Categories
What some Trump backing Republican donors get told if they don’t make their gifts recurring ones – p
What some Trump backing Republican donors get told if they don’t make their gifts recurring ones – politicalbetting.com
Last week there was a big report in the New York Times about some of the high-pressure fundraising tactics of the Trump campaign. A feature that got special attention was that many donors who thought they had made one-off donations in the run up to WH2020 suddenly found that this had been deemed to be a weekly donation and money was being sucked out of their banks every 7-days. In many cases this had led to hardship.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Allegedly.
Thanks for a good piece this AM, Ms C.
.. to the runner-up
For example, part of the PPI mis-selling scandal was the practice of negative option selling, whereby the consumer got the product (and had to pay for it) unless they ticked a box opting out. This was effectively ruled illegal and the requirements are now explicit that the consumer has to know what it is that they are buying. I would expect [whichever regulator has dominion over donations to political parties; possibly the Charities Commission?] to come down like a tonne of bricks on this practice if anything like it was tried in the UK.
YIKES!
Hopefully we see closer to half a million tomorrow.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56732411
Now, written English is important, I don't dispute that, but the Hull groups I've taught would probably do worse on English marks while maybe being more enquiring and egaging. So I have some sympathy with trying to address that. I would however think it would be better done, to enhance future prospects too, by providing extra tuition in written English for those who could benefit from that.
Not impossible, but tricky.
Our vaccine rollout Phase I is already complete so we're not really relying upon anything. It will take Europe months about 3 months if they're lucky just to catch up just to where we already are now. Months without one of the main vaccines they were counting upon. 😕
Its a terrible position they're in. Not helped by them so vocally messing around Astrazeneca that Novavax and other vaccine manufacturers have declined to subsequently sign contracts with them which makes this even worse.
This is realpolitik, given the different countries are led by different parties every time a decision needs making it would make sense for all other countries to turn down the proposal until given something to grease the wheels.
What a nightmare. Terrible idea that doesn't work with real politics.
Americans voted for a quiet life and now there's no more burning cities, no more looting, no more rioting, no more theft and damage to property.....
The man really has worked the whole thing out.
If this J&J decision imperils the EU's vax drive, again, then there must be a risk they will seize our Pfizer supplies, even tho that will kill Brits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aB54DrRWNs
You're talking about doing that not just because of a failed election once, but for every single vote for the rest of time.
Every difficult decision would need a bung associated with it. That's no way to run a country, what a terrible idea.
We aren't "relying on the EU" we're relying on an American company that signed a contract with the UK government that happens to have a production site in the EU. That American company has got the means to produce the necessary vaccines elsewhere.
This is a rare occasion when I agree with Kinabalu. Apart from that change to the Lords, the fudge we have now is probably the best we can hope for. It's a good deal for Scotland, Wales and NI, but that's the price England pays for keeping the Union.
The Scots would be mad to reject it for something worse, but ultimately they must decide that (in about 10 years time)
Scotland
1st 2.67m (48.8%)
2nd 590k (10.8%)
England
1st 27.11m (48.1%)
2nd 6.34m(11.3%)
Wales
1st 1.59m(50.4%)
2nd 528k (16.7%)
NI
1st 826k (43.6%)
2nd 199k (10.5%)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55855220
However, I think conflating the desires of the people of England with the desires of the PM, is not credible. If a war (for example) is stopped this way, do you think the people of England would be upset at their democratic rights being overridden? I don't.
Expressed another way, it means decisions would be taken by five democratically accountable people, as opposed to one.
Wow. Seriously scummy...
History will not be kind to Mr Trump.
I don't think we're at any more risk of the EU playing silly buggers than we were yesterday.
However, I can see no reason for relaxing standards on spelling and grammar errors, since those are often indicators of sloppiness, and raise doubts in the audience's mind as to the author's overall competence. Allowing outright errors, rather than just marking down poor style in the use of language, does the students no favours at all.
If we had a written constitution it might work in terms of the requirements to change the constitution in a major way but we don't
It will not work out to their advantage if they decided to block Pfizer shipments, their strategists are clearly complete idiots that have yet to figure out that the UK won't be dictated to.
Additionally, the UK may have a duty to the rest of the world to ensure that any shipments of vital ingredients were being exported to a country that doesn't in turn block exports of finished vaccines.
It would be almost less democratic than the current House of Lords.
I think the best thing to do is devolve as much as possible to stronger national Parliaments, and have a hollowed out federal government only taking care of defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy. That doesn't solve the problem of English dominance, but it rather reduces its scope.
I am not talking about doing this for every vote for the rest of time - not even for most votes. I am talking about a small set of very key decisions. These decisions would be taken in public, and for the most part, would follow a vote in the national parliaments - I just don't see any case whereby the horsetrading/bribery that you envisage could take place.
You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.
The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
The exact opposite of PB Tories.
'from the 1877 session of parliament he brilliantly developed an old parliamentary weapon. This was the practice of obstruction – preventing progress on bills by continuing debate on them for as long as possible, thus wrecking the plans of government for legislation... Parnell, newly elected to the leadership of the Irish Parliamentary Party at Westminster, orchestrated a campaign of obstruction that kept the House sitting for two days – 41 hours – before it was brought to an end by the Speaker, Sir Henry Brand, acting on his own authority. The incident helped to bring about a series of procedural innovations that would eventually limit the ability of individual MPs to oppose the will of the majority of the House.'
It's amazing: you watch people here criticise the May government for letting the DUP tail wag the dog or the US Electoral College for empowering small states, and then propose something that would work even worse in practice.
Not ideal, but fine in the grand scheme of things.
So a Labour Government gets things through by strong-arming or bribing Wales, and Conservatives can only bribe NI. It's a recipe for gridlock and bad governance.
The US has 50 states afaik, so your example is absurdly inaccurate.
It's a really difficult conundrum for people (like me) who recognise the vital importance of good formal writing/speaking skills for future advancement. It's not easy for schools to compensate for the absence of such skills at home, but it would be a tragic waste if such bright kids were denied higher education. There's no easy answer. Lurking behind the problem is, I suspect, not enough practice in learning from reading. I suspect this will be an issue for most sections of society going forward in the age of soundbites, social media and viewing habits.
Johnson's net approval with Conservative voters is +63
'Tis but a flesh wound...
No idea who is next though and that could lead to him hanging around for a while
Once Biden has more than he needs to get the job done then any remaining threat to UK supply from EU export shenanigans is, presumably, removed?
Your parliamentary example is interesting but not relevant.
Your tone sounded panicky. And you have perhaps the teensiest tendency to swing from euphoria to despair and back again, and seem on the cusp of a downswing. And I'm concerned that that might lead to a) unnecessary sadness, and b) vital artisanal flint products going unknapped.
But if it's just calm speculation, speculate calmly away.
In other news, I have just been out for a lunchtime constitutional with my wife, where we discovered two juvenile squirrels which had fallen out of a tree, thirty yards or so apart. Both were unmoving; one seemed (so far as I am any judge) hurt). Along with a small committee of passers-by, we moved them out of the road, then - what do you do next? My wife called the RSPCA - because she is the sort of person who can't simply leave a wounded animal to an uncertain future - and reunited the squirrels, who seemed overjoyed to be reunited; grooming each other furiously then settling down for a cuddle and a snooze.
Then the RSPCA arrived, thanked us for getting involved, and announced that they would euthanise the squirrels.
I can't help feeling slightly let down. It wasn't the ending of the story that I wanted. Though I'm not sure, realistically, how things might have turned out better.
When the fav to succeed him isn't even an MP you know it'll be tough to switch.
Accession to the TPPTPT (or whatever it's called) would be a simpler example.
But no under 18's or clinically vulnerable allowed.
What I don't see is any explanation of the rationale.
If it is important then we need to give everyone the teaching required to be able to do it - not easy, necessarily, but in schools or it could become part of university courses. Most undergrad science degrees don't really teach you how to write a paper, for example. It's just something you're supposed to pick up over time. I've had the benefit of going on a course during my PhD (run by a couple of profs off their own bat) and it really did help.
If it's not important, then we shouldn't penalise those who do it differently.
I'm not bothered about things like penalising US spellings as it doesn't affect understanding (most papers I read have US spellings anyway, as the authors are outwith the UK). On the whole, though, I lean towards the first, because communication is important and we need to be able to do it well. If it's hard for the main audience to understand, then it's not good. I've recently been doing some 'plain English' summaries of some of our research, cutting out all the jargon. Not easy, but it really does make you think about what you did, what is important and how to communicate it.
The voters get to choose Parliament and thus the PM. You're proposing all that gets thrown in the bin for grubby backroom deals between First Ministers.
What an atrocious mess. And to fix a non-problem too. Have the democratically elected UK Parliament decide UK issues, its not difficult.
Really quite creative.
As for other decisions, take accession to the TPTPTT. England and the UK would vote for. I would strongly suspect and hope Wales and NI would vote for. That is a happy majority with only the SNP playing a deliberately obstructionist game, a fact that would be lost on no-one.
I read your analysis with interest, you confirm the visceral fears of a Tory foot soldier, and sometimes it gives me hope from the other side of the fence. Far more interesting than someone trolling from his student bedsit.
Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/apr/13/coronavirus-live-news-europe-death-toll-passes-one-million-india-approves-russias-sputnik-v-vaccine?CMP=share_btn_tw&page=with:block-6075ad148f08b7e3afb8a3ea#block-6075ad148f08b7e3afb8a3ea
A problem has cropped up, it's been identified quickly, and is in the process of being fixed.
Science as normal.
Lets say MI6 says they have intelligence on a dangerous and known terrorist like Jihadi John that can be cleanly taken out by a missile strike. The PM needs to make a decision on whether to authorise the strike or not.
Or terrorists have taken over a building in London, the SAS are ready and prepared to take it back. The PM needs to make a decision on whether to authorise the strike or not.
You want to have instead of a PM accountable to Parliament making these decisions, them instead to be taken by a committee in public? And you think that works?
What a joke. Clearly not thought through whatsoever.
* Crothers was able to work as both civil servant & adviser to Greensill under Cabinet Office's conflict of interest policy
* He & Cab Office argue this meant he didn't have to apply to Acoba for clearance
'This advisory role was not seen as contentious, and I believe not uncommon'
How many of them are there?
Ok, firstly, the phrase "I see little to no harm in gridlock". Where were you during most of 2019, when Parliament was at an utter standstill due to Brexit? Because you can't possibly have witnessed that and thought, "yes, I want more of this please, especially over really big decisions that matter".
Secondly, your first paragraph makes sense only if you don't actually want the UK to go to war, ever. Which is fine as a view, but in that case just say it, instead of supporting a policy that just makes it impossible in practice.
Whether or not Wales and NI would vote for TPP accession is moot - I'm sure they could find plenty of Walloonian-style objections as cover for demanding concessions in other arenas - because you've just cherry picked one example where everyone probably agrees. The whole point of having the extra assembly is precisely because not everyone agrees all the time.