By the way, the utterly vile 'Bobby Sands' trend yesterday from Rangers football fans* is a reminder that whilst we may look in sanctimonious horror at Trump's sectarianism, it exists in the UK not so far from the surface.
It's why the Northern Ireland peace process culminating in the Good Friday Agreement must never be sacrificed on the altar of far right ideology.
Joe Biden and the EU will ensure it isn't.
(* 8-0 = Ate-Nothing = Bobby Sands.)
Not sure I understand how Brexit is 'far-right'. By definition far right is a form of extreme nationalism, which by virtue of it winning a referendum Brexit cannot be. Neither does it seem to be excessively nativistic since we seem to want to swap a trade and political arrangement with the EU for different ones including with Japan. Finally I cannot see how Brexit is authoritarian in itself.
Could you have just said right wing ideology? Is there a need to ramp it up into something it is not?
Regarding the Rangers/Bobby Sands stuff - this must be really heavily ingrained and passed down the generations because anyone much younger than me would not remember Bobby Sands and it took me a few minutes for the 8 - 0 to have any meaning.
I'm pretty sure they don't teach it in church but culturally and probably geographically groups tend to congregate. It is in the schoolyard, on the terraces and in the pubs it is handed down. The fact is that in certain circles this kind of racism is acceptable.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
Does it cost money?
The only rational explanation for Trump's behavior is that he is chronically strapped for cash and needs to buy time.
Btw, he is still President and the pandemic is worsening. Nobody seems to be worrying about his lack of attention to that. He's a criminal, in substance if not before the law.
Apparently the recount in Georgia is on the house.
Wisconsin charges 3 million dollars. The Trump campaign says they're going to ask for a recount there, but so far they haven't sent the money...
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to EU membership.
I think the biggest county swing to Biden/Democrats in 2024 will be Miami Dade if Trump isn't running again. I think Trump had a good deal of appeal to cuban American/venezuelan men in particular who'd rather have a right wing strongman in than socialism. Not sure the next GOP candidate gets that vote out again. Particularly after 4 years of Biden results in nothing like socialism.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Internationally red is used for left of centre parties, so: It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the american parties could switch their colours.
But the Democrats aren't left of centre on international terms.
Unlike Steve Bannon, friend of the Tory leadership over here, calling for named individuals to be beheaded.
Yeah, but you see that sort of tit-for-tat just perpetuates it.
This is where I think social media is a real problem. I bet there are only a few examples of this, and most people will strongly agree with it, but everyone has a camera/video now and it only takes one instance to get captured & uploaded, and it will go viral.
We know that it's the most extreme/outrageous things that are shared most widely on social media, by both sides as they comment and respond to (and attack) each other with it. So it drives polarisation and fury. This doesn't work with the more nuanced and objective truth, because it's rather boring, and far fewer are interested.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Internationally red is used for left of centre parties, so: It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the american parties could switch their colours.
They used to alternate - the GOP were blue in 1980:
Mrs RP has just arrived home. Covid outbreak in one of the classes she works with. Hasn't seem that bubble since last Tuesday but they've all been sent home and after a little bit of confusion she now has been as well. Her small primary school have now got 5 members of the teaching staff sent home after potential Covid contacts.
SKS was on LBC today and was asked about going against the unions by recommending schools stay open. He answered competently (lost generation, attainment gap, etc).
Do we know the Covid casualty/infection rate amongst teachers?
I think the schools need to be open. But the protections for staff and students were not enough - its only after this half term that my middle son's academy finally made it mandatory for students to wear masks despite it tearing through the school. And if you think about it we need to protect staff from it because if the staff go home then the kids have to as well.
My wife's school now has 5 teaching staff in isolation. She can't get a test as no symptoms. If she got a negative test she would still have to isolate for 14 days regardless (she found out today and today is day 6 of her 14 days of isolation...). And the school has run out of money for supply staff which means when they run out of staff the kids go home.
Yes absolutely agree about having to protect teachers because as you say, if they aren't there then the school must close.
I just wondered what was the incidence of teachers becoming ill as a result of Covid.
I only have anecdotage. All 3 schools we have kids/wife in have kids & staff members off. My friend in Newcastle has 3 friends who are teachers in different schools who are off.
By the way, the utterly vile 'Bobby Sands' trend yesterday from Rangers football fans* is a reminder that whilst we may look in sanctimonious horror at Trump's sectarianism, it exists in the UK not so far from the surface.
It's why the Northern Ireland peace process culminating in the Good Friday Agreement must never be sacrificed on the altar of far right ideology.
Joe Biden and the EU will ensure it isn't.
(* 8-0 = Ate-Nothing = Bobby Sands.)
Not sure I understand how Brexit is 'far-right'. By definition far right is a form of extreme nationalism, which by virtue of it winning a referendum Brexit cannot be. Neither does it seem to be excessively nativistic since we seem to want to swap a trade and political arrangement with the EU for different ones including with Japan. Finally I cannot see how Brexit is authoritarian in itself.
Could you have just said right wing ideology? Is there a need to ramp it up into something it is not?
Regarding the Rangers/Bobby Sands stuff - this must be really heavily ingrained and passed down the generations because anyone much younger than me would not remember Bobby Sands and it took me a few minutes for the 8 - 0 to have any meaning.
I'm pretty sure they don't teach it in church but culturally and probably geographically groups tend to congregate. It is in the schoolyard, on the terraces and in the pubs it is handed down. The fact is that in certain circles this kind of racism is acceptable.
Not 100% sure it is racism.
Politicism, religiousism perhaps. Ethnicism for sure.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
Putin - effective - has to be scored very highly Putin - force for good - would of course be scored badly
Shows that people are mixing up being a force for good, likeability and effective leaders, not just judging effective leadership.
I totally disagree, Putin has not been an effective leader.
He's been effective at being a dictator and securing his grip but he's been a terrible leader for Russia. The Russian economy is stagnating and dire, he's done absolutely nothing to develop his nation which is only staying afloat by exporting gas - as the world moves to zero carbon Russia is frankly doomed by his malfeasance. Russia is an impoverished backwater and Putin is condemning it to decades of penury to come.
All you say is here is true, but he's also rolled back Western influence in the Caucasus and the Middle East, and partly through the use of brutal ruthlessness in Syria, and KGB-derived information and subversion techniques on the internet, been extremely effective at making this middle-ranking nation punch above his weight, and restore some of its sense of prestige and pride. That matters a lot to a lot of people.
Domestically he's achieved little but restore order and redress some parts of the social damage of the 1990s ; but, don't forget, that in the 1990s, when the West fluffed its opportunity to bring it into the fold, parts of Russia's legal and social fabric were in a state of absolute collapse.
Putin - effective - has to be scored very highly Putin - force for good - would of course be scored badly
Shows that people are mixing up being a force for good, likeability and effective leaders, not just judging effective leadership.
It's absurd that Nigel Farage is not listed if achieving political aims is a criterion.
Yes we have been here before. Much as I might detest him you can not get away from how effective he has been. And again much as I don't want him in the HofL it is difficult to justify how he hasn't been appointed compared to many of those that have.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Internationally red is used for left of centre parties, so: It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the american parties could switch their colours.
They used to alternate - the GOP were blue in 1980:
Mrs RP has just arrived home. Covid outbreak in one of the classes she works with. Hasn't seem that bubble since last Tuesday but they've all been sent home and after a little bit of confusion she now has been as well. Her small primary school have now got 5 members of the teaching staff sent home after potential Covid contacts.
SKS was on LBC today and was asked about going against the unions by recommending schools stay open. He answered competently (lost generation, attainment gap, etc).
Do we know the Covid casualty/infection rate amongst teachers?
I think the schools need to be open. But the protections for staff and students were not enough - its only after this half term that my middle son's academy finally made it mandatory for students to wear masks despite it tearing through the school. And if you think about it we need to protect staff from it because if the staff go home then the kids have to as well.
My wife's school now has 5 teaching staff in isolation. She can't get a test as no symptoms. If she got a negative test she would still have to isolate for 14 days regardless (she found out today and today is day 6 of her 14 days of isolation...). And the school has run out of money for supply staff which means when they run out of staff the kids go home.
"She can't get a test as no symptoms. If she got a negative test she would still have to isolate for 14 days regardless " In Germany, teachers have an exception here. For most people, if you want your insurance to pay for the test (same for public or private health insurance) you need to have permission from a GP, which usually means you have symptoms. Teachers get free testing, for any reason. After a negative test (result within 24 hours) the teacher goes back to the classroom.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
Does it cost money?
The only rational explanation for Trump's behavior is that he is chronically strapped for cash and needs to buy time.
Btw, he is still President and the pandemic is worsening. Nobody seems to be worrying about his lack of attention to that. He's a criminal, in substance if not before the law.
Apparently the recount in Georgia is on the house.
Wisconsin charges 3 million dollars. The Trump campaign says they're going to ask for a recount there, but so far they haven't sent the money...
The Chief Financial Accountant in Wisconsin should make sure he gets the money in advance.
It's a good question, and very much similar to one to that I had to consider when studying the history of Weimar Republic at university some 40 years ago. The answer is that: 1. Given the right leader, fascists can frame an electoral appeal to peoples' darker side which can override all moral norms that involves buying into even the most outlandish claims made to justify such behaviour. 2. Ambitious politicians of the right who should know better will go along with fascism in order to try and further their own careers (cf. von Papen then, the Republican heirarchy now).
Very good thoughts indeed. Hope you got a good degree.
Thanks. To be honest, I always found it quite difficult to understand just how vulnerable the democratic institutions of Germany were to the appeal of fascism. Yes, the economic circumstances were extreme and the political deadlock didn't help, but that didn't explain it on its own. Now it's crystal clear, having seen how a single person has managed to appeal to so many through a very similarly framed divisive appeal with complete disregard of truth even when that is patently at odds with democratic norms.
The US has for now had a near miss. However, in extending the parallel, let's not forget that the NSDAP also had a setback and went backwards in the election of November 1932. The institutions of the Weimar Republic including the conservative political heirarchy and judiciary remained of the view that Hitler was useful to them, and that gave him a route back. No-one is going to advance in today's Republican Party unless they go along with Trump.
There is an interesting cultural comparison there - the Prussians were seen as the very traditional elitists and were usurped by those they thought they controlled. Franz von Papen thought he had 'hired' Hitler and his thugs who were essentially similar to them!
What might now happen? Well similar to the 1930s we are going to see expanding unemployment. Probably election in America is too expensive for an extremist to get involved, however it only needs one eccentric billionaire to make it happen.
Look, I'm sorry this whole "America could have gone the way of 1930s Germany" is an absolute crock of bullsh1t for a number of reasons:
First is that power in the US is devolved on multiple levels and the system was built expressly designed to stop the concentration of power in hands. For someone wanting to control the US in the way Hitler did, they would have to win enough seats and votes not only to control both Houses of Congress but multiple levels of state government to change the constitution and drive through an agenda.
Second, the US military forces are now the Reichswehr of 1920s and 1930s Germany, They do not get involved in politics or try to become the country's top politician (as happened in Germany in the 1930s). They stay very well out and it is absolute a certainty that they would stop any descent into non-democracy.
Third, it wasn't just the unemployment rate that did for German democracy, or even the burden of war loans, but the hyperinflation which wiped out not only the savings of many Germans but also the value of their War Bonds, which many patriotic Germans (especially the middle classes) had held in World War I.
There are obvious examples where there has been a regression to non-democracy (e.g. Russia) without trying to make up an example of the US. Arguably, you might say that Obama's use of Executive Decrees to push through what he wanted was more of a threat to the US system - this was exactly the same thing that was used at the end of the Weimar Republic to push through Government policy.
It's a good question, and very much similar to one to that I had to consider when studying the history of Weimar Republic at university some 40 years ago. The answer is that: 1. Given the right leader, fascists can frame an electoral appeal to peoples' darker side which can override all moral norms that involves buying into even the most outlandish claims made to justify such behaviour. 2. Ambitious politicians of the right who should know better will go along with fascism in order to try and further their own careers (cf. von Papen then, the Republican heirarchy now).
Very good thoughts indeed. Hope you got a good degree.
Thanks. To be honest, I always found it quite difficult to understand just how vulnerable the democratic institutions of Germany were to the appeal of fascism. Yes, the economic circumstances were extreme and the political deadlock didn't help, but that didn't explain it on its own. Now it's crystal clear, having seen how a single person has managed to appeal to so many through a very similarly framed divisive appeal with complete disregard of truth even when that is patently at odds with democratic norms.
The US has for now had a near miss. However, in extending the parallel, let's not forget that the NSDAP also had a setback and went backwards in the election of November 1932. The institutions of the Weimar Republic including the conservative political heirarchy and judiciary remained of the view that Hitler was useful to them, and that gave him a route back. No-one is going to advance in today's Republican Party unless they go along with Trump.
There is an interesting cultural comparison there - the Prussians were seen as the very traditional elitists and were usurped by those they thought they controlled. Franz von Papen thought he had 'hired' Hitler and his thugs who were essentially similar to them!
What might now happen? Well similar to the 1930s we are going to see expanding unemployment. Probably election in America is too expensive for an extremist to get involved, however it only needs one eccentric billionaire to make it happen.
Look, I'm sorry this whole "America could have gone the way of 1930s Germany" is an absolute crock of bullsh1t for a number of reasons:
First is that power in the US is devolved on multiple levels and the system was built expressly designed to stop the concentration of power in hands. For someone wanting to control the US in the way Hitler did, they would have to win enough seats and votes not only to control both Houses of Congress but multiple levels of state government to change the constitution and drive through an agenda.
Second, the US military forces are now the Reichswehr of 1920s and 1930s Germany, They do not get involved in politics or try to become the country's top politician (as happened in Germany in the 1930s). They stay very well out and it is absolute a certainty that they would stop any descent into non-democracy.
Third, it wasn't just the unemployment rate that did for German democracy, or even the burden of war loans, but the hyperinflation which wiped out not only the savings of many Germans but also the value of their War Bonds, which many patriotic Germans (especially the middle classes) had held in World War I.
There are obvious examples where there has been a regression to non-democracy (e.g. Russia) without trying to make up an example of the US. Arguably, you might say that Obama's use of Executive Decrees to push through what he wanted was more of a threat to the US system - this was exactly the same thing that was used at the end of the Weimar Republic to push through Government policy.
Sorry I should have said the US military is NOT the Reichswehr!!!!
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Internationally red is used for left of centre parties, so: It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the american parties could switch their colours.
They used to alternate - the GOP were blue in 1980:
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
Given your propensity to argue both ends against the middle on any subject short of Number Theory or Quantum Physics, it is very easy for you to come across as an anarchist.
Interesting, I see, that the Lincoln Project folks are not wrapping up as job done with Trump gone (pending legal challenges), but are fundraising for efforts in the Georgia Senate runoffs.
It'd be great if the Dems could win one or both of them, though there's a somewhat funny mixture of elements here, since it seems like part of Biden's pitch is he is pretty moderate, but others make the point that the Dems cannot do some of the more drastic things they want to do if they don't win those seats, and I'm sure the more radical elements are pushing hard about what they could do if they take them.
They cant do radical things with 50-50, Joe Manchin is no radical and needs re-election in West Virginia.
Getting to 50-50 or at least 49-51 stops the senate being obstructionist, it doesnt allow the president to be radical.
And note "radical" here would mean well to the right of a Cameron conservative government.
No, the radical Democratic far left like AOC belong in Corbyn Labour they have nothing in common with Cameron, even Biden is a friend of Kinnock and would comfortably slot into Starmer Labour.
Interestingly this is now the first time since 1989-1990 that the UK has a significantly more rightwing PM than the US President, when Thatcher was PM and Bush Snr was US President and the gap is even wider between Boris and Biden than it was between them (taking Cameron and May and Major only to be fractionally to the right of Obama and Bill Clinton and in some cases not much different at all).
Indeed much as in 1990 many Reagan Republicans wished they had Maggie as President instead of the ultra moderate, wet George HW Bush so now many Trump Republicans are already saying they wish they had Boris as President instead of Biden
"Interestingly this is now the first time since 1989-1990 that the UK has a significantly more rightwing PM than the US President," Pedantic I know, but now is not the first time, January 20th will be the first time.
I don't think he'll manage it but Trump came bloody close to being the USA's first dictator.
He came nowhere near it. Nowhere.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
Donald Trump was a wannabe fascist, no question about it. What stopped him was the inconvenient need to be reelected. This was ultimately all that separated him from the group of gangster Strongmen he patently adored and respected and spent so much time seeking to ape and emulate. The Xis. The Putins. The MBSs. The Bolsonaros. The Kims. It was for me one of the saddest things about Trump. In 2016 he came from nowhere to win the highest elected office on the planet, the presidency of the United States, a remarkable achievement, and yet he took no pride in it. He held no reverence for the position or for the democratic process that put him there. It was a poor second best to what he believed he ought to be - a proper dictator. You could see it plainly in his interactions with Putin in particular. Like a drooling puppy with his master. Not because Vlad had the goods on him - conspiracy theory nonsense - but because he idolized this short & balding but hard little geezer who was everything that he Donald wished to be. The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
Putin - effective - has to be scored very highly Putin - force for good - would of course be scored badly
Shows that people are mixing up being a force for good, likeability and effective leaders, not just judging effective leadership.
I totally disagree, Putin has not been an effective leader.
He's been effective at being a dictator and securing his grip but he's been a terrible leader for Russia. The Russian economy is stagnating and dire, he's done absolutely nothing to develop his nation which is only staying afloat by exporting gas - as the world moves to zero carbon Russia is frankly doomed by his malfeasance. Russia is an impoverished backwater and Putin is condemning it to decades of penury to come.
All you say is here is true, but he's also rolled back Western influence in the Caucasus and the Middle East, and partly through the use of brutal ruthlessness in Syria, and KGB-derived information and subversion techniques on the internet, been extremely effective at making this middle-ranking nation punch above his weight, and restore some of its sense of prestige and pride. That matters a lot to a lot of people.
Domestically he's achieved little but restore order and redress some parts of the social damage of the 1990s ; but, don't forget, that in the 1990s, when the West fluffed its opportunity to bring it into the fold, parts of Russia's legal and social fabric were in a state of absolute collapse.
Indeed on the international stage he's done the sort of stuff that makes hardmen like him keep up the facade of effectiveness. So too for a while did Robert Mugabe.
But you can't defeat economics. His nation is not developing and he is more the Wizard of Oz keeping up appearances than an actual effective leader - there is nothing behind the mask.
The move to zero carbon should be done for geopolitical reasons as much as economic ones. Russia is doomed once the west stops buying its gas.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
Given your propensity to argue both ends against the middle on any subject short of Number Theory or Quantum Physics, it is very easy for you to come across as an anarchist.
I'm afraid I missed the PB coversation on Number Theory.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Mrs RP has just arrived home. Covid outbreak in one of the classes she works with. Hasn't seem that bubble since last Tuesday but they've all been sent home and after a little bit of confusion she now has been as well. Her small primary school have now got 5 members of the teaching staff sent home after potential Covid contacts.
SKS was on LBC today and was asked about going against the unions by recommending schools stay open. He answered competently (lost generation, attainment gap, etc).
Do we know the Covid casualty/infection rate amongst teachers?
I think the schools need to be open. But the protections for staff and students were not enough - its only after this half term that my middle son's academy finally made it mandatory for students to wear masks despite it tearing through the school. And if you think about it we need to protect staff from it because if the staff go home then the kids have to as well.
My wife's school now has 5 teaching staff in isolation. She can't get a test as no symptoms. If she got a negative test she would still have to isolate for 14 days regardless (she found out today and today is day 6 of her 14 days of isolation...). And the school has run out of money for supply staff which means when they run out of staff the kids go home.
Yes absolutely agree about having to protect teachers because as you say, if they aren't there then the school must close.
I just wondered what was the incidence of teachers becoming ill as a result of Covid.
I only have anecdotage. All 3 schools we have kids/wife in have kids & staff members off. My friend in Newcastle has 3 friends who are teachers in different schools who are off.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
Given your propensity to argue both ends against the middle on any subject short of Number Theory or Quantum Physics, it is very easy for you to come across as an anarchist.
I'm afraid I missed the PB coversation on Number Theory.
Mrs RP has just arrived home. Covid outbreak in one of the classes she works with. Hasn't seem that bubble since last Tuesday but they've all been sent home and after a little bit of confusion she now has been as well. Her small primary school have now got 5 members of the teaching staff sent home after potential Covid contacts.
SKS was on LBC today and was asked about going against the unions by recommending schools stay open. He answered competently (lost generation, attainment gap, etc).
Do we know the Covid casualty/infection rate amongst teachers?
I think the schools need to be open. But the protections for staff and students were not enough - its only after this half term that my middle son's academy finally made it mandatory for students to wear masks despite it tearing through the school. And if you think about it we need to protect staff from it because if the staff go home then the kids have to as well.
My wife's school now has 5 teaching staff in isolation. She can't get a test as no symptoms. If she got a negative test she would still have to isolate for 14 days regardless (she found out today and today is day 6 of her 14 days of isolation...). And the school has run out of money for supply staff which means when they run out of staff the kids go home.
"She can't get a test as no symptoms. If she got a negative test she would still have to isolate for 14 days regardless " In Germany, teachers have an exception here. For most people, if you want your insurance to pay for the test (same for public or private health insurance) you need to have permission from a GP, which usually means you have symptoms. Teachers get free testing, for any reason. After a negative test (result within 24 hours) the teacher goes back to the classroom.
There seems to be a distrust by the authorities here of their own tests. If a negative test means that you have to keep isolating its because they don't trust that the test was accurate. Which explains a lot of our problems if you think about it...!
I don't think he'll manage it but Trump came bloody close to being the USA's first dictator.
He came nowhere near it. Nowhere.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
In the end, it isn't going to be all that close - about 5m PVs and 70 ECVs. There have been many Presidential contests much closer than that, including his previous win.
Very much so. However the federal agencies are refusing so far to sign off on the transition (ostensibly this appears to be because Trump has not yet conceded) and I think we are going to see a very nasty few weeks that will prove all along what a lot of commentators said before this vote: that the US governmental machinery is predicated on the goodwill of the incumbent in committing to the peaceful transfer of power. It is possible to see Trump running this gambit until the electors convene in December, at least.
... The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
I think that just about sums him up. Perhaps we should be grateful that he was a 3rd rater? Can you imagine what things would have been like if he had become a competent fascist?
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Internationally red is used for left of centre parties, so: It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the american parties could switch their colours.
But the Democrats aren't left of centre on international terms.
Agreed. But red for the Republicans is clearly out of kilter with most of the rest of the world. No wait. The republicans are out of kilter with most of the rest of the world.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
As I understand it you didn't like the loss of sovereignty.
I appreciate what you are saying, but scientists and politicians would reply it is about where you are 3 to 4 weeks after measures, not immediate. Like, slamming your breaks on your car, you don’t stop in the same yard but many yards ahead depending on how fast it is going?
If this is true it would be useful if media and everyone commentating was on that page, rather than spouting misinformation?
... The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
I think that just about sums him up. Perhaps we should be grateful that he was a 3rd rater? Can you imagine what things would have been like if he had become a competent fascist?
The danger is he has opened the door to competent fascists in the future.
I think the biggest county swing to Biden/Democrats in 2024 will be Miami Dade if Trump isn't running again. I think Trump had a good deal of appeal to cuban American/venezuelan men in particular who'd rather have a right wing strongman in than socialism. Not sure the next GOP candidate gets that vote out again. Particularly after 4 years of Biden results in nothing like socialism.
Also I guess there will be more disinformation response in 2024. @thegrugq has a load of stuff on what happened this time - allegedly foreign interference from RussiaChina Colombia!
Mrs RP has just arrived home. Covid outbreak in one of the classes she works with. Hasn't seem that bubble since last Tuesday but they've all been sent home and after a little bit of confusion she now has been as well. Her small primary school have now got 5 members of the teaching staff sent home after potential Covid contacts.
SKS was on LBC today and was asked about going against the unions by recommending schools stay open. He answered competently (lost generation, attainment gap, etc).
Do we know the Covid casualty/infection rate amongst teachers?
I think the schools need to be open. But the protections for staff and students were not enough - its only after this half term that my middle son's academy finally made it mandatory for students to wear masks despite it tearing through the school. And if you think about it we need to protect staff from it because if the staff go home then the kids have to as well.
My wife's school now has 5 teaching staff in isolation. She can't get a test as no symptoms. If she got a negative test she would still have to isolate for 14 days regardless (she found out today and today is day 6 of her 14 days of isolation...). And the school has run out of money for supply staff which means when they run out of staff the kids go home.
Yes absolutely agree about having to protect teachers because as you say, if they aren't there then the school must close.
I just wondered what was the incidence of teachers becoming ill as a result of Covid.
I only have anecdotage. All 3 schools we have kids/wife in have kids & staff members off. My friend in Newcastle has 3 friends who are teachers in different schools who are off.
Off = ill?
Nope. In isolation without symptoms as I understand it. Not having Covid is a Good Thing. But from a school perspective losing staff to Covid or losing them to *possible* Covid is the same thing
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
As I understand it you didn't like the loss of sovereignty.
What actually was it? The colour of the flag?
Then you haven't understood anything I've ever written, I was never against the EU on principle like that.
Prior to the referendum I thought it worth paying the price of pooling our sovereignty for economic advantages but I have long thought the EU is not an effective organisation and during the campaign became convinced that the UK could better manage its own sovereignty. That pooling was no longer worth it. That is a judgement, the UK I think will be economically better off treating the EU as our neighbours that we trade with instead of being a member of the EU. If I thought otherwise I might have voted Remain. I am not a die-hard extremist.
Theresa May's backstop was a worse breach of sovereignty for me than EU membership was which is why I vehemently opposed that.
... The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
I think that just about sums him up. Perhaps we should be grateful that he was a 3rd rater? Can you imagine what things would have been like if he had become a competent fascist?
This is so, so true.
And the really scary thing is that at some time in the foreseeable future the American HItler will emerge.
Maybe in the next 20 years, maybe in the next 200. But there is nothing in the US system to stop him*
That does seem to be the preferred usage, but I find it a bit annoying in English, where we generally don't change endings according to gender (we would say "bravo" to both men and women without any issue), and have tended to move away from eg gendered job titles. I guess it's because so many Latinas/Latinos in the US are also Spanish-speaking that English has adopted Spanish morphology here... I've seen Latinx but how do you even pronounce that?
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
Does it cost money?
The only rational explanation for Trump's behavior is that he is chronically strapped for cash and needs to buy time.
Btw, he is still President and the pandemic is worsening. Nobody seems to be worrying about his lack of attention to that. He's a criminal, in substance if not before the law.
I had stopped posting on the USA figures, but now you mention it the daily cases are absolutely rocketing. It looks like new records are going to be hit this week. There were fears it could reach 100K/day. We are well passed that. It will probably hit 150K on at least one day this week.
Deaths are also on the up. 5 days last week well over 1K.
A point I made on the virus in the USA some weeks back attracted little attention so I'll have another go to see if it resonates now.
If you go to the figures on the Worldometer site and rank the USA States in order of cases per 1m population, you see the Red States have been hit much harder than the Blue ones.
Top of the list is North Dakota, followed by South D. Iowa is next, then Wisconsin (was red now blue). You then get a string of red States until you get to Ilinois in 14th place and then Georgia 15th.
I think we can assume the virus doesn't know how to distinguish a Republican from a Democrat, so the list provides pretty clear evidence that over time the failure of Republican States and Republican supporters to take the virus seriously is showing clearly in relative sickness rates.
One is tempted to suggest Biden should let the virus rip so the Grim Reaper can tip the balance a bit more for him, but that would be a bit cynical and he has said he is President for all Americans.
That does seem to be the preferred usage, but I find it a bit annoying in English, where we generally don't change endings according to gender (we would say "bravo" to both men and women without any issue), and have tended to move away from eg gendered job titles. I guess it's because so many Latinas/Latinos in the US are also Spanish-speaking that English has adopted Spanish morphology here... I've seen Latinx but how do you even pronounce that?
... The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
I think that just about sums him up. Perhaps we should be grateful that he was a 3rd rater? Can you imagine what things would have been like if he had become a competent fascist?
This is so, so true.
And the really scary thing is that at some time in the foreseeable future the American HItler will emerge.
Maybe in the next 20 years, maybe in the next 200. But there is nothing in the US system to stop him*
(*Or her, but most likely a 'him').
you could say the same about the UK, who would have stopped PM Jezza ?
that the US governmental machinery is predicated on the goodwill of the incumbent in committing to the peaceful transfer of power.
I think we will find that's true of a lot of countries and may need to change.
The problem being what is the foolproof system that solves that issue?
Constitutional monarchy helps on that front, but it is predicated on the monarch being above board and impartial.
Essentially in any system you rely on the individuals involved following precedent and good sportsmanship. Once that frays it is very difficult to get back. This is why the current situation in the US is so dangerous, not necessarily for this cycle (I don’t think there’s any doubt Trump is going to be evicted and turfed out eventually) but it makes it so much easier, bit by bit, to erode the process so that eventually someone is able to take advantage.
I don't think he'll manage it but Trump came bloody close to being the USA's first dictator.
He came nowhere near it. Nowhere.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
In the end, it isn't going to be all that close - about 5m PVs and 70 ECVs. There have been many Presidential contests much closer than that, including his previous win.
Very much so. However the federal agencies are refusing so far to sign off on the transition (ostensibly this appears to be because Trump has not yet conceded) and I think we are going to see a very nasty few weeks that will prove all along what a lot of commentators said before this vote: that the US governmental machinery is predicated on the goodwill of the incumbent in committing to the peaceful transfer of power. It is possible to see Trump running this gambit until the electors convene in December, at least.
The question will be are there sufficient states where (a) people voted Biden, (b) its a Republican governor, and (c) there are no legal penalties for faithless electors to have "rogue" electors appointed to vote Trump in enough numbers to overturn the result.
Interesting, I see, that the Lincoln Project folks are not wrapping up as job done with Trump gone (pending legal challenges), but are fundraising for efforts in the Georgia Senate runoffs.
It'd be great if the Dems could win one or both of them, though there's a somewhat funny mixture of elements here, since it seems like part of Biden's pitch is he is pretty moderate, but others make the point that the Dems cannot do some of the more drastic things they want to do if they don't win those seats, and I'm sure the more radical elements are pushing hard about what they could do if they take them.
They cant do radical things with 50-50, Joe Manchin is no radical and needs re-election in West Virginia.
Getting to 50-50 or at least 49-51 stops the senate being obstructionist, it doesnt allow the president to be radical.
And note "radical" here would mean well to the right of a Cameron conservative government.
No, the radical Democratic far left like AOC belong in Corbyn Labour they have nothing in common with Cameron, even Biden is a friend of Kinnock and would comfortably slot into Starmer Labour.
Interestingly this is now the first time since 1989-1990 that the UK has a significantly more rightwing PM than the US President, when Thatcher was PM and Bush Snr was US President and the gap is even wider between Boris and Biden than it was between them (taking Cameron and May and Major only to be fractionally to the right of Obama and Bill Clinton and in some cases not much different at all).
Indeed much as in 1990 many Reagan Republicans wished they had Maggie as President instead of the ultra moderate, wet George HW Bush so now many Trump Republicans are already saying they wish they had Boris as President instead of Biden
"Interestingly this is now the first time since 1989-1990 that the UK has a significantly more rightwing PM than the US President," Pedantic I know, but now is not the first time, January 20th will be the first time.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
Does it cost money?
The only rational explanation for Trump's behavior is that he is chronically strapped for cash and needs to buy time.
Btw, he is still President and the pandemic is worsening. Nobody seems to be worrying about his lack of attention to that. He's a criminal, in substance if not before the law.
I had stopped posting on the USA figures, but now you mention it the daily cases are absolutely rocketing. It looks like new records are going to be hit this week. There were fears it could reach 100K/day. We are well passed that. It will probably hit 150K on at least one day this week.
Deaths are also on the up. 5 days last week well over 1K.
A point I mad on the virus in the USA some weeks back attracted little attention so I'll have another go to see if it resonates now.
If you go to the figures on the Worldometer site and rank the USA States in order of cases per 1m population, you see the Red States have been hit much harder than the Blue ones.
Top of the list is North Dakota, followed by South D. Iowa is next, then wisconsin (was red now blue). You then get a string of red States until you get to Ilinois in 14th place and then Georgia 15th.
I think we can assume the virus doesn't know how to distinguish a Republican from a Democrat, so the list provides pretty clear evidence that over time the failure of Republican States and Republican supporters to take the virus seriously is showing clearer in relative sickness rates.
One is tempted to suggest Biden should let the virus rip so the Grim Reaper can tip the balance a bit more for him, but he has rightly said he is President for all Americans so I guess he is not going to be as cynical as his predecessor.
The Biden victory margin in Georgia is only just larger than the confirmed number of Covid19 deaths in Georgia. Total deaths in Georgia from Covid19 is probably more than Biden's margin of victory.
Of course not all who died will have been Republicans but it is interesting to think the race could have been closer except for Covid deaths.
That does seem to be the preferred usage, but I find it a bit annoying in English, where we generally don't change endings according to gender (we would say "bravo" to both men and women without any issue), and have tended to move away from eg gendered job titles. I guess it's because so many Latinas/Latinos in the US are also Spanish-speaking that English has adopted Spanish morphology here... I've seen Latinx but how do you even pronounce that?
We do have quite a few gendered terms, although many/most are adopted from Latin languages.
Fiance, fiancee
Confidant, confidante
Blond, blonde
Are some examples.
Also, I have never understood why the masculine should be the preferred neuter – which seems to be the received wisdom.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
As I understand it you didn't like the loss of sovereignty.
What actually was it? The colour of the flag?
Then you haven't understood anything I've ever written, I was never against the EU on principle like that.
Prior to the referendum I thought it worth paying the price of pooling our sovereignty for economic advantages but I have long thought the EU is not an effective organisation and during the campaign became convinced that the UK could better manage its own sovereignty. That pooling was no longer worth it. That is a judgement, the UK I think will be economically better off treating the EU as our neighbours that we trade with instead of being a member of the EU. If I thought otherwise I might have voted Remain. I am not a die-hard extremist.
Theresa May's backstop was a worse breach of sovereignty for me than EU membership was which is why I vehemently opposed that.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
... The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
I think that just about sums him up. Perhaps we should be grateful that he was a 3rd rater? Can you imagine what things would have been like if he had become a competent fascist?
This is so, so true.
And the really scary thing is that at some time in the foreseeable future the American HItler will emerge.
Maybe in the next 20 years, maybe in the next 200. But there is nothing in the US system to stop him*
(*Or her, but most likely a 'him').
you could say the same about the UK, who would have stopped PM Jezza ?
I don't think he'll manage it but Trump came bloody close to being the USA's first dictator.
He came nowhere near it. Nowhere.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
In the end, it isn't going to be all that close - about 5m PVs and 70 ECVs. There have been many Presidential contests much closer than that, including his previous win.
Very much so. However the federal agencies are refusing so far to sign off on the transition (ostensibly this appears to be because Trump has not yet conceded) and I think we are going to see a very nasty few weeks that will prove all along what a lot of commentators said before this vote: that the US governmental machinery is predicated on the goodwill of the incumbent in committing to the peaceful transfer of power. It is possible to see Trump running this gambit until the electors convene in December, at least.
The question will be are there sufficient states where (a) people voted Biden, (b) its a Republican governor, and (c) there are no legal penalties for faithless electors to have "rogue" electors appointed to vote Trump in enough numbers to overturn the result.
I don’t see the “GOP interference in elector appointment” being a player, to be honest. That really is crossing the rubicon and I suspect that even if someone tried it the Supreme Court would have something to say about it (it is not, for all of Trump’s fantasies, an in-house agency of the GOP). The fact we are even talking about it shows concern for the future, though.
I don't think he'll manage it but Trump came bloody close to being the USA's first dictator.
He came nowhere near it. Nowhere.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
In the end, it isn't going to be all that close - about 5m PVs and 70 ECVs. There have been many Presidential contests much closer than that, including his previous win.
Very much so. However the federal agencies are refusing so far to sign off on the transition (ostensibly this appears to be because Trump has not yet conceded) and I think we are going to see a very nasty few weeks that will prove all along what a lot of commentators said before this vote: that the US governmental machinery is predicated on the goodwill of the incumbent in committing to the peaceful transfer of power. It is possible to see Trump running this gambit until the electors convene in December, at least.
The question will be are there sufficient states where (a) people voted Biden, (b) its a Republican governor, and (c) there are no legal penalties for faithless electors to have "rogue" electors appointed to vote Trump in enough numbers to overturn the result.
There is no question.
The chances of the result being overturned are nil.
... The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
I think that just about sums him up. Perhaps we should be grateful that he was a 3rd rater? Can you imagine what things would have been like if he had become a competent fascist?
This is so, so true.
And the really scary thing is that at some time in the foreseeable future the American HItler will emerge.
Maybe in the next 20 years, maybe in the next 200. But there is nothing in the US system to stop him*
(*Or her, but most likely a 'him').
you could say the same about the UK, who would have stopped PM Jezza ?
... The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
I think that just about sums him up. Perhaps we should be grateful that he was a 3rd rater? Can you imagine what things would have been like if he had become a competent fascist?
This is so, so true.
And the really scary thing is that at some time in the foreseeable future the American HItler will emerge.
Maybe in the next 20 years, maybe in the next 200. But there is nothing in the US system to stop him*
(*Or her, but most likely a 'him').
you could say the same about the UK, who would have stopped PM Jezza ?
Pah! What a ridiculous comment.
I dislike Jezza intensely because he was a) tolerating, if not pormoting, racism and b) an effin' useless leader who allowed the present incompetent to win an 80 seat majority, but...
...no way was he ever going to be a dictator. Far too ineffectual.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
As I understand it you didn't like the loss of sovereignty.
What actually was it? The colour of the flag?
Then you haven't understood anything I've ever written, I was never against the EU on principle like that.
Prior to the referendum I thought it worth paying the price of pooling our sovereignty for economic advantages but I have long thought the EU is not an effective organisation and during the campaign became convinced that the UK could better manage its own sovereignty. That pooling was no longer worth it. That is a judgement, the UK I think will be economically better off treating the EU as our neighbours that we trade with instead of being a member of the EU. If I thought otherwise I might have voted Remain. I am not a die-hard extremist.
Theresa May's backstop was a worse breach of sovereignty for me than EU membership was which is why I vehemently opposed that.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
The EU is not the whole world.
Since the EU is a badly managed, sclerotic and dysfunctional organisation I think having an FTA with the EU (ideally), freedom to negotiate FTAs with the 93% of the planet that is not in the EU and more control over our own decisions is more valuable than EU membership.
I just don't think the EU is that important as we move further into the 21st century. The EU is a 1950s solution for the past. Europe isn't the future and geography means ever less in our shrinking interconnected world.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
This is the key point. Any deal that we negotiate by ourselves will be less beneficial than the deal we get as a much larger trading block. The bigger you are the better the deal - a very simple reality.
... The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
I think that just about sums him up. Perhaps we should be grateful that he was a 3rd rater? Can you imagine what things would have been like if he had become a competent fascist?
This is so, so true.
And the really scary thing is that at some time in the foreseeable future the American HItler will emerge.
Maybe in the next 20 years, maybe in the next 200. But there is nothing in the US system to stop him*
(*Or her, but most likely a 'him').
you could say the same about the UK, who would have stopped PM Jezza ?
Pah! What a ridiculous comment.
I dislike Jezza intensely because he was a) tolerating, if not pormoting, racism and b) an effin' useless leader who allowed the present incompetent to win an 80 seat majority, but...
...no way was he ever going to be a dictator. Far too ineffectual.
What a ridiculous comment.
\Well youve made so many of your own this morning I thought Id join in, I hadnt realised you wanted a monopoly on them
... The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
I think that just about sums him up. Perhaps we should be grateful that he was a 3rd rater? Can you imagine what things would have been like if he had become a competent fascist?
This is so, so true.
And the really scary thing is that at some time in the foreseeable future the American HItler will emerge.
Maybe in the next 20 years, maybe in the next 200. But there is nothing in the US system to stop him*
(*Or her, but most likely a 'him').
Tom Cotton to the red phone courtesy phone. Tom Cotton to the *red* courtesy phone....
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
This is the key point. Any deal that we negotiate by ourselves will be less beneficial than the deal we get as a much larger trading block. The bigger you are the better the deal - a very simple reality.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
Does it cost money?
The only rational explanation for Trump's behavior is that he is chronically strapped for cash and needs to buy time.
Btw, he is still President and the pandemic is worsening. Nobody seems to be worrying about his lack of attention to that. He's a criminal, in substance if not before the law.
I had stopped posting on the USA figures, but now you mention it the daily cases are absolutely rocketing. It looks like new records are going to be hit this week. There were fears it could reach 100K/day. We are well passed that. It will probably hit 150K on at least one day this week.
Deaths are also on the up. 5 days last week well over 1K.
A point I mad on the virus in the USA some weeks back attracted little attention so I'll have another go to see if it resonates now.
If you go to the figures on the Worldometer site and rank the USA States in order of cases per 1m population, you see the Red States have been hit much harder than the Blue ones.
Top of the list is North Dakota, followed by South D. Iowa is next, then wisconsin (was red now blue). You then get a string of red States until you get to Ilinois in 14th place and then Georgia 15th.
I think we can assume the virus doesn't know how to distinguish a Republican from a Democrat, so the list provides pretty clear evidence that over time the failure of Republican States and Republican supporters to take the virus seriously is showing clearer in relative sickness rates.
One is tempted to suggest Biden should let the virus rip so the Grim Reaper can tip the balance a bit more for him, but he has rightly said he is President for all Americans so I guess he is not going to be as cynical as his predecessor.
The Biden victory margin in Georgia is only just larger than the confirmed number of Covid19 deaths in Georgia. Total deaths in Georgia from Covid19 is probably more than Biden's margin of victory.
Of course not all who died will have been Republicans but it is interesting to think the race could have been closer except for Covid deaths.
I don't think he'll manage it but Trump came bloody close to being the USA's first dictator.
He came nowhere near it. Nowhere.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
In the end, it isn't going to be all that close - about 5m PVs and 70 ECVs. There have been many Presidential contests much closer than that, including his previous win.
Very much so. However the federal agencies are refusing so far to sign off on the transition (ostensibly this appears to be because Trump has not yet conceded) and I think we are going to see a very nasty few weeks that will prove all along what a lot of commentators said before this vote: that the US governmental machinery is predicated on the goodwill of the incumbent in committing to the peaceful transfer of power. It is possible to see Trump running this gambit until the electors convene in December, at least.
The question will be are there sufficient states where (a) people voted Biden, (b) its a Republican governor, and (c) there are no legal penalties for faithless electors to have "rogue" electors appointed to vote Trump in enough numbers to overturn the result.
I don’t see the “GOP interference in elector appointment” being a player, to be honest. That really is crossing the rubicon and I suspect that even if someone tried it the Supreme Court would have something to say about it (it is not, for all of Trump’s fantasies, an in-house agency of the GOP). The fact we are even talking about it shows concern for the future, though.
I flagged on here the other day that, technically, it could be a possibly - the US constitution is pretty clear it is the state legislatures that have the final say over electors and the SC ruled post-2016 that electors have to follow the guidance of their legislatures. The SC has also said that states can't just blindly follow their own views but it's not entirely sure what they would do.
As many have said, though, this is a Rubicon beyond which there is no return.
I appreciate what you are saying, but scientists and politicians would reply it is about where you are 3 to 4 weeks after measures, not immediate. Like, slamming your breaks on your car, you don’t stop in the same yard but many yards ahead depending on how fast it is going?
If this is true it would be useful if media and everyone commentating was on that page, rather than spouting misinformation?
A 2 week firebreak is more like touching the brakes, while the accelerator is still down.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
Does it cost money?
The only rational explanation for Trump's behavior is that he is chronically strapped for cash and needs to buy time.
Btw, he is still President and the pandemic is worsening. Nobody seems to be worrying about his lack of attention to that. He's a criminal, in substance if not before the law.
I had stopped posting on the USA figures, but now you mention it the daily cases are absolutely rocketing. It looks like new records are going to be hit this week. There were fears it could reach 100K/day. We are well passed that. It will probably hit 150K on at least one day this week.
Deaths are also on the up. 5 days last week well over 1K.
A point I mad on the virus in the USA some weeks back attracted little attention so I'll have another go to see if it resonates now.
If you go to the figures on the Worldometer site and rank the USA States in order of cases per 1m population, you see the Red States have been hit much harder than the Blue ones.
Top of the list is North Dakota, followed by South D. Iowa is next, then wisconsin (was red now blue). You then get a string of red States until you get to Ilinois in 14th place and then Georgia 15th.
I think we can assume the virus doesn't know how to distinguish a Republican from a Democrat, so the list provides pretty clear evidence that over time the failure of Republican States and Republican supporters to take the virus seriously is showing clearer in relative sickness rates.
One is tempted to suggest Biden should let the virus rip so the Grim Reaper can tip the balance a bit more for him, but he has rightly said he is President for all Americans so I guess he is not going to be as cynical as his predecessor.
The Biden victory margin in Georgia is only just larger than the confirmed number of Covid19 deaths in Georgia. Total deaths in Georgia from Covid19 is probably more than Biden's margin of victory.
Of course not all who died will have been Republicans but it is interesting to think the race could have been closer except for Covid deaths.
Ghoulish but worth a 'like'
I thought CV hit non-white communities more? SO surely the opposite way round
This is the key point. Any deal that we negotiate by ourselves will be less beneficial than the deal we get as a much larger trading block. The bigger you are the better the deal - a very simple reality.
This is so obviously true it's depressing you need to spell it out
Well that’s put the cat amongst the pigeons. Burnham ahead of Starmer. Marcus Rashford ahead of Margaret Thatcher. And Tony Blair, x3 election winner so low, perhaps underlining why those who want Starmer to pursue Blair’s brand of centrism are a tad misguided to say the least.
I personally would have voted for either Mandela or Klopp out of all of all of those.
I don't think he'll manage it but Trump came bloody close to being the USA's first dictator.
He came nowhere near it. Nowhere.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
In the end, it isn't going to be all that close - about 5m PVs and 70 ECVs. There have been many Presidential contests much closer than that, including his previous win.
Very much so. However the federal agencies are refusing so far to sign off on the transition (ostensibly this appears to be because Trump has not yet conceded) and I think we are going to see a very nasty few weeks that will prove all along what a lot of commentators said before this vote: that the US governmental machinery is predicated on the goodwill of the incumbent in committing to the peaceful transfer of power. It is possible to see Trump running this gambit until the electors convene in December, at least.
Yes, it's interesting that the USA constitutional arrangements depend so much on goodwill, a feature which we tend to associate more with our own. I think we can safely assume Donald won't be impressed if the agencies say 'it's not cricket, old chap'.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
Does it cost money?
The only rational explanation for Trump's behavior is that he is chronically strapped for cash and needs to buy time.
Btw, he is still President and the pandemic is worsening. Nobody seems to be worrying about his lack of attention to that. He's a criminal, in substance if not before the law.
I had stopped posting on the USA figures, but now you mention it the daily cases are absolutely rocketing. It looks like new records are going to be hit this week. There were fears it could reach 100K/day. We are well passed that. It will probably hit 150K on at least one day this week.
Deaths are also on the up. 5 days last week well over 1K.
A point I mad on the virus in the USA some weeks back attracted little attention so I'll have another go to see if it resonates now.
If you go to the figures on the Worldometer site and rank the USA States in order of cases per 1m population, you see the Red States have been hit much harder than the Blue ones.
Top of the list is North Dakota, followed by South D. Iowa is next, then wisconsin (was red now blue). You then get a string of red States until you get to Ilinois in 14th place and then Georgia 15th.
I think we can assume the virus doesn't know how to distinguish a Republican from a Democrat, so the list provides pretty clear evidence that over time the failure of Republican States and Republican supporters to take the virus seriously is showing clearer in relative sickness rates.
One is tempted to suggest Biden should let the virus rip so the Grim Reaper can tip the balance a bit more for him, but he has rightly said he is President for all Americans so I guess he is not going to be as cynical as his predecessor.
The Biden victory margin in Georgia is only just larger than the confirmed number of Covid19 deaths in Georgia. Total deaths in Georgia from Covid19 is probably more than Biden's margin of victory.
Of course not all who died will have been Republicans but it is interesting to think the race could have been closer except for Covid deaths.
Another problem is that people of good will, in terms of COVID in the US seem to believe that
- Masks for everyone - Social distancing - Keeping big crowds to a minimum
..will stop COVID. The evidence from Europe, as a whole, says that this won't stop the second wave.
This is the key point. Any deal that we negotiate by ourselves will be less beneficial than the deal we get as a much larger trading block. The bigger you are the better the deal - a very simple reality.
This is so obviously true it's depressing you need to spell it out
That you think it is obvious is part of the problem.
Bigger is not better. Agile is better. Nimble is better. Small is better.
I think the biggest county swing to Biden/Democrats in 2024 will be Miami Dade if Trump isn't running again. I think Trump had a good deal of appeal to cuban American/venezuelan men in particular who'd rather have a right wing strongman in than socialism. Not sure the next GOP candidate gets that vote out again. Particularly after 4 years of Biden results in nothing like socialism.
Also I guess there will be more disinformation response in 2024. @thegrugq has a load of stuff on what happened this time - allegedly foreign interference from RussiaChina Colombia!
I think this doesn't take into account a lot of the factors why more Hispanics voted Republican. It wasn't just fear of Socialism, although for some that was the case, but also that Hispanics felt left out by a Democratic party that seemed (to them) to pander to BLM and ignore their concerns. One of the ads Trump won on the Spanish networks was that Biden had only looked at 1 Hispanic VP nomination and not seriously. Compare that with the attention given to Black VP nominees.
Well that’s put the cat amongst the pigeons. Burnham ahead of Starmer. Marcus Rashford ahead of Margaret Thatcher. And Tony Blair, x3 election winner so low, perhaps underlining why those who want Starmer to pursue Blair’s brand of centrism are a tad misguided to say the least.
I personally would have voted for either Mandela or Klopp out of all of all of those.
Fun, but you're not comparing like with like.
Shame Our Good Host was not listed. He'd be 10 in my book!
Well that’s put the cat amongst the pigeons. Burnham ahead of Starmer. Marcus Rashford ahead of Margaret Thatcher. And Tony Blair, x3 election winner so low, perhaps underlining why those who want Starmer to pursue Blair’s brand of centrism are a tad misguided to say the least.
I personally would have voted for either Mandela or Klopp out of all of all of those.
That Klopp isn't 8+ out of 10 is clearly due to partisans rating him lower than he deserves.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
This is the key point. Any deal that we negotiate by ourselves will be less beneficial than the deal we get as a much larger trading block. The bigger you are the better the deal - a very simple reality.
Question - to which I don't know the answer. What size trading bloc does New Zealand negotiate in?
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Well that’s put the cat amongst the pigeons. Burnham ahead of Starmer. Marcus Rashford ahead of Margaret Thatcher. And Tony Blair, x3 election winner so low, perhaps underlining why those who want Starmer to pursue Blair’s brand of centrism are a tad misguided to say the least.
I personally would have voted for either Mandela or Klopp out of all of all of those.
Plus Blair and Putin ahead of Sadiq Khan, Boris ahead of Davey, Sunak ahead of Starmer, Burnham and Biden and Thatcher and Merkel and the Queen ahead of Sturgeon if you look at it from the other side
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
As I understand it you didn't like the loss of sovereignty.
What actually was it? The colour of the flag?
Then you haven't understood anything I've ever written, I was never against the EU on principle like that.
Prior to the referendum I thought it worth paying the price of pooling our sovereignty for economic advantages but I have long thought the EU is not an effective organisation and during the campaign became convinced that the UK could better manage its own sovereignty. That pooling was no longer worth it. That is a judgement, the UK I think will be economically better off treating the EU as our neighbours that we trade with instead of being a member of the EU. If I thought otherwise I might have voted Remain. I am not a die-hard extremist.
Theresa May's backstop was a worse breach of sovereignty for me than EU membership was which is why I vehemently opposed that.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
Genuine question - is there a single example that you can think of, of a country that, after a split/independence from empire etc has benefitted economically, in the short to medium term? I can't think of one.
That does seem to be the preferred usage, but I find it a bit annoying in English, where we generally don't change endings according to gender (we would say "bravo" to both men and women without any issue), and have tended to move away from eg gendered job titles. I guess it's because so many Latinas/Latinos in the US are also Spanish-speaking that English has adopted Spanish morphology here... I've seen Latinx but how do you even pronounce that?
We do have quite a few gendered terms, although many/most are adopted from Latin languages.
Fiance, fiancee
Confidant, confidante
Blond, blonde
Are some examples.
Also, I have never understood why the masculine should be the preferred neuter – which seems to be the received wisdom.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
It could. And did. So that was the last of your objections to Brexit.
I don't object to Brexit.
Yes sorry. I meant the last of your objections to our membership of the EU was that we couldn't vote to end the arrangement which we of course did do so in fact it turns out that you had no objections to our membership of the EU.
Except that was never my objection. 🤦🏻♂️
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
As I understand it you didn't like the loss of sovereignty.
What actually was it? The colour of the flag?
Then you haven't understood anything I've ever written, I was never against the EU on principle like that.
Prior to the referendum I thought it worth paying the price of pooling our sovereignty for economic advantages but I have long thought the EU is not an effective organisation and during the campaign became convinced that the UK could better manage its own sovereignty. That pooling was no longer worth it. That is a judgement, the UK I think will be economically better off treating the EU as our neighbours that we trade with instead of being a member of the EU. If I thought otherwise I might have voted Remain. I am not a die-hard extremist.
Theresa May's backstop was a worse breach of sovereignty for me than EU membership was which is why I vehemently opposed that.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
Genuine question - is there a single example that you can think of, of a country that, after a split/independence from empire etc has benefitted economically, in the short to medium term? I can't think of one.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
This is the key point. Any deal that we negotiate by ourselves will be less beneficial than the deal we get as a much larger trading block. The bigger you are the better the deal - a very simple reality.
Disagreed completely.
Small and agile > large, sclerotic and unwieldy.
Negotiate many deals do you? OK I only negotiate 8 figure deals rather than into the gazillions but I have had a conversation with someone who does negotiate deals at EU and UN level and its the same principle.
The UK by itself is a smaller lower value market than the EU. If we want to negotiate *different* deals to the one we are walking away with they aren't going to give us better terms than they give them. OK so we flip rule x for rule y on a given issue. Overall value? Worse. Because we are smaller. Volume always brings discount. Reducing volume brings increased cost - and not just on tariffs and trade.
Lets take actual trade where at the moment stuff is imported into the EU all at the same standard on the same deal. We are going to impose different standards which adds cost even before the stuff leaves the factory. We're then either going to demand direct import for our little volume which adds cost or different handling / processing / tariffs to bring the stuff across from Zeebrugge.
However you cut it, stuff will be more expensive. Because we are going to create unique standards and conditions.
If we aren't then its back to Life of Brian, you're demanding the right to have babies even though you don't have a box for the foetus to gestate in.
... The American president looking up to fascists, yearning to be one of them even though he never quite could. I found that so so sad. And you know what's even sadder? They'll be laughing at him now. Putin, Xi, Kim, all of them, the cool gang, the real deal, the in crowd, they'll be laughing at poor Donald, the boy that used to hang around.
I think that just about sums him up. Perhaps we should be grateful that he was a 3rd rater? Can you imagine what things would have been like if he had become a competent fascist?
This is so, so true.
And the really scary thing is that at some time in the foreseeable future the American HItler will emerge.
Maybe in the next 20 years, maybe in the next 200. But there is nothing in the US system to stop him*
(*Or her, but most likely a 'him').
I think automatically reaching for Hitler when talking about fascism is a UK bias and not necessarily helpful. I do worry that a Western democracy will fall into authoritarian fascism (or indeed leftism) in the next 20 years, the signs are there, but it's likely to more resemble South American than German fascism, substantially domestic / isolationist but with a bit of sabre rattling for good measure. And it is likely, in the strictest sense of the word, to be more progressive / gradualist in nature, unwinding democratic protections as opportunity allows, as indeed Trump did. The Anglosphere is prone, having had a mild dose of neoliberalism (5-10 years ago I thought the risk was initially from a much more extreme libertarian agenda and subsequent swing back but perhaps what we had already was enough), consolidated, unconcerned media control, and no history of having lived under authoritarianism or belief that we could end up there, but Salvini in particular shows the risk doesn't need all those conditions.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Internationally red is used for left of centre parties, so: It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the american parties could switch their colours.
They used to alternate - the GOP were blue in 1980:
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
The Democrats are basically a combination of Starmer Labour, Blarites, LDs and Remainer Tories now with a few exceptions as you say on the far left like Sanders and AOC who would be closer to Corbyn, the Republicans in their current Trumpite guise are basically only linked to the hardest of Brexiteers over here like Farage or IDS
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
Strip out the issue of Brexit/the EU and Biden is very close to Boris on most international issues. So too though is Starmer actually.
And that is why the Democrats are Blue. In the UK their closest party - when you factor in the significant cultural barriers - is the Conservative Party of old.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
Does it cost money?
The only rational explanation for Trump's behavior is that he is chronically strapped for cash and needs to buy time.
Btw, he is still President and the pandemic is worsening. Nobody seems to be worrying about his lack of attention to that. He's a criminal, in substance if not before the law.
I had stopped posting on the USA figures, but now you mention it the daily cases are absolutely rocketing. It looks like new records are going to be hit this week. There were fears it could reach 100K/day. We are well passed that. It will probably hit 150K on at least one day this week.
Deaths are also on the up. 5 days last week well over 1K.
A point I mad on the virus in the USA some weeks back attracted little attention so I'll have another go to see if it resonates now.
If you go to the figures on the Worldometer site and rank the USA States in order of cases per 1m population, you see the Red States have been hit much harder than the Blue ones.
Top of the list is North Dakota, followed by South D. Iowa is next, then wisconsin (was red now blue). You then get a string of red States until you get to Ilinois in 14th place and then Georgia 15th.
I think we can assume the virus doesn't know how to distinguish a Republican from a Democrat, so the list provides pretty clear evidence that over time the failure of Republican States and Republican supporters to take the virus seriously is showing clearer in relative sickness rates.
One is tempted to suggest Biden should let the virus rip so the Grim Reaper can tip the balance a bit more for him, but he has rightly said he is President for all Americans so I guess he is not going to be as cynical as his predecessor.
The Biden victory margin in Georgia is only just larger than the confirmed number of Covid19 deaths in Georgia. Total deaths in Georgia from Covid19 is probably more than Biden's margin of victory.
Of course not all who died will have been Republicans but it is interesting to think the race could have been closer except for Covid deaths.
Ghoulish but worth a 'like'
I thought CV hit non-white communities more? SO surely the opposite way round
Hard to argue with the numbers. I think your point gives an indication of just how badly Republican supporters have been hit by their refusal to take sensible precautionary measures.
How extraordinary. You thought it would, as is commonly accepted, be a good thing for a trade deal negotiation to have the express aim of making trade conditions worse than they were previously.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
This is the key point. Any deal that we negotiate by ourselves will be less beneficial than the deal we get as a much larger trading block. The bigger you are the better the deal - a very simple reality.
Disagreed completely.
Small and agile > large, sclerotic and unwieldy.
Negotiate many deals do you? OK I only negotiate 8 figure deals rather than into the gazillions but I have had a conversation with someone who does negotiate deals at EU and UN level and its the same principle.
The UK by itself is a smaller lower value market than the EU. If we want to negotiate *different* deals to the one we are walking away with they aren't going to give us better terms than they give them. OK so we flip rule x for rule y on a given issue. Overall value? Worse. Because we are smaller. Volume always brings discount. Reducing volume brings increased cost - and not just on tariffs and trade.
Lets take actual trade where at the moment stuff is imported into the EU all at the same standard on the same deal. We are going to impose different standards which adds cost even before the stuff leaves the factory. We're then either going to demand direct import for our little volume which adds cost or different handling / processing / tariffs to bring the stuff across from Zeebrugge.
However you cut it, stuff will be more expensive. Because we are going to create unique standards and conditions.
If we aren't then its back to Life of Brian, you're demanding the right to have babies even though you don't have a box for the foetus to gestate in.
You claim that but have no real world evidence to substantiate your claim. The simple fact of the matter is that the EU has inferior trade deals compared to eg independent Australia or even the EFTA.
If the UK manages an FTA with the EU and join the TPP then we would have trade deals with more of the world than we do as EU members.
Plus as can be seen with the Japanese trade deal we can when negotiate on our own negotiate deals that better suit ourselves than the EU does. The UK/Japan trade deal opens up doors on services that the EU deal did not and we have the potential to negotiate further again still.
I don't think he'll manage it but Trump came bloody close to being the USA's first dictator.
He came nowhere near it. Nowhere.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
In the end, it isn't going to be all that close - about 5m PVs and 70 ECVs. There have been many Presidential contests much closer than that, including his previous win.
Very much so. However the federal agencies are refusing so far to sign off on the transition (ostensibly this appears to be because Trump has not yet conceded) and I think we are going to see a very nasty few weeks that will prove all along what a lot of commentators said before this vote: that the US governmental machinery is predicated on the goodwill of the incumbent in committing to the peaceful transfer of power. It is possible to see Trump running this gambit until the electors convene in December, at least.
The question will be are there sufficient states where (a) people voted Biden, (b) its a Republican governor, and (c) there are no legal penalties for faithless electors to have "rogue" electors appointed to vote Trump in enough numbers to overturn the result.
I don’t see the “GOP interference in elector appointment” being a player, to be honest. That really is crossing the rubicon and I suspect that even if someone tried it the Supreme Court would have something to say about it (it is not, for all of Trump’s fantasies, an in-house agency of the GOP). The fact we are even talking about it shows concern for the future, though.
I flagged on here the other day that, technically, it could be a possibly - the US constitution is pretty clear it is the state legislatures that have the final say over electors and the SC ruled post-2016 that electors have to follow the guidance of their legislatures. The SC has also said that states can't just blindly follow their own views but it's not entirely sure what they would do.
As many have said, though, this is a Rubicon beyond which there is no return.
In any event, no state legislature in any Biden-carried state (let alone the two or three required) has a sufficiently solid, sufficiently suicidal GOP majority to bring it anywhere close to being a credible scenario, even if there was a theoretical route, which there isn't.
This is the key point. Any deal that we negotiate by ourselves will be less beneficial than the deal we get as a much larger trading block. The bigger you are the better the deal - a very simple reality.
This is so obviously true it's depressing you need to spell it out
That you think it is obvious is part of the problem.
Bigger is not better. Agile is better. Nimble is better. Small is better.
Metaphors are shit. Do you prefer, let's say, your current account balance to be small, agile and nimble, or morbidly obese?
And if you want a metaphor, consider Darwin and sexual selection. There's qualities good in themselves, like being fast and strong, and other qualities like, say, having a male peacock's tail, that suck in all possible respects except the only one that matters, what they make others think of you. Small and agile = the sort of country where serious, grown-up incoming administtrations in superpowers dismiss your PM as a shapeshifting creep.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
The Democrats are basically a combination of Starmer Labour, Blarites, LDs and Remainer Tories now with a few exceptions as you say on the far left like Sanders and AOC who would be closer to Corbyn, the Republicans in their current Trumpite guise are basically only linked to the hardest of Brexiteers over here like Farage or IDS
Don't forget to bear in mind, as often, that what is far left in the US is not far left in the UK or Europe. Sanders' health plans are mainstream in Europe, for instance.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Surely Tories to red and the LibDems to Blue. Labour and the Democrats aren't a valid comparison when you look at their policies.
Yes, the Democrats don’t really have a sister party here right now. Clearly Biden, Harris and all the Obama Dems likely to be in his admin don’t identify with Boris and Cummings. Equally though, Labour’s vision would definitely be seen as ‘radical leftist’ by Dems in the US, with the exception of those such as Bernie and AOC.
It's why Starmer's statement, whilst pretty typical with the praise, was a little needy. Left and right in different countries do not line up perfectly.
Comments
Wisconsin charges 3 million dollars. The Trump campaign says they're going to ask for a recount there, but so far they haven't sent the money...
This is where I think social media is a real problem. I bet there are only a few examples of this, and most people will strongly agree with it, but everyone has a camera/video now and it only takes one instance to get captured & uploaded, and it will go viral.
We know that it's the most extreme/outrageous things that are shared most widely on social media, by both sides as they comment and respond to (and attack) each other with it. So it drives polarisation and fury. This doesn't work with the more nuanced and objective truth, because it's rather boring, and far fewer are interested.
I don't know what the solution is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMuWVsPQbwM
Politicism, religiousism perhaps. Ethnicism for sure.
Domestically he's achieved little but restore order and redress some parts of the social damage of the 1990s ; but, don't forget, that in the 1990s, when the West fluffed its opportunity to bring it into the fold, parts of Russia's legal and social fabric were in a state of absolute collapse.
In Germany, teachers have an exception here. For most people, if you want your insurance to pay for the test (same for public or private health insurance) you need to have permission from a GP, which usually means you have symptoms. Teachers get free testing, for any reason. After a negative test (result within 24 hours) the teacher goes back to the classroom.
First is that power in the US is devolved on multiple levels and the system was built expressly designed to stop the concentration of power in hands. For someone wanting to control the US in the way Hitler did, they would have to win enough seats and votes not only to control both Houses of Congress but multiple levels of state government to change the constitution and drive through an agenda.
Second, the US military forces are now the Reichswehr of 1920s and 1930s Germany, They do not get involved in politics or try to become the country's top politician (as happened in Germany in the 1930s). They stay very well out and it is absolute a certainty that they would stop any descent into non-democracy.
Third, it wasn't just the unemployment rate that did for German democracy, or even the burden of war loans, but the hyperinflation which wiped out not only the savings of many Germans but also the value of their War Bonds, which many patriotic Germans (especially the middle classes) had held in World War I.
There are obvious examples where there has been a regression to non-democracy (e.g. Russia) without trying to make up an example of the US. Arguably, you might say that Obama's use of Executive Decrees to push through what he wanted was more of a threat to the US system - this was exactly the same thing that was used at the end of the Weimar Republic to push through Government policy.
Pedantic I know, but now is not the first time, January 20th will be the first time.
But you can't defeat economics. His nation is not developing and he is more the Wizard of Oz keeping up appearances than an actual effective leader - there is nothing behind the mask.
The move to zero carbon should be done for geopolitical reasons as much as economic ones. Russia is doomed once the west stops buying its gas.
I never said that, you are inventing that and fighting a straw man.
What actually was it? The colour of the flag?
If this is true it would be useful if media and everyone commentating was on that page, rather than spouting misinformation?
https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/1323866295423524864
https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/1324036186189389824
Prior to the referendum I thought it worth paying the price of pooling our sovereignty for economic advantages but I have long thought the EU is not an effective organisation and during the campaign became convinced that the UK could better manage its own sovereignty. That pooling was no longer worth it. That is a judgement, the UK I think will be economically better off treating the EU as our neighbours that we trade with instead of being a member of the EU. If I thought otherwise I might have voted Remain. I am not a die-hard extremist.
Theresa May's backstop was a worse breach of sovereignty for me than EU membership was which is why I vehemently opposed that.
And the really scary thing is that at some time in the foreseeable future the American HItler will emerge.
Maybe in the next 20 years, maybe in the next 200. But there is nothing in the US system to stop him*
(*Or her, but most likely a 'him').
If you go to the figures on the Worldometer site and rank the USA States in order of cases per 1m population, you see the Red States have been hit much harder than the Blue ones.
Top of the list is North Dakota, followed by South D. Iowa is next, then Wisconsin (was red now blue). You then get a string of red States until you get to Ilinois in 14th place and then Georgia 15th.
I think we can assume the virus doesn't know how to distinguish a Republican from a Democrat, so the list provides pretty clear evidence that over time the failure of Republican States and Republican supporters to take the virus seriously is showing clearly in relative sickness rates.
One is tempted to suggest Biden should let the virus rip so the Grim Reaper can tip the balance a bit more for him, but that would be a bit cynical and he has said he is President for all Americans.
Must be tempting though.
Constitutional monarchy helps on that front, but it is predicated on the monarch being above board and impartial.
Essentially in any system you rely on the individuals involved following precedent and good sportsmanship. Once that frays it is very difficult to get back. This is why the current situation in the US is so dangerous, not necessarily for this cycle (I don’t think there’s any doubt Trump is going to be evicted and turfed out eventually) but it makes it so much easier, bit by bit, to erode the process so that eventually someone is able to take advantage.
Of course not all who died will have been Republicans but it is interesting to think the race could have been closer except for Covid deaths.
Fiance, fiancee
Confidant, confidante
Blond, blonde
Are some examples.
Also, I have never understood why the masculine should be the preferred neuter – which seems to be the received wisdom.
Blimey, I mean I get the sovereignty right or wrong argument (wrong, obvs, but...) but yours?
Absolutely bonkers.
The chances of the result being overturned are nil.
I dislike Jezza intensely because he was a) tolerating, if not pormoting, racism and b) an effin' useless leader who allowed the present incompetent to win an 80 seat majority, but...
...no way was he ever going to be a dictator. Far too ineffectual.
Since the EU is a badly managed, sclerotic and dysfunctional organisation I think having an FTA with the EU (ideally), freedom to negotiate FTAs with the 93% of the planet that is not in the EU and more control over our own decisions is more valuable than EU membership.
I just don't think the EU is that important as we move further into the 21st century. The EU is a 1950s solution for the past. Europe isn't the future and geography means ever less in our shrinking interconnected world.
\Well youve made so many of your own this morning I thought Id join in, I hadnt realised you wanted a monopoly on them
Small and agile > large, sclerotic and unwieldy.
As many have said, though, this is a Rubicon beyond which there is no return.
I personally would have voted for either Mandela or Klopp out of all of all of those.
I can understand their hesitation.
- Masks for everyone
- Social distancing
- Keeping big crowds to a minimum
..will stop COVID. The evidence from Europe, as a whole, says that this won't stop the second wave.
Bigger is not better. Agile is better. Nimble is better. Small is better.
Shame Our Good Host was not listed. He'd be 10 in my book!
The UK by itself is a smaller lower value market than the EU. If we want to negotiate *different* deals to the one we are walking away with they aren't going to give us better terms than they give them. OK so we flip rule x for rule y on a given issue. Overall value? Worse. Because we are smaller. Volume always brings discount. Reducing volume brings increased cost - and not just on tariffs and trade.
Lets take actual trade where at the moment stuff is imported into the EU all at the same standard on the same deal. We are going to impose different standards which adds cost even before the stuff leaves the factory. We're then either going to demand direct import for our little volume which adds cost or different handling / processing / tariffs to bring the stuff across from Zeebrugge.
However you cut it, stuff will be more expensive. Because we are going to create unique standards and conditions.
If we aren't then its back to Life of Brian, you're demanding the right to have babies even though you don't have a box for the foetus to gestate in.
If the UK manages an FTA with the EU and join the TPP then we would have trade deals with more of the world than we do as EU members.
Plus as can be seen with the Japanese trade deal we can when negotiate on our own negotiate deals that better suit ourselves than the EU does. The UK/Japan trade deal opens up doors on services that the EU deal did not and we have the potential to negotiate further again still.
In any event, no state legislature in any Biden-carried state (let alone the two or three required) has a sufficiently solid, sufficiently suicidal GOP majority to bring it anywhere close to being a credible scenario, even if there was a theoretical route, which there isn't.
And if you want a metaphor, consider Darwin and sexual selection. There's qualities good in themselves, like being fast and strong, and other qualities like, say, having a male peacock's tail, that suck in all possible respects except the only one that matters, what they make others think of you. Small and agile = the sort of country where serious, grown-up incoming administtrations in superpowers dismiss your PM as a shapeshifting creep.