Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

On Betfair punters make it a 73% chance that not enough Republican Senators will back the impeachmen

135678

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is a remarkably stupid statement from Drakeford:
    ...We will be using all the Oxford vaccine that we get as we get it, the Pfizer vaccine has to last us until into the first week of February.

    So we have to provide it on a week-by-week basis. What you can’t do is to try and stand up a system which uses all the vaccine you’ve got in week one and then have nothing to offer for the next four weeks...


    You absolutely should be trying to use up all the vaccine you have as quickly as possible. Spreading it out makes no sense at all.

    It can do if you've got a plan such as Fauci was describing where you want to hold back vaccine to ensure second doses. But I doubt that was what Drakeford was describing
    It's not.
  • More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    Ah - thanks. In that case conviction is unlikely to reach 2/3rds would you say?
    Unless, as I was saying earlier, the GOP see this as their chance to run away from Trump and claim nothing to do with me guv.
    They will but I don't think they're ready for it yet. I think it's going to take a massive bust-up first. They will need to tear themselves apart before they can rebuild.

    Then, and only then, will they get to their equivalent of this ... and begin the long process of clawing their way back to power:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jji0JS5TPFk

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723
    Nigelb said:

    This is a remarkably stupid statement from Drakeford:
    ...We will be using all the Oxford vaccine that we get as we get it, the Pfizer vaccine has to last us until into the first week of February.

    So we have to provide it on a week-by-week basis. What you can’t do is to try and stand up a system which uses all the vaccine you’ve got in week one and then have nothing to offer for the next four weeks...


    You absolutely should be trying to use up all the vaccine you have as quickly as possible. Spreading it out makes no sense at all.

    Need Pfizer vaccine for second doses of people originally given Pfizer though. Is that what Drakeford is trying, rather clumsily, to say?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Did I hear correctly that Raaaaaab said yesterday that people may not get their Covid booster inside the 12 weeks? Its already been extended significantly out to 12 weeks, isn't there a risk that it loses effectiveness by going even longer?

    Its genuinely brilliant that we are getting this many people vaccinated this quickly. Best not to reduce the effectiveness of this by delaying the 2nd jab to get more people the first jab. Surely...

    Mr Zahawi also insisted that second doses of vaccines will be given within 12 weeks of the first - after Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab refused to confirm yesterday that would be the case.

    Some people might fall through the cracks but it looks like policy to have second dose after 12 weeks, thank fuck.

    My guess is Raab didn't want to say something out of place, and by trying to not do that... he did.
    Sounds about right. Raab is not very bright.
    Actually I think Raab is quite bright.
    And has some interesting ideas.
    And the right instincts on, for eg, China.

    But has a tendency to say the wrong thing.

    My one issue with Raab is his enthusiastic support of prorogation last year
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited January 2021
    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    I`ve still not quite got this.

    According to HYUFD (below) "I suspect the Senate will vote to convict Trump but not by the 2/3 majority needed to remove him from office. "

    So you are saying 2/3rds needed to convict but HYUFD is saying (I think) 50% to convict.
    Well, Hyufd is wrong, it will still be 2/3 required to convict, although the punishment may be determined by majority vote (which isn't clear as it's never happened).

    An appropriate comparison is not with legislation but with jury duty.

    Edit - although Hyufd may be saying a majority will vote to convict, but not enough to actually convict. That could happen (and indeed did happen in the case of Andrew Johnson).
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    DavidL said:

    I am not sure and the matter has never been tested but I can certainly see complaints of double jeopardy if he were tried in the Senate and then tried in the Court for basically the same thing. The argument that it was no longer possible to get a fair trial if the Senate convicted would no doubt be run too.

    He would be tried in the Senate for sedition.

    If he is tried in court it will be for other things
    Sedition is what he should be tried in the courts for. And the arguments will be run (with or without merit, they will run for years) even if they come up with something slightly different.
    This has all the hallmarks of 'We're going to give him a jolly stiff talking to'!

    Trump's response? Probably a new TV show with impeachment in the title......
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    Nigelb said:

    This is a remarkably stupid statement from Drakeford:
    ...We will be using all the Oxford vaccine that we get as we get it, the Pfizer vaccine has to last us until into the first week of February.

    So we have to provide it on a week-by-week basis. What you can’t do is to try and stand up a system which uses all the vaccine you’ve got in week one and then have nothing to offer for the next four weeks...


    You absolutely should be trying to use up all the vaccine you have as quickly as possible. Spreading it out makes no sense at all.

    You've seen a statement from Drakeford that isn't remarkably stupid?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    I’ve decided you’re a paid Tory plant.

    Given your constant posting about how good Boris is and how shit Labour are.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?

    Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.

    There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.

    Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.

    It's bonkers, but even more annoying in my opinion is all the talk in the media of there being a "postcode lottery". People do not seem to be able to grasp that different parts of the country will have different demographics, different facilites, and different availability of resources and personnel. We want each place to do what is best for them and go as fast as they can, the last thing we want is to go at the pace of the slowest place so that everyone gets equal "fairer" access to vaccines.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited January 2021

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
    He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.

    A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,884
    I trust the police are asking them if there journey is essential...
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    24/7 vaccination is great. There's no limitation on supply right now, contrary to the odd report, at least not with AZ.

    So if you can vaccinate half as many people through the night it's still worth doing.

    I would drive miles to get mine in the night and, indeed, I would walk 500 miles ...
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,557

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited January 2021

    Nigelb said:

    This is a remarkably stupid statement from Drakeford:
    ...We will be using all the Oxford vaccine that we get as we get it, the Pfizer vaccine has to last us until into the first week of February.

    So we have to provide it on a week-by-week basis. What you can’t do is to try and stand up a system which uses all the vaccine you’ve got in week one and then have nothing to offer for the next four weeks...


    You absolutely should be trying to use up all the vaccine you have as quickly as possible. Spreading it out makes no sense at all.

    Need Pfizer vaccine for second doses of people originally given Pfizer though. Is that what Drakeford is trying, rather clumsily, to say?
    It sounds more like he's saying he doesn't want to be seen to run out, if he gets 40k deliveries today he'd rather do 10k a week for a month than 40k in a single week, then have vaccine staff stand idle waiting for supplies.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    glw said:

    Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?

    Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.

    There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.

    Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.

    It's bonkers, but even more annoying in my opinion is all the talk in the media of there being a "postcode lottery". People do not seem to be able to grasp that different parts of the country will have different demographics, different facilites, and different availability of resources and personnel. We want each place to do what is best for them and go as fast as they can, the last thing we want is to go at the pace of the slowest place so that everyone gets equal "fairer" access to vaccines.
    The only limiting rate on rollout should be that the 12 week 2nd dose is ensured to be met. I don't want to see a whole load of nonsense political correctness creeping into delivery when certain areas have lower uptake because they'll believe any old shite on the internet for instance.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
    He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.

    A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
    I didn’t hear him.

    But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2021
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is a remarkably stupid statement from Drakeford:
    ...We will be using all the Oxford vaccine that we get as we get it, the Pfizer vaccine has to last us until into the first week of February.

    So we have to provide it on a week-by-week basis. What you can’t do is to try and stand up a system which uses all the vaccine you’ve got in week one and then have nothing to offer for the next four weeks...


    You absolutely should be trying to use up all the vaccine you have as quickly as possible. Spreading it out makes no sense at all.

    Need Pfizer vaccine for second doses of people originally given Pfizer though. Is that what Drakeford is trying, rather clumsily, to say?
    It sounds more like he's saying he doesn't want to be seen to run out, if he gets 40k deliveries today he'd rather do 10k a week for a month than 40k in a single week, then have vaccine staff stand idle waiting for supplies.
    Not only is it medically stupid, it is politically. If Wales smashed it, used all their supply, the pressure would be on UK government to more. There is 3-4m AZN doses coming this week, plenty for UK government to give out more to Wales if were out of all vaccines.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723

    I trust the police are asking them if there journey is essential...
    'their' journey.

    Just keeping up with pb tradition.
  • I trust the police are asking them if there journey is essential...
    Bloody remoaning fishermen. They've always been insisting we stay in the EU, they can be ignored.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do. The mood in the country went all 'whoopee.' A LOTO who then comes across as a miserable fart will be annihilated in the following election.

    I can see this coming. In 6 months we will have all-but-eliminated the virus from these shores and British citizens, carrying their world leading vaccine stamp, will be able to travel the world. We are in the early stages of a STUNNING success story. I've been very critical of Johnson. In many ways I loathe him but I cannot begrudge him the fact that he has achieved a quite sensational success with the vaccines. And Brexit is not the disaster so far that some thought it would be. Indeed, our vaccine rollout is undoubtedly helped by being out of the EU.

    The press, especially, the tabloids are going to be gung-ho. Today's fronts are but a mere foretaste of the salivation with which the leader writers are going to get behind Boris.

    Labour are toast for the next election.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    I trust the police are asking them if there journey is essential...
    'their' journey.

    Just keeping up with pb tradition.
    No, he omitted "that" as in, "that there journey."
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
    Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?

    Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.

    There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.

    Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.

    The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.

    We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
    Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
    Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.

    They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.

    Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723
    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Well, there isn't going to be a 'Great Release' day, is there? There won't, for a long time, be a time when we needn't be alert for a revival/fresh mutation of the virus.

    Unless of course Boris is daft enough to declare a Bank Holiday when there hasn't been anyone taken to hospital with ......... on, wait!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2021

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do. The mood in the country went all 'whoopee.' A LOTO who then comes across as a miserable fart will be annihilated in the following election.

    I can see this coming. In 6 months we will have all-but-eliminated the virus from these shores and British citizens, carrying their world leading vaccine stamp, will be able to travel the world. We are in the early stages of a STUNNING success story. I've been very critical of Johnson. In many ways I loathe him but I cannot begrudge him the fact that he has achieved a quite sensational success with the vaccines. And Brexit is not the disaster so far that some thought it would be. Indeed, our vaccine rollout is undoubtedly helped by being out of the EU.

    The press, especially, the tabloids are going to be gung-ho. Today's fronts are but a mere foretaste of the salivation with which the leader writers are going to get behind Boris.

    Labour are toast for the next election.
    The next general election is not due until 2024.

    Brexit has been completed, Corbyn is gone and if by then Covid is dealt with then the payback will be underway in terms of tax rises and spending cuts.

    The Tories will need to ensure they have a narrative that gives a reason for the Red Wall to re elect them again as without the Red Wall they will lose their majority, it will be back to a hung parliament and Starmer will likely be PM with SNP support.

    Remember only one party since World War 2 has won a general election after 10 years in power as will be the case for the Tories in 2024. Major's Tories in 1992 by a very narrow margin.

    However even in 1992 the Tories still lost 40 seats, the same loss next time would see Boris narrowly lose his majority and reliant on the DUP who would be less reliable than they were in 2017
  • Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    I`ve still not quite got this.

    According to HYUFD (below) "I suspect the Senate will vote to convict Trump but not by the 2/3 majority needed to remove him from office. "

    So you are saying 2/3rds needed to convict but HYUFD is saying (I think) 50% to convict.
    2/3 to convict.
    If convicted, then simple majority for disbarment
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Nigelb said:

    This is a remarkably stupid statement from Drakeford:
    ...We will be using all the Oxford vaccine that we get as we get it, the Pfizer vaccine has to last us until into the first week of February.

    So we have to provide it on a week-by-week basis. What you can’t do is to try and stand up a system which uses all the vaccine you’ve got in week one and then have nothing to offer for the next four weeks...


    You absolutely should be trying to use up all the vaccine you have as quickly as possible. Spreading it out makes no sense at all.

    Need Pfizer vaccine for second doses of people originally given Pfizer though. Is that what Drakeford is trying, rather clumsily, to say?
    I suspect so - but it's not an easy thing to explain when under questioning on TV.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
    Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
    The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?

    It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
    He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.

    A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
    I didn’t hear him.

    But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
    Yes but I don't think that's the preserve of Labour.

    Boris Johnson has not come across as uncaring. Far, far, from it. I think in part because he contracted the virus he's had very good empathy. And no one can accuse Rishi Sunak of failing to rise to the challenge of helping people.

    They've made errors on free school meals and Cummings should have been censured but they're basically doing a bloody good job.

    As I mentioned, I voted Labour last election and LibDem the one before. I'm hardly a tory but I have to hand it to this Government. The vaccine procurement from multiple developers in advance was a blinder and the rollout is a stunning success.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    I`ve still not quite got this.

    According to HYUFD (below) "I suspect the Senate will vote to convict Trump but not by the 2/3 majority needed to remove him from office. "

    So you are saying 2/3rds needed to convict but HYUFD is saying (I think) 50% to convict.
    Well, Hyufd is wrong, it will still be 2/3 required to convict, although the punishment may be determined by majority vote (which isn't clear as it's never happened).

    An appropriate comparison is not with legislation but with jury duty.

    Edit - although Hyufd may be saying a majority will vote to convict, but not enough to actually convict. That could happen (and indeed did happen in the case of Andrew Johnson).
    If a simple majority vote to convict then the Senate will have voted to convict Trump, they may not have the 2/3 majority required to remove him from office that is all.

    However that is irrelevant as he will have left office anyway.

    As you say more important will be the punishment they impose. That could be to prevent him running for public office again which could be passed by simple majority vote and would be much more significant for Trump's future prospects.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do. The mood in the country went all 'whoopee.' A LOTO who then comes across as a miserable fart will be annihilated in the following election.

    I can see this coming. In 6 months we will have all-but-eliminated the virus from these shores and British citizens, carrying their world leading vaccine stamp, will be able to travel the world. We are in the early stages of a STUNNING success story. I've been very critical of Johnson. In many ways I loathe him but I cannot begrudge him the fact that he has achieved a quite sensational success with the vaccines. And Brexit is not the disaster so far that some thought it would be. Indeed, our vaccine rollout is undoubtedly helped by being out of the EU.

    The press, especially, the tabloids are going to be gung-ho. Today's fronts are but a mere foretaste of the salivation with which the leader writers are going to get behind Boris.

    Labour are toast for the next election.
    It's a fair point. If in the summer we are in full 'bounce back' mode then there's going to be a lot of people looking to enjoy themselves the most they can and have fun.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723
    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do. The mood in the country went all 'whoopee.' A LOTO who then comes across as a miserable fart will be annihilated in the following election.

    I can see this coming. In 6 months we will have all-but-eliminated the virus from these shores and British citizens, carrying their world leading vaccine stamp, will be able to travel the world. We are in the early stages of a STUNNING success story. I've been very critical of Johnson. In many ways I loathe him but I cannot begrudge him the fact that he has achieved a quite sensational success with the vaccines. And Brexit is not the disaster so far that some thought it would be. Indeed, our vaccine rollout is undoubtedly helped by being out of the EU.

    The press, especially, the tabloids are going to be gung-ho. Today's fronts are but a mere foretaste of the salivation with which the leader writers are going to get behind Boris.

    Labour are toast for the next election.
    The next general election is not due until 2024.

    Brexit has been completed, Corbyn is gone and if by then Covid is dealt with then the payback will be underway in terms of tax rises and spending cuts.

    The Tories will need to ensure they have a narrative that gives a reason for the Red Wall to re elect them again as without the Red Wall they will lose their majority, it will be back to a hung parliament and Starmer will likely be PM with SNP support.

    Remember only one party since World War 2 has won a general election after 10 years in power as will be the case for the Tories in 2024. Major's Tories in 1992 by a very narrow margin.

    However even in 1992 the Tories still lost 40 seats, the same loss next time would see Boris narrowly lose his majority and reliant on the DUP who would be less reliable than they were in 2017
    'Less reliable' I think is an understatement. The Unionists are Ulster Scots, and remember the saying about a Scotsman with a grievance.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?

    Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.

    There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.

    Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.

    The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.

    We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
    Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
    Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.

    They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.

    Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
    You and 10 million others.

    People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do. The mood in the country went all 'whoopee.' A LOTO who then comes across as a miserable fart will be annihilated in the following election.

    I can see this coming. In 6 months we will have all-but-eliminated the virus from these shores and British citizens, carrying their world leading vaccine stamp, will be able to travel the world. We are in the early stages of a STUNNING success story. I've been very critical of Johnson. In many ways I loathe him but I cannot begrudge him the fact that he has achieved a quite sensational success with the vaccines. And Brexit is not the disaster so far that some thought it would be. Indeed, our vaccine rollout is undoubtedly helped by being out of the EU.

    The press, especially, the tabloids are going to be gung-ho. Today's fronts are but a mere foretaste of the salivation with which the leader writers are going to get behind Boris.

    Labour are toast for the next election.
    The next general election is not due until 2024.

    Brexit has been completed, Corbyn is gone and if by then Covid is dealt with then the payback will be underway in terms of tax rises and spending cuts.

    The Tories will need to ensure they have a narrative that gives a reason for the Red Wall to re elect them again as without the Red Wall they will lose their majority, it will be back to a hung parliament and Starmer will likely be PM with SNP support.

    Remember only one party since World War 2 has won a general election after 10 years in power as will be the case for the Tories in 2024. Major's Tories in 1992 by a very narrow margin.

    However even in 1992 the Tories still lost 40 seats, the same loss next time would see Boris narrowly lose his majority and reliant on the DUP who would be less reliable than they were in 2017
    How sure are you that the SNP would support the LP, given that the latter supports the union?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
    He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.

    A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
    I didn’t hear him.

    But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
    Yes but I don't think that's the preserve of Labour.

    Boris Johnson has not come across as uncaring. Far, far, from it. I think in part because he contracted the virus he's had very good empathy. And no one can accuse Rishi Sunak of failing to rise to the challenge of helping people.

    They've made errors on free school meals and Cummings should have been censured but they're basically doing a bloody good job.

    As I mentioned, I voted Labour last election and LibDem the one before. I'm hardly a tory but I have to hand it to this Government. The vaccine procurement from multiple developers in advance was a blinder and the rollout is a stunning success.

    Just a shame about the 100,000 dead. But you can't be good at everything.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    HYUFD said:

    Brexit has been completed

    It really hasn't.

    The battles are just beginning
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?

    Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.

    There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.

    Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.

    The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.

    We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
    Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
    Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.

    They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.

    Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
    You and 10 million others.

    People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
    Totally.. name the time the place, and time, any place and I'll be there. I'd drive for hours for a 2am slot and do it happily.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    Ah - thanks. In that case conviction is unlikely to reach 2/3rds would you say?
    Unless, as I was saying earlier, the GOP see this as their chance to run away from Trump and claim nothing to do with me guv.
    They will but I don't think they're ready for it yet. I think it's going to take a massive bust-up first. They will need to tear themselves apart before they can rebuild.

    Then, and only then, will they get to their equivalent of this ... and begin the long process of clawing their way back to power:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jji0JS5TPFk

    Except the GOP could return to some power as early as 2022 if they retake the House in the midterms.

    We forget in the US Federal Power does not only lie in the Presidency, it also lies in Congress and the House and Senate too.

    The GOP could be out of the Presidency for a decade and yet still retain some power, much as the Democrats still held the House throughout the Reagan and Bush 41 years.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    As an aside, if we can became the first large country to be become free of the disease that'll help the hospitality sector a lot with incoming tourism and (temporarily) very limited competition.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited January 2021
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    I`ve still not quite got this.

    According to HYUFD (below) "I suspect the Senate will vote to convict Trump but not by the 2/3 majority needed to remove him from office. "

    So you are saying 2/3rds needed to convict but HYUFD is saying (I think) 50% to convict.
    Well, Hyufd is wrong, it will still be 2/3 required to convict, although the punishment may be determined by majority vote (which isn't clear as it's never happened).

    An appropriate comparison is not with legislation but with jury duty.

    Edit - although Hyufd may be saying a majority will vote to convict, but not enough to actually convict. That could happen (and indeed did happen in the case of Andrew Johnson).
    If a simple majority vote to convict then the Senate will have voted to convict Trump, they may not have the 2/3 majority required to remove him from office that is all.

    However that is irrelevant as he will have left office anyway.

    As you say more important will be the punishment they impose. That could be to prevent him running for public office again which could be passed by simple majority vote and would be much more significant for Trump's future prospects.
    No Hyufd. If nine jurors vote to convict and three do not, they haven't 'voted to convict,' they are a hung jury.*

    The Senate in this case is a jury. If two-thirds do not vote in favour of conviction, the result is acquittal.

    *Yes, I know that's the UK and in the US it varies by state.
  • HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do. The mood in the country went all 'whoopee.' A LOTO who then comes across as a miserable fart will be annihilated in the following election.

    I can see this coming. In 6 months we will have all-but-eliminated the virus from these shores and British citizens, carrying their world leading vaccine stamp, will be able to travel the world. We are in the early stages of a STUNNING success story. I've been very critical of Johnson. In many ways I loathe him but I cannot begrudge him the fact that he has achieved a quite sensational success with the vaccines. And Brexit is not the disaster so far that some thought it would be. Indeed, our vaccine rollout is undoubtedly helped by being out of the EU.

    The press, especially, the tabloids are going to be gung-ho. Today's fronts are but a mere foretaste of the salivation with which the leader writers are going to get behind Boris.

    Labour are toast for the next election.
    The next general election is not due until 2024.

    Brexit has been completed, Corbyn is gone and if by then Covid is dealt with then the payback will be underway in terms of tax rises and spending cuts.

    The Tories will need to ensure they have a narrative that gives a reason for the Red Wall to re elect them again as without the Red Wall they will lose their majority, it will be back to a hung parliament and Starmer will likely be PM with SNP support.

    Remember only one party since World War 2 has won a general election after 10 years in power as will be the case for the Tories in 2024. Major's Tories in 1992 by a very narrow margin.

    However even in 1992 the Tories still lost 40 seats, the same loss next time would see Boris narrowly lose his majority and reliant on the DUP who would be less reliable than they were in 2017
    'Less reliable' I think is an understatement. The Unionists are Ulster Scots, and remember the saying about a Scotsman with a grievance.
    ...or an Irishman seeking to get even!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723
    edited January 2021

    Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?

    Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.

    There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.

    Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.

    The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.

    We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
    Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
    Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.

    They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.

    Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
    You and 10 million others.

    People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
    We have been told that in our community all the 80+'s have been 'done', bar a tiny minority who don't appear to have phones, relatives or indeed, friends. My wife, 79, is now twitching when the phone rings!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Brexit has been completed

    It really hasn't.

    The battles are just beginning
    And you will not be the last remainer...
    (Cuts to Daisy Ridley moving rocks around.)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
    It is not pointless for presidents to be held to account for their actions. Punishing people for their actions is not pointless or vindictive either. Americans claim to love their constitution and this process exists for a purpose, and someone no longer being in office is no reason not to punish them for actions done in office.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
    He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.

    A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
    I didn’t hear him.

    But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
    Yes but I don't think that's the preserve of Labour.

    Boris Johnson has not come across as uncaring. Far, far, from it. I think in part because he contracted the virus he's had very good empathy. And no one can accuse Rishi Sunak of failing to rise to the challenge of helping people.

    They've made errors on free school meals and Cummings should have been censured but they're basically doing a bloody good job.

    As I mentioned, I voted Labour last election and LibDem the one before. I'm hardly a tory but I have to hand it to this Government. The vaccine procurement from multiple developers in advance was a blinder and the rollout is a stunning success.

    The vaccine procurement and deployment has been a success. The government has done very well there. Financial support for employees also good, particularly early on.

    The government has however dithered and failed to bring in restrictions that were obviously going to have to happen in a timely manner. I'll give them a bit of a pass on the first lockdown being late as that was always going to be a very hard decision, but the later restrictions have been obviously coming and obviously a little late each time...

    Having said that, I do think that if the vaccine rollout goes well and we're out of restrictions with low cases/deaths in the not too distant future (and particularly if we're out of restrictions before other countries) then all except those personally affected will forget about the high death toll here and the government will be doing very well in the polls.
  • Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Brexit has been completed

    It really hasn't.

    The battles are just beginning
    It has in terms of it being a process for us exiting the EU, then HYUFD is correct. If you are referring to the consequences, the reckoning and the political price for the UK and those that gulled people into voting for it, then yes, that is only at the beginning.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
    He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.

    A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
    I didn’t hear him.

    But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
    The Tories have spent what - £250? £300 billion? - on a wide range of Covid measures to protect the economic fabric of this country - and thereby protecting the most vulnerable in society. The old "penny-pinching Tories" arguments don't work.

    What won't have changed is that HOWEVER much money the Tories spend, Labour will demand it should have been far, far more. We already it see from the Shadow Chancellor.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited January 2021
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    Ah - thanks. In that case conviction is unlikely to reach 2/3rds would you say?
    Unless, as I was saying earlier, the GOP see this as their chance to run away from Trump and claim nothing to do with me guv.
    They will but I don't think they're ready for it yet. I think it's going to take a massive bust-up first. They will need to tear themselves apart before they can rebuild.

    Then, and only then, will they get to their equivalent of this ... and begin the long process of clawing their way back to power:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jji0JS5TPFk



    We forget in the US Federal Power does not only lie in the Presidency, it also lies in Congress and the House and Senate too.

    .
    You might but I don't.

    The GOP will still be ripping themselves up in 2022 and Biden will have steadied the good ship America. The Democrats will not lose Congress in their mid-terms. I expect them to gain.

    And you did tell us all on here that the GOP were going to win both Georgia run-offs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2021
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    I`ve still not quite got this.

    According to HYUFD (below) "I suspect the Senate will vote to convict Trump but not by the 2/3 majority needed to remove him from office. "

    So you are saying 2/3rds needed to convict but HYUFD is saying (I think) 50% to convict.
    Well, Hyufd is wrong, it will still be 2/3 required to convict, although the punishment may be determined by majority vote (which isn't clear as it's never happened).

    An appropriate comparison is not with legislation but with jury duty.

    Edit - although Hyufd may be saying a majority will vote to convict, but not enough to actually convict. That could happen (and indeed did happen in the case of Andrew Johnson).
    If a simple majority vote to convict then the Senate will have voted to convict Trump, they may not have the 2/3 majority required to remove him from office that is all.

    However that is irrelevant as he will have left office anyway.

    As you say more important will be the punishment they impose. That could be to prevent him running for public office again which could be passed by simple majority vote and would be much more significant for Trump's future prospects.
    No Hyufd. If nine jurors vote to convict and three do not, they haven't 'voted to convict,' they are a hung jury.*

    The Senate in this case is a jury. If two-thirds do not vote in favour of conviction, the result is acquittal.

    *Yes, I know that's the UK and in the US it varies by state.
    The impeachment process is only relevant to Trump's removal from office, that is the only prescribed punishment for a 2/3 Senate vote to convict under the US Constitution. Hence Cotton is arguing the Senate trial goes against the Constitutional aims of the Founding Fathers anyway as Trump will already have left office when it takes place. He may well have a point.

    However Section 3 of the 14th Amendment still enables the Senate to vote to prevent Trump running again for future public office if they have voted to convict him by a simple majority vote of insurrection but failed to reach the 2/3 majority vote to convict him under the impeachment process. That could then only be overturned before 2024 by 2/3 majority of both Chambers of Congress. That is what I believe the Democrats are really aiming to do.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883



    ...or an Irishman seeking to get even!

    We don't know what we want, but by God we'll fight for it.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?

    Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.

    There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.

    Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.

    The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.

    We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
    Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
    Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.

    They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.

    Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
    You and 10 million others.

    People want this pestilence gone from their lives. If we have the supplies to justify 24 hour jabbing, then make it happen.
    Totally.. name the time the place, and time, any place and I'll be there. I'd drive for hours for a 2am slot and do it happily.
    Me too. And everyone I know.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852
    I agree, Mike. Conviction is a good bet at that price. Might do it.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,557
    IshmaelZ said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
    The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
    The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Brexit has been completed

    It really hasn't.

    The battles are just beginning
    Keep waging that war from your jungle redoubt.

    The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited January 2021
    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is a remarkably stupid statement from Drakeford:
    ...We will be using all the Oxford vaccine that we get as we get it, the Pfizer vaccine has to last us until into the first week of February.

    So we have to provide it on a week-by-week basis. What you can’t do is to try and stand up a system which uses all the vaccine you’ve got in week one and then have nothing to offer for the next four weeks...


    You absolutely should be trying to use up all the vaccine you have as quickly as possible. Spreading it out makes no sense at all.

    Need Pfizer vaccine for second doses of people originally given Pfizer though. Is that what Drakeford is trying, rather clumsily, to say?
    I suspect so - but it's not an easy thing to explain when under questioning on TV.
    I don't think it is. Wales have done a total of 80 second doses so far this year.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
    He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.

    A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
    I didn’t hear him.

    But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
    The Tories have spent what - £250? £300 billion? - on a wide range of Covid measures to protect the economic fabric of this country - and thereby protecting the most vulnerable in society. The old "penny-pinching Tories" arguments don't work.

    What won't have changed is that HOWEVER much money the Tories spend, Labour will demand it should have been far, far more. We already it see from the Shadow Chancellor.
    The risk for the Tories is if they follow Osborne's example in 2014 and 'require' the low paid and the public servants to make good the deficit, to the benefit of the financial sector.
  • New No 10 team take on Cummings' legacy of chaos and acrimony

    Stratton held a briefing call with Conservative MPs this week, and though a number lined up to berate the government for falling into “bear traps” set by Labour and urged the comms operation to get better at rebuttal, the mood after was optimistic. “It was very good, she was extremely impressive,” said one senior MP.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/18/dominic-cummings-legacy-allegra-stratton-dan-rosenfield-whitehall
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    I`ve still not quite got this.

    According to HYUFD (below) "I suspect the Senate will vote to convict Trump but not by the 2/3 majority needed to remove him from office. "

    So you are saying 2/3rds needed to convict but HYUFD is saying (I think) 50% to convict.
    Well, Hyufd is wrong, it will still be 2/3 required to convict, although the punishment may be determined by majority vote (which isn't clear as it's never happened).

    An appropriate comparison is not with legislation but with jury duty.

    Edit - although Hyufd may be saying a majority will vote to convict, but not enough to actually convict. That could happen (and indeed did happen in the case of Andrew Johnson).
    If a simple majority vote to convict then the Senate will have voted to convict Trump, they may not have the 2/3 majority required to remove him from office that is all.

    However that is irrelevant as he will have left office anyway.

    As you say more important will be the punishment they impose. That could be to prevent him running for public office again which could be passed by simple majority vote and would be much more significant for Trump's future prospects.
    No Hyufd. If nine jurors vote to convict and three do not, they haven't 'voted to convict,' they are a hung jury.*

    The Senate in this case is a jury. If two-thirds do not vote in favour of conviction, the result is acquittal.

    *Yes, I know that's the UK and in the US it varies by state.
    The impeachment process is only relevant to Trump's removal from office, that is the only prescribed punishment for a 2/3 Senate vote to convict under the US Constitution. Hence Cotton is arguing the Senate trial goes against the Constitutional aims of the Founding Fathers anyway as Trump will already have left office when it takes place. He may well have a point.

    However Section 3 of the 14th Amendment still enables the Senate to vote to prevent Trump running again for future public office if they have voted to convict him by a simple majority vote but failed to reach the 2/3 majority vote to convict him under the impeachment process
    Hyufd, this is what's called 'a trial.' Not impeachment per se. That's already been done by the House, and sent up to the Senate.

    They will 'vote to convict' if two-thirds vote for it. Not otherwise.

    Your issue on whether they can vote to bar him from office by a simple majority is an altogether more interesting question but a separate one.

    As is Cotton's question about whether you can impeach an ex-President.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,465
    I am an NHS responder volunteer, but I have signed off since before Christmas because of the throat issue I have (Initially because I was concerned I had a virus and then more recently because I don't want to scare people who might think I do). There have been lots of emails sent out asking for stewards at the vaccination centres. A steward I know was vaccinated around Christmas with leftover vaccine. Disappointed that I can't help as this seems far more useful than the stuff I was asked to do before.

    On the throat front I now have an outpatient appointment next Tuesday. Just over 2 weeks from the GP appointment and exactly 2 weeks from the consultant telephone appointment. So at the limit of the guidelines, but nothing like as scary as some of the stories in the media. Very nervous though.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
    Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
    The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?

    It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
    My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:

    I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited January 2021

    eek said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is a remarkably stupid statement from Drakeford:
    ...We will be using all the Oxford vaccine that we get as we get it, the Pfizer vaccine has to last us until into the first week of February.

    So we have to provide it on a week-by-week basis. What you can’t do is to try and stand up a system which uses all the vaccine you’ve got in week one and then have nothing to offer for the next four weeks...


    You absolutely should be trying to use up all the vaccine you have as quickly as possible. Spreading it out makes no sense at all.

    Need Pfizer vaccine for second doses of people originally given Pfizer though. Is that what Drakeford is trying, rather clumsily, to say?
    I suspect so - but it's not an easy thing to explain when under questioning on TV.
    I don't think it is. Wales have done a total of 80 second doses so far this year.
    Sorry I missed the fact it was Drakeford so the disaster that is Wales.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,095

    As an aside, if we can became the first large country to be become free of the disease that'll help the hospitality sector a lot with incoming tourism and (temporarily) very limited competition.

    But would Mr Macron open the borders?
  • More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
    He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.

    A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
    I didn’t hear him.

    But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
    Yes but I don't think that's the preserve of Labour.

    Boris Johnson has not come across as uncaring. Far, far, from it. I think in part because he contracted the virus he's had very good empathy. And no one can accuse Rishi Sunak of failing to rise to the challenge of helping people.

    They've made errors on free school meals and Cummings should have been censured but they're basically doing a bloody good job.

    As I mentioned, I voted Labour last election and LibDem the one before. I'm hardly a tory but I have to hand it to this Government. The vaccine procurement from multiple developers in advance was a blinder and the rollout is a stunning success.

    I hope the rollout WILL be a stunning success, it still has a long way to go. The testing regime was an unmitigated incompetent disaster, as have many other matters that Johnson has had a hand in.

    His good fortune in having one of the best pharma industries in the world that has great academic connections may yet save him from being remembered as the most incompetent lazy oaf having ever held high office, though I suspect he will still be remembered as that in spite of the vaccine roll out, because it is essentially a truth.

    I hope he does his party and the country a favour, accepts that he is not up to the job and stands down asap. Not holding my breath though.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852

    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    I`ve still not quite got this.

    According to HYUFD (below) "I suspect the Senate will vote to convict Trump but not by the 2/3 majority needed to remove him from office. "

    So you are saying 2/3rds needed to convict but HYUFD is saying (I think) 50% to convict.
    2/3 to convict.
    If convicted, then simple majority for disbarment
    The Betfair market needs the 2/3 to settle as a Yes. Might be able to get 4 by the looks of it.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    As an aside, if we can became the first large country to be become free of the disease that'll help the hospitality sector a lot with incoming tourism and (temporarily) very limited competition.

    Incoming tourism? Internal tourism won't be a problem but we don't want diseased foreigners coming here and potentially bringing the disease back to unprotected people.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461
    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do. The mood in the country went all 'whoopee.' A LOTO who then comes across as a miserable fart will be annihilated in the following election.

    I can see this coming. In 6 months we will have all-but-eliminated the virus from these shores and British citizens, carrying their world leading vaccine stamp, will be able to travel the world. We are in the early stages of a STUNNING success story. I've been very critical of Johnson. In many ways I loathe him but I cannot begrudge him the fact that he has achieved a quite sensational success with the vaccines. And Brexit is not the disaster so far that some thought it would be. Indeed, our vaccine rollout is undoubtedly helped by being out of the EU.

    The press, especially, the tabloids are going to be gung-ho. Today's fronts are but a mere foretaste of the salivation with which the leader writers are going to get behind Boris.

    Labour are toast for the next election.
    The next general election is not due until 2024.

    Brexit has been completed, Corbyn is gone and if by then Covid is dealt with then the payback will be underway in terms of tax rises and spending cuts.

    The Tories will need to ensure they have a narrative that gives a reason for the Red Wall to re elect them again as without the Red Wall they will lose their majority, it will be back to a hung parliament and Starmer will likely be PM with SNP support.

    Remember only one party since World War 2 has won a general election after 10 years in power as will be the case for the Tories in 2024. Major's Tories in 1992 by a very narrow margin.

    However even in 1992 the Tories still lost 40 seats, the same loss next time would see Boris narrowly lose his majority and reliant on the DUP who would be less reliable than they were in 2017
    It's quite a thing when the right-leaning HYUFD gives Labour a much better chance than the left-leaning (apparently) Mystic Rose, isn't it? I wonder who's correct? The Boris-worshipping leftie or the slightly concerned Tory?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    On the £20 uplift to UC.

    We all know the government is going to retain it after March don't we.

    So why not just come out now and say so, and remove one additional stress from those affected?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited January 2021

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
    Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
    The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?

    It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
    My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:

    I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
    Why? They're not part of Argentina either and nobody living there wants to join with them.

    As there were no Argentine indigenous inhabitants there in 1832, there is no claim on that front.

    Argentina themselves were heading off in a colonial venture in seizing the Falklands. It's odd that so many on the left were blinded by hatred of Thatcher that they couldn't see supporting a military dictator in illegally seizing territory that wasn't his in order to preserve a corrupt fascist government was just a trifle silly.

    And it is to the eternal credit of Michael Foot, even among all the other mistakes he made on other things, that he consistently opposed the Argentine invasion for those very reasons out of principle.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited January 2021

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    Ah - thanks. In that case conviction is unlikely to reach 2/3rds would you say?
    Unless, as I was saying earlier, the GOP see this as their chance to run away from Trump and claim nothing to do with me guv.
    They will but I don't think they're ready for it yet. I think it's going to take a massive bust-up first. They will need to tear themselves apart before they can rebuild.

    Then, and only then, will they get to their equivalent of this ... and begin the long process of clawing their way back to power:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jji0JS5TPFk



    We forget in the US Federal Power does not only lie in the Presidency, it also lies in Congress and the House and Senate too.

    .
    You might but I don't.

    The GOP will still be ripping themselves up in 2022 and Biden will have steadied the good ship America. The Democrats will not lose Congress in their mid-terms. I expect them to gain.

    And you did tell us all on here that the GOP were going to win both Georgia run-offs.
    Every President for the last 50 years has seen their party lose House seats in their first midterm bar Bush in 2002.

    Every President since Bush Snr has seen their party have control of both Chambers of Congress when they entered office, every President since Bush Snr except Dubya has also seen their party lose control of the House after their first midterms.

    The Democrats won the Georgia Senate race of Purdue Ossoff by a just 1% margin but Biden entering office with his party in control of Congress is the norm, Biden losing control of the House in the midterms would also be the norm.

    If Biden Harris have low approval ratings in 2022 they will lose the House without question
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Brexit has been completed

    It really hasn't.

    The battles are just beginning
    Keep waging that war from your jungle redoubt.

    The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
    Sadly as a remainer-campaigner I have to agree.

    For good or ill we left the EU and now we have to get on with it. There will be hiccups, of course, but Brexit is done. It hasn't been the instantaneous disaster some predicted. It's over.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    kjh said:

    I am an NHS responder volunteer, but I have signed off since before Christmas because of the throat issue I have (Initially because I was concerned I had a virus and then more recently because I don't want to scare people who might think I do). There have been lots of emails sent out asking for stewards at the vaccination centres. A steward I know was vaccinated around Christmas with leftover vaccine. Disappointed that I can't help as this seems far more useful than the stuff I was asked to do before.

    On the throat front I now have an outpatient appointment next Tuesday. Just over 2 weeks from the GP appointment and exactly 2 weeks from the consultant telephone appointment. So at the limit of the guidelines, but nothing like as scary as some of the stories in the media. Very nervous though.

    Appreciate that must be a worry - hope your appointment goes well @kjh.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
    Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
    The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?

    It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
    My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:

    I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
    So you don't believe in respecting the democratic votes of people living in a territory?

    Just so that I am clear on what your straightforward position is.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,095

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
    He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.

    A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
    I want a free owl with my injection.
  • dixiedean said:

    Yan Bingtao will win the world snooker championship multiple times.
    That he has the ability has long been known.
    That he has the temperament on the highest stage has just been confirmed.

    Plus ça change.

    Yan Bingtao's superb fightback stunned John Higgins as he become the youngest Masters champion in 26 years.

    China's Yan was making his Masters debut and at the age of 20 is a year older than Ronnie O'Sullivan was when he became the youngest champion by beating Higgins in the 1995 final.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/snooker/55696970
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Brexit has been completed

    It really hasn't.

    The battles are just beginning
    Keep waging that war from your jungle redoubt.

    The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
    Sadly as a remainer-campaigner I have to agree.

    For good or ill we left the EU and now we have to get on with it. There will be hiccups, of course, but Brexit is done. It hasn't been the instantaneous disaster some predicted. It's over.
    It never was going to be instantaneous, the issues will drip, drip, drip until they overwhelm you.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739

    Sadly as a remainer-campaigner I have to agree.

    For good or ill we left the EU and now we have to get on with it. There will be hiccups, of course, but Brexit is done. It hasn't been the instantaneous disaster some predicted. It's over.

    https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1350144130261934083
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    ydoethur said:

    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    I`ve still not quite got this.

    According to HYUFD (below) "I suspect the Senate will vote to convict Trump but not by the 2/3 majority needed to remove him from office. "

    So you are saying 2/3rds needed to convict but HYUFD is saying (I think) 50% to convict.
    Well, Hyufd is wrong, it will still be 2/3 required to convict, although the punishment may be determined by majority vote (which isn't clear as it's never happened).

    An appropriate comparison is not with legislation but with jury duty.

    Edit - although Hyufd may be saying a majority will vote to convict, but not enough to actually convict. That could happen (and indeed did happen in the case of Andrew Johnson).
    It is apparently down to the US courts rather than to Congress to determine whether Trump's words amounted to inciting insurrection and therefore would bar him from office under the 14th Amendment. If impeachment fails and he sought to run again, there would very likely be a challenge.

    The author of this from Bloomberg seems to know what they are talking about:

    " Trump’s Jan. 6 speech is close to the line. On the one hand, circumstances could be read to interpret his words as encouraging the crowd to enter the Capitol forcefully, which was a crime. On the other hand, Trump chose his words very carefully. His direct speech did not call for criminal action in any explicit way. And it would be difficult to prove that he intended the crowd to breach the Capitol. Thus it’s possible that Trump’s words might not meet the Brandenburg standard, if it requires explicit words or proof of intent — and it may well require both. Ah, but Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not a criminal sanction! And because the provision is in the Constitution, it arguably is not limited by the First Amendment. So a court could still conclude that Trump’s words counted as insurrection for the purposes of the 14th Amendment even if they would not have qualified as incitement under the Brandenburg standard. That means Trump could be barred from holding office for an act that would not get him thrown in jail.
    In practice, it’s unlikely that a court would be prepared to disqualify a former president from running for office again. But it’s a close issue — and one the Supreme Court may have to take up if Trump announces a 2024 candidacy."

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-11/trump-2024-president-may-be-ineligible-after-u-s-capitol-riot?sref=X9N3NABa

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Stocky said:

    HYUFD said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do. The mood in the country went all 'whoopee.' A LOTO who then comes across as a miserable fart will be annihilated in the following election.

    I can see this coming. In 6 months we will have all-but-eliminated the virus from these shores and British citizens, carrying their world leading vaccine stamp, will be able to travel the world. We are in the early stages of a STUNNING success story. I've been very critical of Johnson. In many ways I loathe him but I cannot begrudge him the fact that he has achieved a quite sensational success with the vaccines. And Brexit is not the disaster so far that some thought it would be. Indeed, our vaccine rollout is undoubtedly helped by being out of the EU.

    The press, especially, the tabloids are going to be gung-ho. Today's fronts are but a mere foretaste of the salivation with which the leader writers are going to get behind Boris.

    Labour are toast for the next election.
    The next general election is not due until 2024.

    Brexit has been completed, Corbyn is gone and if by then Covid is dealt with then the payback will be underway in terms of tax rises and spending cuts.

    The Tories will need to ensure they have a narrative that gives a reason for the Red Wall to re elect them again as without the Red Wall they will lose their majority, it will be back to a hung parliament and Starmer will likely be PM with SNP support.

    Remember only one party since World War 2 has won a general election after 10 years in power as will be the case for the Tories in 2024. Major's Tories in 1992 by a very narrow margin.

    However even in 1992 the Tories still lost 40 seats, the same loss next time would see Boris narrowly lose his majority and reliant on the DUP who would be less reliable than they were in 2017
    How sure are you that the SNP would support the LP, given that the latter supports the union?
    Well they would not support the Tories.

    Though we could end up with a situation the SNP backs Labour on UK issues and abstains on English issues unless Starmer offers them indyref2 and devomax in return for support on English issues
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    I’ve decided you’re a paid Tory plant.

    Given your constant posting about how good Boris is and how shit Labour are.
    I agree he makes it to obvious.
  • Fishing said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
    The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
    The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
    Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.

    It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.

    Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
    He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.

    A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
    I didn’t hear him.

    But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
    The Tories have spent what - £250? £300 billion? - on a wide range of Covid measures to protect the economic fabric of this country - and thereby protecting the most vulnerable in society. The old "penny-pinching Tories" arguments don't work.

    What won't have changed is that HOWEVER much money the Tories spend, Labour will demand it should have been far, far more. We already it see from the Shadow Chancellor.
    You keep repeating this, but actually the Shadow Chancellor has been critical of unnecessary public spending. In particular, she thought the £2.6 billion on the job retention bonus scheme was unnecessary. And, of course, the excessive amounts of public spending given to "friends" of the government via dodgy public procurement has been criticised by Labour.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54228499
  • Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Brexit has been completed

    It really hasn't.

    The battles are just beginning
    Keep waging that war from your jungle redoubt.

    The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
    A bit rich coming from a true Brexit believer ( Maybe we should just refer to you and your type of EU-phobes as The Gullible, or Putin's Useful Idiots). No doubt if you had lost the referendum you would be claiming "widespread voter fraud".
    The main reason old farts voted Brexit was because they still think that Germany is going to overrun us or that France wants revenge for Trafalgar. Let me let you into a secret. Neither is true. And Donald did not win.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
    Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
    The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?

    It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
    My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:

    I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
    Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?

    Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.

    There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.

    Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.

    The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.

    We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
    Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
    Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.

    They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.

    Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
    No, you can have twice as many slots at 2pm, rather than a slot at 2am and 2pm, and with less distance to travel.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    DavidL said:

    Stocky said:

    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    He`s not been found guilty of anything. There will be a separate vote for that.

    My understanding was that 2/3rds needed for the impeachment and 1/2 needed for a guilty verdict - but I`m confused because I don`t think the impeachment vote reached 2/3rds.

    Can anyone clarify?
    The decision to impeach in the House was a simple majority. The decision to convict requires 2/3 of the Senate. Once convicted a majority can determine the punishment.
    Ah - thanks. In that case conviction is unlikely to reach 2/3rds would you say?
    Unless, as I was saying earlier, the GOP see this as their chance to run away from Trump and claim nothing to do with me guv.
    They will but I don't think they're ready for it yet. I think it's going to take a massive bust-up first. They will need to tear themselves apart before they can rebuild.

    Then, and only then, will they get to their equivalent of this ... and begin the long process of clawing their way back to power:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jji0JS5TPFk



    We forget in the US Federal Power does not only lie in the Presidency, it also lies in Congress and the House and Senate too.

    .
    You might but I don't.

    The GOP will still be ripping themselves up in 2022 and Biden will have steadied the good ship America. The Democrats will not lose Congress in their mid-terms. I expect them to gain.

    And you did tell us all on here that the GOP were going to win both Georgia run-offs.
    Every President for the last 50 years has seen their party lose House seats in their first midterm bar Bush in 2002.

    Every President since Bush Snr has seen their party have control of both Chambers of Congress when they entered office, every President since Bush Snr except Dubya has also seen their party lose control of the House after their first midte

    The Democrats won the Georgia Senate race of Purdue Ossoff by a just 1% margin but Biden entering office with his party in control of Congress is the norm, Biden losing control of the House in the midterms would also be the norm.

    If Biden Harris have low approval ratings in 2022 they will lose the House without question
    You're big on precedents to the point where you fall into the causal fallacy trap. These times are like no other and we are exiting the rare occurrence of a first time President who failed to get re-elected, the worst President in American history and the most unpopular in modern history alongside Ford, who was also a disaster. So stick your alleged precedents into that part of your brain that is objective and run your processor.

    You never admit when you were wrong. Not even to yourself. It's why you will continue to make errors.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Brexit has been completed

    It really hasn't.

    The battles are just beginning
    Keep waging that war from your jungle redoubt.

    The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
    A bit rich coming from a true Brexit believer ( Maybe we should just refer to you and your type of EU-phobes as The Gullible, or Putin's Useful Idiots). No doubt if you had lost the referendum you would be claiming "widespread voter fraud".
    The main reason old farts voted Brexit was because they still think that Germany is going to overrun us or that France wants revenge for Trafalgar. Let me let you into a secret. Neither is true. And Donald did not win.
    Erm, about those claims of Russian interference.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    Is he demanding 25hr a day / 8 day a week vaccinations again?
    He's saying that once we get back to normality we can't, er, get back to normality. Apparently the virus has exposed the awful inequalities in our society blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

    It's so far off what people are thinking as to be risible. When life does resume, which it will thanks to our stunning vaccination rollout, everyone is going to be in a wild party mood. Not necessarily literal parties but making sure that they have a bloody good time and catch up with all the things they've been prevented from doing.

    A miserable old git moaning on the margins is the last thing a Labour leader should be presenting.
    I didn’t hear him.

    But isn’t it true that Covid has changed everything - including the way we approach support for the most vulnerable in society?
    The Tories have spent what - £250? £300 billion? - on a wide range of Covid measures to protect the economic fabric of this country - and thereby protecting the most vulnerable in society. The old "penny-pinching Tories" arguments don't work.

    What won't have changed is that HOWEVER much money the Tories spend, Labour will demand it should have been far, far more. We already it see from the Shadow Chancellor.
    The risk for the Tories is if they follow Osborne's example in 2014 and 'require' the low paid and the public servants to make good the deficit, to the benefit of the financial sector.
    Fair point. But there are a lot more noisy Red Wall Tory MPs to fight that corner since that time.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    Fishing said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
    The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
    The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
    Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.

    It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.

    Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
    Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    Morning all. Why the media obsession with '24/7' vaccinations?

    Vaccine supply is the limiting factor at the moment, not the number of hours in the day. And better to have two teams working a day shift than one of them working nights.

    There is perhaps a corner case of hospital staff on a night shift, but for the vast majority an appointment between 8am and 8pm will be most suitable.

    Let's hope we can get to 500k/day this week and keep it going.

    The supply bottlenecks seem to be largely ironed out now (that's why we're getting optimistic predictions of numbers) so the next bottleneck may be provision. Allegra Stratton gave a bit of a hostage to fortune by saying dismissively that she doubted there was much demand for late-night vaccinations, at which lots of us said hey, we want you to get on with whatever is fastest.

    We'll see when the first 24/7 centre opens this week. If there's both supply and demand, why not? If there isn't, fine.
    Why ask someone to turn up at 2am at a distant major hospital, when you can give them an appointment for 2pm at their local pharmacy?
    Because it frees up someone else to have the 2pm slot.

    They know what they're doing and they're pretty on the ball with the supply and demand side of this which is what it comes down to.

    Would I drive 50 miles at 2 am to get vaccinated? You bloody bet.
    No, you can have twice as many slots at 2pm, rather than a slot at 2am and 2pm, and with less distance to travel.
    As if you know best
  • ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
    Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
    The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?

    It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
    My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:

    I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
    So damn whatever the people living there might think?

    Why if you detest colonialism would you support Argentinian colonialism? The islands aren't historically part of Argentine, they're hundreds of miles away. The people living there don't want to be ruled by the Argentinians.

    Does Australia have every right to invade Fiji?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
    Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
    The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?

    It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
    My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:

    I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
    Whilst I agree with you generally on colonialism, why would the Argentines have any more right to the Falklands than the current residents, who choose to remain British?
    'Cos we planted those residents there on a rock that is situated 8000 miles from Britain.

    Right I'm off to do some work rather than debating on here. Have a good day all. x
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,723
    edited January 2021
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
    Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
    The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?

    It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
    My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:

    I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
    Why? They're not part of Argentina either and nobody living there wants to join with them.

    As there were no Argentine indigenous inhabitants there in 1832, there is no claim on that front.

    Argentina themselves were heading off in a colonial venture in seizing the Falklands. It's odd that so many on the left were blinded by hatred of Thatcher that they couldn't see supporting a military dictator in illegally seizing territory that wasn't his in order to preserve a corrupt fascist government was just a trifle silly.

    And it is to the eternal credit of Michael Foot, even among all the other mistakes he made on other things, that he consistently opposed the Argentine invasion for those very reasons out of principle.
    The likes of Galtieri were themselves the descendants of colonialists.
  • Trump to leave office in 2021 is still available at 1.01 on Betfair. My crystal ball tells me it could be as soon as this week but DYOR.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,915
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    More pointless grandstanding from Keir Starmer this morning.

    And I voted for him.

    In fairness, when something is going well, pointless grandstanding is what LOTOs do.

    And I would never vote for him.
    Yep but this is a very perilous time for Labour. I've seen it all-too-often. It happened with the Falklands War, a war I hasten to add with which I profoundly disagreed and still do.
    Well, however much you dislike Thatcher, your complaints on that should be directed to Galtieri.
    The war, that was started by a military dictatorship in the classic we-are-in-trouble-look-squirrel fashion, which directly led to the fall of said dictatorship and it's replacement by a pretty democratic system of government. Which included some small measure of justice for those murdered by said dictatorship?

    It also may have prevented at least one other war - I'm thinking of Belize.
    My stance is straightforward and I'd ask folks to respect it even if they don't agree with it:

    I detest British colonial history and I do not believe that a single territory beyond these isles should have any kind of British sovereignty. Therefore the Argentinians have every right to the Malvinas.
    Why? They're not part of Argentina either and nobody living there wants to join with them.

    As there were no Argentine indigenous inhabitants there in 1832, there is no claim on that front.

    Argentina themselves were heading off in a colonial venture in seizing the Falklands. It's odd that so many on the left were blinded by hatred of Thatcher that they couldn't see supporting a military dictator in illegally seizing territory that wasn't his in order to preserve a corrupt fascist government was just a trifle silly.

    And it is to the eternal credit of Michael Foot, even among all the other mistakes he made on other things, that he consistently opposed the Argentine invasion for those very reasons out of principle.
    Agreed. The only notable inhabitants of the Falklands in modern times have been people who consider themselves to be British. The principle of defending their right to self determination was the right thing to do. For Argentina to claim a right over the islands in the name of anticolonialism is total hypocrisy.
    My only quibble is over the inconsistency with which this principle is applied. Why were the Falkland Islanders' rights defended (rightly) at such a cost while the Chagos Islanders were thrown out of their homes so we could lend their homeland to the Americans, and are still prevented from going home?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,852
    kjh said:

    I am an NHS responder volunteer, but I have signed off since before Christmas because of the throat issue I have (Initially because I was concerned I had a virus and then more recently because I don't want to scare people who might think I do). There have been lots of emails sent out asking for stewards at the vaccination centres. A steward I know was vaccinated around Christmas with leftover vaccine. Disappointed that I can't help as this seems far more useful than the stuff I was asked to do before.

    On the throat front I now have an outpatient appointment next Tuesday. Just over 2 weeks from the GP appointment and exactly 2 weeks from the consultant telephone appointment. So at the limit of the guidelines, but nothing like as scary as some of the stories in the media. Very nervous though.

    Good luck with that. Hope it's nothing serious.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Scott_xP said:

    HYUFD said:

    Brexit has been completed

    It really hasn't.

    The battles are just beginning
    Keep waging that war from your jungle redoubt.

    The Emperor is very pleased with your efforts.....
    A bit rich coming from a true Brexit believer ( Maybe we should just refer to you and your type of EU-phobes as The Gullible, or Putin's Useful Idiots). No doubt if you had lost the referendum you would be claiming "widespread voter fraud".
    The main reason old farts voted Brexit was because they still think that Germany is going to overrun us or that France wants revenge for Trafalgar. Let me let you into a secret. Neither is true. And Donald did not win.
    Come back to us when you have something to say that isn't driven by your personal bile at the local branch turning their back on you....
  • ydoethur said:

    Fishing said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    Yes I agree. It's all rather pointless virtue signalling, and anti-democractic virtue signalling at that, since if the people want to vote for him in 2024, why shouldn't they be able to? It's not as if he's an unknown quantity.
    The Constitution thinks different, and democracy has its limits.
    The Constitution was writen by people who explicitly disliked what we would understand as democracy, owning slaves as they did. It also bans people born overseas from being elected President, for no good reason.
    Since many of them themselves were born overseas it didn't ban people born overseas.

    It only banned people born overseas in what was then the future.

    Classic pulling up the ladder after you've used it.
    Very foresighted of them to know that Henry Kissinger would need to have his path to the White House blocked.
    But if we were to have had a modern celebrity GOP President then Arnold Schwarzenegger would have been an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.
This discussion has been closed.