I still reckon a dissatisfied and soon to be unemployed Trump staffer deliberately misunderstood the instruction they were given to book the Four Seasons.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020 When will Donald Trump publicly concede? For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST. November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.
AIUI, former US Presidents continue to be addressed as Mr President and have security bodyguards for life. I'm curious how would that work in a prison setting.
Good morning, everyone.
Morning,
He'll have security guards. They're called wardens in America I believe.
Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.
Still about 6 million votes to count so this comment is going to age poorly.
Aren't many of the 6 million in California?
Though it was a bit of an unfair comparison by David as excluding Biden's best state and then comparing with the other 49 is not like-for-like. You should exclude Trump's best state too and see how the remaining 48 voted if you want a fair comparison and I suspect that would give Biden the edge.
Yes, but also IL and NY, two other norotiously slow counters.
It is a abysmal, GOP, way of framing things "Ah, you got most votes but not in 'Real America (TM)'
The way the GOP talk you'd think it was a total fluke that the Democrats dominate California and not as the result of years of successful work and orginisation.
Indeed. When I was a young adult it was the other way round, the GOP had dominated California for years. It was huge news that Clinton won California in 1992.
Nixon and Reagan were both Californians, which helped.
Amazingly you can see a swing to the GOP in Arkansas this election. It seems the Clinton name still had pull there in 2016.
Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicable
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
I never knew that, but I've always despised Dali's art. I recognise it as iconic and unfathomably well-loved, but I would cheerfully see every one of his paintings torched because I find them so aesthetically offensive. I've never been able to fathom why I hate him so much, but hearing he had fascist leanings makes me feel a lot better about disparaging his "art".
I know this seems strange - but I think you are wrong to think so.
The idea that art and morality are intrinsically linked can lead to some very odd places. Basically it doesn't work.
The effect that Dali has on you, by the way, is not uncommon. It is also intended - his idea was to be a transgressor of all the norms. He was trying to offend people. See Dadaism (among other influences).
Some have tried to argue that his espousing the Nationalist side in Spain was part of an artistic "pose". If so, it was one of the longest poses in the history of art....
Another classic of the genre of "Art forgives all" is the Ezra Pound "persecution".
Pound, an American poet of note, moved to Italy, became a Fascist & extreme anti-semite, and spent WWII broadcasting Fascist propaganda on Italian radio. After the war the Americans caught him and locked him up. It has been said that friends arranged for him to be treated as a mental case to avoid prosecution.
In any event, he was sectioned by the examining head shrinkers. After a while he manage to convince them that he was less nuts and got released. For the rest of his life, he kept relapsing into Fascist nuttery - he does seem to have been rather out there.....
Apparently the above represented a persecution. Because he was great poet.
I get it from an intellectual level, that the art and the artist do not need to be considered together. I understand it in my head. But my heart tells me otherwise. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it just is. The best justification I can offer is that the biography can distract from the art. Certainly I can't enjoy a Polanski film without also being reminded of the things he's done away from cinema. You can explain the artistry, but the distraction doesn't get forgotten. And yes, the reaction I have is certainly not untypical. But I don't have the same reaction with other surrealist or dadaist art. It's not my favourite genre, but I don't get furious like I do with Dali. Maybe that just means he was very good at it?
Thanks for the intro to Pound. Someone I know nothing about, I might read a bit more, sounds interesting.
Interesting discussion to read - thanks both.
Personally I do try to separate the art from the person, but I agree it's a distraction - if Hitler had been a wonderful painter I'd feel uncomfortable saying or even thinking it. But intellectually I accept that it's a separate issue.
By the same token, being a great artist/poet/writer doesn't exempt you from the law. Pound? Lock him up! as Mr Trump would (not) say. He was rreated more mildly than William Joyce...
There's an old counterfactual that if Hitler had only been accepted at the Vienna School of Art then world history would have been very different.
He'd have been conscripted all the same - but might have died in the Brusilov Offensive, or be melting out of a glacier on the Isonzo about now ...
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Absolutely. Hence the Salisbury Convention.
A would-be government really wants to do something? It puts it in its manifesto, and the Lords say "fair enough". Rewarding governments that are upfront about their plans is a good thing, democracy-wise.
Or the government waits 12 months and gets what it wants then.
As the poster in many school reprographics offices puts it, "your lack of planning is not my emergency".
Interesting, I see, that the Lincoln Project folks are not wrapping up as job done with Trump gone (pending legal challenges), but are fundraising for efforts in the Georgia Senate runoffs.
It'd be great if the Dems could win one or both of them, though there's a somewhat funny mixture of elements here, since it seems like part of Biden's pitch is he is pretty moderate, but others make the point that the Dems cannot do some of the more drastic things they want to do if they don't win those seats, and I'm sure the more radical elements are pushing hard about what they could do if they take them.
Although it is now close Biden's entire popular vote lead comes from California. In the rest of the US Trump is fractionally ahead.
Still about 6 million votes to count so this comment is going to age poorly.
Aren't many of the 6 million in California?
Though it was a bit of an unfair comparison by David as excluding Biden's best state and then comparing with the other 49 is not like-for-like. You should exclude Trump's best state too and see how the remaining 48 voted if you want a fair comparison and I suspect that would give Biden the edge.
Yes, but also IL and NY, two other norotiously slow counters.
It is a abysmal, GOP, way of framing things "Ah, you got most votes but not in 'Real America (TM)'
The way the GOP talk you'd think it was a total fluke that the Democrats dominate California and not as the result of years of successful work and orginisation.
Indeed. When I was a young adult it was the other way round, the GOP had dominated California for years. It was huge news that Clinton won California in 1992.
Nixon and Reagan were both Californians, which helped.
Reagan had winning margins there of around 1.5 million in each of 1980 and 1984. George Bush Senior went down to 350k in 1988 against the voter anti-magnet of Dukakis. It does suggest that California had been moving Democrats for decades, largely masked by Reagan's local lad popularity.
The map of the 1976 Carter win is fascinating. Huge changes inthe west and the south of the country politically in that time.
I'm still scratching my head as to how anyone can post on here this morning that Biden is "most likely" to finish on 290. I'm trying to be as polite as possible but there is no way on god's earth that he isn't winning Georgia. Which already takes him to 295.
How, how, can anybody work out he could finish on 290?
Arizona (11), North Carolina (16), Alaska (3) are what's left.
Some of you seem to think Trump may nick Arizona. I don't. Be that as it may, Biden is guaranteed a minimum 295. I think he will finish on 306, as I've said for days.
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020 When will Donald Trump publicly concede? For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST. November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.
AIUI, former US Presidents continue to be addressed as Mr President and have security bodyguards for life. I'm curious how would that work in a prison setting.
Good morning, everyone.
Morning,
He'll have security guards. They're called wardens in America I believe.
He would probably end up at that Club Fed prison - the one with the golf course, where the CEOs go...
His finances seem to be every bit as healthy as Robert Maxwell's were in late 1990.
Danish mink is really big business. Top quality. Main markets in far east. What does our Denmark and animal welfare expert think about the development there?
Just had a flick though the previous thread. Any news from 'TresDifficile' whether 87 year old Roman Polanski is still hoping to become PM?
Give over Roger. Your attitude to sexual abuse and the whole #metoo scandal was despicable
The separation between cultural and moral value is interesting.
I once had a bit of a row at an art gallery - a lady overheard my conversation with my wife about Dali's fascist tendencies and she went postal on me.
Apparently, to her (a serious art critic), Dali couldn't have been a great artist *and* a Fascist, Therefore I was disparaging his art. Which made me an evil philistine......
Orwell wrote quite a good essay (including Dali) on the subject of whether art is linked to morality - and why people seem to think it is.
For the record, I think that Dali is interesting. But quite a lot of his work seems like a one shot gag to me - the melting clock etc. Nothing that would make you stand and look for hours. And he definitely was a Francophile*.
*Not the good kind
The quality of painting on the famous Dali originals is supurb. His use of colour is not done justice from prints and posters.
But he was certainly not a "one trick pony", nowhere near. I'm guessing that you have only seen one genre from him, the style that makes him famous. If anyone wants to see great exhibition of the variety in his work, I highly recommend the Teatro Dali in Figueres, an easy train journey from Barcelona (once Corona is under controll of course).
There was a Dali exhibition at the Grimaldi centre in Monaco last summer. I've seen several over the years but this was the best. It went further than his paintings. I enjoy his work but he'll struggle to ever be taken too seriously. He was too much of a publicity seeker and showman. A bit like Warhol. Great artists at that time were meant to let the work speak for them.
Warhol is a fascinating example of artists in the modern world, because for 30 years he was a media-cultural event himself. It's very difficult to separate his art from his media "personality".
This blurring, via "media spectacle" , as the French would say, is part of the background of modern western politics and Trumpism, too.
I'm still scratching my head as to how anyone can post on here this morning that Biden is "most likely" to finish on 290. I'm trying to be as polite as possible but there is no way on god's earth that he isn't winning Georgia. Which already takes him to 295.
How, how, can anybody work out he could finish on 290?
Arizona (11), North Carolina (16), Alaska (3) are what's left.
Some of you seem to think Trump may nick Arizona. I don't. Be that as it may, Biden is guaranteed a minimum 295. I think he will finish on 306, as I've said for days.
He's on 279 confirmed.
290 is 279 + 11 so that's obviously the path he's thinking.
I don't agree, I agree with you that he'll win Georgia but if someone thinks that he's ending on 290 they clearly think he's going to lose Georgia.
On Betfair, Biden has been bouncing around between 1.05 and 1.06 this morning, presumably reflecting the tension between backers buying money and layers freeing up funds for other markets.
Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.
In that event, it appears that it’s just the case that even more women voted than previously. Although Trump’s misogyny was obvious in 2016, so I have no idea why it took an entire presidential term for some women to feel motivated to vote against him.
Agree, I'm genuinely purplexed that any believing Christian, any woman, and anyone who values democracy in the US can vote for Trump. I remember saying in October 2016, that I cannot believe how the traditional Republicans who support traditional conservative American values can vote for Trump.
I guess the fear of a Democrat president, any Democrat president, was enough justification to throw their values and beliefs under a bus.
I don't think that is true. Remember they had to choose Trump over a whole slew of other Republican candidates as well prior to the main event. The problem was, and probably still is, that Trump was right about the Swamp. A self serving elite who, because of the nature of US politics and the necessity for vast sums of money to get anywhere, are thoroughly corruptible and corrupted. In case you missed it the Democrats spent over £100 million just trying to unseat one Senator in Kentucky. The Republicans will spend similar amounts on their campaigns. What must that look like to someone who is losing their job or has no means to pay for medical care?
The trouble is that Trump was entirely the wrong person to deal with this. You are right that no reasonable person should consider voting for him. But it just shows how desperate people are in the US to try and sort out the mess of corruption and self interest that underpins their political system that they were willing to vote for him.
Sadly I don't expect either the Democrats or Republicans to have learnt this lesson so the same thing will happen again in the very near future.
You do realise that sensible people in both parties tried campaign finance reform, and a conservative Supreme Court effectively made it impossible for the foreseeable future ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Aren't all artists a bit eccentric, tortured and odd?
Took me a minute to cotton on this morning; for a second I was trying to work out why everyone thought the Dalai Lama was a fascist.
But that's actually a good point: would we say that because someone was morally pure their art must therefore be superb? What do the Dalai Lama's painting look like?
A completely unrepentant Nazi and a utter shit to boot. He never apologised for his lies about Claudio Corti, for example, going out of his way to keep the persecution going.
My favourite Dali painting is Christ of St John of the Cross:
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
I'm still scratching my head as to how anyone can post on here this morning that Biden is "most likely" to finish on 290. I'm trying to be as polite as possible but there is no way on god's earth that he isn't winning Georgia. Which already takes him to 295.
How, how, can anybody work out he could finish on 290?
Arizona (11), North Carolina (16), Alaska (3) are what's left.
Some of you seem to think Trump may nick Arizona. I don't. Be that as it may, Biden is guaranteed a minimum 295. I think he will finish on 306, as I've said for days.
He's on 279 confirmed.
290 is 279 + 11 so that's obviously the path he's thinking.
I don't agree, I agree with you that he'll win Georgia but if someone thinks that he's ending on 290 they clearly think he's going to lose Georgia.
Yes. But as I said there's no way on god's earth Biden isn't winning Georgia. Arizona is a toss up. Georgia isn't.
Interesting, I see, that the Lincoln Project folks are not wrapping up as job done with Trump gone (pending legal challenges), but are fundraising for efforts in the Georgia Senate runoffs.
It'd be great if the Dems could win one or both of them, though there's a somewhat funny mixture of elements here, since it seems like part of Biden's pitch is he is pretty moderate, but others make the point that the Dems cannot do some of the more drastic things they want to do if they don't win those seats, and I'm sure the more radical elements are pushing hard about what they could do if they take them.
Also interestingly, it looks like some Dems, and AOC in particular, despise the Lincoln Project folks, as taking money and doing nothing effective with it.
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020 When will Donald Trump publicly concede? For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST. November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.
AIUI, former US Presidents continue to be addressed as Mr President and have security bodyguards for life. I'm curious how would that work in a prison setting.
Good morning, everyone.
Morning,
He'll have security guards. They're called wardens in America I believe.
He would probably end up at that Club Fed prison - the one with the golf course, where the CEOs go...
His finances seem to be every bit as healthy as Robert Maxwell's were in late 1990.
Shades of Maxwell indeed if that New York Times series linked to earlier is any guide.
You can get 1/8 with Paddy Power on Donald Trump NOT conceding before Nov 13th. The concession has to be a televised broadcast in which he explicitly concedes.
Whilst the odds are slight this looks to me like extremely good value. If, like me, you think there's fat-all chance of Trump doing such a thing then you're getting a 12.5% return in the space of 5 days!
The most I'd expect at some time is a begrudging and curmudgeonly tweet. And it won't be before Friday.
- Presidential Election 2020 When will Donald Trump publicly concede? For the purpose of this market a concession has to be a televised address where Donald Trump explicitly concedes that Joe Biden has won the 2020 US Election. All dates are EST. November 13th 2020 or later/Never 1/8
I'm bumping this up. As far as I'm concerned it's a free investment of 12.5% return over 5 days.
Even if Trump does concede before Friday, which is vanishingly unlikely, it won't be done by a full television confession. I mean concession.
One thing to consider is that Trump may well be trying to avoid jail: there is at least one apparently slam dunk case against him where someone has already been found guilty of conspiring with him. Several others are in the wings, including various state level charges in NY.
AIUI, former US Presidents continue to be addressed as Mr President and have security bodyguards for life. I'm curious how would that work in a prison setting.
Good morning, everyone.
Morning,
He'll have security guards. They're called wardens in America I believe.
He would probably end up at that Club Fed prison - the one with the golf course, where the CEOs go...
His finances seem to be every bit as healthy as Robert Maxwell's were in late 1990.
That's an interesting comparison. Both in terms of finance and flawed personality. Maxwell was a crook ...
Morning all! The Lords vote on the Internal Markets bill will be interesting not just for the scale of the defeat but for the tone. Unusually it is the Lords who will be upholding the government's manifesto from attack by the lower house rather than the other way round. As that means the Other Place have no requirement to back down this one could run and run...
I'm still scratching my head as to how anyone can post on here this morning that Biden is "most likely" to finish on 290. I'm trying to be as polite as possible but there is no way on god's earth that he isn't winning Georgia. Which already takes him to 295.
How, how, can anybody work out he could finish on 290?
Arizona (11), North Carolina (16), Alaska (3) are what's left.
Some of you seem to think Trump may nick Arizona. I don't. Be that as it may, Biden is guaranteed a minimum 295. I think he will finish on 306, as I've said for days.
He's on 279 confirmed.
290 is 279 + 11 so that's obviously the path he's thinking.
I don't agree, I agree with you that he'll win Georgia but if someone thinks that he's ending on 290 they clearly think he's going to lose Georgia.
Yes. But as I said there's no way on god's earth Biden isn't winning Georgia. Arizona is a toss up. Georgia isn't.
G'day to y'all.
I agree with you but the networks don't, they've not called it yet and if they've not called it they're saying they see a possible path to Trump winning it.
Trump is the classic example of someone that other people have sucked up to his whole life. Hugely damaging if someone doesn’t turn around to you and say ‘no’ or ‘nah, that’s bollocks’. What’s worrying is much of our economy and society is organised and led by putting people in that position.
Is The Apprentice really so successful?
You are aware that the entire original purpose for Trump's 2015 campaign was publicity - he never wanted to win either the nomination and definitely not the election.
Likewise Boris, Gove and Brexit. They were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off.
I'm still scratching my head as to how anyone can post on here this morning that Biden is "most likely" to finish on 290. I'm trying to be as polite as possible but there is no way on god's earth that he isn't winning Georgia. Which already takes him to 295.
How, how, can anybody work out he could finish on 290?
Arizona (11), North Carolina (16), Alaska (3) are what's left.
Some of you seem to think Trump may nick Arizona. I don't. Be that as it may, Biden is guaranteed a minimum 295. I think he will finish on 306, as I've said for days.
He's on 279 confirmed.
290 is 279 + 11 so that's obviously the path he's thinking.
I don't agree, I agree with you that he'll win Georgia but if someone thinks that he's ending on 290 they clearly think he's going to lose Georgia.
Yes. But as I said there's no way on god's earth Biden isn't winning Georgia. Arizona is a toss up. Georgia isn't.
G'day to y'all.
It would be an "upset" if Trump won Georgia - but there's not enough known about how many ballots are outstanding. Biden's lead is over 10,000 and he's been averaging 70% of recent returns - so "highly unlikely" that Trump can reverse that.
Pennsylvania, on the other hand for Trump has moved from "highly unlikely" to "virtually impossible" - Biden's lead is 43,194 and remaining ballots to be counted is 67,830. Trump needs to win 82% of them - he's been averaging 26% in the most recent batches.
I'm still scratching my head as to how anyone can post on here this morning that Biden is "most likely" to finish on 290. I'm trying to be as polite as possible but there is no way on god's earth that he isn't winning Georgia. Which already takes him to 295.
How, how, can anybody work out he could finish on 290?
Arizona (11), North Carolina (16), Alaska (3) are what's left.
Some of you seem to think Trump may nick Arizona. I don't. Be that as it may, Biden is guaranteed a minimum 295. I think he will finish on 306, as I've said for days.
He's on 279 confirmed.
290 is 279 + 11 so that's obviously the path he's thinking.
I don't agree, I agree with you that he'll win Georgia but if someone thinks that he's ending on 290 they clearly think he's going to lose Georgia.
Yes. But as I said there's no way on god's earth Biden isn't winning Georgia. Arizona is a toss up. Georgia isn't.
G'day to y'all.
I agree with you but the networks don't, they've not called it yet and if they've not called it they're saying they see a possible path to Trump winning it.
No. The reason they haven't called it is because the Governor has said it's going to a recount not because they see there's a path to Trump winning. They can't call it if there's a recount.
Anyway, that's avoiding my point. No one on here can in all seriousness post that Biden is "most likely" to finish on 290. I'd put the chances of that at less than 1/500. It would basically require c. 25,000 votes in Georgia to be invalidated by the Supreme Court. It ain't happening.
Interesting, I see, that the Lincoln Project folks are not wrapping up as job done with Trump gone (pending legal challenges), but are fundraising for efforts in the Georgia Senate runoffs.
It'd be great if the Dems could win one or both of them, though there's a somewhat funny mixture of elements here, since it seems like part of Biden's pitch is he is pretty moderate, but others make the point that the Dems cannot do some of the more drastic things they want to do if they don't win those seats, and I'm sure the more radical elements are pushing hard about what they could do if they take them.
They cant do radical things with 50-50, Joe Manchin is no radical and needs re-election in West Virginia.
Getting to 50-50 or at least 49-51 stops the senate being obstructionist, it doesnt allow the president to be radical.
And note "radical" here would mean well to the right of a Cameron conservative government.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
By the way, the utterly vile 'Bobby Sands' trend yesterday from Rangers football fans* is a reminder that whilst we may look in sanctimonious horror at Trump's sectarianism, it exists in the UK not so far from the surface.
It's why the Northern Ireland peace process culminating in the Good Friday Agreement must never be sacrificed on the altar of far right ideology.
Joe Biden and the EU will ensure it isn't.
(* 8-0 = Ate-Nothing = Bobby Sands.)
Not sure I understand how Brexit is 'far-right'. By definition far right is a form of extreme nationalism, which by virtue of it winning a referendum Brexit cannot be. Neither does it seem to be excessively nativistic since we seem to want to swap a trade and political arrangement with the EU for different ones including with Japan. Finally I cannot see how Brexit is authoritarian in itself.
Could you have just said right wing ideology? Is there a need to ramp it up into something it is not?
I'm still scratching my head as to how anyone can post on here this morning that Biden is "most likely" to finish on 290. I'm trying to be as polite as possible but there is no way on god's earth that he isn't winning Georgia. Which already takes him to 295.
How, how, can anybody work out he could finish on 290?
Arizona (11), North Carolina (16), Alaska (3) are what's left.
Some of you seem to think Trump may nick Arizona. I don't. Be that as it may, Biden is guaranteed a minimum 295. I think he will finish on 306, as I've said for days.
He's on 279 confirmed.
290 is 279 + 11 so that's obviously the path he's thinking.
I don't agree, I agree with you that he'll win Georgia but if someone thinks that he's ending on 290 they clearly think he's going to lose Georgia.
Yes. But as I said there's no way on god's earth Biden isn't winning Georgia. Arizona is a toss up. Georgia isn't.
G'day to y'all.
I agree with you but the networks don't, they've not called it yet and if they've not called it they're saying they see a possible path to Trump winning it.
No. The reason they haven't called it is because the Governor has said it's going to a recount not because they see there's a path to Trump winning. They can't call it if there's a recount.
Anyway, that's avoiding my point. No one on here can in all seriousness post that Biden is "most likely" to finish on 290. I'd put the chances of that at less than 1/500. It would basically require c. 25,000 votes in Georgia to be invalidated by the Supreme Court. It ain't happening.
That's not true, Wisconsin has a recount coming and its been called. Georgia is still counting. The lead in Georgia is 10k and there are more than 10k ballots outstanding.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Ugh, there is enough data at Alaska House District level that I could actually make a decent stab at calculating the exact Mail ballot split and see how close the Bidenator could get.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
Interesting, I see, that the Lincoln Project folks are not wrapping up as job done with Trump gone (pending legal challenges), but are fundraising for efforts in the Georgia Senate runoffs.
It'd be great if the Dems could win one or both of them, though there's a somewhat funny mixture of elements here, since it seems like part of Biden's pitch is he is pretty moderate, but others make the point that the Dems cannot do some of the more drastic things they want to do if they don't win those seats, and I'm sure the more radical elements are pushing hard about what they could do if they take them.
They cant do radical things with 50-50, Joe Manchin is no radical and needs re-election in West Virginia.
Getting to 50-50 or at least 49-51 stops the senate being obstructionist, it doesnt allow the president to be radical.
And note "radical" here would mean well to the right of a Cameron conservative government.
Yeah they cannot push their agenda as they would like, however being at 50-50 come 2022 midterms a fair number of vulnerable republican seats they could take and the 2nd half of a Biden 1st (only) term could be when the work is done.
Yeah, not surprised by this. I wonder why more men didn’t vote this time?
Interesting thread yesterday, was reading the comments last night. I wouldn’t say the majority of posters here are left leaning, most are centrist liberals tbh. In other news, I see on Twitter both leftists and centrists have made themselves look silly since Biden’s win. Only people who didn’t embarrass themselves were the soft left.
I'm sure more men voted in 2020 than in 2016.
In that event, it appears that it’s just the case that even more women voted than previously. Although Trump’s misogyny was obvious in 2016, so I have no idea why it took an entire presidential term for some women to feel motivated to vote against him.
Agree, I'm genuinely purplexed that any believing Christian, any woman, and anyone who values democracy in the US can vote for Trump. I remember saying in October 2016, that I cannot believe how the traditional Republicans who support traditional conservative American values can vote for Trump.
I guess the fear of a Democrat president, any Democrat president, was enough justification to throw their values and beliefs under a bus.
It's a good question, and very much similar to one to that I had to consider when studying the history of Weimar Republic at university some 40 years ago. The answer is that: 1. Given the right leader, fascists can frame an electoral appeal to peoples' darker side which can override all moral norms that involves buying into even the most outlandish claims made to justify such behaviour. 2. Ambitious politicians of the right who should know better will go along with fascism in order to try and further their own careers (cf. von Papen then, the Republican heirarchy now).
Very good thoughts indeed. Hope you got a good degree.
Thanks. To be honest, I always found it quite difficult to understand just how vulnerable the democratic institutions of Germany were to the appeal of fascism. Yes, the economic circumstances were extreme and the political deadlock didn't help, but that didn't explain it on its own. Now it's crystal clear, having seen how a single person has managed to appeal to so many through a very similarly framed divisive appeal with complete disregard of truth even when that is patently at odds with democratic norms.
The US has for now had a near miss. However, in extending the parallel, let's not forget that the NSDAP also had a setback and went backwards in the election of November 1932. The institutions of the Weimar Republic including the conservative political heirarchy and judiciary remained of the view that Hitler was useful to them, and that gave him a route back. No-one is going to advance in today's Republican Party unless they go along with Trump.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Interesting, I see, that the Lincoln Project folks are not wrapping up as job done with Trump gone (pending legal challenges), but are fundraising for efforts in the Georgia Senate runoffs.
It'd be great if the Dems could win one or both of them, though there's a somewhat funny mixture of elements here, since it seems like part of Biden's pitch is he is pretty moderate, but others make the point that the Dems cannot do some of the more drastic things they want to do if they don't win those seats, and I'm sure the more radical elements are pushing hard about what they could do if they take them.
And note "radical" here would mean well to the right of a Cameron conservative government.
I'm sure that is true, but I'm trying to picture that message from the perspective of the near 50% who already voted for the Republican senate candidates.
I don't think he'll manage it but Trump came bloody close to being the USA's first dictator.
He came nowhere near it. Nowhere.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
Mrs RP has just arrived home. Covid outbreak in one of the classes she works with. Hasn't seem that bubble since last Tuesday but they've all been sent home and after a little bit of confusion she now has been as well. Her small primary school have now got 5 members of the teaching staff sent home after potential Covid contacts.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Mrs RP has just arrived home. Covid outbreak in one of the classes she works with. Hasn't seem that bubble since last Tuesday but they've all been sent home and after a little bit of confusion she now has been as well. Her small primary school have now got 5 members of the teaching staff sent home after potential Covid contacts.
SKS was on LBC today and was asked about going against the unions by recommending schools stay open. He answered competently (lost generation, attainment gap, etc).
Do we know the Covid casualty/infection rate amongst teachers?
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
Interesting, I see, that the Lincoln Project folks are not wrapping up as job done with Trump gone (pending legal challenges), but are fundraising for efforts in the Georgia Senate runoffs.
It'd be great if the Dems could win one or both of them, though there's a somewhat funny mixture of elements here, since it seems like part of Biden's pitch is he is pretty moderate, but others make the point that the Dems cannot do some of the more drastic things they want to do if they don't win those seats, and I'm sure the more radical elements are pushing hard about what they could do if they take them.
They cant do radical things with 50-50, Joe Manchin is no radical and needs re-election in West Virginia.
Getting to 50-50 or at least 49-51 stops the senate being obstructionist, it doesnt allow the president to be radical.
And note "radical" here would mean well to the right of a Cameron conservative government.
No, the radical Democratic far left like AOC belong in Corbyn Labour they have nothing in common with Cameron, even Biden is a friend of Kinnock and would comfortably slot into Starmer Labour.
Interestingly this is now the first time since 1989-1990 that the UK has a significantly more rightwing PM than the US President, when Thatcher was PM and Bush Snr was US President and the gap is even wider between Boris and Biden than it was between them (taking Cameron and May and Major only to be fractionally to the right of Obama and Bill Clinton and in some cases not much different at all).
Indeed much as in 1990 many Reagan Republicans wished they had Maggie as President instead of the ultra moderate, wet George HW Bush so now many Trump Republicans are already saying they wish they had Boris as President instead of Biden
I don't think he'll manage it but Trump came bloody close to being the USA's first dictator.
He came nowhere near it. Nowhere.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
He has his political allies have been trying to suppress democracy but it has backfired this year.
He has packed the Supreme Court with partisans who were prepared to tear up voting rights legislation.
Who knows what more he could have done in another four years. The damage from his court packing alone could last decades.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
I don't think he'll manage it but Trump came bloody close to being the USA's first dictator.
He came nowhere near it. Nowhere.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
In the end, it isn't going to be all that close - about 5m PVs and 70 ECVs. There have been many Presidential contests much closer than that, including his previous win.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
By the way, the utterly vile 'Bobby Sands' trend yesterday from Rangers football fans* is a reminder that whilst we may look in sanctimonious horror at Trump's sectarianism, it exists in the UK not so far from the surface.
It's why the Northern Ireland peace process culminating in the Good Friday Agreement must never be sacrificed on the altar of far right ideology.
Joe Biden and the EU will ensure it isn't.
(* 8-0 = Ate-Nothing = Bobby Sands.)
Not sure I understand how Brexit is 'far-right'. By definition far right is a form of extreme nationalism, which by virtue of it winning a referendum Brexit cannot be. Neither does it seem to be excessively nativistic since we seem to want to swap a trade and political arrangement with the EU for different ones including with Japan. Finally I cannot see how Brexit is authoritarian in itself.
Could you have just said right wing ideology? Is there a need to ramp it up into something it is not?
Regarding the Rangers/Bobby Sands stuff - this must be really heavily ingrained and passed down the generations because anyone much younger than me would not remember Bobby Sands and it took me a few minutes for the 8 - 0 to have any meaning.
Interesting, I see, that the Lincoln Project folks are not wrapping up as job done with Trump gone (pending legal challenges), but are fundraising for efforts in the Georgia Senate runoffs.
It'd be great if the Dems could win one or both of them, though there's a somewhat funny mixture of elements here, since it seems like part of Biden's pitch is he is pretty moderate, but others make the point that the Dems cannot do some of the more drastic things they want to do if they don't win those seats, and I'm sure the more radical elements are pushing hard about what they could do if they take them.
They cant do radical things with 50-50, Joe Manchin is no radical and needs re-election in West Virginia.
Getting to 50-50 or at least 49-51 stops the senate being obstructionist, it doesnt allow the president to be radical.
And note "radical" here would mean well to the right of a Cameron conservative government.
No, the radical Democratic far left like AOC belong in Corbyn Labour they have nothing in common with Cameron, even Biden is a friend of Kinnock and would comfortably slot into Starmer Labour.
Interestingly this is now the first time since 1989-1990 that the UK has a significantly more rightwing PM than the US President, when Thatcher was PM and Bush Snr was US President and the gap is even wider between Boris and Biden than it was between them (taking Cameron and May and Major only to be fractionally to the right of Obama and Bill Clinton and in some cases not much different at all).
Indeed much as in 1990 many Reagan Republicans wished they had Maggie as President instead of the ultra moderate, wet George HW Bush so now many Trump Republicans are already saying they wish they had Boris as President instead of Biden
Boris isnt right wing so much as dangerously populist, incompetent, self serving and leading a kleptocracy. Political ideology is a means for him not a belief.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
But unlike Wisconsin it only needs to be applied for not paid for. In Wisconsin he would need to stump up millions up front on what he knows is a hopeless recount which is why despite claiming he will, he hasn't bothered to yet.
In Georgia if there is a recount it is billed to Georgian taxpayers.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
Does it cost money?
The only rational explanation for Trump's behavior is that he is chronically strapped for cash and needs to buy time.
Btw, he is still President and the pandemic is worsening. Nobody seems to be worrying about his lack of attention to that. He's a criminal, in substance if not before the law.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
Mrs RP has just arrived home. Covid outbreak in one of the classes she works with. Hasn't seem that bubble since last Tuesday but they've all been sent home and after a little bit of confusion she now has been as well. Her small primary school have now got 5 members of the teaching staff sent home after potential Covid contacts.
SKS was on LBC today and was asked about going against the unions by recommending schools stay open. He answered competently (lost generation, attainment gap, etc).
Do we know the Covid casualty/infection rate amongst teachers?
I think the schools need to be open. But the protections for staff and students were not enough - its only after this half term that my middle son's academy finally made it mandatory for students to wear masks despite it tearing through the school. And if you think about it we need to protect staff from it because if the staff go home then the kids have to as well.
My wife's school now has 5 teaching staff in isolation. She can't get a test as no symptoms. If she got a negative test she would still have to isolate for 14 days regardless (she found out today and today is day 6 of her 14 days of isolation...). And the school has run out of money for supply staff which means when they run out of staff the kids go home.
Interesting, I see, that the Lincoln Project folks are not wrapping up as job done with Trump gone (pending legal challenges), but are fundraising for efforts in the Georgia Senate runoffs.
It'd be great if the Dems could win one or both of them, though there's a somewhat funny mixture of elements here, since it seems like part of Biden's pitch is he is pretty moderate, but others make the point that the Dems cannot do some of the more drastic things they want to do if they don't win those seats, and I'm sure the more radical elements are pushing hard about what they could do if they take them.
They cant do radical things with 50-50, Joe Manchin is no radical and needs re-election in West Virginia.
Getting to 50-50 or at least 49-51 stops the senate being obstructionist, it doesnt allow the president to be radical.
And note "radical" here would mean well to the right of a Cameron conservative government.
Yeah they cannot push their agenda as they would like, however being at 50-50 come 2022 midterms a fair number of vulnerable republican seats they could take and the 2nd half of a Biden 1st (only) term could be when the work is done.
Now Biden is President it will almost certainly be the Republicans making gains in the 2022 midterms, the Democrats would have needed Trump to be re elected to make gains in the usual midterm protest vote in 2022
By the way, the utterly vile 'Bobby Sands' trend yesterday from Rangers football fans* is a reminder that whilst we may look in sanctimonious horror at Trump's sectarianism, it exists in the UK not so far from the surface.
It's why the Northern Ireland peace process culminating in the Good Friday Agreement must never be sacrificed on the altar of far right ideology.
Joe Biden and the EU will ensure it isn't.
(* 8-0 = Ate-Nothing = Bobby Sands.)
Not sure I understand how Brexit is 'far-right'. By definition far right is a form of extreme nationalism, which by virtue of it winning a referendum Brexit cannot be. Neither does it seem to be excessively nativistic since we seem to want to swap a trade and political arrangement with the EU for different ones including with Japan. Finally I cannot see how Brexit is authoritarian in itself.
Could you have just said right wing ideology? Is there a need to ramp it up into something it is not?
Regarding the Rangers/Bobby Sands stuff - this must be really heavily ingrained and passed down the generations because anyone much younger than me would not remember Bobby Sands and it took me a few minutes for the 8 - 0 to have any meaning.
Excellent point. It's so frustrating sometimes when English friends, PBers, etc. don't perceive the dog-whistling by certain elements in Scottish politics which Scots, and Northern Irish friends, instantly hear (which doesn't mean they like the sentiments expressed). Aforesaid English friends, etc. are apt to look on one as paranoid, confabulating, etc., when one points it out. But then I suppose it wouldn't be dog-whistling anyway if they could hear it ...
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
No chance surely, but its well past the point where a recount could be meaningful (recounts typically swing no more than a hundred or so not ten thousand).
Cheers Philip. I don't actually know what the point is when a recount is or is not triggered. What margin does Biden need?
0.5% is the threshold.
Thank you.
Unlike some other states, there is no automatic recount in Georgia - it has to be applied for.
Does it cost money?
The only rational explanation for Trump's behavior is that he is chronically strapped for cash and needs to buy time.
Btw, he is still President and the pandemic is worsening. Nobody seems to be worrying about his lack of attention to that. He's a criminal, in substance if not before the law.
I had stopped posting on the USA figures, but now you mention it the daily cases are absolutely rocketing. It looks like new records are going to be hit this week. There were fears it could reach 100K/day. We are well passed that. It will probably hit 150K on at least one day this week.
Deaths are also on the up. 5 days last week well over 1K.
It's a good question, and very much similar to one to that I had to consider when studying the history of Weimar Republic at university some 40 years ago. The answer is that: 1. Given the right leader, fascists can frame an electoral appeal to peoples' darker side which can override all moral norms that involves buying into even the most outlandish claims made to justify such behaviour. 2. Ambitious politicians of the right who should know better will go along with fascism in order to try and further their own careers (cf. von Papen then, the Republican heirarchy now).
Very good thoughts indeed. Hope you got a good degree.
Thanks. To be honest, I always found it quite difficult to understand just how vulnerable the democratic institutions of Germany were to the appeal of fascism. Yes, the economic circumstances were extreme and the political deadlock didn't help, but that didn't explain it on its own. Now it's crystal clear, having seen how a single person has managed to appeal to so many through a very similarly framed divisive appeal with complete disregard of truth even when that is patently at odds with democratic norms.
The US has for now had a near miss. However, in extending the parallel, let's not forget that the NSDAP also had a setback and went backwards in the election of November 1932. The institutions of the Weimar Republic including the conservative political heirarchy and judiciary remained of the view that Hitler was useful to them, and that gave him a route back. No-one is going to advance in today's Republican Party unless they go along with Trump.
There is an interesting cultural comparison there - the Prussians were seen as the very traditional elitists and were usurped by those they thought they controlled. Franz von Papen thought he had 'hired' Hitler and his thugs who were essentially similar to them!
What might now happen? Well similar to the 1930s we are going to see expanding unemployment. Probably election in America is too expensive for an extremist to get involved, however it only needs one eccentric billionaire to make it happen.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
The GA threshold is 0.5% (assuming one of the parties requests it), currently the difference is 0.2% so it seems implausible that Biden's lead will exceed that.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Internationally red is used for left of centre parties, so: It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the american parties could switch their colours.
Mrs RP has just arrived home. Covid outbreak in one of the classes she works with. Hasn't seem that bubble since last Tuesday but they've all been sent home and after a little bit of confusion she now has been as well. Her small primary school have now got 5 members of the teaching staff sent home after potential Covid contacts.
SKS was on LBC today and was asked about going against the unions by recommending schools stay open. He answered competently (lost generation, attainment gap, etc).
Do we know the Covid casualty/infection rate amongst teachers?
I think the schools need to be open. But the protections for staff and students were not enough - its only after this half term that my middle son's academy finally made it mandatory for students to wear masks despite it tearing through the school. And if you think about it we need to protect staff from it because if the staff go home then the kids have to as well.
My wife's school now has 5 teaching staff in isolation. She can't get a test as no symptoms. If she got a negative test she would still have to isolate for 14 days regardless (she found out today and today is day 6 of her 14 days of isolation...). And the school has run out of money for supply staff which means when they run out of staff the kids go home.
Yes absolutely agree about having to protect teachers because as you say, if they aren't there then the school must close.
I just wondered what was the incidence of teachers becoming ill as a result of Covid.
Putin - effective - has to be scored very highly Putin - force for good - would of course be scored badly
Shows that people are mixing up being a force for good, likeability and effective leaders, not just judging effective leadership.
I totally disagree, Putin has not been an effective leader.
He's been effective at being a dictator and securing his grip but he's been a terrible leader for Russia. The Russian economy is stagnating and dire, he's done absolutely nothing to develop his nation which is only staying afloat by exporting gas - as the world moves to zero carbon Russia is frankly doomed by his malfeasance. Russia is an impoverished backwater and Putin is condemning it to decades of penury to come.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Not according to the latest counts Biden has been increasing his lead with Trump only getting 27% of votes (last 3 batches) with Biden 10353 ahead. Thats a decent lead.
Could this get out of recount territory or has that already been decided?
The GA threshold is 0.5% (assuming one of the parties requests it), currently the difference is 0.2% so it seems implausible that Biden's lead will exceed that.
Everywhere is into the murky world of "provisionals" normally those lean Democrat but Trump's support had more 'casual' supporters than the GOP tend to get so he might outperform relative to historical trends.
It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the British Tories could switch their colour to red and Labour to blue.
Internationally red is used for left of centre parties, so: It would be helpful for international comparison purposes if the american parties could switch their colours.
Yes it is part of the weird American habit of pretending that socialism can't exist in their country. It's the same reason they celebrate Labor* Day in September.
* I know it's spelled wrong, but this is what they call it.
If the EU agree a deal making those clauses redundant then they can be removed as part of the deal.
If they don't then the clauses are necessary and it's up to the elected chamber to make the decision.
In what way necessary - given that implementing them breaks international treaties which will have consequences now all the world's leadership once again believes treaties shouldn't be ignored.
If there is an EU deal we can scrap those IMB provisions as part of the deal as redundant.
If there isn't then looking after ourselves will be more important than what other leaders think. Especially when those leaders are prepared to do the same when it suits them to do so.
OK, let's assume that this version of the IMB is needed and appropriate. Plenty disagree, but let's assume.
The government must know that the Lords can delay stuff for a year. So a government playing a tough but straight bat would introduce the IMB a bit more than twelve months before it is needed. But they didn't.
So either the government is clueless, or there's another game (heaven knows what) going on. Or both.
Did the Government have a majority in the Commons 12 months ago? I think you're mixing things up.
Furthermore no the Lords should not delay things for a year. They can, but then the Government can stuff the Lords or abolish it if need be too. The Lords should respect the supremacy of the elected chamber.
Not at all, my piratical friend.
31/13/20 is a deadline the government imposed on itself. A longer transition was on the table (as recently as this summer, I think). I understand why the government didn't take the opportunity (though I think they were foolish not to do so), but that choice has consequences. Remember also that the government could have leapt over the hurdle of the Lords by putting the details of this bill in their 2019 manifesto. If they really wanted this bill, their planning has been atrocious.
And I'd he careful about using "technically they can, but they shouldn't, because the consequences will be bad" as an argument. That's basically why a lot of people think this IMB is a serious mistake.
That's fine I understand that some think the IMB is a serious mistake - they can make that argument and it is for the elected chamber to decide. If we're not happy with what the elected chamber decides then another election is due no later than 2024.
Democracy: I'm a fan of it, are you?
Right, so we're back to "anyone who disagrees with Boris is against democracy". Normal service has resumed.
No absolutely not. If a majority of MPs vote against Boris then that is democracy.
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
And there are no limits to this doctrine? Not if Boris decides to sterilise the unfit, or put the races more susceptible to covid into concentration camps, say? Fine, because you can always vote him out in 2024?
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
Always with this slippery slop fallacy. The IMB is not putting people into concentration camps or sterilising the unfit. 🙄
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
So you accept that democracy means surrendering some of our liberties but that is absolutely fine because it is a consequence of us having the best available system of government.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
It means delegating them temporarily to people we choose then getting them back automatically to redelegate to whomever we choose again next time. Yes. The choice remains always ours and ours alone.
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Temporarily until you then delegate it again so hence actually continuously.
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of sovereignty er, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.
LOL
You're making contradictory circular arguments.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
So to clarify.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
No.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.
Comments
Anyone who thinks the elected chamber shouldn't make the decisions is against democracy. Whether the elected chamber is making decisions I like or oppose I respect their right to make the decisions, because I know if they make a decision I dislike we can vote again next time.
https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1325603329699946496?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1325603329699946496|twgr^share_3&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-us-2020-54786937
A would-be government really wants to do something? It puts it in its manifesto, and the Lords say "fair enough". Rewarding governments that are upfront about their plans is a good thing, democracy-wise.
Or the government waits 12 months and gets what it wants then.
As the poster in many school reprographics offices puts it, "your lack of planning is not my emergency".
It'd be great if the Dems could win one or both of them, though there's a somewhat funny mixture of elements here, since it seems like part of Biden's pitch is he is pretty moderate, but others make the point that the Dems cannot do some of the more drastic things they want to do if they don't win those seats, and I'm sure the more radical elements are pushing hard about what they could do if they take them.
The map of the 1976 Carter win is fascinating. Huge changes inthe west and the south of the country politically in that time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_United_States_presidential_election#/media/File:1976_Electoral_College_Map.png
How, how, can anybody work out he could finish on 290?
Arizona (11), North Carolina (16), Alaska (3) are what's left.
Some of you seem to think Trump may nick Arizona. I don't. Be that as it may, Biden is guaranteed a minimum 295. I think he will finish on 306, as I've said for days.
This blurring, via "media spectacle" , as the French would say, is part of the background of modern western politics and Trumpism, too.
290 is 279 + 11 so that's obviously the path he's thinking.
I don't agree, I agree with you that he'll win Georgia but if someone thinks that he's ending on 290 they clearly think he's going to lose Georgia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_of_Saint_John_of_the_Cross
though one does have to go all the way to Glasgow to appreciate it in vivo.
Not a melting clock in sight - just an interesting, puzzling image that retains one's attention.
Answer: yes, there are. Conforming to the rules of the democracy is just an entry level requirement, not a free pass. And why you think you can call yourself a libertarian when your favoured model of government is the complete surrender of liberty, in five-year tranches, is a puzzle.
G'day to y'all.
By analyzing the tax-return information and public records, The Times was able to trace the flow of money — first to companies that Mr. Trump alone controls, and from there to Mr. Trump himself.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/09/us/donald-trump-taxes-las-vegas.html
And Boris was apparently in equally downcast mood when he realised his playacting had actually helped cause Brexit.
Be careful what you wish for, and all that.
Pennsylvania, on the other hand for Trump has moved from "highly unlikely" to "virtually impossible" - Biden's lead is 43,194 and remaining ballots to be counted is 67,830. Trump needs to win 82% of them - he's been averaging 26% in the most recent batches.
Anyway, that's avoiding my point. No one on here can in all seriousness post that Biden is "most likely" to finish on 290. I'd put the chances of that at less than 1/500. It would basically require c. 25,000 votes in Georgia to be invalidated by the Supreme Court. It ain't happening.
Getting to 50-50 or at least 49-51 stops the senate being obstructionist, it doesnt allow the president to be radical.
And note "radical" here would mean well to the right of a Cameron conservative government.
As for why I as a libertarian support democracy the answer is because democracy is the most liberal form of government that exists. Yes democracy does mean surrendering some of our liberties for five years but the absence of democracy means surrendering them indefinitely.
At elections I will support liberal governments but if an illiberal one wins I would hope to defeat it next time with ballots not bullets.
There is only Georgia still in play and it looks like it could go either way.
Could you have just said right wing ideology? Is there a need to ramp it up into something it is not?
I'm not going to do it though.
The US has for now had a near miss. However, in extending the parallel, let's not forget that the NSDAP also had a setback and went backwards in the election of November 1932. The institutions of the Weimar Republic including the conservative political heirarchy and judiciary remained of the view that Hitler was useful to them, and that gave him a route back. No-one is going to advance in today's Republican Party unless they go along with Trump.
Struggling to find an analogy here, Phil.
People have listened to him in the past few days and gone "Uh-huh." And ignored him. In what ways has he come anywhere close to actually having his people tear up the democratic process?
If you come up with an analogy please do let me know.
Do we know the Covid casualty/infection rate amongst teachers?
Interestingly this is now the first time since 1989-1990 that the UK has a significantly more rightwing PM than the US President, when Thatcher was PM and Bush Snr was US President and the gap is even wider between Boris and Biden than it was between them (taking Cameron and May and Major only to be fractionally to the right of Obama and Bill Clinton and in some cases not much different at all).
Indeed much as in 1990 many Reagan Republicans wished they had Maggie as President instead of the ultra moderate, wet George HW Bush so now many Trump Republicans are already saying they wish they had Boris as President instead of Biden
He has packed the Supreme Court with partisans who were prepared to tear up voting rights legislation.
Who knows what more he could have done in another four years. The damage from his court packing alone could last decades.
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1325641592619855872?s=20
And as to the choice - when exactly do you get the choice to end our democratic system of government? So no, you don't get a choice.
You are happy to sacrifice some element of
sovereigntyer, liberty for the greater good because you realise that the system wherein such small amount of liberty is sacrificed is superior to all others.LOL
https://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1325728857123676160?s=20
In Georgia if there is a recount it is billed to Georgian taxpayers.
The only rational explanation for Trump's behavior is that he is chronically strapped for cash and needs to buy time.
Btw, he is still President and the pandemic is worsening. Nobody seems to be worrying about his lack of attention to that. He's a criminal, in substance if not before the law.
I don't want to end our democratic system of government, I support it.
Yes I am not an anarchist I have never said I am an ararchist. It is about balancing judgements. The balance in favour of democracy is overwhelming. The same does not apply to other issues.
My wife's school now has 5 teaching staff in isolation. She can't get a test as no symptoms. If she got a negative test she would still have to isolate for 14 days regardless (she found out today and today is day 6 of her 14 days of isolation...). And the school has run out of money for supply staff which means when they run out of staff the kids go home.
Putin - force for good - would of course be scored badly
Shows that people are mixing up being a force for good, likeability and effective leaders, not just judging effective leadership.
Deaths are also on the up. 5 days last week well over 1K.
What might now happen? Well similar to the 1930s we are going to see expanding unemployment. Probably election in America is too expensive for an extremist to get involved, however it only needs one eccentric billionaire to make it happen.
Membership of the EU which requires some amount of loss of, or pooled sovereignty for the greater good of an economic system = beyond the pale.
Democratic system of govt which requires some amount of loss of liberty for the greater good of a preferred system of government = all fine and dandy.
I just wondered what was the incidence of teachers becoming ill as a result of Covid.
He's been effective at being a dictator and securing his grip but he's been a terrible leader for Russia. The Russian economy is stagnating and dire, he's done absolutely nothing to develop his nation which is only staying afloat by exporting gas - as the world moves to zero carbon Russia is frankly doomed by his malfeasance. Russia is an impoverished backwater and Putin is condemning it to decades of penury to come.
* I know it's spelled wrong, but this is what they call it.
Membership of the EU was never beyond the pale, I was a Remainer for most of my life and said I'd rather Remain than support Theresa May's deal.
So no, you have totally misunderstood everything I've ever written it seems because that is not what I am saying whatsoever. I am entirely OK with the UK pooling sovereignty with other nations if that is what the UK votes to do and so long as the UK can vote to end that in the future.