Re: Lindsay Wafflehouse Graham, note that while he was disgracing the state of South Carolina, another Republican, Tom Rice was doing just the opposite. By voting FOR impeachment.
Note that Rice was one of the Republicans in Congress who signed onto an amicus brief in support of the Putinist effort to overturn Biden's election.
CLEARLY what changed Rep. Rice's mind was the Putsch.
Some will say that he's just drinking Woke tea. Even if true (hardly) STILL far better than chugging Trumspky's kool-aid.
Note that Rice represents SC 7th district (since 2012 election) including Myrtle Beach plus rural, inland counties in the easternmost part of the Palmetto State. The district voted over 60% for both him and Trumpsky.
I feel bad for him - kings aren't even allowed to order 'off with their heads' anymore.
Or in the case of Belgian kings, hands.
That sounds like the incident in 2010 when student rioters smashed a window in the car with Prince Charles and Camilla in Regent Street, and attacked it with staves. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11978954
Or like the Venezuelan mob that attacked Richard Nixon in Caracas in 1950, helping him win the 1960 Republican nomination, and almost the election.
It's funny. The supreme leader of Iran is allowed a twitter account, but not the president of the US.
That says more about the President than it does about Twitter.
If the Supreme Leader of Iran had coordinated and triggered a physical attack on the US Capitol using Twitter then I suspect his account would have been removed too.
Off Topic. The Telegraph are reporting that "Coronavirus hospital patients can be discharged into care homes without being tested under draft Government guidelines" leaked to them. That would be UNFORGIVABLY stupid. We know what happened in March and have testing tools available. If I were a care home owner I would refuse to take such patients.
I'd pay a hundred quid for either of the Pfizer or Moderna jab, no more. I'm pretty tight and in good health. I suspect I'll get Oxford around September time.
But, you have a price. That is the point.
My guess is we all do. Apart from the rare and saintly types. And there aren't many of them over 40 years old. Not with this virus
Actually think there are plenty of folks who would NOT jump at the chance to jump the line. Indeed, I actually know a few, who actually have good medical grounds for preferment but who plan to wait until the powers-that-be notify them that it's their turn.
Not saying that's a permanent position not subject to change IF there is sufficient pressure or risk. But it IS a strong inclination with some people, certainly more than a handful.
I genuinely admire these people. They are probably, but not always, acting in the better interest of the world. I do not know what I would do
I can see some morally difficult scenarios. Obviously a bachelor billionaire, with no kids, flying in his private jet to a clinic in Qatar to get the best possible vaccine for $10,000 is acting very selfishly, and probably immorally.
But let's take a.... modestly successful, working class businessman in his late 40s, with 4 kids, and very vulnerable parents, and a sister with breast cancer. He feeds them all, and they need his money. He won't get the jab until April, at the earliest, by the government calendar, and if he stops working they are in deep shit. And his work requires him to travel.
I can easily see why that man - or woman - might think: paying £1000 for a jab to jump the queue is justifiable, indeed the right thing, morally.
Is he wrong?
Yes.
The scenario does not quite work.
If he is in his late 40s, the parents will have at least State Pensions.
I would have no problem if the jabs were available being privately, which they are not. Or jetting off to where-ever if jabs there had been done such that no one would suffer.
Were the individual stealing a place in the NHS queue from someone who has a greater need, then I would be very harsh.
It's funny. The supreme leader of Iran is allowed a twitter account, but not the president of the US.
That says more about the President than it does about Twitter.
If the Supreme Leader of Iran had coordinated and triggered a physical attack on the US Capitol using Twitter then I suspect his account would have been removed too.
Let's just ignore all the things that the supreme leader has called for, shall we? Such as the destruction of Israel.
I feel bad for him - kings aren't even allowed to order 'off with their heads' anymore.
Or in the case of Belgian kings, hands.
That sounds like the incident in 2010 when student rioters smashed a window in the car with Prince Charles and Camilla in Regent Street, and attacked it with staves. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11978954
Or like the Venezuelan mob that attacked Richard Nixon in Caracas in 1950, helping him win the 1960 Republican nomination, and almost the election.
Bit far-fetched, Nixon not being Venezuelan head of State, but if you insist ...
The ten Republicans in the US House who voted to impeach their own party's President - including at least one who'd signed up to the challenge Biden's election in the bullshit Texas case (rejected by SCOTUS) - will certainly provide an interesting test for theory that they will be dead meat come the 2020 GOP primaries.
Tom Rice of South Carolina is certainly in the hot seat IF he decides to run again in 2022 (he was first elected 2012). His district is maybe two-thirds White to approx one-third Black, with growing numbers of Asians & Latinos. Lion's share of Blacks vote Democratic, esp. in primaries; other non-White lean that way, while majority of Whites are Republican or GOP-leaning. Right-wing is strong among these, but plenty of moderates esp. considering how GOP has dominated Palmetto State politics for over one half-century.
My own guess is that, if he runs, Rice will have a good chance of winning.
Why? Well, there will clearly be a split verdict on Trumpsky in general, and on the Putsch and impeachment in particular. My guess is that support for overt Putinism will decline, but from a high baseline as per 2020 result. Where the balance will fall, which side will be higher & by how much, is obviously in the lap of the gods, and could go either way.
HOWEVER, in addition to the ying-yang just outlined, and considerations such as turnout and eventual GOP challenger(s), there is one more X-factor that I think will be operating in his favor: personal integrity.
Personally know little to nothing (closer to later) about Tom Rice. But the little I DO know, leads me to think that he's both a shrewd politico AND a man of integrity.
With in South Carolina has GOT to be worth at least 10% a high-profile GOP primary. Just ask Nicky Haley and Tim Scott.
It's funny. The supreme leader of Iran is allowed a twitter account, but not the president of the US.
That says more about the President than it does about Twitter.
If the Supreme Leader of Iran had coordinated and triggered a physical attack on the US Capitol using Twitter then I suspect his account would have been removed too.
My preferred terminology is "Fearless Leader". As in the "Rocky and Bullwinkle" cartoons
"Declinism is rampant in Britain. Some 65% of Britons think the country is “in decline”, according to a poll conducted by Ipsos mori for The Economist, while 57% think today’s youth will have a worse life than their parents. But gloom is unevenly distributed. Remainers are more likely to think Britain is in decline than Leavers, by 76% to 54%. Labour voters are far more declinist than Tories." (£)
Will be a early test of Trumpskyites versus the Kool-Aid Intolerant wing of the US House GOP caucus.
Jim Jordan is calling for revote on having Lynn Cheney continue serving as chair of the House Republican Conference, the 3rd-ranking position in House GOP leadership.
Am guessing this vote will happen within next few weeks.
Doubt very much this will be a straight fight between those who voted for and against impeachment. For one thing, for every one of the ten GOPers who DID vote for impeachment, there are another four or five or more who wish they'd had the guts to do so.
Plus more who opposed impeachment, but respect where those who supported it are coming from.
Plus other anti-impeachment and/or pro-Trumpsky (at least up to now) members who will support Cheney on other grounds, from personal to political and back again.
Am NOT predicting she will win. Only that defeat is NOT inevitable. Or forever.
It's funny. The supreme leader of Iran is allowed a twitter account, but not the president of the US.
That says more about the President than it does about Twitter.
If the Supreme Leader of Iran had coordinated and triggered a physical attack on the US Capitol using Twitter then I suspect his account would have been removed too.
The Supreme Leader of Iran has called for the destruction of Israel on Twitter. Shouldn't he have been banned for that?
"Declinism is rampant in Britain. Some 65% of Britons think the country is “in decline”, according to a poll conducted by Ipsos mori for The Economist, while 57% think today’s youth will have a worse life than their parents. But gloom is unevenly distributed. Remainers are more likely to think Britain is in decline than Leavers, by 76% to 54%. Labour voters are far more declinist than Tories." (£)
I never understand this "in decline" thing. We're still the number 5 economy (nominal) according to the IMF.
one of the highest inequalities we've seen in decades, numbers of death from Covid, visible rising poverty (foodbanks, rough sleeping, child educational standards falling), Defence forces a fraction of their previous size, lost votes over Diego Garcia in the UN Gen Assembley, University graduates leaving with debts of £50000, Commonwealth drifting aimlessly oh and departure from the World's Biggest trading bloc - I am certainly feeling less than positive about the future.
The level of McConnell's strategy is just mind-blowing. Everyone who worked with Trump got screwed, from Chris Christie to Pence to Sessions to Guiliani. Only one man came out on top - one uncharismatic, strange-looking, extremely clever man.
The level of McConnell's strategy is just mind-blowing. Everyone who worked with Trump got screwed, from Chris Christie to Pence to Sessions to Guiliani. Only one man came out on top - one uncharismatic, strange-looking, extremely clever man.
Think your comment is more cogent that the tweet that prompted it. At least the first half, as I do NOT think speed of inpeachment had zilch to do with Pelosi's leadership or lack thereof. Seeing as how EVERY House member there voted for impeaching.
As for McConnell, his political skill is without question. However, do NOT think that his game is simply to impede Biden, though there will of course be areas where he may take that route.
BUT will be others where he and Biden will make a deal. IF he's truly interested in the future of the Republican Party, that is.
The level of McConnell's strategy is just mind-blowing. Everyone who worked with Trump got screwed, from Chris Christie to Pence to Sessions to Guiliani. Only one man came out on top - one uncharismatic, strange-looking, extremely clever man.
It's funny. The supreme leader of Iran is allowed a twitter account, but not the president of the US.
That says more about the President than it does about Twitter.
If the Supreme Leader of Iran had coordinated and triggered a physical attack on the US Capitol using Twitter then I suspect his account would have been removed too.
The Supreme Leader of Iran has called for the destruction of Israel on Twitter. Shouldn't he have been banned for that?
It's funny. The supreme leader of Iran is allowed a twitter account, but not the president of the US.
That says more about the President than it does about Twitter.
If the Supreme Leader of Iran had coordinated and triggered a physical attack on the US Capitol using Twitter then I suspect his account would have been removed too.
The Supreme Leader of Iran has called for the destruction of Israel on Twitter. Shouldn't he have been banned for that?
I think violence by governments in an official capacity is in a different category to violence by us regular chumps, since violence is kind of the entire point of government.
The level of McConnell's strategy is just mind-blowing. Everyone who worked with Trump got screwed, from Chris Christie to Pence to Sessions to Guiliani. Only one man came out on top - one uncharismatic, strange-looking, extremely clever man.
Think your comment is more cogent that the tweet that prompted it. At least the first half, as I do NOT think speed of inpeachment had zilch to do with Pelosi's leadership or lack thereof. Seeing as how EVERY House member there voted for impeaching.
As for McConnell, his political skill is without question. However, do NOT think that his game is simply to impede Biden, though there will of course be areas where he may take that route.
BUT will be others where he and Biden will make a deal. IF he's truly interested in the future of the Republican Party, that is.
IDK, I don't think the voters much know or care whether the Senate minority is cooperating with Biden. There's just a little bit of the punditry that does, just enough that if the McConnell says, "we totally want to cooperate with you and I'm leaning to voting your way, we just need more time for deliberations", the Dems look bad if they say "nope, we're doing it my way and we're doing it right now".
This is exactly what McConnell did with Obama. Talk cooperation, burn up time, and when you can't burn through any more time, take away the football. If the government fails, the opposition succeeds - that's how it works in nearly every other democracy.
The level of McConnell's strategy is just mind-blowing. Everyone who worked with Trump got screwed, from Chris Christie to Pence to Sessions to Guiliani. Only one man came out on top - one uncharismatic, strange-looking, extremely clever man.
Think your comment is more cogent that the tweet that prompted it. At least the first half, as I do NOT think speed of inpeachment had zilch to do with Pelosi's leadership or lack thereof. Seeing as how EVERY House member there voted for impeaching.
As for McConnell, his political skill is without question. However, do NOT think that his game is simply to impede Biden, though there will of course be areas where he may take that route.
BUT will be others where he and Biden will make a deal. IF he's truly interested in the future of the Republican Party, that is.
IDK, I don't think the voters much know or care whether the Senate minority is cooperating with Biden. There's just a little bit of the punditry that does, just enough that if the McConnell says, "we totally want to cooperate with you and I'm leaning to voting your way, we just need more time for deliberations", the Dems look bad if they say "nope, we're doing it my way and we're doing it right now".
This is exactly what McConnell did with Obama. Talk cooperation, burn up time, and when you can't burn through any more time, take away the football. If the government fails, the opposition succeeds - that's how it works in nearly every other democracy.
Agreed. But my thesis is that the next six months or so will be different in US, due directly to Trumpsky in general and his Putsch in particular.
Could last even longer IF conditions allow. Perhaps something like relationship that emerged between Ike and LBJ in 1950s, with both sides wary and often adversarial, but also surprisingly cooperative and productive, certainly by very early 21st-century standards.
The level of McConnell's strategy is just mind-blowing. Everyone who worked with Trump got screwed, from Chris Christie to Pence to Sessions to Guiliani. Only one man came out on top - one uncharismatic, strange-looking, extremely clever man.
The level of McConnell's strategy is just mind-blowing. Everyone who worked with Trump got screwed, from Chris Christie to Pence to Sessions to Guiliani. Only one man came out on top - one uncharismatic, strange-looking, extremely clever man.
Think your comment is more cogent that the tweet that prompted it. At least the first half, as I do NOT think speed of inpeachment had zilch to do with Pelosi's leadership or lack thereof. Seeing as how EVERY House member there voted for impeaching.
As for McConnell, his political skill is without question. However, do NOT think that his game is simply to impede Biden, though there will of course be areas where he may take that route.
BUT will be others where he and Biden will make a deal. IF he's truly interested in the future of the Republican Party, that is.
IDK, I don't think the voters much know or care whether the Senate minority is cooperating with Biden. There's just a little bit of the punditry that does, just enough that if the McConnell says, "we totally want to cooperate with you and I'm leaning to voting your way, we just need more time for deliberations", the Dems look bad if they say "nope, we're doing it my way and we're doing it right now".
This is exactly what McConnell did with Obama. Talk cooperation, burn up time, and when you can't burn through any more time, take away the football. If the government fails, the opposition succeeds - that's how it works in nearly every other democracy.
It's also a smart way of neutralizing Trump: he gets constant negative headlines, which reminds everyone of why they don't want him as President. And it enables Cruz, Hawley and Cotton to vote to acquit.
The two US House Republicans from Michigan who voted for impeaching Trumpsky on Wednesday, have some key differences which appear to be outweighed by key similarities.
Fred Upton was first elected to Congress in 1988. The same year Bush the Elder was elected President, "Red Dwarf" and "Roseanne" hit the airwaves (harbingers in hindsight), and the winning singer of Eurovision 1988 was Celiine Dion.
In contrast, Peter Mejier was just elected last November.
However, both are scions of family business empires.
> for Upton, Whirlpool which is well-known national manufacture of washing machines and other major appliances; his district in southwest corner of Michigan includes Kalamazoo and Benton Harbor. Mix of urban, small town & rural, also of fairly prosperous and depressingly gritty (and depressed). > Meijer, the family grocery store chain of the same name which is ubiquitous in his district and much of Michigan, district includes about half of Grand Rapids area, it was Gerry Ford's old district and also home to large population of Dutch Calvinist ancestry, predominately conservative in politics but with a stubborn streak, esp. when it comes to proper standard of conduct.
Of the 10 GOPers in US House voting for impeachment,
> 2 are women (Lynn Cheney of WY, Jaime Herrera Beutler of WA)
> 3 are Latino (JHB of WA, Anthony Gonzales of OH, David Valadao of CA)
> 4 are sons of rich, successful family businesses (Valadao of CA, Peter Meijer & Upton of MI, Dan Newhouse of WA)
> 2 (Valadao of CA, Newhouse of WA) from farm families with large agri-business operations (San Joaquin Valley, Yakima Valley)
> 3 are classifiable as career politicians (Herrera Beutler of WA, Upton of MI, and Adam Kinzinger of IL)
> 1 is from the South (Tom Rice of SC) and also an accountant; sole yes vote from region rotten with GOPers
> 1 is from the Northeast (John Katko of NY) and is also a former federal prosecutor specializing in RICO & gang cases) from area where House Republicans are much less numerous.
> 3 from Midwest (Meijer & Upton of MI, Gonzales of OH) note Gonzales is also former pro-football player for Indianapolis Colts
> 4 from the West (Cheney of WY, JHB and Newhouse of WA, Valadao of CA)
> 1 is 3rd ranking member of House GOP leadership (Cheney of WY) while another has 32-years House senority (Upton of MI)
> 2 are newly-elected freshmen (Meijer of MI, Valadao of CA) while another (Gonzales) is starting 2nd term.
In other words, mixture of young & old, newcomers & long-timers, conservatives & moderates, family inheritances and self-made successes. Some from districts closely divided between the parties (where even conservative Republicans may appreciate the benefits of moderation), others from GOP strongholds. Some perhaps near the end of their political careers, others (if they survive the next few months and years) potentially at the start of theirs.
Just watched a few episodes of Spiral. I like French TV, but couldn't get into this. PB's discussion on cheese and Trump more interesting.
It's a bit Marmite. I love it. Partner can't abide. And we generally see eye to eye on TV. There is a 15 year back story to contend with too. It doesn't do exposition.
I like to try and follow it in French (I'm not good enough to be able to get it all with no subtitles but I can understand most if I'm concentrating. But this was harder as the voices didn't seem to be loud and using clear diction - probably because this was more 'gritty and real' than the previous French potboiler dramas I've seen on catch up.
"Declinism is rampant in Britain. Some 65% of Britons think the country is “in decline”, according to a poll conducted by Ipsos mori for The Economist, while 57% think today’s youth will have a worse life than their parents. But gloom is unevenly distributed. Remainers are more likely to think Britain is in decline than Leavers, by 76% to 54%. Labour voters are far more declinist than Tories." (£)
I never understand this "in decline" thing. We're still the number 5 economy (nominal) according to the IMF.
one of the highest inequalities we've seen in decades, numbers of death from Covid, visible rising poverty (foodbanks, rough sleeping, child educational standards falling), Defence forces a fraction of their previous size, lost votes over Diego Garcia in the UN Gen Assembley, University graduates leaving with debts of £50000, Commonwealth drifting aimlessly oh and departure from the World's Biggest trading bloc - I am certainly feeling less than positive about the future.
"Previous coronavirus infection gives people MORE protection against reinfection than the Oxford vaccine, PHE study finds
PHE study tracked cases of coronavirus reinfections among healthcare workers Just 44 people caught the virus again out of 6,614 previously infected people Of the 44 people, just 15 of them developed symptoms, study data reveals Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection and 83% reduced risk for all infections"
The level of McConnell's strategy is just mind-blowing. Everyone who worked with Trump got screwed, from Chris Christie to Pence to Sessions to Guiliani. Only one man came out on top - one uncharismatic, strange-looking, extremely clever man.
Think your comment is more cogent that the tweet that prompted it. At least the first half, as I do NOT think speed of inpeachment had zilch to do with Pelosi's leadership or lack thereof. Seeing as how EVERY House member there voted for impeaching.
As for McConnell, his political skill is without question. However, do NOT think that his game is simply to impede Biden, though there will of course be areas where he may take that route.
BUT will be others where he and Biden will make a deal. IF he's truly interested in the future of the Republican Party, that is.
IDK, I don't think the voters much know or care whether the Senate minority is cooperating with Biden. There's just a little bit of the punditry that does, just enough that if the McConnell says, "we totally want to cooperate with you and I'm leaning to voting your way, we just need more time for deliberations", the Dems look bad if they say "nope, we're doing it my way and we're doing it right now".
This is exactly what McConnell did with Obama. Talk cooperation, burn up time, and when you can't burn through any more time, take away the football. If the government fails, the opposition succeeds - that's how it works in nearly every other democracy.
With the difference that Democrats are now wise to his game, and for the next two years at least control the Senate schedule.
And Biden is certainly wiser in the ways of party politics than Obama - he has, for example, just decided to fold his presidential campaign organisation into the Democrats 2022 midterm election campaign. Obama’s decision to hang on to his, keeping his massive voter engagement system aloof from the midterm effort cost the Democrats dear electorally.
Hoo boy, Trump is absolutely bricking himself, isn't he?
Given how he reacted as if he had no cares in the aftermath, and just the other day was busy focusing on how what he said was all fine, I wonder who in his team was finally able to get through to him that this is serious, and he could be in real trouble.
I would imagine that loss of his pension, the security detail (and status that goes with it), and the knock on effect to the political prospects for his boys, will have concentrated the mind. He wants to paint all this as the usual political games from the Dems, and that line doesn’t hold if too many high profile republicans vote him down.
I'd pay a hundred quid for either of the Pfizer or Moderna jab, no more. I'm pretty tight and in good health. I suspect I'll get Oxford around September time.
But, you have a price. That is the point.
My guess is we all do. Apart from the rare and saintly types. And there aren't many of them over 40 years old. Not with this virus
Just catching up on this thread, and getting depressed. The idea that the rich should be able to use their wealth to jump the vaccine queue is, in my view, immoral - but it's what we've come to expect. And I'm well over 40, and no saint, and yes I could afford it I guess.
If folk have money to spare, why not wait their turn for a vaccine and give their spare money to a food bank or people struggling through tough Covid days?
Finally - I believe you're a fiction writer. Your Corbyn-loving hypocrite is, I would suggest, a work of fiction.
History is going to judge the GOP very harshly indeed I think, there must also be a body of centre-right voters they've lost for a generation with their cowardice. The MAGAs are the base, but enough only head out for Trump to make it advantage Democrats in the next set of midterms. My prior is that the Democrats go into 2022 with the upper hand contrary to most midterms.
I disagree, Biden and the Democrats now have all the power in both the Congress and the Presidency and if they push too far in a woke direction then there will be a backlash in 2022 and the GOP will take the House again.
Many Biden voters equally will not bother to vote in the 2022 midterms as many Obama voters did not bother to vote in the 2010 midterms, Republicans however will in the usual midterm protest vote
Depends if Trump spouts off. He is a one man solution to low Democrat turnout. Maybe they should enact legislation where he they drop all charges in return for 50 choice tweets per day.
Democrats only turned out in the midterms when Trump was President to contain his power, when he is no longer President and Biden is they won't bother.
Republicans however will. Every President in the last 50 years has seen their party lose House seats in their first midterms with the sole exception of Dubya in 2002 because of 9/11. I doubt Biden will be an exception and the GOP need to only take 6 House seats in 2022 to get a majority.
SO do you think there is no similarity between 9/11 and last week? None?
9/11 united supporters of both parties behind President George W Bush who had a 90% approval rating in the weeks following.
Republican voters are still strongly opposed to the incoming Biden-Harris administration and on the whole most are still behind Trump.
So no, the 2 are not comparable
But the rather important different of who was responsible totally makes a nonsense of your original point.
I'd pay a hundred quid for either of the Pfizer or Moderna jab, no more. I'm pretty tight and in good health. I suspect I'll get Oxford around September time.
But, you have a price. That is the point.
My guess is we all do. Apart from the rare and saintly types. And there aren't many of them over 40 years old. Not with this virus
Just catching up on this thread, and getting depressed. The idea that the rich should be able to use their wealth to jump the vaccine queue is, in my view, immoral - but it's what we've come to expect. And I'm well over 40, and no saint, and yes I could afford it I guess.
If folk have money to spare, why not wait their turn for a vaccine and give their spare money to a food bank or people struggling through tough Covid days?
Finally - I believe you're a fiction writer. Your Corbyn-loving hypocrite is, I would suggest, a work of fiction.
He was just asking for a friend.
He was still going on about the "UAE private vaccine" last night, for which the only reference is a guy who runs a VVIP concierge service talking to the Telegraph, whose puff-piece article has to be read really carefully to work out that what he's actually offering is a six-week trip, processing of a company startup, application for a residency visa and local ID card, then a vaccine - which if not over 60 or vulnerable, will be the Sinopharm vaccine not the Pfizer one.
The level of McConnell's strategy is just mind-blowing. Everyone who worked with Trump got screwed, from Chris Christie to Pence to Sessions to Guiliani. Only one man came out on top - one uncharismatic, strange-looking, extremely clever man.
Think your comment is more cogent that the tweet that prompted it. At least the first half, as I do NOT think speed of inpeachment had zilch to do with Pelosi's leadership or lack thereof. Seeing as how EVERY House member there voted for impeaching.
As for McConnell, his political skill is without question. However, do NOT think that his game is simply to impede Biden, though there will of course be areas where he may take that route.
BUT will be others where he and Biden will make a deal. IF he's truly interested in the future of the Republican Party, that is.
IDK, I don't think the voters much know or care whether the Senate minority is cooperating with Biden. There's just a little bit of the punditry that does, just enough that if the McConnell says, "we totally want to cooperate with you and I'm leaning to voting your way, we just need more time for deliberations", the Dems look bad if they say "nope, we're doing it my way and we're doing it right now".
This is exactly what McConnell did with Obama. Talk cooperation, burn up time, and when you can't burn through any more time, take away the football. If the government fails, the opposition succeeds - that's how it works in nearly every other democracy.
With the difference that Democrats are now wise to his game, and for the next two years at least control the Senate schedule.
And Biden is certainly wiser in the ways of party politics than Obama - he has, for example, just decided to fold his presidential campaign organisation into the Democrats 2022 midterm election campaign. Obama’s decision to hang on to his, keeping his massive voter engagement system aloof from the midterm effort cost the Democrats dear electorally.
Good morning everybody. Biden is an experienced professional politician, something that Obama isn't even now. Biden knows that he has to do deals with all sorts of shades of opinion to get his policies through both the House and the Senate. And, outside the immediate political battlefield, he and McConnell are, I believe, on friendly terms.
R4 - previous infection with COVID prevents 80% of reinfection but does NOT stop it and does NOT stop the reinfected being infectious - which I suppose may be the same for the vaccinated.
R4 - previous infection with COVID prevents 80% of reinfection but does NOT stop it and does NOT stop the reinfected being infectious - which I suppose may be the same for the vaccinated.
Which will mean that almost everyone is going to need to be vaccinated, and testing for infectiousness continued until the damn thing disappears completely. Also a total nightmare for those who for various reasons can't take the vaccine.
I'd pay a hundred quid for either of the Pfizer or Moderna jab, no more. I'm pretty tight and in good health. I suspect I'll get Oxford around September time.
But, you have a price. That is the point.
My guess is we all do. Apart from the rare and saintly types. And there aren't many of them over 40 years old. Not with this virus
Just catching up on this thread, and getting depressed. The idea that the rich should be able to use their wealth to jump the vaccine queue is, in my view, immoral - but it's what we've come to expect. And I'm well over 40, and no saint, and yes I could afford it I guess.
If folk have money to spare, why not wait their turn for a vaccine and give their spare money to a food bank or people struggling through tough Covid days?
Finally - I believe you're a fiction writer. Your Corbyn-loving hypocrite is, I would suggest, a work of fiction.
He was just asking for a friend.
He was still going on about the "UAE private vaccine" last night, for which the only reference is a guy who runs a VVIP concierge service talking to the Telegraph, whose puff-piece article has to be read really carefully to work out that what he's actually offering is a six-week trip, processing of a company startup, application for a residency visa and local ID card, then a vaccine - which if not over 60 or vulnerable, will be the Sinopharm vaccine not the Pfizer one.
It would be rather easier to get a job (and vaccination) as a Health Care Assistant in a Social Care setting or NHS. Better for the soul too.
I am sure there would be time for a little flint knapping on the side.
R4 - previous infection with COVID prevents 80% of reinfection but does NOT stop it and does NOT stop the reinfected being infectious - which I suppose may be the same for the vaccinated.
Which will mean that almost everyone is going to need to be vaccinated, and testing for infectiousness continued until the damn thing disappears completely. Also a total nightmare for those who for various reasons can't take the vaccine.
Thought that was excellent commentary from the official, whoever it was.
Re: Lindsay Wafflehouse Graham, note that while he was disgracing the state of South Carolina, another Republican, Tom Rice was doing just the opposite. By voting FOR impeachment.
Note that Rice was one of the Republicans in Congress who signed onto an amicus brief in support of the Putinist effort to overturn Biden's election.
CLEARLY what changed Rep. Rice's mind was the Putsch.
Some will say that he's just drinking Woke tea. Even if true (hardly) STILL far better than chugging Trumspky's kool-aid.
Note that Rice represents SC 7th district (since 2012 election) including Myrtle Beach plus rural, inland counties in the easternmost part of the Palmetto State. The district voted over 60% for both him and Trumpsky.
That's one of the sad aspects of leaving the EU. Membership of the Single Market made it easy for even the smallest of operators to export across most of Europe. It's (somewhat) easier for the big companies - economies of scale help them deal with the additional bureaucracy and costs - but many small businesses will simply give up trying to export. Fuck business indeed.
I'd pay a hundred quid for either of the Pfizer or Moderna jab, no more. I'm pretty tight and in good health. I suspect I'll get Oxford around September time.
But, you have a price. That is the point.
My guess is we all do. Apart from the rare and saintly types. And there aren't many of them over 40 years old. Not with this virus
Just catching up on this thread, and getting depressed. The idea that the rich should be able to use their wealth to jump the vaccine queue is, in my view, immoral - but it's what we've come to expect. And I'm well over 40, and no saint, and yes I could afford it I guess.
If folk have money to spare, why not wait their turn for a vaccine and give their spare money to a food bank or people struggling through tough Covid days?
Finally - I believe you're a fiction writer. Your Corbyn-loving hypocrite is, I would suggest, a work of fiction.
He was just asking for a friend.
He was still going on about the "UAE private vaccine" last night, for which the only reference is a guy who runs a VVIP concierge service talking to the Telegraph, whose puff-piece article has to be read really carefully to work out that what he's actually offering is a six-week trip, processing of a company startup, application for a residency visa and local ID card, then a vaccine - which if not over 60 or vulnerable, will be the Sinopharm vaccine not the Pfizer one.
It would be rather easier to get a job (and vaccination) as a Health Care Assistant in a Social Care setting or NHS. Better for the soul too.
I am sure there would be time for a little flint knapping on the side.
Indeed, a much more socially responsible way to find your place further forward in the queue.
One unintended advantage of the Pfizer vaccine transport and logistics issues, is that very few of them are going to end up on the black market.
That's one of the sad aspects of leaving the EU. Membership of the Single Market made it easy for even the smallest of operators to export across most of Europe. It's (somewhat) easier for the big companies - economies of scale help them deal with the additional bureaucracy and costs - but many small businesses will simply give up trying to export. Fuck business indeed.
The government in the article repeats the same "we have left, and guidance is on our website" guff. The problem is that the official advice is simply unworkable. Yes, the poster exporter can warn potential customers that they need to pay a load of import duties at their end. The basic problem is that they won't.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
"Declinism is rampant in Britain. Some 65% of Britons think the country is “in decline”, according to a poll conducted by Ipsos mori for The Economist, while 57% think today’s youth will have a worse life than their parents. But gloom is unevenly distributed. Remainers are more likely to think Britain is in decline than Leavers, by 76% to 54%. Labour voters are far more declinist than Tories." (£)
I never understand this "in decline" thing. We're still the number 5 economy (nominal) according to the IMF.
one of the highest inequalities we've seen in decades, numbers of death from Covid, visible rising poverty (foodbanks, rough sleeping, child educational standards falling), Defence forces a fraction of their previous size, lost votes over Diego Garcia in the UN Gen Assembley, University graduates leaving with debts of £50000, Commonwealth drifting aimlessly oh and departure from the World's Biggest trading bloc - I am certainly feeling less than positive about the future.
I am by nature an upbeat person. I find few grounds for optimism from a top down point of view but when I look at my children's generation I do feel some hope. There are some extraordinary young people out there. If the older generations would just stop doing their best to destroy their future...
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
"Declinism is rampant in Britain. Some 65% of Britons think the country is “in decline”, according to a poll conducted by Ipsos mori for The Economist, while 57% think today’s youth will have a worse life than their parents. But gloom is unevenly distributed. Remainers are more likely to think Britain is in decline than Leavers, by 76% to 54%. Labour voters are far more declinist than Tories." (£)
I never understand this "in decline" thing. We're still the number 5 economy (nominal) according to the IMF.
one of the highest inequalities we've seen in decades, numbers of death from Covid, visible rising poverty (foodbanks, rough sleeping, child educational standards falling), Defence forces a fraction of their previous size, lost votes over Diego Garcia in the UN Gen Assembley, University graduates leaving with debts of £50000, Commonwealth drifting aimlessly oh and departure from the World's Biggest trading bloc - I am certainly feeling less than positive about the future.
I am by nature an upbeat person. I find few grounds for optimism from a top down point of view but when I look at my children's generation I do feel some hope. There are some extraordinary young people out there. If the older generations would just stop doing their best to destroy their future...
And if you are getting really depressed you can always have a look at reality. From the latest official statistics:
"Income inequality, as measured using the Gini coefficient, has been broadly stable over the past ten years with disposable income (post direct taxes and cash benefits) reaching 34.6% in financial year ending (FYE) 2020 after peaking at 38.6% in FYE 2008 just prior to the economic downturn; however, the Gini coefficient is 6.1 percentage points higher than average levels throughout the late 1970s and 1980s.
While income inequality is higher for non-retired people compared with retired people (34.9% and 31.7%), income inequality has increased more for retired people over recent years; 0.8 percentage points per year between FYE 2015 and FYE 2020, compared with negative 0.1 percentage points per year for non-retired people.
While the Gini coefficient of disposable income has remained stable, the measure for original income (before direct taxes and cash benefits) has fallen from 51.4% in FYE 2011 to 49.7% in FYE 2020; this reflects greater equality in earnings over this period, mitigated by a fall in the effectiveness of cash benefits at reducing income inequality."
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
Why bother to read the detail. They already knew the deal would be Brilliant, winning all of their objectives and sticking one over the Hun.
It does make me wonder though. When Brandon Lewis, as Secretary of State for Norniron, says there is no border down the Irish Sea. Despite his department managing the NI side of said border on a daily basis. Is he openly lying because he assumes Brexit supporters will believe the lie? Or has he not read any of the detail? "The boss says there is no border, and despite my department running that border I'm willing to believe there isn't one"?
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
I don't think anyone would expect her to read the whole deal at such short notice (whose fault was that?), but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect her to have at least skimmed the part that was directly related to her job!
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
Why bother to read the detail. They already knew the deal would be Brilliant, winning all of their objectives and sticking one over the Hun.
It does make me wonder though. When Brandon Lewis, as Secretary of State for Norniron, says there is no border down the Irish Sea. Despite his department managing the NI side of said border on a daily basis. Is he openly lying because he assumes Brexit supporters will believe the lie? Or has he not read any of the detail? "The boss says there is no border, and despite my department running that border I'm willing to believe there isn't one"?
Wait for the day (soon) when some cost cutting is required and Brandon Lewis removes the section because he doesn't know what it does
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
As a Fisheries Minister she didn't need to read the deal to know whether to vote against it. But she did need to read to understand its impact on fishing. When you compare and contrast what government "I didn't read it" ministers are saying, and what the fishing industry is saying, its clear that the detail and the rhetoric are so far apart as to almost be talking about two separate deals.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
Why bother to read the detail. They already knew the deal would be Brilliant, winning all of their objectives and sticking one over the Hun.
It does make me wonder though. When Brandon Lewis, as Secretary of State for Norniron, says there is no border down the Irish Sea. Despite his department managing the NI side of said border on a daily basis. Is he openly lying because he assumes Brexit supporters will believe the lie? Or has he not read any of the detail? "The boss says there is no border, and despite my department running that border I'm willing to believe there isn't one"?
My guess is that he would hang his hat on the word "border". There isn't a border in the sense that there are passport controls or customs posts or tariffs or VAT implications. What there clearly is is more paperwork than there was before because goods in NI have unrestricted access to the SM and have to be compliant with it. In that respect sending goods to NI is not much different to sending them to France.
The data on efficacy of the vaccines compared to natural protection through infection is interesting. Much more interesting would be to know the efficacy of both with respect to survival.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
I don't think anyone would expect her to read the whole deal at such short notice (whose fault was that?), but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect her to have at least skimmed the part that was directly related to her job!
Oh agreed. She is not on top of her brief and that is not a good look.
Good ramp up in the U.K. vaccine numbers yesterday, now responsible for over 10% of all worldwide vaccine doses given.
USA not doing badly, around 900 000 yesterday, and sticking to the 2 dose regime too. I think all Pfizer or Moderna too.
The effetictiveness of the China vaccine (based on it scraping over the 50% WHO threshhold on one metric) might make one wonder as to how much protection those 10m really have.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
Why bother to read the detail. They already knew the deal would be Brilliant, winning all of their objectives and sticking one over the Hun.
It does make me wonder though. When Brandon Lewis, as Secretary of State for Norniron, says there is no border down the Irish Sea. Despite his department managing the NI side of said border on a daily basis. Is he openly lying because he assumes Brexit supporters will believe the lie? Or has he not read any of the detail? "The boss says there is no border, and despite my department running that border I'm willing to believe there isn't one"?
I think he is terrified of admitting it to his boss or he realises that the more the government says it, the more the gullible Brexiters (ie most of them) will swallow it.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
As a Fisheries Minister she didn't need to read the deal to know whether to vote against it. But she did need to read to understand its impact on fishing. When you compare and contrast what government "I didn't read it" ministers are saying, and what the fishing industry is saying, its clear that the detail and the rhetoric are so far apart as to almost be talking about two separate deals.
even if you are being told to just read the executive summary you really do need to check that the executive summary matches the details behind it.
That doesn't mean you read the entire document but it does mean you pick and choose areas where you go into the detail to check that the summary matches the gory.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
Yes, I made that point at the time. There is no room for amendment. You can of course highlight the problem, as you see it, with clause 679 but whether that problem determines your vote in favour or against is part of an overall weighing process and, in this case, deal rather than no deal was a no brainer given the totally inadequate preparation for the latter.
Good ramp up in the U.K. vaccine numbers yesterday, now responsible for over 10% of all worldwide vaccine doses given.
USA not doing badly, around 900 000 yesterday, and sticking to the 2 dose regime too. I think all Pfizer or Moderna too.
The effetictiveness of the China vaccine (based on it scraping over the 50% WHO threshhold on one metric) might make one wonder as to how much protection those 10m really have.
I see the Australians also have their doubts about the efficacy of the Oxford/AZ vaccine.
Good ramp up in the U.K. vaccine numbers yesterday, now responsible for over 10% of all worldwide vaccine doses given.
USA not doing badly, around 900 000 yesterday, and sticking to the 2 dose regime too. I think all Pfizer or Moderna too.
The effetictiveness of the China vaccine (based on it scraping over the 50% WHO threshhold on one metric) might make one wonder as to how much protection those 10m really have.
There's two Chinese vaccines. The Sinopharm one, approved a few weeks ago is okay, it's the new Sinovac one that's the dud.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
I don't think anyone would expect her to read the whole deal at such short notice (whose fault was that?), but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect her to have at least skimmed the part that was directly related to her job!
Or to have arranged to get a briefing - verbal and/or written - from her officials, and read that, such that she could reasonably claim to be familiar with the detail. Which is her job.
The data on efficacy of the vaccines compared to natural protection through infection is interesting. Much more interesting would be to know the efficacy of both with respect to survival.
For me the key feature of the Astrazeneca vaccine is that no one who was vaccinated with it was subsequently hospitalised with Covid.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
I'd like to see the source vid on this with the context.
She seems to be being got at for not having taken Christmas Eve evening out from Christmas to read a treaty. For all I know she read it on Boxing Day or the 27th.
It is a normal twitter edited vid clip. The one thing that makes we wonder whether there is something in it is that no one has jumped on it with both feet yet.
Rather (well, not very) surprised at Boris & Blackford too. A well briefed PM would have pointed out those part of the paperwork process which are a devolved matter.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
If I was a Minister I would have read it because I am a lawyer and therefore slightly anal about these things but I can see the argument for most politicians is that what you really want is advice and information on the sticking points, the controversial issues and how this is going to affect your constituents. There are hundreds of pages of the deal that are just boring boilerplate and frankly not that interesting.
Isn't the difference with these trade deals that, by the time they reach Parliament, they need to be either approved or not, with no chance of amendment unlike most legislation.
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
When you have had an election where you have said there will be a deal (which by implication you will support) your negotiators come back with a deal where the timeline means any opportunity for scrutiny has gone, you are left with:
1. support the deal, warts and all 2. vote against the entirety of the deal (knowing it is a futile gesture, will effect no change in the deal, but some of your constituents would approve of your actions 3. abstain from voting on the entirety of the deal (knowing it is a futile gesture, will effect no change in the deal - and where fewer of your constituents would approve of your actions than in voting against.
2 and 3 bugger your chances of future advancement. Not difficult to see what any vaguely ambitious MP is going to do.
What you DON'T then do is explain away your actions with a comment that will join the "driving to Barnard Castle to test my eyes" lexicon of "You what???" excuses.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
As I pointed out at the time, there wasn't a lot of point in reading it before the vote as no modifications could be made. The choice was Deal (half baked) or No Deal.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
You would hope that the minister responsible for the area would read it. Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht because it wasn't his responsibility - other cabinet ministers had that responsibility.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
Why bother to read the detail. They already knew the deal would be Brilliant, winning all of their objectives and sticking one over the Hun.
It does make me wonder though. When Brandon Lewis, as Secretary of State for Norniron, says there is no border down the Irish Sea. Despite his department managing the NI side of said border on a daily basis. Is he openly lying because he assumes Brexit supporters will believe the lie? Or has he not read any of the detail? "The boss says there is no border, and despite my department running that border I'm willing to believe there isn't one"?
"Sorry but that is the same BS logic that the Republican diehard Senators backing Trump saying that because people believe that there was fraud it needs to be investigated further. Plant a story for partisan reasons despite knowing it to be nonsense. Spread the story far and wide for partisan reasons getting people who want to believe it to share it further.. Amplify the story you planted as much as possible. Then claim that because people are talking about the story, it really is a story, so needs to be investigated further. Fools may swallow this nonsense, doesn't make it a genuine story it just makes it a conspiracy theory rubbish that should be repelled by anyone sensible who can comprehend the facts."
@Philip_Thompson said the above yesterday in reply to one of my posts. Firstly let me make clear that I agree 100% with what Philip posted. In fact I strongly agree with it.
However as an analogy it was badly flawed because the media should be reporting this stuff about Trump's supporters and what they are up to and the arguments they are putting no matter how irrational and mendacious (Philip is confusing the media with the dishonest people asking for an investigation in his analogy). We have to do our best to expose it as such. I assume Philip was not calling for press censorship even though Trump's supporters were making up evidence, convincing people it was real and then calling for an investigation (classic conspiracy stuff).
The reason it is a poor analogy is that the Trump story 100% should be reported whereas the Boris story really had very little merit and comes into the classic 'non-story' category of 'dog bites man' which the media whips up it to something greater. So it wasn't a good analogy of why Boris's story wasn't a story. However because the media has been full of 'what are the rules' stories and are going after anyone in power who transgresses then it should not come as a surprise that the media made it a story and boy did they drone on about it.
I am not going to defend the media for doing this, but it is what I expect them to do. Boris should also have expected that.
Comments
Note that Rice was one of the Republicans in Congress who signed onto an amicus brief in support of the Putinist effort to overturn Biden's election.
CLEARLY what changed Rep. Rice's mind was the Putsch.
Some will say that he's just drinking Woke tea. Even if true (hardly) STILL far better than chugging Trumspky's kool-aid.
Note that Rice represents SC 7th district (since 2012 election) including Myrtle Beach plus rural, inland counties in the easternmost part of the Palmetto State. The district voted over 60% for both him and Trumpsky.
If the Supreme Leader of Iran had coordinated and triggered a physical attack on the US Capitol using Twitter then I suspect his account would have been removed too.
If he is in his late 40s, the parents will have at least State Pensions.
I would have no problem if the jabs were available being privately, which they are not. Or jetting off to where-ever if jabs there had been done such that no one would suffer.
Were the individual stealing a place in the NHS queue from someone who has a greater need, then I would be very harsh.
Tom Rice of South Carolina is certainly in the hot seat IF he decides to run again in 2022 (he was first elected 2012). His district is maybe two-thirds White to approx one-third Black, with growing numbers of Asians & Latinos. Lion's share of Blacks vote Democratic, esp. in primaries; other non-White lean that way, while majority of Whites are Republican or GOP-leaning. Right-wing is strong among these, but plenty of moderates esp. considering how GOP has dominated Palmetto State politics for over one half-century.
My own guess is that, if he runs, Rice will have a good chance of winning.
Why? Well, there will clearly be a split verdict on Trumpsky in general, and on the Putsch and impeachment in particular. My guess is that support for overt Putinism will decline, but from a high baseline as per 2020 result. Where the balance will fall, which side will be higher & by how much, is obviously in the lap of the gods, and could go either way.
HOWEVER, in addition to the ying-yang just outlined, and considerations such as turnout and eventual GOP challenger(s), there is one more X-factor that I think will be operating in his favor: personal integrity.
Personally know little to nothing (closer to later) about Tom Rice. But the little I DO know, leads me to think that he's both a shrewd politico AND a man of integrity.
With in South Carolina has GOT to be worth at least 10% a high-profile GOP primary. Just ask Nicky Haley and Tim Scott.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDqmDVC5nK0
https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/01/09/declinism-is-booming-in-britain
I never understand this "in decline" thing. We're still the number 5 economy (nominal) according to the IMF.
Jim Jordan is calling for revote on having Lynn Cheney continue serving as chair of the House Republican Conference, the 3rd-ranking position in House GOP leadership.
Am guessing this vote will happen within next few weeks.
Doubt very much this will be a straight fight between those who voted for and against impeachment. For one thing, for every one of the ten GOPers who DID vote for impeachment, there are another four or five or more who wish they'd had the guts to do so.
Plus more who opposed impeachment, but respect where those who supported it are coming from.
Plus other anti-impeachment and/or pro-Trumpsky (at least up to now) members who will support Cheney on other grounds, from personal to political and back again.
Am NOT predicting she will win. Only that defeat is NOT inevitable. Or forever.
https://twitter.com/keendawgSSG/status/1349541214446522369
The level of McConnell's strategy is just mind-blowing. Everyone who worked with Trump got screwed, from Chris Christie to Pence to Sessions to Guiliani. Only one man came out on top - one uncharismatic, strange-looking, extremely clever man.
As for McConnell, his political skill is without question. However, do NOT think that his game is simply to impede Biden, though there will of course be areas where he may take that route.
BUT will be others where he and Biden will make a deal. IF he's truly interested in the future of the Republican Party, that is.
This is exactly what McConnell did with Obama. Talk cooperation, burn up time, and when you can't burn through any more time, take away the football. If the government fails, the opposition succeeds - that's how it works in nearly every other democracy.
Could last even longer IF conditions allow. Perhaps something like relationship that emerged between Ike and LBJ in 1950s, with both sides wary and often adversarial, but also surprisingly cooperative and productive, certainly by very early 21st-century standards.
Fred Upton was first elected to Congress in 1988. The same year Bush the Elder was elected President, "Red Dwarf" and "Roseanne" hit the airwaves (harbingers in hindsight), and the winning singer of Eurovision 1988 was Celiine Dion.
In contrast, Peter Mejier was just elected last November.
However, both are scions of family business empires.
> for Upton, Whirlpool which is well-known national manufacture of washing machines and other major appliances; his district in southwest corner of Michigan includes Kalamazoo and Benton Harbor. Mix of urban, small town & rural, also of fairly prosperous and depressingly gritty (and depressed).
> Meijer, the family grocery store chain of the same name which is ubiquitous in his district and much of Michigan, district includes about half of Grand Rapids area, it was Gerry Ford's old district and also home to large population of Dutch Calvinist ancestry, predominately conservative in politics but with a stubborn streak, esp. when it comes to proper standard of conduct.
> 2 are women (Lynn Cheney of WY, Jaime Herrera Beutler of WA)
> 3 are Latino (JHB of WA, Anthony Gonzales of OH, David Valadao of CA)
> 4 are sons of rich, successful family businesses (Valadao of CA, Peter Meijer & Upton of MI, Dan Newhouse of WA)
> 2 (Valadao of CA, Newhouse of WA) from farm families with large agri-business operations (San Joaquin Valley, Yakima Valley)
> 3 are classifiable as career politicians (Herrera Beutler of WA, Upton of MI, and Adam Kinzinger of IL)
> 1 is from the South (Tom Rice of SC) and also an accountant; sole yes vote from region rotten with GOPers
> 1 is from the Northeast (John Katko of NY) and is also a former federal prosecutor specializing in RICO & gang cases) from area where House Republicans are much less numerous.
> 3 from Midwest (Meijer & Upton of MI, Gonzales of OH) note Gonzales is also former pro-football player for Indianapolis Colts
> 4 from the West (Cheney of WY, JHB and Newhouse of WA, Valadao of CA)
> 1 is 3rd ranking member of House GOP leadership (Cheney of WY) while another has 32-years House senority (Upton of MI)
> 2 are newly-elected freshmen (Meijer of MI, Valadao of CA) while another (Gonzales) is starting 2nd term.
In other words, mixture of young & old, newcomers & long-timers, conservatives & moderates, family inheritances and self-made successes. Some from districts closely divided between the parties (where even conservative Republicans may appreciate the benefits of moderation), others from GOP strongholds. Some perhaps near the end of their political careers, others (if they survive the next few months and years) potentially at the start of theirs.
(And Marf, obviously!)
PHE study tracked cases of coronavirus reinfections among healthcare workers
Just 44 people caught the virus again out of 6,614 previously infected people
Of the 44 people, just 15 of them developed symptoms, study data reveals
Experts say previous infection gives 94% protection against symptomatic reinfection and 83% reduced risk for all infections"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9142659/Previous-coronavirus-infection-gives-protection-against-reinfection-Oxford-vaccine.html
And Biden is certainly wiser in the ways of party politics than Obama - he has, for example, just decided to fold his presidential campaign organisation into the Democrats 2022 midterm election campaign. Obama’s decision to hang on to his, keeping his massive voter engagement system aloof from the midterm effort cost the Democrats dear electorally.
Brexit export EU costs a 'nasty shock' for small business owners
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-55593308
Biden is an experienced professional politician, something that Obama isn't even now. Biden knows that he has to do deals with all sorts of shades of opinion to get his policies through both the House and the Senate. And, outside the immediate political battlefield, he and McConnell are, I believe, on friendly terms.
I am sure there would be time for a little flint knapping on the side.
Anyhoo - morning all.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1349601665117282304?s=19
One unintended advantage of the Pfizer vaccine transport and logistics issues, is that very few of them are going to end up on the black market.
Dr. Foxy, Ken Clarke didn't read Maastricht.
A little more time considering treaties and long term implications from politicians generally might not go amiss.
@NickPalmer has pointed out in the past that MPs should be able to not read the detail on every bill, as that was the point of whips instructing how to vote. It does rather rely on the whips/party leaders having read it though.
Everyone else will be operating on the assumption that the person responsible should have read it and agreed to it. But hey that clearly isn't Boris's way.
"Income inequality, as measured using the Gini coefficient, has been broadly stable over the past ten years with disposable income (post direct taxes and cash benefits) reaching 34.6% in financial year ending (FYE) 2020 after peaking at 38.6% in FYE 2008 just prior to the economic downturn; however, the Gini coefficient is 6.1 percentage points higher than average levels throughout the late 1970s and 1980s.
While income inequality is higher for non-retired people compared with retired people (34.9% and 31.7%), income inequality has increased more for retired people over recent years; 0.8 percentage points per year between FYE 2015 and FYE 2020, compared with negative 0.1 percentage points per year for non-retired people.
While the Gini coefficient of disposable income has remained stable, the measure for original income (before direct taxes and cash benefits) has fallen from 51.4% in FYE 2011 to 49.7% in FYE 2020; this reflects greater equality in earnings over this period, mitigated by a fall in the effectiveness of cash benefits at reducing income inequality."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householdincomeinequalityfinancial/financialyearending2020provisional
In short income inequality is still lower than it was under Gordon Brown.
It does make me wonder though. When Brandon Lewis, as Secretary of State for Norniron, says there is no border down the Irish Sea. Despite his department managing the NI side of said border on a daily basis. Is he openly lying because he assumes Brexit supporters will believe the lie? Or has he not read any of the detail? "The boss says there is no border, and despite my department running that border I'm willing to believe there isn't one"?
There was no opportunity to argue the deal line by line in Parliament, because that had already been done by the negotiating team, with the other side.
The Belfast Telegraph isn't fooled, though.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/poots-in-storm-as-michael-gove-warns-irish-sea-brexit-border-chaos-will-get-worse-39949304.html
That doesn't mean you read the entire document but it does mean you pick and choose areas where you go into the detail to check that the summary matches the gory.
Good luck with that in court, counselor...
https://www.ft.com/content/8def3a81-9b80-46a1-9742-f64b80bfc74f
New Thread
She seems to be being got at for not having taken Christmas Eve evening out from Christmas to read a treaty. For all I know she read it on Boxing Day or the 27th.
It is a normal twitter edited vid clip. The one thing that makes we wonder whether there is something in it is that no one has jumped on it with both feet yet.
Rather (well, not very) surprised at Boris & Blackford too. A well briefed PM would have pointed out those part of the paperwork process which are a devolved matter.
1. support the deal, warts and all
2. vote against the entirety of the deal (knowing it is a futile gesture, will effect no change in the deal, but some of your constituents would approve of your actions
3. abstain from voting on the entirety of the deal (knowing it is a futile gesture, will effect no change in the deal - and where fewer of your constituents would approve of your actions than in voting against.
2 and 3 bugger your chances of future advancement. Not difficult to see what any vaguely ambitious MP is going to do.
What you DON'T then do is explain away your actions with a comment that will join the "driving to Barnard Castle to test my eyes" lexicon of "You what???" excuses.
"Sorry but that is the same BS logic that the Republican diehard Senators backing Trump saying that because people believe that there was fraud it needs to be investigated further.
Plant a story for partisan reasons despite knowing it to be nonsense.
Spread the story far and wide for partisan reasons getting people who want to believe it to share it further..
Amplify the story you planted as much as possible.
Then claim that because people are talking about the story, it really is a story, so needs to be investigated further.
Fools may swallow this nonsense, doesn't make it a genuine story it just makes it a conspiracy theory rubbish that should be repelled by anyone sensible who can comprehend the facts."
@Philip_Thompson said the above yesterday in reply to one of my posts. Firstly let me make clear that I agree 100% with what Philip posted. In fact I strongly agree with it.
However as an analogy it was badly flawed because the media should be reporting this stuff about Trump's supporters and what they are up to and the arguments they are putting no matter how irrational and mendacious (Philip is confusing the media with the dishonest people asking for an investigation in his analogy). We have to do our best to expose it as such. I assume Philip was not calling for press censorship even though Trump's supporters were making up evidence, convincing people it was real and then calling for an investigation (classic conspiracy stuff).
The reason it is a poor analogy is that the Trump story 100% should be reported whereas the Boris story really had very little merit and comes into the classic 'non-story' category of 'dog bites man' which the media whips up it to something greater. So it wasn't a good analogy of why Boris's story wasn't a story. However because the media has been full of 'what are the rules' stories and are going after anyone in power who transgresses then it should not come as a surprise that the media made it a story and boy did they drone on about it.
I am not going to defend the media for doing this, but it is what I expect them to do. Boris should also have expected that.