U.K. armed forces (or even the threat of deployment of our nuclear deterrent!) would have been ridiculous. (Falkland Islands probably need to be treated as a bit of a special case). But now... is this the reality? We’ve even thrown away the moral high ground of the thought that our national interests were protected by the force of international law from which we could leverage the support of others.
So all HYUFD is doing, in his own inimitable way, is expressing the reality of what Johnson’s continued tenure as PM might require. And so really just sending out a cry for help to anyone who can assure him that the last 5 years for him as a Tory part diehard loyalist have all just been a bad dream. The cracks are there for all to see who look hard enough (mostly at the moment they can be seen in his comments whenever the discussion switches to Dominic Cummings, who he clearly dislikes with a passion, but who he can attack/criticise directly secure in the belief that he is definitely NOT a Tory loyalist however much their political interests temporarily aligned at the end of last year).
"Coronavirus: Vitamin D reduces infection and impact of COVID-19, studies find People are being urged to take a vitamin D supplement to reduce their risk of becoming infected with COVID-19."
"Coronavirus: Vitamin D reduces infection and impact of COVID-19, studies find People are being urged to take a vitamin D supplement to reduce their risk of becoming infected with COVID-19."
She actually sounds quite interesting. Conservative American women who fight back against the Blob are some of the best thinkers around.
How long before someone on the far-left criticises her for having 7 children and being a Catholic?
About one millisecond. That CNN profile already alleges that she has "support from the far right", ie people with fairly standard religious views
America has lost its collective mind. Their culture wars are deepening. This is why I think places like New York are fucked. They are going to get sucked into this civil conflict, and anarchy beckons.
I am not sure that she has standard religious views, even by American standards. She is a member of the small cult like sect "People of Praise". It seems this is a small sect, not exclusively Catholic, but predominantly so, that have adopted Charismatic and Pentacostal forms of worship such as speaking in tongues. Not quite the Handmaidens Tale, but heading in that direction.
That said, she seems quite well qualified, and though conservative, unlikely to facilitate a Trump coup. She has interesting views on how religious judges should act, distinguishing between personal views and the law, in the context of capital punishment.
A change to a national popular vote from an electoral college would be difficult to implement but surely the first essential step is reform of how US elections are held.
It is fine to have local administration, even essential perhaps, but it does need some form of national parameters that are enforceable in terms of electoral rolls and the process of balloting.
"Coronavirus: Vitamin D reduces infection and impact of COVID-19, studies find People are being urged to take a vitamin D supplement to reduce their risk of becoming infected with COVID-19."
I am increasingly of the view that the transition period will be extended. We are over a barrel and we know it.
An extension request now will require the consent of the EC, the EP, the EU27 member states and I think those regional parliaments that are accorded a veto by their member states like Walloonia.
If Spain is ever going to seriously push to get Gibraltar back for real, that will be the time.
If they got it back then it would remove the governments distraction from domestic problems option. It’s not really in their interests to get it ‘back’ too many people benefit from the current arrangement both legally and illegally.
Not to mention any attempt to get it back without the consent of the rock's people would in effect be a declaration of war which would require Boris to do a Thatcher and send a task force to southern Spain
Whilst you are in fantasy land I’m afraid a task force would get absolutely nowhere, have you been to Gibraltar? The spanish could put thousands of armed personnel on the streets if it came to it. It won’t happen so rather silly to discuss it.
So what, we would send the Queen Elizabeth to the Mediterrenean to launch bombing raids on Spanish positions, land the SAS and the parachute regiment onto the rock and they would in turn arm the local population for guerrilla war
I refer to my earlier comments about this comment stream containing items that would be ‘unfortunate’ for any future political career.
If you think defending Gibraltar from a hypothetical Spanish invasion would be 'unfortunate' for a political career in the Tory Party, you obviously don't know the Tory Party!
I am increasingly of the view that the transition period will be extended. We are over a barrel and we know it.
An extension request now will require the consent of the EC, the EP, the EU27 member states and I think those regional parliaments that are accorded a veto by their member states like Walloonia.
If Spain is ever going to seriously push to get Gibraltar back for real, that will be the time.
If they got it back then it would remove the governments distraction from domestic problems option. It’s not really in their interests to get it ‘back’ too many people benefit from the current arrangement both legally and illegally.
Not to mention any attempt to get it back without the consent of the rock's people would in effect be a declaration of war which would require Boris to do a Thatcher and send a task force to southern Spain
Whilst you are in fantasy land I’m afraid a task force would get absolutely nowhere, have you been to Gibraltar? The spanish could put thousands of armed personnel on the streets if it came to it. It won’t happen so rather silly to discuss it.
So what, we would send the Queen Elizabeth to the Mediterrenean to launch bombing raids on Spanish positions, land the SAS and the parachute regiment onto the rock and they would in turn arm the local population for guerrilla war
I refer to my earlier comments about this comment stream containing items that would be ‘unfortunate’ for any future political career.
If you think defending Gibraltar from a hypothetical Spanish invasion would be 'unfortunate' for a political career in the Tory Party, you obviously don't know the Tory Party!
I think that most of your pronouncements on the army and foreign affairs, from sending it to Scotland to quell rebellion, declaring war on Iran, and now going to recapture Gibraltar, make you look like an idiot.
But, you’re probably right, that this isn’t disqualification within the Tory Party either.
I am increasingly of the view that the transition period will be extended. We are over a barrel and we know it.
An extension request now will require the consent of the EC, the EP, the EU27 member states and I think those regional parliaments that are accorded a veto by their member states like Walloonia.
If Spain is ever going to seriously push to get Gibraltar back for real, that will be the time.
If they got it back then it would remove the governments distraction from domestic problems option. It’s not really in their interests to get it ‘back’ too many people benefit from the current arrangement both legally and illegally.
Not to mention any attempt to get it back without the consent of the rock's people would in effect be a declaration of war which would require Boris to do a Thatcher and send a task force to southern Spain
Whilst you are in fantasy land I’m afraid a task force would get absolutely nowhere, have you been to Gibraltar? The spanish could put thousands of armed personnel on the streets if it came to it. It won’t happen so rather silly to discuss it.
So what, we would send the Queen Elizabeth to the Mediterrenean to launch bombing raids on Spanish positions, land the SAS and the parachute regiment onto the rock and they would in turn arm the local population for guerrilla war
I refer to my earlier comments about this comment stream containing items that would be ‘unfortunate’ for any future political career.
If you think defending Gibraltar from a hypothetical Spanish invasion would be 'unfortunate' for a political career in the Tory Party, you obviously don't know the Tory Party!
I think that most of your pronouncements on the army and foreign affairs, from sending it to Scotland to quell rebellion, declaring war on Iran, and now going to recapture Gibraltar, make you look like an idiot.
But, you’re probably right, that this isn’t disqualification within the Tory Party either.
I certainly don't recall ever saying declare war on Iran, I supported the Iran peace deal of Obama, however I was prepared to take action to defend one of our ships if captured.
On Scotland Boris can simply block indyref2 until 2024, no troops needed as Westminster is sovereign and supreme over Holyrood
Comments
https://twitter.com/WinWithJMC/status/1309572830271598595?s=20
If Scotland could become independent so most certainly could California, an independent California would be the 5th largest economy on the planet
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1309526023478874114?s=21
Not ideal, but they appear to have been reasonably up front.
BUT the real problem re: replacing the Electoral College is, with what?
Ironically, main argument of case AGAINST replacing EC with nationwide FPTP popular vote, has been potential for national recount with resulting problems, turmoil, chaos and possible meltdown.
At least the EC would spare us that! That was the case in a nutshell.
Whereas most non-Americans regard it is slightly quaint, or bordering on nuts.
If you are electing a Federal President the one with the most votes wins! Or at least a run off till you get 50%.
Simple.
Why on Earth would needing a recount cause issues?
We regularly have them and we have a change of administration usually by next morning, never mind 2 months without many problems.
IF margin was less than say half of one percent (750k if 150m total votes cast) then would need some kind of recount, that might not (or might) include all states, but would be nationwide in scope and complexity.
We COULD do it. But getting it done will be very heavy lifting.
Just an idea?
I think there will be working systems that are fully open source, have no role for a trusted party except for issuing credentials, and have been used in real life in adversarial situations involving vast sums of money. At this point the only thing the state has to be able to do is register people and issue them login keys - they won't need or want to be involved with the actual vote counting.
And for all the talk about “isolating” accommodation blocks, people still need to source food regularly (little storage space) and/or use mass shared canteen facilities regularly.
Is it possible that what we’re seeing here is actually his deep dissatisfaction with Johnson and what his efforts have done to the Tory Party over the course of the last 4-5 years? Have you noticed how every time he goes off on his latest flight of military or economic fancy, he prefaces his words by saying that this will happen because “no U.K./Tory PM could survive the alternative”?
Of course until 5 years ago, the thought that the only thing standing between an independent Scotland, the economic subjugation of Northern Ireland, the loss of Gibraltar, the secession of Kent to France... might be the U.K. armed forces (or even the threat of deployment of our nuclear deterrent!) would have been ridiculous. (Falkland Islands probably need to be treated as a bit of a special case). But now... is this the reality? We’ve even thrown away the moral high ground of the thought that our national interests were protected by the force of international law from which we could leverage the support of others.
So all HYUFD is doing, in his own inimitable way, is expressing the reality of what Johnson’s continued tenure as PM might require. And so really just sending out a cry for help to anyone who can assure him that the last 5 years for him as a Tory part diehard loyalist have all just been a bad dream. The cracks are there for all to see who look hard enough (mostly at the moment they can be seen in his comments whenever the discussion switches to Dominic Cummings, who he clearly dislikes with a passion, but who he can attack/criticise directly secure in the belief that he is definitely NOT a Tory loyalist however much their political interests temporarily aligned at the end of last year).
"One-third (33.9%) of the Spanish population may be at risk for Vitamin D deficiency."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21179052/
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/09/24/explainer-amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise-catholic-charismatic-trump
That said, she seems quite well qualified, and though conservative, unlikely to facilitate a Trump coup. She has interesting views on how religious judges should act, distinguishing between personal views and the law, in the context of capital punishment.
It is fine to have local administration, even essential perhaps, but it does need some form of national parameters that are enforceable in terms of electoral rolls and the process of balloting.
But, you’re probably right, that this isn’t disqualification within the Tory Party either.
On Scotland Boris can simply block indyref2 until 2024, no troops needed as Westminster is sovereign and supreme over Holyrood