My recollection is that, at the time of the presentation, they said the doubling time was between 7 and 12 days. So being 12 days now is welcome, but not yet definitive that there's been a change.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
It goes way beyond that, though. The bill legislates to put ministers beyond the rule of law full stop. Section 45 states explicitly that they will not be bound by any law, international or domestic, when enacting its provisions.
I seem to recall DavidL giving the view that you grossly extend the scope power of that provision.
Which is by the by really. Plenty may well think even though we can exercise sovereignty in this way and even if it is not the worst case scenario envisaged by some, and even if someone thinks its not just plain wrong, it still isn't a sensible move.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
Very telling that SouthamObserver wrote "sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law" and a Brexit fundamentalist says only that they believe in "sovereignty".
That’s because they have no understanding of what “sovereignty” means. They seem to think that it means “l can do what I want and everyone else has to agree”.
It's what happens when you spend too much time singing Rule Brittania.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
There is no sovereignty or democracy when ministers are above the rule of law. And that is where the Internal Market Bill will put them once it is enacted. That you are OK with this is entirely unsurprising.
Ministers are answerable to Parliament which is answerable to the electorate at elections.
The Courts can also get involved in the way the law decrees.
If the Government put a bill before the House of Commons which abolished Parliament and any future elections, and removed the right of the Courts to rule on the legality of Government actions, and Parliament voted for it...
Would you believe that they had acted constitutionally and were fully in accordance with "UK sovereignty"?
(note that the IM bill gives widespread powers to Ministers to override existing statutes, without Parliamentary oversight, and removing powers of judicial review of any such decisions taken from the courts)
So these new laws that were slipped out (the ones about what you can do in pubs)...
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
Apparently you can have music but only less than 85 decibels.
These laws are nonsensical. It’s scandalous they’ve been rushed through by decree. They are both illiberal and ineffective.
The government is a shambles. It has no clue what it is trying to achieve.
Meanwhile I need to find some nice blue paint.
The excuse is that the government needs to react rapidly - but it's really not at all evident there's been any great benefit from that. And it's just possible that Parliamentary scrutiny might have resulted in more coherent and consistent policy making. And the last set of policies were publicly trailed over a week before being implemented, so it's not even as though they couldn't have held a debate.
At the very least, there would be a measure of real democratic accountability.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
It goes way beyond that, though. The bill legislates to put ministers beyond the rule of law full stop. Section 45 states explicitly that they will not be bound by any law, international or domestic, when enacting its provisions.
I seem to recall DavidL giving the view that you grossly extend the scope power of that provision.
Which is by the by really. Plenty may well think even though we can exercise sovereignty in this way and even if it is not the worst case scenario envisaged by some, and even if someone thinks its not just plain wrong, it still isn't a sensible move.
When you legislate to put ministers above the rule of law there is no “we” anymore.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
it almost worked, even Boris and Jrm voted for it in the end.
Thank goodness it didn't. Boris was wrong to back it though I understand why he did. I don't always agree with Boris and that was one time I disagree.
personally his and others voting for it was more notable because it could only mean they were admitting stupidity or mendacity - as several people had claimed the deal was not Brexit at all, then months later after being told a million times they decided it was Brexit vs the alternative parliament might try (not that they had come to think it good, in fairness). Its one thing to change their minds but given their previous views to change as they did was to slam their own reasoning.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
Very telling that SouthamObserver wrote "sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law" and a Brexit fundamentalist says only that they believe in "sovereignty".
That’s because they have no understanding of what “sovereignty” means. They seem to think that it means “l can do what I want and everyone else has to agree”.
The concepts of separation of powers, and check & balances, seem to have gone out of fashion. Or been forgotten completely.
So these new laws that were slipped out (the ones about what you can do in pubs)...
Pubs can’t play loud music... unless it’s a live act... which is allowed to have vocalists... but customers aren’t allowed to “sing”. Is that right?
And these are LAWS? Things that can be enforced by the state with threat of criminal sanction? Not guidance, which most people in current circumstances will probably try to follow, but where differences in interpretation are inconsequential.
Do the courts have a definition of “singing” lined up and ready to go? I kind of feel I should be safe as I could call instantly on a dozen witnesses who would swear on the Bible that they’ve never seen the slightest evidence of me having the ability to sing. But I’d like to be sure...
Apparently you can have music but only less than 85 decibels.
These laws are nonsensical. It’s scandalous they’ve been rushed through by decree. They are both illiberal and ineffective.
The government is a shambles. It has no clue what it is trying to achieve.
Meanwhile I need to find some nice blue paint.
The excuse is that the government needs to react rapidly - but it's really not at all evident there's been any great benefit from that. And it's just possible that Parliamentary scrutiny might have resulted in more coherent and consistent policy making. And the last set of policies were publicly trailed over a week before being implemented, so it's not even as though they couldn't have held a debate.
At the very least, there would be a measure of real democratic accountability.
I think this is very well put indeed. Rapid response is not useful if the response is haphazard and confused. Decisive action is not helpful if political and public buy in is reduced causing reduced compliance.
I cannot understand shutting parliament out now. They were given a pass at the height of initial difficulty and that was fair enough, but there's no reason no yo involve them now and they'd still get measures through as public support for tough measures is high.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
it almost worked, even Boris and Jrm voted for it in the end.
Thank goodness it didn't. Boris was wrong to back it though I understand why he did. I don't always agree with Boris and that was one time I disagree.
Why did it matter, since you believe we could have walked away from it at a future date anyway? Bearing in mind the only material difference to Johnson's bill was the continuation of the customs union instead of the Irish sea border provisions.
And the continuation of the customs union was intended as a backstop to trade talks breaking down (which under the current government's definition would only happen as a result of the EU negotiating in bad faith - allegedly giving them cause to abandon the WA).
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
ABC has Biden ahead in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Minnesota on that link but Trump ahead in Florida and Arizona
There is no way Biden is going to allow himself to lose Penn.
Agreed, if Trump does hold Florida and Arizona Biden's best path to a win is Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan and the Hillary states
Pretty difficult for either to win without PA but Trump has had good recent polls from Monmouth and Emerson so maybe some of the more marginal States can yet turn to him.
Biden Team will certainly be more concerned about Monmouth and Emerson than Rasmussen and Trafalgar.
If Biden wins Pennsylvania then Trump would certainly need to win Michigan and Florida to be re elected
So what Phillip is defending is an elective dictatorship unbound by constitution, unbound by rule of law, unbound by the truth or commitments made. An administration prepared to shut down parliament to meet its political ends, to sack its own members who voice any dissent (despite they themselves doing the same thing weeks before) and not obey its own rules and reward cronies with jobs and contracts.
This is not the Conservative party any more. Heaven knows what this is and where it ends.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
It goes way beyond that, though. The bill legislates to put ministers beyond the rule of law full stop. Section 45 states explicitly that they will not be bound by any law, international or domestic, when enacting its provisions.
I seem to recall DavidL giving the view that you grossly extend the scope power of that provision.
Which is by the by really. Plenty may well think even though we can exercise sovereignty in this way and even if it is not the worst case scenario envisaged by some, and even if someone thinks its not just plain wrong, it still isn't a sensible move.
When you legislate to put ministers above the rule of law there is no “we” anymore.
the point was even if its lawful and even if its morally ok its still not a good idea. As it happens I don't think the bill is morally ok but I think that it is a bad idea regardless is key.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
So what Phillip is defending is an elective dictatorship unbound by constitution, unbound by rule of law, unbound by the truth or commitments made. An administration prepared to shut down parliament to meet its political ends, to sack its own members who voice any dissent (despite they themselves doing the same thing weeks before) and not obey its own rules and reward cronies with jobs and contracts.
This is not the Conservative party any more. Heaven knows what this is and where it ends.
And astonishingly, he calls himself a libertarian.
So what Phillip is defending is an elective dictatorship unbound by constitution, unbound by rule of law, unbound by the truth or commitments made. An administration prepared to shut down parliament to meet its political ends, to sack its own members who voice any dissent (despite they themselves doing the same thing weeks before) and not obey its own rules and reward cronies with jobs and contracts.
This is not the Conservative party any more. Heaven knows what this is and where it ends.
Philip needs to look up and understand the phrase "enabling act". Because he justifies everything by the fact that the Government can do what ever it wants, as long as it can get Parliament once, in a moment of weakness, failure of understanding, threat of career ending loss of whip and explusion, justification through need to implement emergency laws in a "fast moving situation" - to give those powers away. And chuck in removal of the powers of the courts to scrutise into the bargain.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
It goes way beyond that, though. The bill legislates to put ministers beyond the rule of law full stop. Section 45 states explicitly that they will not be bound by any law, international or domestic, when enacting its provisions.
I seem to recall DavidL giving the view that you grossly extend the scope power of that provision.
Which is by the by really. Plenty may well think even though we can exercise sovereignty in this way and even if it is not the worst case scenario envisaged by some, and even if someone thinks its not just plain wrong, it still isn't a sensible move.
When you legislate to put ministers above the rule of law there is no “we” anymore.
the point was even if its lawful and even if its morally ok its still not a good idea. As it happens I don't think the bill is morally ok but I think that it is a bad idea regardless is key.
And it sets an awful precedent - whatever limitations David might claim. (And to be fair to him, the scope of the powers - though not their nature - has been exaggerated by some.)
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
There is no sovereignty or democracy when ministers are above the rule of law. And that is where the Internal Market Bill will put them once it is enacted. That you are OK with this is entirely unsurprising.
Ministers are answerable to Parliament which is answerable to the electorate at elections.
The Courts can also get involved in the way the law decrees.
As I say, you do not believe ministers should be constrained by the rule of law. Once you concede that, you are on a very slippery slope. It will be interesting to see at what point you begin to see this or whether you will continue to be driven by blind partisanship.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
Unless there is a knockout blow tonight agreed, it should be noted though Romney was judged to have won the first 2012 debate by a huge 52% margin over Obama, the biggest margin by which any candidate has ever won a presidential debate in a post debate poll.
In post debate polling he then took the lead having been around 6% behind before and had Obama not won the second and third debates it is even possible we could have had President Romney given Obama only won by 3% on election day
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
There is no sovereignty or democracy when ministers are above the rule of law. And that is where the Internal Market Bill will put them once it is enacted. That you are OK with this is entirely unsurprising.
Ministers are answerable to Parliament which is answerable to the electorate at elections.
The Courts can also get involved in the way the law decrees.
No. Ministers are answerable to the law. Not just Parliament. No-one is or should be above the law. The fact that you refuse to understand this shows that you are not, at heart, a democrat. Without law - without it being applied to all equally - there is no democracy.
Would May have won a majority of 80 like Boris in 2019, as she proved in 2017 clearly not.
Even Cameron failed to get a majority in 2010 and only got a majority of 12 in 2015
Indeed. When we've had tens of thousands dead. When the pox is surging again. When government policy brings businesses and individuals to ruin. When Kent is being separated from the rest of the country. When absurd unworkable restrictions on individuals are imposed by decree. When the Rule of Law itself has been declared void. We can trust @HYUFD to cut to the only true issue.
His perceptions of the electability of the Conservative Party.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
Unless there is a knockout blow tonight agreed, it should be noted though Romney was judged to have won the first 2012 debate by a huge 52% margin over Obama, the biggest margin by which any candidate ever won a presidential debate.
In post debate polling he then took the lead having been around 6% behind before and had Obama not won the second and third debates it is even possible we could have had President Romney given Obama only won by 3% on election day
I'm going to get up early tomorrow and watch it on playback. What I am hoping for is that Trump will go totally over the top. That Biden will simply point out that the man is a disgrace to the office. And that Trump will then *really* go ballistic.
Trump comes across as a caged animal half the time and totally out of it the other half. He's perfectly capable of drooling on about incoherent nonsense for a bit and then start ranting about a conspiracy to rig his election win that armed militia need to come and stop on polling day.
Would May have won a majority of 80 like Boris in 2019, as she proved in 2017 clearly not.
Even Cameron failed to get a majority in 2010 and only got a majority of 12 in 2015
Indeed. When we've had tens of thousands dead. When the pox is surging again. When government policy brings businesses and individuals to ruin. When Kent is being separated from the rest of the country. When absurd unworkable restrictions on individuals are imposed by decree. When the Rule of Law itself has been declared void. We can trust @HYUFD to cut to the only true issue.
His perceptions of the electability of the Conservative Party.
Spain, Belgium, the US all have had more deaths per head than the UK and France has more Covid cases.
It was thanks to the furlough scheme many jobs were saved
Support the governments covid powers or not, I appreciate that members of the awkward squad like Baker are continuing to be awkward even after their chap got the top job.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
It goes way beyond that, though. The bill legislates to put ministers beyond the rule of law full stop. Section 45 states explicitly that they will not be bound by any law, international or domestic, when enacting its provisions.
I seem to recall DavidL giving the view that you grossly extend the scope power of that provision.
Which is by the by really. Plenty may well think even though we can exercise sovereignty in this way and even if it is not the worst case scenario envisaged by some, and even if someone thinks its not just plain wrong, it still isn't a sensible move.
He did. On the basis that the Section 45 powers only related to Sections 42 and 43 (relating to GB/NI trade). But I think there were two flaws in his analysis: (1) that if the government purported to exercise the S.45 powers more widely, S.45 itself tries to stop a challenge to that. Whether the courts would agree is another matter; and (2) even if the powers are primarily exercised for a proper purpose they could still breach a domestic law and S.45 allows them to do that. So the likely effect and certainly the intention of this section is very wide indeed.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
It is an election where the only thing that matters is getting out the vote and making sure it's there to be counted on election day.
Trump’s 15 Golf Resorts Have Lost More Than $315.6 Million. Is That Par for the Course? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/trump-taxes-golf-resort-losses-depreciation.html ...Hills and Hatch think that the losses are big, but explainable. However, Adam Davidson, an economics writer for the New Yorker who’s reported on Trump’s businesses, has suggested that the president may have used his golf courses for something more nefarious. As Davidson laid out in a Twitter thread, Trump’s tax returns indicate that by 2011, he expended most of the funds he received from his father and from Apprentice producer Mark Burnett. At that point, Trump seems to have secured a new source of money, right around the time he started doing business with the likes of barons in Azerbaijan and was “flirting with Georgians and Kazakhs with ties to Putin,” as Davidson puts it. “All of these groups are—between 2011 and 2016—known to be laundering money through golf courses.”...
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
Unless there is a knockout blow tonight agreed, it should be noted though Romney was judged to have won the first 2012 debate by a huge 52% margin over Obama, the biggest margin by which any candidate ever won a presidential debate.
In post debate polling he then took the lead having been around 6% behind before and had Obama not won the second and third debates it is even possible we could have had President Romney given Obama only won by 3% on election day
I'm going to get up early tomorrow and watch it on playback. What I am hoping for is that Trump will go totally over the top. That Biden will simply point out that the man is a disgrace to the office. And that Trump will then *really* go ballistic.
Trump comes across as a caged animal half the time and totally out of it the other half. He's perfectly capable of drooling on about incoherent nonsense for a bit and then start ranting about a conspiracy to rig his election win that armed militia need to come and stop on polling day.
Trump claims he as refused all debate prep.
Sounds like a pack of lies to me, but maybe he believes in his deal making so much that he can just wing it on the night.
Biden just needs to stay calm apart from the odd 'that's a load of malarky' and he is home and dry (at least on the debate).
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
Very telling that SouthamObserver wrote "sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law" and a Brexit fundamentalist says only that they believe in "sovereignty".
That’s because they have no understanding of what “sovereignty” means. They seem to think that it means “l can do what I want and everyone else has to agree”.
"I can do what I want and everyone else has to agree" is how Johnson has run the rest of his life, so we shouldn't be surprised.
Cameron has a sense of noblesse oblige to go with everything else. Johnson just has a sense of the first syllable.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
It goes way beyond that, though. The bill legislates to put ministers beyond the rule of law full stop. Section 45 states explicitly that they will not be bound by any law, international or domestic, when enacting its provisions.
I seem to recall DavidL giving the view that you grossly extend the scope power of that provision.
Which is by the by really. Plenty may well think even though we can exercise sovereignty in this way and even if it is not the worst case scenario envisaged by some, and even if someone thinks its not just plain wrong, it still isn't a sensible move.
When you legislate to put ministers above the rule of law there is no “we” anymore.
There is no democracy when Ministers put themselves above the law.
So what Phillip is defending is an elective dictatorship unbound by constitution, unbound by rule of law, unbound by the truth or commitments made. An administration prepared to shut down parliament to meet its political ends, to sack its own members who voice any dissent (despite they themselves doing the same thing weeks before) and not obey its own rules and reward cronies with jobs and contracts.
This is not the Conservative party any more. Heaven knows what this is and where it ends.
And astonishingly, he calls himself a libertarian.
Even more astonishingly, he calls himself a democrat.
Yep. It is totally unravelling as a complete and utter mess. Whack-a-mole using randomly generated hammers of varying sizes each of which has next to no scientific basis.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
It is an election where the only thing that matters is getting out the vote and making sure it's there to be counted on election day.
That is perhaps naive - what may count the most is after election day, whether the courts and especially the supreme court will support a coup. Trump is going to claim a win on the night, and he may well be marginally ahead on votes counted by then.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
There is no sovereignty or democracy when ministers are above the rule of law. And that is where the Internal Market Bill will put them once it is enacted. That you are OK with this is entirely unsurprising.
Ministers are answerable to Parliament which is answerable to the electorate at elections.
The Courts can also get involved in the way the law decrees.
IIRC Johnson's casting threatening eyes in that direction.
And yet this decree is likely to cost a lot of people their jobs and businesses and hopes. This is not just incompetence. It is deliberate malevolence.
Would May have won a majority of 80 like Boris in 2019, as she proved in 2017 clearly not.
Even Cameron failed to get a majority in 2010 and only got a majority of 12 in 2015
Indeed. When we've had tens of thousands dead. When the pox is surging again. When government policy brings businesses and individuals to ruin. When Kent is being separated from the rest of the country. When absurd unworkable restrictions on individuals are imposed by decree. When the Rule of Law itself has been declared void. We can trust @HYUFD to cut to the only true issue.
His perceptions of the electability of the Conservative Party.
Spain, Belgium, the US all have had more deaths per head than the UK and France has more Covid cases.
It was thanks to the furlough scheme many jobs were saved
How low has the bar fallen that not being the shittest in the world is hailed as a success!
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
It is an election where the only thing that matters is getting out the vote and making sure it's there to be counted on election day.
That is perhaps naive - what may count the most is after election day, whether the courts and especially the supreme court will support a coup. Trump is going to claim a win on the night, and he may well be marginally ahead on votes counted by then.
If the Supreme Court rules he has won (I know its not that simple) despite the votes, he'll have won. For that will BE THE LAW. Will everyone defending the law like an ABSOLUTE principle be happy with that.
The law is very important but it's not the be all and end all, it's written by people and people can be bias and fallible
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
I'm seriously debating going to the cinema to see Tenet again tomorrow night as supposedly last night there was 1 person in a 300 seat screen
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
If restrictions need to be imposed, fine - but support the businesses and people affected until the restrictions are no longer necessary. What is unconscionable is doing the former - in an arbitrary and incomprehensible manner unsupported in many cases by the science - and then leaving those affected without effective help.
What is currently happening is both the spread of the virus and the destruction of the economy.
It is entirely unclear - at least to me - what the government’s strategy is, assuming it has one. And judging by the incoherent answers being given by those Ministers brave or foolish enough or bullied into appearing in interviews, they don’t understand it either.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
It is an election where the only thing that matters is getting out the vote and making sure it's there to be counted on election day.
That is perhaps naive - what may count the most is after election day, whether the courts and especially the supreme court will support a coup. Trump is going to claim a win on the night, and he may well be marginally ahead on votes counted by then.
If the Supreme Court rules he has won (I know its not that simple) despite the votes, he'll have won. For that will BE THE LAW. Will everyone defending the law like an ABSOLUTE principle be happy with that.
The law is very important but it's not the be all and end all, it's written by people and people can be bias and fallible
This. Trump has very little hope of victory without the courts (and especially the Supreme Court) rigging the process in his favour.
It's almost as if democracy would be better served if the US just counted the votes and kept the lawyers and judges as far away from the entire process as possible...
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
It is an election where the only thing that matters is getting out the vote and making sure it's there to be counted on election day.
That is perhaps naive - what may count the most is after election day, whether the courts and especially the supreme court will support a coup. Trump is going to claim a win on the night, and he may well be marginally ahead on votes counted by then.
How is do whatever you can to ensure Trump isn't ahead on votes on the night of the count naive. I would suggest that thinking that the courts will stop him once he has declared victory is far more naive.
If Trump is behind on the night he will have to blame vote rigging for losing the election. If trump is ahead on the night he just has to argue that votes arriving subsequently are invalid while sitting there "re-elected".
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
That is not an argument for preventing those that would, and allowing businesses to adjust for the changes landscape and seek new and innovative business models to adjust. Some will be successful some not. But I don’t see how a good long term solution is shutting everything down and chucking government money and assuring that no such innovation occurs putting us in a much worse position to adapt to the situation once restrictions are lifted to a sensible extent. Let businesses plan and adapt to a “new normal” - just make the normal something which is viable.
Remember once upon a time pubs we shut for vast periods of the day and couldn’t open past 11. And were profitable then.
Nice to see Mr Cole dropping any pretence at being unbiased.
We really do live in an oligarchy, not a functioning democracy.
She is a Minister of State. Last time I looked Ministers don't have a specific geographic area of responsibility apart from, you know, the whole country. They are her government's rules, she should know them.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
It is an election where the only thing that matters is getting out the vote and making sure it's there to be counted on election day.
That is perhaps naive - what may count the most is after election day, whether the courts and especially the supreme court will support a coup. Trump is going to claim a win on the night, and he may well be marginally ahead on votes counted by then.
If the Supreme Court rules he has won (I know its not that simple) despite the votes, he'll have won. For that will BE THE LAW. Will everyone defending the law like an ABSOLUTE principle be happy with that.
The law is very important but it's not the be all and end all, it's written by people and people can be bias and fallible
This. Trump has very little hope of victory without the courts (and especially the Supreme Court) rigging the process in his favour.
It's almost as if democracy would be better served if the US just counted the votes and kept the lawyers as far away from the entire process as possible...
Don't get me wrong, the law is extremely important but it's not the be all and end all of civilisation
I don't doubt that Trump is involved in all manner of dodgy financial dealings. But the premise - that golf courses are a particularly good way to launder money (and look who owns golf courses, ho ho) - just isn't correct. There is very little there that isn't true of many different businesses, and it's not as if it's a particularly cash-based business.
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
I'm seriously debating going to the cinema to see Tenet again tomorrow night as supposedly last night there was 1 person in a 300 seat screen
Its very empty. Cineworld must be close to collapse
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
I'm seriously debating going to the cinema to see Tenet again tomorrow night as supposedly last night there was 1 person in a 300 seat screen
Its very empty. Cineworld must be close to collapse
The release schedule was already threadbare for the Autumn and then Wonder Woman, Black Widow and Death on the Nile were pulled. Literally the only film beyond Tenet I'm planning to go and see is James Bond and I suspect that's going to be postponed again.
The release schedule was already threadbare for the Autumn and then Wonder Woman, Black Widow and Death on the Nile were pulled. Literally the only film beyond Tenet I'm planning to go and see is James Bond and I suspect that's going to be postponed again.
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
I'm seriously debating going to the cinema to see Tenet again tomorrow night as supposedly last night there was 1 person in a 300 seat screen
Its very empty. Cineworld must be close to collapse
The release schedule was already threadbare for the Autumn and then Wonder Woman, Black Widow and Death on the Nile were pulled. Literally the only film beyond Tenet I'm planning to go and see is James Bond and I suspect that's going to be postponed again.
The entire entertainment industry is pretty much close to collapse. There’ll be no cultural outlets left at all at this rate.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
It is an election where the only thing that matters is getting out the vote and making sure it's there to be counted on election day.
That is perhaps naive - what may count the most is after election day, whether the courts and especially the supreme court will support a coup. Trump is going to claim a win on the night, and he may well be marginally ahead on votes counted by then.
If the Supreme Court rules he has won (I know its not that simple) despite the votes, he'll have won. For that will BE THE LAW. Will everyone defending the law like an ABSOLUTE principle be happy with that.
The law is very important but it's not the be all and end all, it's written by people and people can be bias and fallible
I don't think we would claim otherwise. Any more than majority rule in a democracy is an "ABSOLUTE principle".
What we are saying is that to completely set aside one leg of our governance - whether it's judiciary, executive of legislature - is a perversion of how a liberal democracy operates.
(And, of course, no other democracy has anything quite like the US Supreme Court.)
Almost certainly a very duff graph mixed in with a bit if lockdown effect.
The sad thing is that we'll never know where would would have been without further lockdown measures and any immunity effect will instead be credited to lockdown by authoritarian ministers.
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
I'm seriously debating going to the cinema to see Tenet again tomorrow night as supposedly last night there was 1 person in a 300 seat screen
Its very empty. Cineworld must be close to collapse
I'd have more sympathy with Cineworld if they hadn't precipitively laid-off their staff from March 20 although a furlough scheme had been sign-posted and was announced three days later.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
Very telling that SouthamObserver wrote "sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law" and a Brexit fundamentalist says only that they believe in "sovereignty".
That’s because they have no understanding of what “sovereignty” means. They seem to think that it means “l can do what I want and everyone else has to agree”.
The concepts of separation of powers, and check & balances, seem to have gone out of fashion. Or been forgotten completely.
I actually think that the government getting its way without having to go to parliament is what is driving this type of decision making. At the start of all this Labour should have raised a huge ruckus about parliamentary oversight, that it's been left to Brady and Tory MPs to do the job shows that Labour still aren't fit to govern, though better than Corbyn.
The party is surely going to boot Boris after all of this, it remains to be seen whether the next PM will be any better or will have the same Theoden like rule with the c*** actually holding all the power.
The headline probabilities given are 30% for the warmest quintile and 15% for the coldest. However, it notes the link between the current La Niña and northerly winds over the UK, and states that: "This makes the probability of below-average temperatures higher than in equivalent outlooks in recent years and only moderately smaller than the average probability in long-term records."
Warm, wet weather leading to flooding tends to be more dangerous and disruptive in the UK than a cold spell, but the potential for the appearance of a triple winter crisis: covid, Brexit and the weather, is there.
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
That is very sensible. If you are in a risk group, or need to interact with someone from one, then you absolutely should limit your activities and be careful about who you meet.
And that applies whether you are an old git like, say, @kinabalu, or a Newcastle fresher.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
There is no sovereignty or democracy when ministers are above the rule of law. And that is where the Internal Market Bill will put them once it is enacted. That you are OK with this is entirely unsurprising.
Ministers are answerable to Parliament which is answerable to the electorate at elections.
The Courts can also get involved in the way the law decrees.
Apart from they aren't putting their current stupidities in front of parliament and the im bill aims to remove court scrutiny so they are in effect only answerable once every 5 years
Almost certainly a very duff graph mixed in with a bit if lockdown effect.
The sad thing is that we'll never know where would would have been without further lockdown measures and any immunity effect will instead be credited to lockdown by authoritarian ministers.
Exactly. This morning a prof said that the rise was "hidden". Perhaps in the ocean with all the global warming.
The release schedule was already threadbare for the Autumn and then Wonder Woman, Black Widow and Death on the Nile were pulled. Literally the only film beyond Tenet I'm planning to go and see is James Bond and I suspect that's going to be postponed again.
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
I'm seriously debating going to the cinema to see Tenet again tomorrow night as supposedly last night there was 1 person in a 300 seat screen
Don't get me wrong I am not simply hiding at home. We go out to lunch a few times week (well spaced restaurant with staff in masks), travelled to France (tunnel, own car, villa with us as sole occupants), meet friends and family etc etc.
I simply assess our own risk and avoid situations where it is impossible to avoid those ignoring the basic rules.. Mask wearing has been helpful because it helps highlight the numpties who are on public transport or in shops without one and makes it easy to give them a wide berth.
I don't doubt that Trump is involved in all manner of dodgy financial dealings. But the premise - that golf courses are a particularly good way to launder money (and look who owns golf courses, ho ho) - just isn't correct. There is very little there that isn't true of many different businesses, and it's not as if it's a particularly cash-based business.
The opaqueness of the pricing is obviously helpful. What makes a golf course worth $100k a year membership and another $1k a year? As is the long term store of asset value that land in premium locations provides.
The same pricing opaqueness might be true of high end fashion (Manafort spending $32000, $15000, $24000 amongst other transactions all carelessly ending in $,000 at one NY clothes store) or art (luxury rugs).
I agree golf courses arent exclusively the greatest way to launder money but luxury golf courses work well enough.
Nice to see Mr Cole dropping any pretence at being unbiased.
We really do live in an oligarchy, not a functioning democracy.
She is a Minister of State. Last time I looked Ministers don't have a specific geographic area of responsibility apart from, you know, the whole country. They are her government's rules, she should know them.
Who is Gillian Keegan?
Since, from the text above, she appears to be a Minister in Boris's govt, I presume she is a loyal Brexiteer since that seems to be the major (the only?) qualification needed. Loyalty to Boris!!
In the last month, I've been in New Mexico (moderate restrictions), Arizona (almost no restrictions) and Orange and Los Angeles counties, California (lots of restrictions).
Outside of Holbrook, AZ (a small town in the middle of nowhere), you couldn't tell the difference between the places with government mandated restrictions, and without.
Which tells you an important thing: behaviour is changed irrespective of government diktat.
Indeed, the hotels we stayed at in Arizona had more restrictions than the ones in California - so no room service, for example. (The reason being, apparently, that if the government mandates a behaviour, and you follow it, you're OK. But if they don't, and lots of people get sick, and you *could* have foreseen an issue, you will get sued. Especially by your staff.)
To go back to the first point though. Behaviour is changes by the virus, irrespective of what the government says. Shops insist on face coverings, irrespective of government policy. Restaraunt staff wear masks. There is no bar service. (Or, in Santa Fe, you have an orderly, distanced queue to get served at the bar, before heading off to the roof terrace to drink. Which worked, by the way, *really* well.)
This is, of course, why there is so little difference in outcomes between a Sweden and a France, or between an Arizona and a California.
But it also tells you that you might as well limit restrictions to the most dangerous of activities (karaoke, for example), plus requirements for mask wearing on public transport.
Because most people will still social distance and most stores and restaurants will impose restrictions.
By the same token those who believe that the economy would be back to normal if all the restrictions were lifted are wrong.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
I'm seriously debating going to the cinema to see Tenet again tomorrow night as supposedly last night there was 1 person in a 300 seat screen
Its very empty. Cineworld must be close to collapse
The release schedule was already threadbare for the Autumn and then Wonder Woman, Black Widow and Death on the Nile were pulled. Literally the only film beyond Tenet I'm planning to go and see is James Bond and I suspect that's going to be postponed again.
Unlimited Card holders must be resigning their memberships hand over fist. Unbelievably they told me I had a free popcorn on mine this week before I watched my exclusive showing.
Almost certainly a very duff graph mixed in with a bit if lockdown effect.
The sad thing is that we'll never know where would would have been without further lockdown measures and any immunity effect will instead be credited to lockdown by authoritarian ministers.
I see the media are still making the same mistakes on the numbers even after 6 months.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
There is no sovereignty or democracy when ministers are above the rule of law. And that is where the Internal Market Bill will put them once it is enacted. That you are OK with this is entirely unsurprising.
Ministers are answerable to Parliament which is answerable to the electorate at elections.
The Courts can also get involved in the way the law decrees.
No. Ministers are answerable to the law. Not just Parliament. No-one is or should be above the law. The fact that you refuse to understand this shows that you are not, at heart, a democrat. Without law - without it being applied to all equally - there is no democracy.
They will and should be answerable to the laws as passed by Parliament. Since this law will have been passed by Parliament then the Courts will need to take this law into account. If they break this law the Courts can act.
Once they have the authority, are they really going to do other than rubberstamp whatever Boris puts in front of them?
I am happy to see Parliament demanding the power to curtail the Executive, but I would like to believe that once they have such power, they would actually possess the independence and nerve needed to use it.
Irrelevant if Labour and the SNP arent involved. SNP are probably in favour of more restrictions than the govt!
Would be ironic if Jeremy Corbyn was the one to teach SKS about the job of the Opposition.
Also ironic if Jeremy Corbyn voting against the Brexit bill failed to bring down the govt because there weren't the numbers, while SKS votes with the govt when a vote against would have the numbers to bring it down.
She's not a true Tory obviously. Having been leader of the party proves that. Remove the whip from her.
She's not a Tory, a Johnsonite. She's a Conservative, doing what a Conservative would be expected to do.
Yep - it’s funny how, when push comes to shove, those who spoke so passionately about sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law turn out not to believe in them. Whoever would have thought it?
I believe in sovereignty which is part of the reason I opposed May (not the main reason, I'd already quit the party before Chequers). It is also why I support the IM Bill.
May voting against UK Sovereignty is par for the course. She is a usual suspect as far as that is concerned and thank goodness she isn't PM anymore.
Very telling that SouthamObserver wrote "sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law" and a Brexit fundamentalist says only that they believe in "sovereignty".
That’s because they have no understanding of what “sovereignty” means. They seem to think that it means “l can do what I want and everyone else has to agree”.
The concepts of separation of powers, and check & balances, seem to have gone out of fashion. Or been forgotten completely.
I actually think that the government getting its way without having to go to parliament is what is driving this type of decision making. At the start of all this Labour should have raised a huge ruckus about parliamentary oversight, that it's been left to Brady and Tory MPs to do the job shows that Labour still aren't fit to govern, though better than Corbyn.
The party is surely going to boot Boris after all of this, it remains to be seen whether the next PM will be any better or will have the same Theoden like rule with the c*** actually holding all the power.
I am actually encouraged that a number of backbench MPs (with whom I agree on little else) are standing up for parliamentary powers. And I don't think that Doma Wormtongue would survive a change of PM, except perhaps in the unlikely circumstance of Gove taking over.
538 still has Biden +5.5 in PA vs +7 nationally, but if what we've been seeing in the recent PA polls carries on there will be no more EC deficit...
HYUFD won't take any notice, because it's not from Trafalgar or Rasmussen.
Cut him some slack. Nationally Monmouth has Trump within 5 and Emerson within 4 recently. That's close, and they are both A Grade pollsters.
It's not done yet.
Plus we have the first Trump v Biden debate tonight too
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Honestly I dont think the debates will change much. Both sides are quite well entrenched, this election feels much more Us vs Them more than any other election I can remember even 2016. Trump supporters seemingly will not abandon him even with a string of bad news stories showing him in a negative light, on the other side Biden is the Not Trump candidate and so his supporters are not going to go anywhere else when a Biden gaffe or story comes along. With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
It is an election where the only thing that matters is getting out the vote and making sure it's there to be counted on election day.
That is perhaps naive - what may count the most is after election day, whether the courts and especially the supreme court will support a coup. Trump is going to claim a win on the night, and he may well be marginally ahead on votes counted by then.
If the Supreme Court rules he has won (I know its not that simple) despite the votes, he'll have won. For that will BE THE LAW. Will everyone defending the law like an ABSOLUTE principle be happy with that.
The law is very important but it's not the be all and end all, it's written by people and people can be bias and fallible
You've said it yourself, it's really not that simple at all.
The Supreme Court does not certify the election results - it does not rule anyone has "won". That happens at the state level, and is then aggregated at Senate level.
Where the Supreme Court comes in is if there are process challenges - allegations of electoral fraud or voter suppression, or recounts allowed or not allowed in individual states for example. So the Supreme Court can put a finger on the scales (allow a recount in Pennsylvania if Biden is ahead, stop it if Trump is for example) but that only realistically comes into play if one state is pivotal and it is very close indeed.
Even then, there needs to be an arguable case for Trump. These justices will still be there if he loses (and even if he doesn't unless they plan on dying or retiring in the next four years), and although they are essentially on the right of US politics they don't have great personal loyalty to Trump (does Neil Gorsuch like Trump personally or have much in common with him - I very much doubt it).
I also query what your alternative is to having a legal process on these points. What you'd get is state governments with untrammelled power to certify results and abuse the process. At least in Florida in 2000, Florida's Secretary of State (Katherine Harris, Republican) and Governor (Jeb Bush, relation, Republican) knew their certification of the results would be subject to challenge so they needed to act legally (while helping George insofar as the law allowed). Ultimately, they won the appeal but, while there are a sizable group of Democrats who will never come to terms with that, it did provide some check on the process and stopped (for example) certification of the results on the night and without any recount.
Nice to see Mr Cole dropping any pretence at being unbiased.
We really do live in an oligarchy, not a functioning democracy.
She is a Minister of State. Last time I looked Ministers don't have a specific geographic area of responsibility apart from, you know, the whole country. They are her government's rules, she should know them.
They don't have a specific geographic area as a minister but they do as an MP. As a minister they do have a specific area of responsibility.
She is s a Minister for Apprenticeship and Skills. Her responsibilities include ... Apprenticeships and Skills.
Was the question an Apprenticeship and Skills question?
It is entirely unclear - at least to me - what the government’s strategy is, assuming it has one. And judging by the incoherent answers being given by those Ministers brave or foolish enough or bullied into appearing in interviews, they don’t understand it either.
Johnson stated the government strategy in the House quite recently. It's to maximise economic activity with the minimum level of restrictions necessary to suppress the virus until a vaccine, treatment, or rapid test makes this unnecessary.
So, it's not to eliminate the virus in the short term, and it's not to give up and abdicate all responsibility. It's not the strategy I would choose, but it's not awful or ridiculous. It's the same strategy almost all the rest of Europe (including Sweden) is following. It's the implementation that's been hopeless. The basic administrative competence is severely wanting.
If restrictions need to be imposed, fine - but support the businesses and people affected until the restrictions are no longer necessary. What is unconscionable is doing the former - in an arbitrary and incomprehensible manner unsupported in many cases by the science - and then leaving those affected without effective help.
If there was an industry you know isn't going to come back - (perhaps cruise ships) - what's the benefit in propping it up?
We should probably let them go bust, and instead help the workers find other jobs/retrain?
Oh how we all crowed from our moral high horses when the Taliban mandated face coverings in public, banned singing and the like. It blows my mind what the supposed libertarian Boris Johnson has presided over, railroaded through without any oversight from the legislature either.
Him and his team need to go now, not "when this is all over". Send in your letters to Brady please Tory MPs...
The government line when asked if you can do x, its unclear from the rules, they should repeat the mantra that rules can't cover every eventuality and that the principal that everybody should live by is to minimize extended close contact with people not from their own household, especially in an indoor setting, wear a mask whenever one can and practice good hygiene.
Irrelevant if Labour and the SNP arent involved. SNP are probably in favour of more restrictions than the govt!
Would be ironic if Jeremy Corbyn was the one to teach SKS about the job of the Opposition.
Also ironic if Jeremy Corbyn voting against the Brexit bill failed to bring down the govt because there weren't the numbers, while SKS votes with the govt when a vote against would have the numbers to bring it down.
If Starmer votes to allow the government to continue ruling by decree then he might as well resign his leadership. He would be voting against giving Labour a say on the most important issue of the day. There's no way he whips in favour of Boris.
The government line when asked if you can do x, its unclear from the rules, they should repeat the mantra that rules can't cover every eventuality and that the principal that everybody should live by is to minimize extended close contact with people not from their own household, especially in an indoor setting, wear a mask whenever one can and practice good hygiene.
And by forthright, I don't mean re-submitting the same Withdrawal Bill time and again without modification, in the hope it would eventually pass due to fatigue.
Mrs May seems to understand that you either support the rule of law as the foundation stone of democracy or you support the Internal Market Bill. There is no middle ground available here.
I suspect that part of the motivation is also the knowledge that her own Withdrawal Agreement and premiership was ultimately torpedoed because a chunk of her party refused to accept the potential legal consequences of the backstop provisions (“permanently stuck in the Customs Union” etc).
Even though these same people have no problem in saying that they are free to reject the legal consequences of their own Withdrawal agreement - and not just because of circumstances where the EU might be “acting in bad faith in trade negotiation”, but because they didn’t understand/accept the central implications of what they had signed up to.
It goes way beyond that, though. The bill legislates to put ministers beyond the rule of law full stop. Section 45 states explicitly that they will not be bound by any law, international or domestic, when enacting its provisions.
I seem to recall DavidL giving the view that you grossly extend the scope power of that provision.
Which is by the by really. Plenty may well think even though we can exercise sovereignty in this way and even if it is not the worst case scenario envisaged by some, and even if someone thinks its not just plain wrong, it still isn't a sensible move.
He did. On the basis that the Section 45 powers only related to Sections 42 and 43 (relating to GB/NI trade). But I think there were two flaws in his analysis: (1) that if the government purported to exercise the S.45 powers more widely, S.45 itself tries to stop a challenge to that. Whether the courts would agree is another matter; and (2) even if the powers are primarily exercised for a proper purpose they could still breach a domestic law and S.45 allows them to do that. So the likely effect and certainly the intention of this section is very wide indeed.
Subsequent laws can override previous laws. The Human Rights Act sets itself above other laws, why can't this one?
Comments
Which is by the by really. Plenty may well think even though we can exercise sovereignty in this way and even if it is not the worst case scenario envisaged by some, and even if someone thinks its not just plain wrong, it still isn't a sensible move.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1310848526734286849
Would you believe that they had acted constitutionally and were fully in accordance with "UK sovereignty"?
(note that the IM bill gives widespread powers to Ministers to override existing statutes, without Parliamentary oversight, and removing powers of judicial review of any such decisions taken from the courts)
And the last set of policies were publicly trailed over a week before being implemented, so it's not even as though they couldn't have held a debate.
At the very least, there would be a measure of real democratic accountability.
Looking back historically on who post debate polls judged won the first debate we have Hillary, Romney, Obama, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Perot, Dukakis, Mondale, Ford and Kennedy. So a mixed bag in terms of who actually went onto win the election and if Trump does win tonight he would be the first incumbent President to win the first debate since Bill Clinton so the odds should favour Biden
https://news.gallup.com/poll/195923/clinton-debate-victory-larger-side-modern-debates.aspx
Or been forgotten completely.
I cannot understand shutting parliament out now. They were given a pass at the height of initial difficulty and that was fair enough, but there's no reason no yo involve them now and they'd still get measures through as public support for tough measures is high.
And the continuation of the customs union was intended as a backstop to trade talks breaking down (which under the current government's definition would only happen as a result of the EU negotiating in bad faith - allegedly giving them cause to abandon the WA).
This is not the Conservative party any more. Heaven knows what this is and where it ends.
With the percentage of undecided in the polls it would take something utterly amazing in the debates to shift the polling I feel.
The Monmouth and Emerson polls are the lower end of the polling we are seeing, other A Grade pollsters have had Biden up in the 9's and 10's which are the upper end, its basically a pick and choose which one you want to believe. the polling averages have barely changed for months.
Thanks for the polls. Some interesting numbers albeit from some fairly flaky organisations.
Will you be watching tonite? (Or at 2am tomorrow rather...?)
(And to be fair to him, the scope of the powers - though not their nature - has been exaggerated by some.)
In post debate polling he then took the lead having been around 6% behind before and had Obama not won the second and third debates it is even possible we could have had President Romney given Obama only won by 3% on election day
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/how-debate-bully/616461/
His perceptions of the electability of the Conservative Party.
Trump comes across as a caged animal half the time and totally out of it the other half. He's perfectly capable of drooling on about incoherent nonsense for a bit and then start ranting about a conspiracy to rig his election win that armed militia need to come and stop on polling day.
It was thanks to the furlough scheme many jobs were saved
Trump’s 15 Golf Resorts Have Lost More Than $315.6 Million. Is That Par for the Course?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/trump-taxes-golf-resort-losses-depreciation.html
...Hills and Hatch think that the losses are big, but explainable. However, Adam Davidson, an economics writer for the New Yorker who’s reported on Trump’s businesses, has suggested that the president may have used his golf courses for something more nefarious. As Davidson laid out in a Twitter thread, Trump’s tax returns indicate that by 2011, he expended most of the funds he received from his father and from Apprentice producer Mark Burnett. At that point, Trump seems to have secured a new source of money, right around the time he started doing business with the likes of barons in Azerbaijan and was “flirting with Georgians and Kazakhs with ties to Putin,” as Davidson puts it. “All of these groups are—between 2011 and 2016—known to be laundering money through golf courses.”...
Sounds like a pack of lies to me, but maybe he believes in his deal making so much that he can just wing it on the night.
Biden just needs to stay calm apart from the odd 'that's a load of malarky' and he is home and dry (at least on the debate).
Cameron has a sense of noblesse oblige to go with everything else. Johnson just has a sense of the first syllable.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/01/26/golf-for-fun-and-profiteering/
We really do live in an oligarchy, not a functioning democracy.
If all restriction ended tomorrow I would still not be going anywhere near a pub, travelling on a plane, rejoining my gym, renewing my PL season ticket, going to a concert/theatre/cinema etc etc. I doubt I am alone. Until there is a vaccine many people are not going to be doing what they were doing this time next year.
Will everyone defending the law like an ABSOLUTE principle be happy with that.
The law is very important but it's not the be all and end all, it's written by people and people can be bias and fallible
What is currently happening is both the spread of the virus and the destruction of the economy.
It is entirely unclear - at least to me - what the government’s strategy is, assuming it has one. And judging by the incoherent answers being given by those Ministers brave or foolish enough or bullied into appearing in interviews, they don’t understand it either.
It's almost as if democracy would be better served if the US just counted the votes and kept the lawyers and judges as far away from the entire process as possible...
If Trump is behind on the night he will have to blame vote rigging for losing the election. If trump is ahead on the night he just has to argue that votes arriving subsequently are invalid while sitting there "re-elected".
Remember once upon a time pubs we shut for vast periods of the day and couldn’t open past 11. And were profitable then.
What we are saying is that to completely set aside one leg of our governance - whether it's judiciary, executive of legislature - is a perversion of how a liberal democracy operates.
(And, of course, no other democracy has anything quite like the US Supreme Court.)
The sad thing is that we'll never know where would would have been without further lockdown measures and any immunity effect will instead be credited to lockdown by authoritarian ministers.
The party is surely going to boot Boris after all of this, it remains to be seen whether the next PM will be any better or will have the same Theoden like rule with the c*** actually holding all the power.
The headline probabilities given are 30% for the warmest quintile and 15% for the coldest. However, it notes the link between the current La Niña and northerly winds over the UK, and states that: "This makes the probability of below-average temperatures higher than in equivalent outlooks in recent years and only moderately smaller than the average probability in long-term records."
Warm, wet weather leading to flooding tends to be more dangerous and disruptive in the UK than a cold spell, but the potential for the appearance of a triple winter crisis: covid, Brexit and the weather, is there.
And that applies whether you are an old git like, say, @kinabalu, or a Newcastle fresher.
I simply assess our own risk and avoid situations where it is impossible to avoid those ignoring the basic rules.. Mask wearing has been helpful because it helps highlight the numpties who are on public transport or in shops without one and makes it easy to give them a wide berth.
The same pricing opaqueness might be true of high end fashion (Manafort spending $32000, $15000, $24000 amongst other transactions all carelessly ending in $,000 at one NY clothes store) or art (luxury rugs).
I agree golf courses arent exclusively the greatest way to launder money but luxury golf courses work well enough.
Since, from the text above, she appears to be a Minister in Boris's govt, I presume she is a loyal Brexiteer since that seems to be the major (the only?) qualification needed. Loyalty to Boris!!
Roll on 2021.... popcorn on order
I don't think they will make it to Christmas.
I am happy to see Parliament demanding the power to curtail the Executive, but I would like to believe that once they have such power, they would actually possess the independence and nerve needed to use it.
Also ironic if Jeremy Corbyn voting against the Brexit bill failed to bring down the govt because there weren't the numbers, while SKS votes with the govt when a vote against would have the numbers to bring it down.
And I don't think that Doma Wormtongue would survive a change of PM, except perhaps in the unlikely circumstance of Gove taking over.
The Supreme Court does not certify the election results - it does not rule anyone has "won". That happens at the state level, and is then aggregated at Senate level.
Where the Supreme Court comes in is if there are process challenges - allegations of electoral fraud or voter suppression, or recounts allowed or not allowed in individual states for example. So the Supreme Court can put a finger on the scales (allow a recount in Pennsylvania if Biden is ahead, stop it if Trump is for example) but that only realistically comes into play if one state is pivotal and it is very close indeed.
Even then, there needs to be an arguable case for Trump. These justices will still be there if he loses (and even if he doesn't unless they plan on dying or retiring in the next four years), and although they are essentially on the right of US politics they don't have great personal loyalty to Trump (does Neil Gorsuch like Trump personally or have much in common with him - I very much doubt it).
I also query what your alternative is to having a legal process on these points. What you'd get is state governments with untrammelled power to certify results and abuse the process. At least in Florida in 2000, Florida's Secretary of State (Katherine Harris, Republican) and Governor (Jeb Bush, relation, Republican) knew their certification of the results would be subject to challenge so they needed to act legally (while helping George insofar as the law allowed). Ultimately, they won the appeal but, while there are a sizable group of Democrats who will never come to terms with that, it did provide some check on the process and stopped (for example) certification of the results on the night and without any recount.
She is s a Minister for Apprenticeship and Skills. Her responsibilities include ... Apprenticeships and Skills.
Was the question an Apprenticeship and Skills question?
So, it's not to eliminate the virus in the short term, and it's not to give up and abdicate all responsibility. It's not the strategy I would choose, but it's not awful or ridiculous. It's the same strategy almost all the rest of Europe (including Sweden) is following. It's the implementation that's been hopeless. The basic administrative competence is severely wanting.
We should probably let them go bust, and instead help the workers find other jobs/retrain?
Him and his team need to go now, not "when this is all over". Send in your letters to Brady please Tory MPs...