Times: Coronavirus survivors may be at risk of lasting cognitive damage, according to a study that found that in the worst cases the infection can cause mental decline equivalent to an 8.5-point fall in IQ or the brain ageing ten years.
The “brain fog” reported by many people weeks and months after their recovering from the virus may be a symptom of more serious cognitive deficits, scientists have said.
Research involving 84,285 people who had recovered from confirmed or suspected Covid-19 found that damage to the brain had happened to varying extents, depending upon the severity of the infection. However, more work is needed to identify how long this lasts.
“This is a large enough difference that as an individual you would notice an impact on the ability to cope with your normal job and everyday life,” Dr Hampshire said. “The results align with the ‘brain fog’ reported by many people who, even months after recovery, say they are unable to concentrate on work or focus how they did before.”
The team, from Imperial College, the University of Cambridge, the University of Chicago and King’s College London, also found that compared to people who had not had the virus survivors scored poorly on tests for logic and the meaning of words, spatial orientation, maintaining attention and processing their emotions.
Coincidentally, Bozo and Cumstain have both had the virus.
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
The fact that the UK has the rule that postal votes have to be delivered before the polling station closes, does not mean that this is the rule everywhere.
In Australia they allow postal votes count as long as they are postmarked for that day. A constituency has to also wait for overseas and military votes. This means that like in the USA many seats are provisionally declared before the final counts are published, but in a few close seats it can take up to a couple of weeks before the winner is announced.
The point is that the rules are not the same everywhere, and that each US state should be allowed to carry out the rules regarding absentee and mail in votes that apply in that state, and not be overruled by the SC.
I find it very difficult to have any sympathy with anyone who has a postal vote yet leaves it so late as to not be delivered by election day. Or even making sure relevant signatures are included. Especially as there is Early voting available to either vote or drop it off to.
The problem is, for your first point, attacks on the ability of the Postal Service in the US to deliver the mail. Hence the staggering amount of early voting.
I see your point. I'm glad that in the UK our Royal Mail is seen as impartial and it is illegal to interfere with it.
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
Don't get me wrong, it is obvious that the willingness of the SC to interfere in trivial matters like this is a menace to what is laughingly called American democracy, not a bulwark of it. The inconsistency of their decisions make them look partisan and selective. The constitutional base for this involvement is highly suspect. But I am wondering if I have missed something about this particular decision that makes it so egregious.
Thanks for that, David. It's my opinion too and I was wondering if I was odd for so thinking.
If you want to vote, get the ballot in the post in plenty of time or get your arse down to the polling station. Relying on a postmark seems fraught with danger and difficulty. Why take the chance?
Yes, if it gets to the day and you haven't got around to it you should stand in line and drop it in the ballot box. I take @Alistair's point that this is not the way that the rules have been up to now but that has simply contributed to the farce where votes are still wandering in a week or two after election day, often from foreign service personnel. It's ridiculous but so much of the American system is.
In Pennsylvania it is not allowed to deliver mail in ballots by hand. Although it appears that, unlike in the UK, receipt of a mail-in ballot doesn't prevent you from voting in person.
But i think a lot of the underlying concern relates to some of the rationale behind the decisions. And what it potentially means for a post election Supreme Court fight.
eg. there are apparently 18 states which take the "count based on post mark date". Could any and all of them potentially be challengeable if one party suddenly realises it could make a difference?
As I said I agree with @Alistair that the role the SC play in these decisions seems inconsistent, irrational, to have no clear basis in law and to be partisan to boot. The threat of the Court getting involved in determining the result of this election Bush-v-Gore style is real.
I can't help reflecting that those who profess such a love of the rule of law overriding democratic decisions really should reflect on this a bit more. This is where giving excessive powers to courts to overrule democratic decisions leads. Its not a path we want to go down.
Bit of a straw man argument, that. Who is arguing for giving our courts powers beyond those they currently exercise ? The pressure for change seems to be very much in the other direction from our current administration.
Just look at the fuss over the Internal Markets Bill because it might result in a Minister breaking an international agreement in the future, the hysteria about trying to limit judicial review, the decision of the Supreme Court in the prorogation of Parliament case. Many people argue on these threads and elsewhere that our political class needs to be constrained by the law, ruled by the law and restricted by the law in what they can do. The sovereignty of Parliament is just a bit too wild for them, a democratic dictatorship.
My concern is that when Justices make decisions about political matters they undermine democratic legitimacy to the system and we should be careful what we wish for. For hundreds of years Courts took the view that into these areas they should not tread but that is no longer the view. The actions of the American Supreme Court are a good example of the hazards of that.
No, what you’re arguing for is that government not be bound by law at all.
The problem is that binding the government by the constitution means that controlling the constitution becomes government.
So in the US, they are, in effect, electing the Supreme Court.
I would argue that a flexible constitutional settlement, regularly updated is what is required. Which would reduce the amount of "interpretational law" that the Supreme Court is required to do.
Which is what the US used to have - Lincoln didn't find some judges who would rule that due to an interpretation of the constitution re interstate commerce bounced at an angle off the right to privacy, that slavery had never existed.
He got the 13th Amendment passed.
As James Anthony Froude observed - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions".
I'm pretty sure liberals would agree with you on the latter point. Conservative originalists not so much. "What the US used to have" certainly hasn't been true since the SC gutted the 14th amendment back in 1873. Much of today's complicated and contested reasoning could be argued to flow directly from the consequences of that.
The point is that the rules are not the same everywhere, and that each US state should be allowed to carry out the rules regarding absentee and mail in votes that apply in that state, and not be overruled by the SC.
IIUC the argument in this case was that the state already had clear rules passed by the legislature that the votes had to be in by polling day, and the state's Supreme Court unilaterally decided that everything was weird because of covid so take as much time as you need.
So in this case the Supreme Court has made a "Supreme Courts can't just pull rules out of their arses" rule, which if followed consistently might not be unreasonable. The hitch is that it's not clear that they intend to follow it consistently, starting with the fact that the "Supreme Courts can't just pull rules out of their arses" rule was itself pulled out of the Supreme Court's arse.
Times: Coronavirus survivors may be at risk of lasting cognitive damage, according to a study that found that in the worst cases the infection can cause mental decline equivalent to an 8.5-point fall in IQ or the brain ageing ten years.
The “brain fog” reported by many people weeks and months after their recovering from the virus may be a symptom of more serious cognitive deficits, scientists have said.
Research involving 84,285 people who had recovered from confirmed or suspected Covid-19 found that damage to the brain had happened to varying extents, depending upon the severity of the infection. However, more work is needed to identify how long this lasts.
“This is a large enough difference that as an individual you would notice an impact on the ability to cope with your normal job and everyday life,” Dr Hampshire said. “The results align with the ‘brain fog’ reported by many people who, even months after recovery, say they are unable to concentrate on work or focus how they did before.”
The team, from Imperial College, the University of Cambridge, the University of Chicago and King’s College London, also found that compared to people who had not had the virus survivors scored poorly on tests for logic and the meaning of words, spatial orientation, maintaining attention and processing their emotions.
"The Imperial College London team found the number of people testing positive for antibodies has fallen by 26% between June and September. They say immunity appears to be fading and there is a risk of catching the virus multiple times."
Poster on another forum just got the acceptance and processing of their postal vote confirmed. 16 days after they posted it.
Thank Fuck Kavanaugh has ruled in the way he did, if he'd gone with a Roberts type ruling this might not have blown up into the shitstorm it seems to be right now. And the whole thing needed to blow up to a shitstorm for the Democrats NOW.
Vaguely on-topic trivia: in the old days, before betting shops, bets could be posted to bookmakers, and the cut-off point was determined by the post mark. The bet would stand provided it was franked before the start of the race.
Times: Coronavirus survivors may be at risk of lasting cognitive damage, according to a study that found that in the worst cases the infection can cause mental decline equivalent to an 8.5-point fall in IQ or the brain ageing ten years.
The “brain fog” reported by many people weeks and months after their recovering from the virus may be a symptom of more serious cognitive deficits, scientists have said.
Research involving 84,285 people who had recovered from confirmed or suspected Covid-19 found that damage to the brain had happened to varying extents, depending upon the severity of the infection. However, more work is needed to identify how long this lasts.
“This is a large enough difference that as an individual you would notice an impact on the ability to cope with your normal job and everyday life,” Dr Hampshire said. “The results align with the ‘brain fog’ reported by many people who, even months after recovery, say they are unable to concentrate on work or focus how they did before.”
The team, from Imperial College, the University of Cambridge, the University of Chicago and King’s College London, also found that compared to people who had not had the virus survivors scored poorly on tests for logic and the meaning of words, spatial orientation, maintaining attention and processing their emotions.
"The Imperial College London team found the number of people testing positive for antibodies has fallen by 26% between June and September. They say immunity appears to be fading and there is a risk of catching the virus multiple times."
All in all, not a pleasant outlook.
Bit of a problem for the let it rip/herd immunity proponents - if that report is accurate, by the time enough people had caught it those who caught it first would likely be vulnerable again.
Be interesting to see how long vaccine-induced immunity lasts, hopefully longer, but will be one of the things that needs to be assessed. Repeat vaccination is of course feasible at least, more so than repeat let-it-rip!
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
They're just pictures on a screen. It makes things a lot tougher and less organic.
It also massively sucks for the teaching staff. I don't do a lot, but while small seminars (up to around 5-6 people) are more or less ok, anything more is horrible, particularly if cameras are turned off and you're just talking into the void. No feedback on whether the class is getting it/engaged/bored/watching Netflix on the other screen and none of the engagement you usually get. Face to face you can tell if you're losing people or labouring an obvious point. Even with cameras on you can't get a feel for how 20+ people are doing compared to seeing them face to face.
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
Don't get me wrong, it is obvious that the willingness of the SC to interfere in trivial matters like this is a menace to what is laughingly called American democracy, not a bulwark of it. The inconsistency of their decisions make them look partisan and selective. The constitutional base for this involvement is highly suspect. But I am wondering if I have missed something about this particular decision that makes it so egregious.
Thanks for that, David. It's my opinion too and I was wondering if I was odd for so thinking.
If you want to vote, get the ballot in the post in plenty of time or get your arse down to the polling station. Relying on a postmark seems fraught with danger and difficulty. Why take the chance?
Yes, if it gets to the day and you haven't got around to it you should stand in line and drop it in the ballot box. I take @Alistair's point that this is not the way that the rules have been up to now but that has simply contributed to the farce where votes are still wandering in a week or two after election day, often from foreign service personnel. It's ridiculous but so much of the American system is.
In Pennsylvania it is not allowed to deliver mail in ballots by hand. Although it appears that, unlike in the UK, receipt of a mail-in ballot doesn't prevent you from voting in person.
But i think a lot of the underlying concern relates to some of the rationale behind the decisions. And what it potentially means for a post election Supreme Court fight.
eg. there are apparently 18 states which take the "count based on post mark date". Could any and all of them potentially be challengeable if one party suddenly realises it could make a difference?
As I said I agree with @Alistair that the role the SC play in these decisions seems inconsistent, irrational, to have no clear basis in law and to be partisan to boot. The threat of the Court getting involved in determining the result of this election Bush-v-Gore style is real.
I can't help reflecting that those who profess such a love of the rule of law overriding democratic decisions really should reflect on this a bit more. This is where giving excessive powers to courts to overrule democratic decisions leads. Its not a path we want to go down.
Bit of a straw man argument, that. Who is arguing for giving our courts powers beyond those they currently exercise ? The pressure for change seems to be very much in the other direction from our current administration.
Just look at the fuss over the Internal Markets Bill because it might result in a Minister breaking an international agreement in the future, the hysteria about trying to limit judicial review, the decision of the Supreme Court in the prorogation of Parliament case. Many people argue on these threads and elsewhere that our political class needs to be constrained by the law, ruled by the law and restricted by the law in what they can do. The sovereignty of Parliament is just a bit too wild for them, a democratic dictatorship.
My concern is that when Justices make decisions about political matters they undermine democratic legitimacy to the system and we should be careful what we wish for. For hundreds of years Courts took the view that into these areas they should not tread but that is no longer the view. The actions of the American Supreme Court are a good example of the hazards of that.
No, what you’re arguing for is that government not be bound by law at all.
The problem is that binding the government by the constitution means that controlling the constitution becomes government.
So in the US, they are, in effect, electing the Supreme Court.
I would argue that a flexible constitutional settlement, regularly updated is what is required. Which would reduce the amount of "interpretational law" that the Supreme Court is required to do.
Which is what the US used to have - Lincoln didn't find some judges who would rule that due to an interpretation of the constitution re interstate commerce bounced at an angle off the right to privacy, that slavery had never existed.
He got the 13th Amendment passed.
As James Anthony Froude observed - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions".
I'm pretty sure liberals would agree with you on the latter point. Conservative originalists not so much. "What the US used to have" certainly hasn't been true since the SC gutted the 14th amendment back in 1873. Much of today's complicated and contested reasoning could be argued to flow directly from the consequences of that.
The point of updating the constitution is that it brings in the originalists (the real ones, not the shills using it as a smoke screen for their own partisan rulings) -
We need to change the law. The law now says.... And the originalists can now go to work on your re-written law.
No, no, it is going to be desperately close in the College, Florida, North Caroline, Iowa and Arizona going to Trump. Could mean Biden has to rely on Wisconsin, Michigan and Pensylvannia which I think gives him 45 , just taking him over the line to 272. Then will come the Republican objections, up to Supreme Court where anything could NOW happen. Trump will still be there after Janauary, the beneficiary of a stupid, daft, crazy eletcoral system, then heaven help us all.
No, no, it is going to be desperately close in the College, Florida, North Caroline, Iowa and Arizona going to Trump. Could mean Biden has to rely on Wisconsin, Michigan and Pensylvannia which I think gives him 45 , just taking him over the line to 272. Then will come the Republican objections, up to Supreme Court where anything could NOW happen. Trump will still be there after Janauary, the beneficiary of a stupid, daft, crazy eletcoral system, then heaven help us all.
Times: Coronavirus survivors may be at risk of lasting cognitive damage, according to a study that found that in the worst cases the infection can cause mental decline equivalent to an 8.5-point fall in IQ or the brain ageing ten years.
The “brain fog” reported by many people weeks and months after their recovering from the virus may be a symptom of more serious cognitive deficits, scientists have said.
Research involving 84,285 people who had recovered from confirmed or suspected Covid-19 found that damage to the brain had happened to varying extents, depending upon the severity of the infection. However, more work is needed to identify how long this lasts.
“This is a large enough difference that as an individual you would notice an impact on the ability to cope with your normal job and everyday life,” Dr Hampshire said. “The results align with the ‘brain fog’ reported by many people who, even months after recovery, say they are unable to concentrate on work or focus how they did before.”
The team, from Imperial College, the University of Cambridge, the University of Chicago and King’s College London, also found that compared to people who had not had the virus survivors scored poorly on tests for logic and the meaning of words, spatial orientation, maintaining attention and processing their emotions.
"The Imperial College London team found the number of people testing positive for antibodies has fallen by 26% between June and September. They say immunity appears to be fading and there is a risk of catching the virus multiple times."
All in all, not a pleasant outlook.
Bit of a problem for the let it rip/herd immunity proponents - if that report is accurate, by the time enough people had caught it those who caught it first would likely be vulnerable again.
Be interesting to see how long vaccine-induced immunity lasts, hopefully longer, but will be one of the things that needs to be assessed. Repeat vaccination is of course feasible at least, more so than repeat let-it-rip!
This in Science News is a simple plain English summary.
It seems likely that antibody levels will decline after exposure, but this doesnt necessarily mean people don't have immunity. As the article says, "immunity" doesn't necessarily mean you will be completely unaffected by subsequent exposure; more likely you'll be better equipped to fend off the virus and hence any symptoms will be mild. AIUI this appears to be the case in most of the still small number of recorded cases of apparent second infections.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
They're just pictures on a screen. It makes things a lot tougher and less organic.
I'm sorry you are finding it tough. Its equally a problem the other way round too. I have had some IPT (in person teaching) but its all masks on etc. Are you assigned a personal tutor for your course (Masters?) One gripe I have as someone teaching undergrads is that they do not share there screens (not sure why - possibly they are in their bedroom, esp if first years on campus) but it makes it harder for us.
Times: Coronavirus survivors may be at risk of lasting cognitive damage, according to a study that found that in the worst cases the infection can cause mental decline equivalent to an 8.5-point fall in IQ or the brain ageing ten years.
The “brain fog” reported by many people weeks and months after their recovering from the virus may be a symptom of more serious cognitive deficits, scientists have said.
Research involving 84,285 people who had recovered from confirmed or suspected Covid-19 found that damage to the brain had happened to varying extents, depending upon the severity of the infection. However, more work is needed to identify how long this lasts.
“This is a large enough difference that as an individual you would notice an impact on the ability to cope with your normal job and everyday life,” Dr Hampshire said. “The results align with the ‘brain fog’ reported by many people who, even months after recovery, say they are unable to concentrate on work or focus how they did before.”
The team, from Imperial College, the University of Cambridge, the University of Chicago and King’s College London, also found that compared to people who had not had the virus survivors scored poorly on tests for logic and the meaning of words, spatial orientation, maintaining attention and processing their emotions.
"The Imperial College London team found the number of people testing positive for antibodies has fallen by 26% between June and September. They say immunity appears to be fading and there is a risk of catching the virus multiple times."
All in all, not a pleasant outlook.
Although as many have pointed out, the immune system is not just antibodies. Its also interesting that the antibodies fall fastest in those with the mildest disease - they may have an intrinsic greater resistance covid which accounts for this, and so they would not be expected to get it worse if re-infected.
Vaguely on-topic trivia: in the old days, before betting shops, bets could be posted to bookmakers, and the cut-off point was determined by the post mark. The bet would stand provided it was franked before the start of the race.
There is a bonkers contract law case which I think is still good law which says that if you accept an offer by post, acceptance occurs at the moment of posting the letter. Even if it gets lost in the post.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
Malcolm Bradbury would have some fun with today's identity and crit theory lecturers no doubt.
The Tory culture war bollox about universities being overrun by cultural Marxists hell bent on corrupting the nation's youth seems to have been based entirely on The History Man. To be fair it is a great book.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
They're just pictures on a screen. It makes things a lot tougher and less organic.
I'm sorry you are finding it tough. Its equally a problem the other way round too. I have had some IPT (in person teaching) but its all masks on etc. Are you assigned a personal tutor for your course (Masters?) One gripe I have as someone teaching undergrads is that they do not share there screens (not sure why - possibly they are in their bedroom, esp if first years on campus) but it makes it harder for us.
We are told not to use our webcams in order to give more bandwidth to the lecturer. 🤷♂️
I have been allocated a personal tutor but there's been no contact!
The relief in America when Trump and his clan are ejected can only be imagined. Like the final scene in the Magnificent seven. Around the world the bells will be ringing. In a UK context only 1997 comes anywhere near it. But that was pretty special. A country getting its smile back
The Florida one is good as the votes are recorded by affiliation, so you can see how things are progressing.
I don't quite understand it though, as it says that there are more Republican voters than Democrat registered ones, but if you look at the "Modelled Party Vote Share" then the Democrats are ahead there instead.
But you can see a trend in there that the Republicans are closing the gap, it was 35%-54% and is now 40%-49%, I guess as more rural votes are counted after the urban ones.
It is going to take time to look at it and understand it. I could not find South Carolina. Reason?
Texas don't have party registration so their rely on their modelling and I have no idea if it is any good so have no idea if the chart means anything especially as it is giving daily figures.
Maybe South Carolina don't publish their results?
I found this article that contains figures for Florida and they seem to match that site, so I guess they are using legitimate data:
The relief in America when Trump and his clan is ejected can only be imagined. Like the final scene in the Magnificent seven. Around the world the bells will be ringing. In a UK context only 1997 comes anywhere near it. But that was pretty special. A country getting its smile back
Not really. The take home message for me about Trump was not his existence or electability, but that the checks-and-balances framework of sensible adults which I thought would limit his activities, turns out not to exist, and still won't after he is gone.
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
Don't get me wrong, it is obvious that the willingness of the SC to interfere in trivial matters like this is a menace to what is laughingly called American democracy, not a bulwark of it. The inconsistency of their decisions make them look partisan and selective. The constitutional base for this involvement is highly suspect. But I am wondering if I have missed something about this particular decision that makes it so egregious.
As well as the comment others have made in reply to this about changing the rules while the election is ongoing (ie people may vote or have waited to vote by mail knowing the postmark counted now to have it changed) - there is also a key difference in that our Mail system by and large works.
If you put a letter in the post in this country it should reach the destination the next day or the day after. Since we count on a Thursday that means any votes posted by no later than the Tuesday should certainly reach the ballot box on time - and even most of those posted on the Wednesday would too (and I doubt anyone is posting on the Thursday so that's moot). So it is rather a distinction without a difference for us.
The USPS on the other hand is taking nearly a working week to process some letters at the minute - plus the fact that the election is on the Tuesday means that ballots posted tomorrow or before this weekend might not reach the ballot box by next Tuesday.
In order to have such a strict cut off you really need a working postal service.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
Malcolm Bradbury would have some fun with today's identity and crit theory lecturers no doubt.
The Tory culture war bollox about universities being overrun by cultural Marxists hell bent on corrupting the nation's youth seems to have been based entirely on The History Man. To be fair it is a great book.
Cultural Marxism is such old hat, it's Cultural Maoism all the way, baby.
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
Don't get me wrong, it is obvious that the willingness of the SC to interfere in trivial matters like this is a menace to what is laughingly called American democracy, not a bulwark of it. The inconsistency of their decisions make them look partisan and selective. The constitutional base for this involvement is highly suspect. But I am wondering if I have missed something about this particular decision that makes it so egregious.
Thanks for that, David. It's my opinion too and I was wondering if I was odd for so thinking.
If you want to vote, get the ballot in the post in plenty of time or get your arse down to the polling station. Relying on a postmark seems fraught with danger and difficulty. Why take the chance?
Yes, if it gets to the day and you haven't got around to it you should stand in line and drop it in the ballot box. I take @Alistair's point that this is not the way that the rules have been up to now but that has simply contributed to the farce where votes are still wandering in a week or two after election day, often from foreign service personnel. It's ridiculous but so much of the American system is.
In Pennsylvania it is not allowed to deliver mail in ballots by hand. Although it appears that, unlike in the UK, receipt of a mail-in ballot doesn't prevent you from voting in person.
But i think a lot of the underlying concern relates to some of the rationale behind the decisions. And what it potentially means for a post election Supreme Court fight.
eg. there are apparently 18 states which take the "count based on post mark date". Could any and all of them potentially be challengeable if one party suddenly realises it could make a difference?
As I said I agree with @Alistair that the role the SC play in these decisions seems inconsistent, irrational, to have no clear basis in law and to be partisan to boot. The threat of the Court getting involved in determining the result of this election Bush-v-Gore style is real.
I can't help reflecting that those who profess such a love of the rule of law overriding democratic decisions really should reflect on this a bit more. This is where giving excessive powers to courts to overrule democratic decisions leads. Its not a path we want to go down.
Bit of a straw man argument, that. Who is arguing for giving our courts powers beyond those they currently exercise ? The pressure for change seems to be very much in the other direction from our current administration.
Just look at the fuss over the Internal Markets Bill because it might result in a Minister breaking an international agreement in the future, the hysteria about trying to limit judicial review, the decision of the Supreme Court in the prorogation of Parliament case. Many people argue on these threads and elsewhere that our political class needs to be constrained by the law, ruled by the law and restricted by the law in what they can do. The sovereignty of Parliament is just a bit too wild for them, a democratic dictatorship.
My concern is that when Justices make decisions about political matters they undermine democratic legitimacy to the system and we should be careful what we wish for. For hundreds of years Courts took the view that into these areas they should not tread but that is no longer the view. The actions of the American Supreme Court are a good example of the hazards of that.
No, what you’re arguing for is that government not be bound by law at all.
I am really not and it is difficult to address something as complicated as this in short posts. What I am saying is that there has been a balance between the law and the politicians for over 100 years but that balance is changing. I completely agree with @LostPassword's point that this is driven by politicians passing "laws" that are more like aspirations or policy objectives without being clear how they are to complied with. Add on the top overriding principles such as the Human Rights Act and it is inevitable that the courts will get involved in policy decisions. Add on top of that Judicial Review and it is not surprising that the courts feel compelled to express an opinion as to whether those policy objectives are met or likely to be met by the proposal.
In short, politicians have largely brought this on themselves by not really understanding the difference between law and policy. All I was doing was pointing out that rule by Judges is not necessarily the nirvana that many seem to assume. No one voted for Lord Reed and he is not subject to the ballot box. Within his sphere that is entirely right.
Court packing won't happen this time because a) Dems won't get 50 senators in support b)` Biden still believes in the false dream of bipartisanship.
But I think it will happen at some point because the Supreme Court are only going to get more involved in politics.
Wouldn't the Supreme Court majority find a reason to declare the packing bill unconstitutional anyway? Something something separation of powers, along with some newspaper clippings about how it's all about Biden/Congress taking control of the Supreme Court.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
They're just pictures on a screen. It makes things a lot tougher and less organic.
I'm sorry you are finding it tough. Its equally a problem the other way round too. I have had some IPT (in person teaching) but its all masks on etc. Are you assigned a personal tutor for your course (Masters?) One gripe I have as someone teaching undergrads is that they do not share there screens (not sure why - possibly they are in their bedroom, esp if first years on campus) but it makes it harder for us.
We are told not to use our webcams in order to give more bandwidth to the lecturer. 🤷♂️
I have been allocated a personal tutor but there's been no contact!
Ha - not helpful! I would suggest directly contacting the tutor, and if they do not respond, go after the director of studies/course convener.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
They're just pictures on a screen. It makes things a lot tougher and less organic.
It also massively sucks for the teaching staff. I don't do a lot, but while small seminars (up to around 5-6 people) are more or less ok, anything more is horrible, particularly if cameras are turned off and you're just talking into the void. No feedback on whether the class is getting it/engaged/bored/watching Netflix on the other screen and none of the engagement you usually get. Face to face you can tell if you're losing people or labouring an obvious point. Even with cameras on you can't get a feel for how 20+ people are doing compared to seeing them face to face.
I have exactly the same problem with courts. If you can see your decision maker by Webex that is just about ok. If you are simply on the phone it is very unsatisfactory.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
They're just pictures on a screen. It makes things a lot tougher and less organic.
I'm sorry you are finding it tough. Its equally a problem the other way round too. I have had some IPT (in person teaching) but its all masks on etc. Are you assigned a personal tutor for your course (Masters?) One gripe I have as someone teaching undergrads is that they do not share there screens (not sure why - possibly they are in their bedroom, esp if first years on campus) but it makes it harder for us.
We are told not to use our webcams in order to give more bandwidth to the lecturer. 🤷♂️
I have been allocated a personal tutor but there's been no contact!
Universities are that crap in person too in general, you just don't notice so much as you're out having a good time rather than stuck in your room.
Court packing won't happen this time because a) Dems won't get 50 senators in support b)` Biden still believes in the false dream of bipartisanship.
But I think it will happen at some point because the Supreme Court are only going to get more involved in politics.
Wouldn't the Supreme Court majority find a reason to declare the packing bill unconstitutional anyway? Something something separation of powers, along with some newspaper clippings about how it's all about Biden/Congress taking control of the Supreme Court.
Welcome. I think the constitution states that congress can set the composition and size of the court.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
They're just pictures on a screen. It makes things a lot tougher and less organic.
I'm sorry you are finding it tough. Its equally a problem the other way round too. I have had some IPT (in person teaching) but its all masks on etc. Are you assigned a personal tutor for your course (Masters?) One gripe I have as someone teaching undergrads is that they do not share there screens (not sure why - possibly they are in their bedroom, esp if first years on campus) but it makes it harder for us.
We are told not to use our webcams in order to give more bandwidth to the lecturer. 🤷♂️
I have been allocated a personal tutor but there's been no contact!
Eldest Granddaughter, a 'taught PhD' student is not enjoying much 'on-line contact 'with either supervisors or fellow students and not enjoying the course as much as she hoped. Started in Sept, so time to settle down. Granddaughter-in-law, who teaches A level is never sure whether she's going to see students 'for real' or virtually, and it's again unsettling.
If the Democrats win a majority in the Senate (by Betfair rules or any other) and don't "fix" the Court then they are total idiots.
The Court may act restrained while the Democrats are in control of the Oval Office and Congress so as not to provoke packing, but the GOP will regain control of either the Senate or the Oval Office before very long (possibly by the midterms) at which point there is absolutely no incentive for the Court to remain restrained in how it acts and the Democrats will have missed the window to fix it.
The relief in America when Trump and his clan is ejected can only be imagined. Like the final scene in the Magnificent seven. Around the world the bells will be ringing. In a UK context only 1997 comes anywhere near it. But that was pretty special. A country getting its smile back
Not really. The take home message for me about Trump was not his existence or electability, but that the checks-and-balances framework of sensible adults which I thought would limit his activities, turns out not to exist, and still won't after he is gone.
That was the same in the UK. We had given up hope of ridding ourselves of what was by then a corrupt and rotten government. Even when its architect was deposed in '92 nothing really changed. There only ever needed to be 40% in favour and we had a de facto dictatorship that couldn't be shifted.
Times: Coronavirus survivors may be at risk of lasting cognitive damage, according to a study that found that in the worst cases the infection can cause mental decline equivalent to an 8.5-point fall in IQ or the brain ageing ten years.
The “brain fog” reported by many people weeks and months after their recovering from the virus may be a symptom of more serious cognitive deficits, scientists have said.
Research involving 84,285 people who had recovered from confirmed or suspected Covid-19 found that damage to the brain had happened to varying extents, depending upon the severity of the infection. However, more work is needed to identify how long this lasts.
“This is a large enough difference that as an individual you would notice an impact on the ability to cope with your normal job and everyday life,” Dr Hampshire said. “The results align with the ‘brain fog’ reported by many people who, even months after recovery, say they are unable to concentrate on work or focus how they did before.”
The team, from Imperial College, the University of Cambridge, the University of Chicago and King’s College London, also found that compared to people who had not had the virus survivors scored poorly on tests for logic and the meaning of words, spatial orientation, maintaining attention and processing their emotions.
God's sake, that's horrific. I wonder if this is connected to the fall in oxygen in the blood that @Foxy has mentioned as a symptom.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
Malcolm Bradbury would have some fun with today's identity and crit theory lecturers no doubt.
The Tory culture war bollox about universities being overrun by cultural Marxists hell bent on corrupting the nation's youth seems to have been based entirely on The History Man. To be fair it is a great book.
Quite agree. And The History Man was published 45 years ago, so the universities have been infested with radicals for a long, long time (except science and engineering departments, of course). As I've argued previously, the culture wars are nothing new - they just shift shape a bit. The only big difference nowadays is that they can be played out in real time on social media.
On the current average polling the Democrats should indeed narrowly take the Senate, 51 to 49, RCP currently has them picking up Senate seats in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine and North Carolina (and I doubt even the Collins vote last night will stop her loss in Maine) and the GOP will pick up Alabama's Senate seat. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/senate/2020_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html
It may be some Kennedy primary voters in Massachussetts will vote Biden for President but for the relatively moderate O'Connor for Senate rather than the far left backed Markey
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
They're just pictures on a screen. It makes things a lot tougher and less organic.
I'm sorry you are finding it tough. Its equally a problem the other way round too. I have had some IPT (in person teaching) but its all masks on etc. Are you assigned a personal tutor for your course (Masters?) One gripe I have as someone teaching undergrads is that they do not share there screens (not sure why - possibly they are in their bedroom, esp if first years on campus) but it makes it harder for us.
We are told not to use our webcams in order to give more bandwidth to the lecturer. 🤷♂️
I have been allocated a personal tutor but there's been no contact!
Ha - not helpful! I would suggest directly contacting the tutor, and if they do not respond, go after the director of studies/course convener.
I'd agree. There are two possibilities: (i) the personal tutor is a bit rubbish and doesn't care and or/is overloaded in which case you wouldn't get a lot meeting in person anyway, but complain (ii) the department communication is poor and the personal tutor either has not been told they are your tutor or it has been buried in a seemingly irrelevant email or similar communications break down.
When I first started in my current department, I was allocated as a masters supervisor, replacing someone who was leaving, but none of the details were passed on to me, not even the fact I was a supervisor. I got a call from the other supervisor ten minutes or so in to the first meeting with the student after I joined, asking where I was - first I'd heard of any of it!
The relief in America when Trump and his clan are ejected can only be imagined. Like the final scene in the Magnificent seven. Around the world the bells will be ringing. In a UK context only 1997 comes anywhere near it. But that was pretty special. A country getting its smile back
1997 was after 18 years of the Tories in power, the GOP have only held the White House for 4 years so not exactly the same
But, by the logic of his argument, aren't competitive districts fairly typical of competitive states as a whole? Yes, Trump doesn't have as far to fall in an inner-city congressional district which isn't being polled as Mr Wasserman says. But, equally, he has further to fall in a deep red, rural district that also isn't being polled.
I have doubts about the quality of House level polls. But, if you take them seriously, it probably is consistent with Republicans doing a little worse in competititve seats than you'd expect from the national picture.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
Malcolm Bradbury would have some fun with today's identity and crit theory lecturers no doubt.
The Tory culture war bollox about universities being overrun by cultural Marxists hell bent on corrupting the nation's youth seems to have been based entirely on The History Man. To be fair it is a great book.
Cultural Marxism is such old hat, it's Cultural Maoism all the way, baby.
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
Don't get me wrong, it is obvious that the willingness of the SC to interfere in trivial matters like this is a menace to what is laughingly called American democracy, not a bulwark of it. The inconsistency of their decisions make them look partisan and selective. The constitutional base for this involvement is highly suspect. But I am wondering if I have missed something about this particular decision that makes it so egregious.
Thanks for that, David. It's my opinion too and I was wondering if I was odd for so thinking.
If you want to vote, get the ballot in the post in plenty of time or get your arse down to the polling station. Relying on a postmark seems fraught with danger and difficulty. Why take the chance?
Yes, if it gets to the day and you haven't got around to it you should stand in line and drop it in the ballot box. I take @Alistair's point that this is not the way that the rules have been up to now but that has simply contributed to the farce where votes are still wandering in a week or two after election day, often from foreign service personnel. It's ridiculous but so much of the American system is.
In Pennsylvania it is not allowed to deliver mail in ballots by hand. Although it appears that, unlike in the UK, receipt of a mail-in ballot doesn't prevent you from voting in person.
But i think a lot of the underlying concern relates to some of the rationale behind the decisions. And what it potentially means for a post election Supreme Court fight.
eg. there are apparently 18 states which take the "count based on post mark date". Could any and all of them potentially be challengeable if one party suddenly realises it could make a difference?
As I said I agree with @Alistair that the role the SC play in these decisions seems inconsistent, irrational, to have no clear basis in law and to be partisan to boot. The threat of the Court getting involved in determining the result of this election Bush-v-Gore style is real.
I can't help reflecting that those who profess such a love of the rule of law overriding democratic decisions really should reflect on this a bit more. This is where giving excessive powers to courts to overrule democratic decisions leads. Its not a path we want to go down.
Bit of a straw man argument, that. Who is arguing for giving our courts powers beyond those they currently exercise ? The pressure for change seems to be very much in the other direction from our current administration.
Just look at the fuss over the Internal Markets Bill because it might result in a Minister breaking an international agreement in the future, the hysteria about trying to limit judicial review, the decision of the Supreme Court in the prorogation of Parliament case. Many people argue on these threads and elsewhere that our political class needs to be constrained by the law, ruled by the law and restricted by the law in what they can do. The sovereignty of Parliament is just a bit too wild for them, a democratic dictatorship.
My concern is that when Justices make decisions about political matters they undermine democratic legitimacy to the system and we should be careful what we wish for. For hundreds of years Courts took the view that into these areas they should not tread but that is no longer the view. The actions of the American Supreme Court are a good example of the hazards of that.
They argue that the Executive needs to be constrained by the Rule of Law. Not Parliament.
I honestly can't tell whether @DavidL is being sarcastic about "fuss" and "hysteria," but I am quite happy to get, and be called, fussy and hysterical about the issues he mentions.
Parliamentary Sovereignty has the precise and technical (and boring) meaning that statutes duly enacted by the Crown in Parliament override everything else. That might sound like a piece of pedantic twattery, like people who know that the immaculate conception means something different from the virgin birth, but it is critically important because people misunderstand it as the HYUFD Doctrine - Boris has got an 80 seat majority so he can do what the fuck he likes till 2024 innit - and they think this insane, democratic tyranny doctrine is the bedrock of our constitution just because they have applied the wrong name to it.
Actually the system is symbiotic and feedback-based and to assert Parliamentary Sovereignty impliedly also asserts the sovereignty of the Courts: Parliament-made law is supreme, and so is the right of the courts to interpret and enforce it.
The courts can interpret statute as they wish but if they interpret it in a way Parliament disagrees with then Parliament just amends the statute to make it clearer what its original intention in passing the statute was, the UK courts are always subordinate to Parliament in that way
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
Don't get me wrong, it is obvious that the willingness of the SC to interfere in trivial matters like this is a menace to what is laughingly called American democracy, not a bulwark of it. The inconsistency of their decisions make them look partisan and selective. The constitutional base for this involvement is highly suspect. But I am wondering if I have missed something about this particular decision that makes it so egregious.
As well as the comment others have made in reply to this about changing the rules while the election is ongoing (ie people may vote or have waited to vote by mail knowing the postmark counted now to have it changed) - there is also a key difference in that our Mail system by and large works.
If you put a letter in the post in this country it should reach the destination the next day or the day after. Since we count on a Thursday that means any votes posted by no later than the Tuesday should certainly reach the ballot box on time - and even most of those posted on the Wednesday would too (and I doubt anyone is posting on the Thursday so that's moot). So it is rather a distinction without a difference for us.
The USPS on the other hand is taking nearly a working week to process some letters at the minute - plus the fact that the election is on the Tuesday means that ballots posted tomorrow or before this weekend might not reach the ballot box by next Tuesday.
In order to have such a strict cut off you really need a working postal service.
Indeed. Also worth remembering that the large majority of postal votes are posted locally to the council office where they're headed, so it's an easy job for Royal Mail. Although, since it was opened up to take your postal vote down to the polling station on the day, it is surprising how popular this option has become.
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
Don't get me wrong, it is obvious that the willingness of the SC to interfere in trivial matters like this is a menace to what is laughingly called American democracy, not a bulwark of it. The inconsistency of their decisions make them look partisan and selective. The constitutional base for this involvement is highly suspect. But I am wondering if I have missed something about this particular decision that makes it so egregious.
Because people are casting their vote on the basis that as long as they post it before the election the vote wil be counted - that is what the rules were setup to be.
The SC has just yanked that. Due to the shit was of the US Postal system that could end up invalidating votes that were posted yesterday.
US elections are not UK elections. Almost all the states with long history of postal voting operate on a " as long as it is postmarked before the election and arrives within X days of election day the vote will be counted" basis.
We could now see those election laws struck down state by state as the election is on going.
Exactly. You should not be tinkering with any election rules 7 days before the election. US really is one big mess and I on't see that changing whoever scrapes home next week. I think the odds are rising on Trump stealing this election somehow particularly once the new SCOTUS nominee is on board.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
Malcolm Bradbury would have some fun with today's identity and crit theory lecturers no doubt.
The Tory culture war bollox about universities being overrun by cultural Marxists hell bent on corrupting the nation's youth seems to have been based entirely on The History Man. To be fair it is a great book.
Cultural Marxism is such old hat, it's Cultural Maoism all the way, baby.
So Darren's hot take is that a fringe party registering with the Electoral Commission very probably isn't going to grab the keys to Downing Street in the foreseeable future?
Thank goodness the nation can rely on his laser-like insight and super-forecasting powers.
I suppose this doesn't bode well for quite a lot of the 351 currently registered political parties in the UK. Who's going to break it to them?
Court packing won't happen this time because a) Dems won't get 50 senators in support b)` Biden still believes in the false dream of bipartisanship.
But I think it will happen at some point because the Supreme Court are only going to get more involved in politics.
Wouldn't the Supreme Court majority find a reason to declare the packing bill unconstitutional anyway? Something something separation of powers, along with some newspaper clippings about how it's all about Biden/Congress taking control of the Supreme Court.
Possibly but suspect it wouldn't even get to that point. Welcome to the board.
But, by the logic of his argument, aren't competitive districts fairly typical of competitive states as a whole? Yes, Trump doesn't have as far to fall in an inner-city congressional district which isn't being polled as Mr Wasserman says. But, equally, he has further to fall in a deep red, rural district that also isn't being polled.
I have doubts about the quality of House level polls. But, if you take them seriously, it probably is consistent with Republicans doing a little worse in competititve seats than you'd expect from the national picture.
Isn't this just a handy reminder that UNS is a crude approximation without any real logic behind it?
It still strikes me as unbelievable that the most powerful nation in the world is unable to properly organise an election. I understand it's not easy in a pandemic, but setting aside a couple of billion for postal voting services should surely not be very difficult. The whole system just seems so archaic and unreliable.
But, by the logic of his argument, aren't competitive districts fairly typical of competitive states as a whole? Yes, Trump doesn't have as far to fall in an inner-city congressional district which isn't being polled as Mr Wasserman says. But, equally, he has further to fall in a deep red, rural district that also isn't being polled.
I have doubts about the quality of House level polls. But, if you take them seriously, it probably is consistent with Republicans doing a little worse in competititve seats than you'd expect from the national picture.
Wasserman has made a, to me, fairly persuasive argument about House level polls which has changed my mind about them.
He says that the highest volume, by far, of polling in American politics is on Congressional races. And that as a result it is by far the most sophisticated and accurate. Due to his role at the Cook Rpeort he gets to see lots of private polling that isn't publicly released.
This was quite a revelation to me as mentally I had bucketed CD polls the same as UK Constriuency polls but Wasserman states otherwise.
The relief in America when Trump and his clan are ejected can only be imagined. Like the final scene in the Magnificent seven. Around the world the bells will be ringing. In a UK context only 1997 comes anywhere near it. But that was pretty special. A country getting its smile back
1997 was after 18 years of the Tories in power, the GOP have only held the White House for 4 years so not exactly the same
Imagine the carnage after four Trump terms. Don and Jnr
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
Don't get me wrong, it is obvious that the willingness of the SC to interfere in trivial matters like this is a menace to what is laughingly called American democracy, not a bulwark of it. The inconsistency of their decisions make them look partisan and selective. The constitutional base for this involvement is highly suspect. But I am wondering if I have missed something about this particular decision that makes it so egregious.
Thanks for that, David. It's my opinion too and I was wondering if I was odd for so thinking.
If you want to vote, get the ballot in the post in plenty of time or get your arse down to the polling station. Relying on a postmark seems fraught with danger and difficulty. Why take the chance?
Yes, if it gets to the day and you haven't got around to it you should stand in line and drop it in the ballot box. I take @Alistair's point that this is not the way that the rules have been up to now but that has simply contributed to the farce where votes are still wandering in a week or two after election day, often from foreign service personnel. It's ridiculous but so much of the American system is.
In Pennsylvania it is not allowed to deliver mail in ballots by hand. Although it appears that, unlike in the UK, receipt of a mail-in ballot doesn't prevent you from voting in person.
But i think a lot of the underlying concern relates to some of the rationale behind the decisions. And what it potentially means for a post election Supreme Court fight.
eg. there are apparently 18 states which take the "count based on post mark date". Could any and all of them potentially be challengeable if one party suddenly realises it could make a difference?
As I said I agree with @Alistair that the role the SC play in these decisions seems inconsistent, irrational, to have no clear basis in law and to be partisan to boot. The threat of the Court getting involved in determining the result of this election Bush-v-Gore style is real.
I can't help reflecting that those who profess such a love of the rule of law overriding democratic decisions really should reflect on this a bit more. This is where giving excessive powers to courts to overrule democratic decisions leads. Its not a path we want to go down.
Bit of a straw man argument, that. Who is arguing for giving our courts powers beyond those they currently exercise ? The pressure for change seems to be very much in the other direction from our current administration.
Just look at the fuss over the Internal Markets Bill because it might result in a Minister breaking an international agreement in the future, the hysteria about trying to limit judicial review, the decision of the Supreme Court in the prorogation of Parliament case. Many people argue on these threads and elsewhere that our political class needs to be constrained by the law, ruled by the law and restricted by the law in what they can do. The sovereignty of Parliament is just a bit too wild for them, a democratic dictatorship.
My concern is that when Justices make decisions about political matters they undermine democratic legitimacy to the system and we should be careful what we wish for. For hundreds of years Courts took the view that into these areas they should not tread but that is no longer the view. The actions of the American Supreme Court are a good example of the hazards of that.
If the politicians are crooks like we have in UK then you need to have someone capable of stopping them.
That tweet is completely misleading as the question was not about "liking/disliking" a country but whether the respondent has a "positive/negative" view of them. So, for example, it is not that 61% dislike Syria but that 61% have a negative view (unsurprising as there has been a massive civil war)
The relief in America when Trump and his clan are ejected can only be imagined. Like the final scene in the Magnificent seven. Around the world the bells will be ringing. In a UK context only 1997 comes anywhere near it. But that was pretty special. A country getting its smile back
1997 was after 18 years of the Tories in power, the GOP have only held the White House for 4 years so not exactly the same
Imagine the carnage after four Trump terms. Don and Jnr
Pence would beat Jnr for the GOP nomination in 2024 even if Trump was re elected
Court packing won't happen this time because a) Dems won't get 50 senators in support b)` Biden still believes in the false dream of bipartisanship.
But I think it will happen at some point because the Supreme Court are only going to get more involved in politics.
Wouldn't the Supreme Court majority find a reason to declare the packing bill unconstitutional anyway? Something something separation of powers, along with some newspaper clippings about how it's all about Biden/Congress taking control of the Supreme Court.
IIRC, the court pushed back on FDRs court packing plan with the suggestion they would rule the new justices to... not be justices...
The relief in America when Trump and his clan are ejected can only be imagined. Like the final scene in the Magnificent seven. Around the world the bells will be ringing. In a UK context only 1997 comes anywhere near it. But that was pretty special. A country getting its smile back
1997 was after 18 years of the Tories in power, the GOP have only held the White House for 4 years so not exactly the same
But 4 Trump years have felt like 28. We have all aged like dogs since 2016.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
They're just pictures on a screen. It makes things a lot tougher and less organic.
I'm sorry you are finding it tough. Its equally a problem the other way round too. I have had some IPT (in person teaching) but its all masks on etc. Are you assigned a personal tutor for your course (Masters?) One gripe I have as someone teaching undergrads is that they do not share there screens (not sure why - possibly they are in their bedroom, esp if first years on campus) but it makes it harder for us.
We are told not to use our webcams in order to give more bandwidth to the lecturer. 🤷♂️
I have been allocated a personal tutor but there's been no contact!
The relief in America when Trump and his clan are ejected can only be imagined. Like the final scene in the Magnificent seven. Around the world the bells will be ringing. In a UK context only 1997 comes anywhere near it. But that was pretty special. A country getting its smile back
1997 was after 18 years of the Tories in power, the GOP have only held the White House for 4 years so not exactly the same
Imagine the carnage after four Trump terms. Don and Jnr
Pence would beat Jnr for the GOP nomination in 2024 even if Trump was re elected
The relief in America when Trump and his clan are ejected can only be imagined. Like the final scene in the Magnificent seven. Around the world the bells will be ringing. In a UK context only 1997 comes anywhere near it. But that was pretty special. A country getting its smile back
1997 was after 18 years of the Tories in power, the GOP have only held the White House for 4 years so not exactly the same
Imagine the carnage after four Trump terms. Don and Jnr
Pence would beat Jnr for the GOP nomination in 2024 even if Trump was re elected
That tweet is completely misleading as the question was not about "liking/disliking" a country but whether the respondent has a "positive/negative" view of them. So, for example, it is not that 61% dislike Syria but that 61% have a negative view (unsurprising as there has been a massive civil war)
One of HY's recycled tweet posts was misleading? I refuse to believe it.
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
Don't get me wrong, it is obvious that the willingness of the SC to interfere in trivial matters like this is a menace to what is laughingly called American democracy, not a bulwark of it. The inconsistency of their decisions make them look partisan and selective. The constitutional base for this involvement is highly suspect. But I am wondering if I have missed something about this particular decision that makes it so egregious.
As well as the comment others have made in reply to this about changing the rules while the election is ongoing (ie people may vote or have waited to vote by mail knowing the postmark counted now to have it changed) - there is also a key difference in that our Mail system by and large works.
If you put a letter in the post in this country it should reach the destination the next day or the day after. Since we count on a Thursday that means any votes posted by no later than the Tuesday should certainly reach the ballot box on time - and even most of those posted on the Wednesday would too (and I doubt anyone is posting on the Thursday so that's moot). So it is rather a distinction without a difference for us.
The USPS on the other hand is taking nearly a working week to process some letters at the minute - plus the fact that the election is on the Tuesday means that ballots posted tomorrow or before this weekend might not reach the ballot box by next Tuesday.
In order to have such a strict cut off you really need a working postal service.
Indeed. Also worth remembering that the large majority of postal votes are posted locally to the council office where they're headed, so it's an easy job for Royal Mail. Although, since it was opened up to take your postal vote down to the polling station on the day, it is surprising how popular this option has become.
My wife regularly forgets to post her postal vote - previous to the rule change, she tried to hand in her postal vote and was turned away.
Or both? There is a serious issue in this though - it is pertinent to know who is dying. I suspect the average age will still be around 80 or higher. Does that make it in anyway better - of course not, but it should be part of the conversation.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
They're just pictures on a screen. It makes things a lot tougher and less organic.
I'm sorry you are finding it tough. Its equally a problem the other way round too. I have had some IPT (in person teaching) but its all masks on etc. Are you assigned a personal tutor for your course (Masters?) One gripe I have as someone teaching undergrads is that they do not share there screens (not sure why - possibly they are in their bedroom, esp if first years on campus) but it makes it harder for us.
We are told not to use our webcams in order to give more bandwidth to the lecturer. 🤷♂️
I have been allocated a personal tutor but there's been no contact!
Eldest Granddaughter, a 'taught PhD' student is not enjoying much 'on-line contact 'with either supervisors or fellow students and not enjoying the course as much as she hoped. Started in Sept, so time to settle down. Granddaughter-in-law, who teaches A level is never sure whether she's going to see students 'for real' or virtually, and it's again unsettling.
Taught PhD? That seems such a strange idea. What subject?
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
Malcolm Bradbury would have some fun with today's identity and crit theory lecturers no doubt.
The Tory culture war bollox about universities being overrun by cultural Marxists hell bent on corrupting the nation's youth seems to have been based entirely on The History Man. To be fair it is a great book.
Cultural Marxism is such old hat, it's Cultural Maoism all the way, baby.
So Darren's hot take is that a fringe party registering with the Electoral Commission very probably isn't going to grab the keys to Downing Street in the foreseeable future?
Thank goodness the nation can rely on his laser-like insight and super-forecasting powers.
I suppose this doesn't bode well for quite a lot of the 351 currently registered political parties in the UK. Who's going to break it to them?
I just wonder how a radical Marxist differs from an ordinary one?
Just a hunch but I think black on the day turnout is going to be huge.
Why? I hope you are right but why?
Nothing more of a hunch, but black voters prefer to vote in person. For all the faults of the election 'on the day' itself there are loads more polling places particularly in minority areas than early voting sites.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
Malcolm Bradbury would have some fun with today's identity and crit theory lecturers no doubt.
The Tory culture war bollox about universities being overrun by cultural Marxists hell bent on corrupting the nation's youth seems to have been based entirely on The History Man. To be fair it is a great book.
Cultural Marxism is such old hat, it's Cultural Maoism all the way, baby.
So Darren's hot take is that a fringe party registering with the Electoral Commission very probably isn't going to grab the keys to Downing Street in the foreseeable future?
Thank goodness the nation can rely on his laser-like insight and super-forecasting powers.
I suppose this doesn't bode well for quite a lot of the 351 currently registered political parties in the UK. Who's going to break it to them?
I just wonder how a radical Marxist differs from an ordinary one?
The radical ones write the Conservative manifesto and/or get elevated tot he house of lords.
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
Don't get me wrong, it is obvious that the willingness of the SC to interfere in trivial matters like this is a menace to what is laughingly called American democracy, not a bulwark of it. The inconsistency of their decisions make them look partisan and selective. The constitutional base for this involvement is highly suspect. But I am wondering if I have missed something about this particular decision that makes it so egregious.
As well as the comment others have made in reply to this about changing the rules while the election is ongoing (ie people may vote or have waited to vote by mail knowing the postmark counted now to have it changed) - there is also a key difference in that our Mail system by and large works.
If you put a letter in the post in this country it should reach the destination the next day or the day after. Since we count on a Thursday that means any votes posted by no later than the Tuesday should certainly reach the ballot box on time - and even most of those posted on the Wednesday would too (and I doubt anyone is posting on the Thursday so that's moot). So it is rather a distinction without a difference for us.
The USPS on the other hand is taking nearly a working week to process some letters at the minute - plus the fact that the election is on the Tuesday means that ballots posted tomorrow or before this weekend might not reach the ballot box by next Tuesday.
In order to have such a strict cut off you really need a working postal service.
Indeed. Also worth remembering that the large majority of postal votes are posted locally to the council office where they're headed, so it's an easy job for Royal Mail. Although, since it was opened up to take your postal vote down to the polling station on the day, it is surprising how popular this option has become.
My wife regularly forgets to post her postal vote - previous to the rule change, she tried to hand in her postal vote and was turned away.
Yes, it was a good change that made it easier for people to vote without any downside other than a few seconds' more admin for the polling clerk.
It also allows people with unpredictable working lives to apply for a postal vote on the offchance and then take it to the polling station if they happen to be at home on the day.
However my instinct is that a fair few of those taking their postal votes to polling stations are people signed up by the various political parties - all of whom endeavour to get their committed supporters signed up for permanent PVs (turnout for them being nearer 80% than the usual 60%, and reducing GOTV workload on the day) - who would actually prefer to vote in person, as they always did.
Or both? There is a serious issue in this though - it is pertinent to know who is dying. I suspect the average age will still be around 80 or higher. Does that make it in anyway better - of course not, but it should be part of the conversation.
The only reason I can think of for delving into that sort of detail is to do some kind of QALY-type analysis, so work out the "price" of Covid deaths. I'm not objecting to that per se, but if that is done, it must not be a the end of the analysis. Covid bestows harm on people short of killing them, and adding that into the equation would be necessary before any conclusion is drawn about which interventions are desirable and which are not.
The relief in America when Trump and his clan are ejected can only be imagined. Like the final scene in the Magnificent seven. Around the world the bells will be ringing. In a UK context only 1997 comes anywhere near it. But that was pretty special. A country getting its smile back
Yep. If America delivers a resounding rejection of this ghastly individual - as I think they will - then that makes 2020 a great year in my book.
This is an interesting exercise by Electoral Calculus but I suspect overstates the likely impact, as it starts from an entirely clean slate and draws up seats which may be logical but depart quite a bit from the current electoral map.
In practice, the Boundary Commissions tend to shuffle based on the current map, particularly in localities where demographic change hasn't been huge and the requirements can be met by moving a ward here and there - they don't tend to shift one ward out and another in to get 100 voters closer to achieving the average electorate everywhere when they are already within the 5% margin of error. Only in localities with major demographic change do they rethink the entire thing.
For that reason, I think the Lib Dem change is particularly unlikely - their seats are very vulnerable if sliced and diced but, in practice, most of their seats are very close to (or above) the quota so won't see that much change (they could of course gain or lose based on swing, but probably not based on boundary changes alone).
The relief in America when Trump and his clan are ejected can only be imagined. Like the final scene in the Magnificent seven. Around the world the bells will be ringing. In a UK context only 1997 comes anywhere near it. But that was pretty special. A country getting its smile back
1997 was after 18 years of the Tories in power, the GOP have only held the White House for 4 years so not exactly the same
Imagine the carnage after four Trump terms. Don and Jnr
Pence would beat Jnr for the GOP nomination in 2024 even if Trump was re elected
Sorry I'm ignoring that poll as it is not from Trafalgar.
Trafalgar is relevant for the rustbelt swing states as they proved in 2016, less so for GOP primary polls, though those polls suggest if Trump loses then Mike Pence or Donald Trump Jnr will be the likely opponent for President Biden in 2024 if he seeks re election or for Vice President Harris if he does not, with a small chance of Nikki Haley if Trump-Pence is trounced and the GOP decide to pcik a moderate.
Though of course the Democrats still picked Mondale in 1984 despite Reagan's trouncing of Carter-Mondale in 1980
Maybe I am not understanding this. The decision of the Court is that votes that are date stamped the date of the election (3rd) but don't actually arrive until after the election should not be counted?
That is surely the same decision as we would make in this country. Votes that are in the post but do not arrive until after polling day don't count because they arrive too late. Of course in this country the counting would be finished before the postie was out on his rounds.
Don't get me wrong, it is obvious that the willingness of the SC to interfere in trivial matters like this is a menace to what is laughingly called American democracy, not a bulwark of it. The inconsistency of their decisions make them look partisan and selective. The constitutional base for this involvement is highly suspect. But I am wondering if I have missed something about this particular decision that makes it so egregious.
As well as the comment others have made in reply to this about changing the rules while the election is ongoing (ie people may vote or have waited to vote by mail knowing the postmark counted now to have it changed) - there is also a key difference in that our Mail system by and large works.
If you put a letter in the post in this country it should reach the destination the next day or the day after. Since we count on a Thursday that means any votes posted by no later than the Tuesday should certainly reach the ballot box on time - and even most of those posted on the Wednesday would too (and I doubt anyone is posting on the Thursday so that's moot). So it is rather a distinction without a difference for us.
The USPS on the other hand is taking nearly a working week to process some letters at the minute - plus the fact that the election is on the Tuesday means that ballots posted tomorrow or before this weekend might not reach the ballot box by next Tuesday.
In order to have such a strict cut off you really need a working postal service.
Indeed. Also worth remembering that the large majority of postal votes are posted locally to the council office where they're headed, so it's an easy job for Royal Mail. Although, since it was opened up to take your postal vote down to the polling station on the day, it is surprising how popular this option has become.
My wife regularly forgets to post her postal vote - previous to the rule change, she tried to hand in her postal vote and was turned away.
Yes, it was a good change that made it easier for people to vote without any downside other than a few seconds' more admin for the polling clerk.
It also allows people with unpredictable working lives to apply for a postal vote on the offchance and then take it to the polling station if they happen to be at home on the day.
However my instinct is that a fair few of those taking their postal votes to polling stations are people signed up by the various political parties - all of whom endeavour to get their committed supporters signed up for permanent PVs (turnout for them being nearer 80% than the usual 60%, and reducing GOTV workload on the day) - who would actually prefer to vote in person, as they always did.
I think it is more that, once signed up for permanent postal votes, people forget to undo it. And are only reminded when the postal vote lands on the doormat.
What a bizarre poll! Yougov once asked 'Is Cherie Blair more likely to make you want to vote Labour or Sandra Howard more likely to make you want to vote Conservative?' (I should say it was for the Daily Mail and Yougov were relatively new at the time and probably needed the business) But how many Leavers have been to Israel-or even left Hartlipool for that matter!
Maybe I'm missing something here, but look at this:
- The Republicans have just won a Supreme Court case preventing mail ballots received after election day in Wisconsin from being considered valid. - In a similar case, Republicans are trying to get a Supreme Court ruling that would block a Pennsylvania ballot receipt extension that would allow ballots to be counted if they are received within three days of Election Day, even without a legible postmark. - Republicans in North Carolina are asking the Supreme Court to block a nine-day extension of the counting of ballots if they are received by Election Day and reinstate a three-day extension established by the legislature last June.
At the moment, Joe Biden has a massive early- and mail-voting advantage. His supporters are returning ballots faster and in larger quantities than Trump's. But lots of Trump supporters have requested mail ballots, which they haven't yet returned (see figures on the excellent https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html). So you'd expect late mail-in ballots to be more likely to favour Trump than Biden.
Are these Republican lawsuits not aimed at their own feet?
Comments
"What the US used to have" certainly hasn't been true since the SC gutted the 14th amendment back in 1873. Much of today's complicated and contested reasoning could be argued to flow directly from the consequences of that.
So in this case the Supreme Court has made a "Supreme Courts can't just pull rules out of their arses" rule, which if followed consistently might not be unreasonable. The hitch is that it's not clear that they intend to follow it consistently, starting with the fact that the "Supreme Courts can't just pull rules out of their arses" rule was itself pulled out of the Supreme Court's arse.
The biggest problem with online-only learning is that you have no "relationship" with any of the teaching staff.
They're just pictures on a screen. It makes things a lot tougher and less organic.
Covid: Antibodies 'fall rapidly after infection'
"The Imperial College London team found the number of people testing positive for antibodies has fallen by 26% between June and September. They say immunity appears to be fading and there is a risk of catching the virus multiple times."
All in all, not a pleasant outlook.
Be interesting to see how long vaccine-induced immunity lasts, hopefully longer, but will be one of the things that needs to be assessed. Repeat vaccination is of course feasible at least, more so than repeat let-it-rip!
We need to change the law. The law now says.... And the originalists can now go to work on your re-written law.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-herd-immunity-immune-response-antibodies
It seems likely that antibody levels will decline after exposure, but this doesnt necessarily mean people don't have immunity. As the article says, "immunity" doesn't necessarily mean you will be completely unaffected by subsequent exposure; more likely you'll be better equipped to fend off the virus and hence any symptoms will be mild. AIUI this appears to be the case in most of the still small number of recorded cases of apparent second infections.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1320918861462573056?s=19
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1320919469670191104?s=19
I have been allocated a personal tutor but there's been no contact!
I found this article that contains figures for Florida and they seem to match that site, so I guess they are using legitimate data:
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-politics-florida-elections-509ad83f6d40e08fb715da44548f62e0
If Trump is around 350,000 behind in Florida at the moment then 4/5 for him to turn it around sounds like a decent bet.
If you put a letter in the post in this country it should reach the destination the next day or the day after. Since we count on a Thursday that means any votes posted by no later than the Tuesday should certainly reach the ballot box on time - and even most of those posted on the Wednesday would too (and I doubt anyone is posting on the Thursday so that's moot). So it is rather a distinction without a difference for us.
The USPS on the other hand is taking nearly a working week to process some letters at the minute - plus the fact that the election is on the Tuesday means that ballots posted tomorrow or before this weekend might not reach the ballot box by next Tuesday.
In order to have such a strict cut off you really need a working postal service.
https://twitter.com/darrengrimes_/status/1320738057188986887?s=19
In short, politicians have largely brought this on themselves by not really understanding the difference between law and policy. All I was doing was pointing out that rule by Judges is not necessarily the nirvana that many seem to assume. No one voted for Lord Reed and he is not subject to the ballot box. Within his sphere that is entirely right.
The Court may act restrained while the Democrats are in control of the Oval Office and Congress so as not to provoke packing, but the GOP will regain control of either the Senate or the Oval Office before very long (possibly by the midterms) at which point there is absolutely no incentive for the Court to remain restrained in how it acts and the Democrats will have missed the window to fix it.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/senate/2020_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html
However, there could also be a tighter than expected race in Massachussetts, a recent poll put Markey only on 50% after beating Joe Kennedy III for the Democratic nomination with GOP candidate Kevin O'Connor on 40%
https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2020/10/05/markey-v-oconnor-for-the-challenger-one-big-chance-to-reshape-the-us-senate-race
It may be some Kennedy primary voters in Massachussetts will vote Biden for President but for the relatively moderate O'Connor for Senate rather than the far left backed Markey
(i) the personal tutor is a bit rubbish and doesn't care and or/is overloaded in which case you wouldn't get a lot meeting in person anyway, but complain
(ii) the department communication is poor and the personal tutor either has not been told they are your tutor or it has been buried in a seemingly irrelevant email or similar communications break down.
When I first started in my current department, I was allocated as a masters supervisor, replacing someone who was leaving, but none of the details were passed on to me, not even the fact I was a supervisor. I got a call from the other supervisor ten minutes or so in to the first meeting with the student after I joined, asking where I was - first I'd heard of any of it!
I have doubts about the quality of House level polls. But, if you take them seriously, it probably is consistent with Republicans doing a little worse in competititve seats than you'd expect from the national picture.
Thank goodness the nation can rely on his laser-like insight and super-forecasting powers.
I suppose this doesn't bode well for quite a lot of the 351 currently registered political parties in the UK. Who's going to break it to them?
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1321028037975179269?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1321028049744351233?s=20
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1321028375864115200
What happened to gratitude?
He says that the highest volume, by far, of polling in American politics is on Congressional races. And that as a result it is by far the most sophisticated and accurate. Due to his role at the Cook Rpeort he gets to see lots of private polling that isn't publicly released.
This was quite a revelation to me as mentally I had bucketed CD polls the same as UK Constriuency polls but Wasserman states otherwise.
https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/1321020741438054401
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1213688315213471744?s=20
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1294045129834213382?s=20
BUT this time around, the GOP need a 2-to-1 differential - something like that - on the day. Could we at least spot if that happens, I wonder?
There is a serious issue in this though - it is pertinent to know who is dying. I suspect the average age will still be around 80 or higher. Does that make it in anyway better - of course not, but it should be part of the conversation.
It also allows people with unpredictable working lives to apply for a postal vote on the offchance and then take it to the polling station if they happen to be at home on the day.
However my instinct is that a fair few of those taking their postal votes to polling stations are people signed up by the various political parties - all of whom endeavour to get their committed supporters signed up for permanent PVs (turnout for them being nearer 80% than the usual 60%, and reducing GOTV workload on the day) - who would actually prefer to vote in person, as they always did.
In practice, the Boundary Commissions tend to shuffle based on the current map, particularly in localities where demographic change hasn't been huge and the requirements can be met by moving a ward here and there - they don't tend to shift one ward out and another in to get 100 voters closer to achieving the average electorate everywhere when they are already within the 5% margin of error. Only in localities with major demographic change do they rethink the entire thing.
For that reason, I think the Lib Dem change is particularly unlikely - their seats are very vulnerable if sliced and diced but, in practice, most of their seats are very close to (or above) the quota so won't see that much change (they could of course gain or lose based on swing, but probably not based on boundary changes alone).
Though of course the Democrats still picked Mondale in 1984 despite Reagan's trouncing of Carter-Mondale in 1980
- The Republicans have just won a Supreme Court case preventing mail ballots received after election day in Wisconsin from being considered valid.
- In a similar case, Republicans are trying to get a Supreme Court ruling that would block a Pennsylvania ballot receipt extension that would allow ballots to be counted if they are received within three days of Election Day, even without a legible postmark.
- Republicans in North Carolina are asking the Supreme Court to block a nine-day extension of the counting of ballots if they are received by Election Day and reinstate a three-day extension established by the legislature last June.
(all from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/oct/26/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-vote-confirmation-donald-trump-joe-biden-latest-elections-live-news)
At the moment, Joe Biden has a massive early- and mail-voting advantage. His supporters are returning ballots faster and in larger quantities than Trump's. But lots of Trump supporters have requested mail ballots, which they haven't yet returned (see figures on the excellent https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html). So you'd expect late mail-in ballots to be more likely to favour Trump than Biden.
Are these Republican lawsuits not aimed at their own feet?