The next G20 leader to leave – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Wrong. Show me a single post from Contrarian where he dissuades others. In fact he has said that he believes the vax to be safe and effective.eek said:
Very different reasons as Dura seems to very much be - this is why I refuse to be vaccinated - but I don't object to what others do.Anabobazina said:Dura is antivax because of 'big pharma' and 'animals'.
Contrarian is antivax because of 'government' and 'privacy'.
Same shit, different reasons.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Contrarian - is very much this is why you shouldn't be vaccinated.
There is no difference in their positions beyond their justifications.0 -
So all that matters is the headline? Has HYUFD hijacked your account?Philip_Thompson said:
That would lead to x years of negative headlines, while dropping the uplift gets headlines today that then go away.eek said:Completely offtopic but someone elsewhere has just suggested a perfect solution to dealing with the Universal Credit uplift that disappears on October 1st.
Keep it but don't increase any payments for x years until inflation consumes all £20 of the current uplift.0 -
Very well put. I (being a man) of course have a different perspective on this and it affects me far less directly. The only circumstances in which I would ever have wanted my wife to have an abortion would have been if there was a serious threat to her well-being from the pregnancy (even the other obvious examples such as rape or the baby being identified as having a severe condition, I'm not sure I would push for abortion, although I would certainly not express any opposition in at least the former case) but I also believe very strongly that she should have the right to choose.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.0 -
No but I'm saying why realistically its a non-starter. Realistically governments don't like having years of negative headlines.Mexicanpete said:
So all that matters is the headline? Has HYUFD hijacked your account?Philip_Thompson said:
That would lead to x years of negative headlines, while dropping the uplift gets headlines today that then go away.eek said:Completely offtopic but someone elsewhere has just suggested a perfect solution to dealing with the Universal Credit uplift that disappears on October 1st.
Keep it but don't increase any payments for x years until inflation consumes all £20 of the current uplift.
Even if that was announced, every single year there'd be pressure to have an uplift and sob stories about how difficult life is etc - its not a political solution.
Beside if you're going to keep the uplift because the uplift is the right thing to do then shouldn't you do so permanently because the uplift is the right thing to do, not as some transient fudge with years of erosion to then reverse it by stealth?0 -
Not getting this argument at all.Anabobazina said:Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Why would anyone be 'sycophantic' towards @Dura_Ace as opposed to @contrarian ?
It's not as though one exerts any more influence or power than the other - simply that one set of arguments appears to be less offensive, for whatever reason.
'Craven' is a similarly weird choice of epithet.1 -
"My religion entirely justifies the way in which I have have handled X. Based on my interpretation of my religion."kle4 said:The conclusion on this story is no surprise at all, but I am surprised it seems surprised by the bit that says they relied on religious dogma.
There are "shocking failings" and "blatant hypocrisy" in the way major UK religious groups handle child sex abuse allegations, an inquiry has found...
It said the religious leaders also blamed victims for their abuse, and relied on religious dogma when responding to allegations.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58420270
That's the awesome bit about dogmas. They are *so* customisable.5 -
See also N Korea, USA.OldKingCole said:
You don't think the Chinese would risk it? It wouldn't take too much to wipe out Taiwan, but China's a lot bigger and there are a lot more Chinese.HYUFD said:
If every country had nuclear weapons then nobody would invade anywhere, hence Taiwan may get them to keep out ChinaPhilip_Thompson said:
Afghanistan has no nuclear deterrent.Endillion said:
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?Philip_Thompson said:
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?kinabalu said:
Totally right. One day we'll get there.Foxy said:
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Why would you want that?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.
Would Taiwan nuke Beijing, with all the cultural implications?
Why would China nuke what it claims is its own territory and people ?
0 -
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
1 -
That's not really applicable at all.Mexicanpete said:
Replace as applicable British, Euros, UK and 2 years.TheScreamingEagles said:
Generally shit show over Covid-19 and the fact most Japanese wanted him to cancel the Olympics/Paralympics which have became superspreader events in Japan.Casino_Royale said:What's the story with Suga in Japan?
Plus he's not very good, been in office for a year as well.
I don't know anyone in real life, and not many online (primarily just Alistair here) who wanted the Euros cancelling and bemoan the fact they became "superspreader" events. In fact most people here were glad for the Euros, enjoyed them and seem to be relieved that we're now through vaccinations and able to get back to normal.
Had Suga had as successful a vaccine rollout as we have had in Britain then I think the Japanese would have been much happier with the Olympics.0 -
Old habits die hard?FrancisUrquhart said:Ex-Health Secretary Matt Hancock takes lover Gina Coladangelo on romantic £87-a-night Alpine holiday
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9948981/Ex-Health-Secretary-Matt-Hancock-takes-lover-Gina-Coladangelo-romantic-87-night-Alpine-holiday.html
£87 a night in Switzerland. What were they staying in a travelodge?1 -
Well, Dura Ace does apparently have contacts/friends among people who can precision bomb your house (he's also, from the MTB broken wrist without painkiller anecdote, well 'ard). Contrarian, as far as can be ascertained, does not.Nigelb said:
Not getting this argument at all.Anabobazina said:Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Why would anyone be 'sycophantic' towards @Dura_Ace as opposed to @contrarian ?
It's not as though one exerts any more influence or power than the other - simply that one set of arguments appears to be less offensive, for whatever reason.
'Craven' is a similarly weird choice of epithet.
0 -
This seems a fairly persuasive analysis.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/biden-s-afghanistan-withdrawal-could-ve-gone-so-differently-n1278163
...There was a better way to do it if Washington faced certain hard ground truths. What would have been the better way was if the U.S. government had secured a deal with the Taliban that began a process of transfer of power to them, while the U.S. was still in the country. But that would have meant completely undermining the Afghan government to do that; it would've meant recognizing the Afghan government, basically, is a creation of the U.S. entirely, and has no real legitimacy on the ground. So that would've been a pretty major paradigm shift, almost a greater paradigm shift than just simply cutting and running, I think.
Because the way the Afghan government is structured is that almost all of the funding, something like 80 percent of its revenue, comes from international sources. This is what political scientists call a rentier state. It's a state that owes its very existence to foreign aid, so it's not a really sustainable state whatsoever. It's a creation of Washington and elsewhere.
What the U.S. did is kind of buy into its own fiction that the Afghan government was somehow a sovereign actor and try to treat it as such...0 -
"We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better"Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Don't you realise that, in the modern world, nothing outranks other peoples "feelings" ?
A realtive told off an employee for making a stupid mistake that nearly landed* multiple actual tons of steel on actual people.
He was told to his face, by the employee, that he (the relative) was "hurting my feelings".
As if that was the far, far worse than causing a lethal accident.
*avoided by the safety setup on the lift.1 -
It was Sir Keir wot lost it. His big gamble of a ‘people’s vote’, his inability to accept the referendum result…isam said:
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
Let’s make him leader!
“ So why not back May’s deal? Here, perhaps, lies the party’s last lost hope. Both Farage and Hague tell me that, had Labour backed May, it is the Tories who would have suffered long-term damage. “If May’s deal had gone through,” says Farage, “there’s a very good chance that a large number of the Spartans [the fiercest Tory Brexiteers] would have got together with my crowd.” Hague agrees that backing a deal “would have transformed” Labour’s situation. May’s team thought Labour was close to supporting them, says Hague, but Starmer, as shadow Brexit secretary, was pivotal in resisting a deal.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse
2 -
This whole discussion is one of the more bizarre I've ever seen on pb.com. And I've seen some shit, man.Selebian said:
Well, Dura Ace does apparently have contacts/friends among people who can precision bomb your house (he's also, from the MTB broken wrist without painkiller anecdote, well 'ard). Contrarian, as far as can be ascertained, does not.Nigelb said:
Not getting this argument at all.Anabobazina said:Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Why would anyone be 'sycophantic' towards @Dura_Ace as opposed to @contrarian ?
It's not as though one exerts any more influence or power than the other - simply that one set of arguments appears to be less offensive, for whatever reason.
'Craven' is a similarly weird choice of epithet.8 -
For many years, a number of people working in Afghanistan referred to the head of the Afghan government as the "Mayor of Kabul"Nigelb said:This seems a fairly persuasive analysis.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/biden-s-afghanistan-withdrawal-could-ve-gone-so-differently-n1278163
...There was a better way to do it if Washington faced certain hard ground truths. What would have been the better way was if the U.S. government had secured a deal with the Taliban that began a process of transfer of power to them, while the U.S. was still in the country. But that would have meant completely undermining the Afghan government to do that; it would've meant recognizing the Afghan government, basically, is a creation of the U.S. entirely, and has no real legitimacy on the ground. So that would've been a pretty major paradigm shift, almost a greater paradigm shift than just simply cutting and running, I think.
Because the way the Afghan government is structured is that almost all of the funding, something like 80 percent of its revenue, comes from international sources. This is what political scientists call a rentier state. It's a state that owes its very existence to foreign aid, so it's not a really sustainable state whatsoever. It's a creation of Washington and elsewhere.
What the U.S. did is kind of buy into its own fiction that the Afghan government was somehow a sovereign actor and try to treat it as such...
Meaning that his writ really didn't run beyond that.0 -
I think it is right backing the deal could have screwed Tories more than labour, but have some sympathy that politically it was just unviable for them given their make up and support, even though it would have been a better outcome.isam said:
It was Sir Keir wot lost it. His big gamble of a ‘people’s vote’, his inability to accept the referendum result…isam said:
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
Let’s make him leader!
“ So why not back May’s deal? Here, perhaps, lies the party’s last lost hope. Both Farage and Hague tell me that, had Labour backed May, it is the Tories who would have suffered long-term damage. “If May’s deal had gone through,” says Farage, “there’s a very good chance that a large number of the Spartans [the fiercest Tory Brexiteers] would have got together with my crowd.” Hague agrees that backing a deal “would have transformed” Labour’s situation. May’s team thought Labour was close to supporting them, says Hague, but Starmer, as shadow Brexit secretary, was pivotal in resisting a deal.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse1 -
‘I didn’t think the leopard would eat my face…’
‘Former Brexit Party candidate Wajid Ali blames Brexit for helping to 'cripple taxi industry' in Wakefield’
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/former-brexit-party-candidate-wajid-ali-blames-brexit-for-helping-to-cripple-taxi-industry-in-wakefield-33681342 -
"We had to destroy Taiwan to save it."Nigelb said:
See also N Korea, USA.OldKingCole said:
You don't think the Chinese would risk it? It wouldn't take too much to wipe out Taiwan, but China's a lot bigger and there are a lot more Chinese.HYUFD said:
If every country had nuclear weapons then nobody would invade anywhere, hence Taiwan may get them to keep out ChinaPhilip_Thompson said:
Afghanistan has no nuclear deterrent.Endillion said:
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?Philip_Thompson said:
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?kinabalu said:
Totally right. One day we'll get there.Foxy said:
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Why would you want that?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.
Would Taiwan nuke Beijing, with all the cultural implications?
Why would China nuke what it claims is its own territory and people ?
2 -
If that metric needs to be curtailed because it is an inconvenience to the Government of the day, then we are in a worse place than I thought. Almost Trumpian.Philip_Thompson said:
Agreed we shouldn't bother.Mexicanpete said:
You scamp!dixiedean said:
That's a striking graph. January really was horrendous.CarlottaVance said:Second wave vs third wave. If the BBC is going to continue giving us daily updates of how many people die from this endemic disease, it should do the same for all other causes of death.
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1433364050377953280?s=20
I don't think that was the purpose Carlotta intended the reference for. The opposite in fact, "only" circa 100 deaths a day from Covid now, so why bother?
[I know you may be facetious with your "only" but I'm not]
Lunch over, back to work!0 -
Indeed. States can be quite destructive to their own people, as we know.Malmesbury said:
"We had to destroy Taiwan to save it."Nigelb said:
See also N Korea, USA.OldKingCole said:
You don't think the Chinese would risk it? It wouldn't take too much to wipe out Taiwan, but China's a lot bigger and there are a lot more Chinese.HYUFD said:
If every country had nuclear weapons then nobody would invade anywhere, hence Taiwan may get them to keep out ChinaPhilip_Thompson said:
Afghanistan has no nuclear deterrent.Endillion said:
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?Philip_Thompson said:
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?kinabalu said:
Totally right. One day we'll get there.Foxy said:
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Why would you want that?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.
Would Taiwan nuke Beijing, with all the cultural implications?
Why would China nuke what it claims is its own territory and people ?0 -
It doesn't need to be curtailed, and its not an inconvenience.Mexicanpete said:
If that metric needs to be curtailed because it is an inconvenience to the Government of the day, then we are in a worse place than I thought. Almost Trumpian.Philip_Thompson said:
Agreed we shouldn't bother.Mexicanpete said:
You scamp!dixiedean said:
That's a striking graph. January really was horrendous.CarlottaVance said:Second wave vs third wave. If the BBC is going to continue giving us daily updates of how many people die from this endemic disease, it should do the same for all other causes of death.
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1433364050377953280?s=20
I don't think that was the purpose Carlotta intended the reference for. The opposite in fact, "only" circa 100 deaths a day from Covid now, so why bother?
[I know you may be facetious with your "only" but I'm not]
Lunch over, back to work!
Its simply not news. Deaths happen, they're a fact of life. Hyperventilating about a tiny fraction of deaths that aren't causing excess deaths and without any context of other deaths is not rational or appropriate. It is screwing with people's mental health, getting disproportionate attention and is causing people to be irrationally afraid.1 -
Mr. kle4, indeed. Just look at how many died in the Great Leap Forward.
Communism in action:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Famine_deaths0 -
If he was a decent politician he would have convinced enough people to support May's deal. As soon as that was defeated and BJ became PM the Tories were always going to win. He should have realised that, but instead he went on TV to show off about another ruse he came up with to stop Brexit. Those people who voted for Brexit and watched him do this are very unlikley to ever vote Labour with SKS as leader.kle4 said:
I think it is right backing the deal could have screwed Tories more than labour, but have some sympathy that politically it was just unviable for them given their make up and support, even though it would have been a better outcome.isam said:
It was Sir Keir wot lost it. His big gamble of a ‘people’s vote’, his inability to accept the referendum result…isam said:
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
Let’s make him leader!
“ So why not back May’s deal? Here, perhaps, lies the party’s last lost hope. Both Farage and Hague tell me that, had Labour backed May, it is the Tories who would have suffered long-term damage. “If May’s deal had gone through,” says Farage, “there’s a very good chance that a large number of the Spartans [the fiercest Tory Brexiteers] would have got together with my crowd.” Hague agrees that backing a deal “would have transformed” Labour’s situation. May’s team thought Labour was close to supporting them, says Hague, but Starmer, as shadow Brexit secretary, was pivotal in resisting a deal.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse1 -
See also, 'spoons runs out of beer...northern_monkey said:‘I didn’t think the leopard would eat my face…’
‘Former Brexit Party candidate Wajid Ali blames Brexit for helping to 'cripple taxi industry' in Wakefield’
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/former-brexit-party-candidate-wajid-ali-blames-brexit-for-helping-to-cripple-taxi-industry-in-wakefield-33681341 -
He's out of touch and swallowed his own spin. He really couldn't understand why they'd lost in 2016 and was just convinced that they could get another vote and get the "right" result next time.NerysHughes said:
If he was a decent politician he would have convinced enough people to support May's deal. As soon that was defeated and BJ became PM the Tories were always going to win. He should have realised that, but instead he went on TV to show off about another ruse he came up with to stop Brexit. Those people who voted for Brexit and watched him do this are very unlikley to ever vote Labour with SKS as leader.kle4 said:
I think it is right backing the deal could have screwed Tories more than labour, but have some sympathy that politically it was just unviable for them given their make up and support, even though it would have been a better outcome.isam said:
It was Sir Keir wot lost it. His big gamble of a ‘people’s vote’, his inability to accept the referendum result…isam said:
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
Let’s make him leader!
“ So why not back May’s deal? Here, perhaps, lies the party’s last lost hope. Both Farage and Hague tell me that, had Labour backed May, it is the Tories who would have suffered long-term damage. “If May’s deal had gone through,” says Farage, “there’s a very good chance that a large number of the Spartans [the fiercest Tory Brexiteers] would have got together with my crowd.” Hague agrees that backing a deal “would have transformed” Labour’s situation. May’s team thought Labour was close to supporting them, says Hague, but Starmer, as shadow Brexit secretary, was pivotal in resisting a deal.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse
The public had other ideas.1 -
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.eek said:
But we are talking about Texas here which in the last 2 days has revoked Roe v Wade and taken race relations back x years by putting it's only black school principal on leave https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/570257-texas-school-puts-its-first-black-principal-on-leave-in for reasons that include his refusal to remove a facebook post with a photo of him and his white wife.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.0 -
Show me a single post where he persuades others.Anabobazina said:
Wrong. Show me a single post from Contrarian where he dissuades others.eek said:
Very different reasons as Dura seems to very much be - this is why I refuse to be vaccinated - but I don't object to what others do.Anabobazina said:Dura is antivax because of 'big pharma' and 'animals'.
Contrarian is antivax because of 'government' and 'privacy'.
Same shit, different reasons.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
Contrarian - is very much this is why you shouldn't be vaccinated.1 -
Maybe you should hold your breath and just go get the jab and surprise us all?Dura_Ace said:
This whole discussion is one of the more bizarre I've ever seen on pb.com. And I've seen some shit, man.Selebian said:
Well, Dura Ace does apparently have contacts/friends among people who can precision bomb your house (he's also, from the MTB broken wrist without painkiller anecdote, well 'ard). Contrarian, as far as can be ascertained, does not.Nigelb said:
Not getting this argument at all.Anabobazina said:Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Why would anyone be 'sycophantic' towards @Dura_Ace as opposed to @contrarian ?
It's not as though one exerts any more influence or power than the other - simply that one set of arguments appears to be less offensive, for whatever reason.
'Craven' is a similarly weird choice of epithet.1 -
I found this amazing stat in the Labour lost future document:
"The Tories under Michael Howard had in fact quietly beaten Labour in England by 70,000 votes. But Labour’s well dispersed coalition of voters, and largely intact heartland base, allowed the party to win 92 more English seats."
92 more seats despite losing the popular vote must be one of the most perverse FPTP results ever.4 -
Does Ursula VdL get appointed as a "Unity" candidate under those circumstances, or would she view that as a demotion?matthiasfromhamburg said:
It may or may not be the case that "everyone knows she is leaving", but in the real world it is far from inconceivable that the next German GE renders an inconclusive result, with no coalition being able to form a majority government, ultimately necessitating a new election.GarethoftheVale2 said:It's weird they have only included some G20 leaders. For example, Australia has an election next year. I guess they have left out Merkel as everyone knows she is leaving
This would be without precedent during the 70 odd year run of the Federal Republic, but in 2017 we came within inches of exactly that scenario. Such a process could easily take up to a year, she would commissarially stay in office all that time.0 -
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.Nigelb said:
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.eek said:
But we are talking about Texas here which in the last 2 days has revoked Roe v Wade and taken race relations back x years by putting it's only black school principal on leave https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/570257-texas-school-puts-its-first-black-principal-on-leave-in for reasons that include his refusal to remove a facebook post with a photo of him and his white wife.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.1 -
Canada could see a similar result later this monthNerysHughes said:I found this amazing stat in the Labour lost future document:
"The Tories under Michael Howard had in fact quietly beaten Labour in England by 70,000 votes. But Labour’s well dispersed coalition of voters, and largely intact heartland base, allowed the party to win 92 more English seats."
92 more seats despite losing the popular vote must be one of the most perverse FPTP results ever.0 -
No - just put it in perspective.Mexicanpete said:
You scamp!dixiedean said:
That's a striking graph. January really was horrendous.CarlottaVance said:Second wave vs third wave. If the BBC is going to continue giving us daily updates of how many people die from this endemic disease, it should do the same for all other causes of death.
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1433364050377953280?s=20
I don't think that was the purpose Carlotta intended the reference for. The opposite in fact, "only" circa 100 deaths a day from Covid now, so why bother?
For example, pre-pandemic average NHS England mid-week admissions were 55,000 daily.....which is useful context for the 842 COVID admissions yesterday....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-457830050 -
Really? I always thought it unlikely that of any of our guesses would snuff it because of COVID. My guess, Jeremy Clarkson, caught it at Christmas but got over it (I'm pleased to say).Stocky said:The thing about @Dura_Ace 's dead pool is that I expected a winner within a month or two of Feb 2020 yet here we are, still up for grabs.
0 -
Which is one of the reason that nuclear weapons deter.kle4 said:
Indeed. States can be quite destructive to their own people, as we know.Malmesbury said:
"We had to destroy Taiwan to save it."Nigelb said:
See also N Korea, USA.OldKingCole said:
You don't think the Chinese would risk it? It wouldn't take too much to wipe out Taiwan, but China's a lot bigger and there are a lot more Chinese.HYUFD said:
If every country had nuclear weapons then nobody would invade anywhere, hence Taiwan may get them to keep out ChinaPhilip_Thompson said:
Afghanistan has no nuclear deterrent.Endillion said:
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?Philip_Thompson said:
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?kinabalu said:
Totally right. One day we'll get there.Foxy said:
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Why would you want that?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.
Would Taiwan nuke Beijing, with all the cultural implications?
Why would China nuke what it claims is its own territory and people ?
"You, personally, will be raised to a temperature of 1m Kelvin for a x milliseconds. Then your atoms scattered."
0 -
That's what comes when 3 judges in the Supreme court are only there because they actually don't care about the law that much.Cyclefree said:
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.Nigelb said:
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.eek said:
But we are talking about Texas here which in the last 2 days has revoked Roe v Wade and taken race relations back x years by putting it's only black school principal on leave https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/570257-texas-school-puts-its-first-black-principal-on-leave-in for reasons that include his refusal to remove a facebook post with a photo of him and his white wife.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.0 -
Well Texas has a Republican pro life governor and a Republican pro life legislature, if it wants to restrict abortion to the first six weeks of pregnancy without banning it completely that is its prerogrative, Texan voters knew what they are getting when they voted Republican. The SC has simply affirmed its right to do sodixiedean said:
Tough on abortion. Soft as s*** on the causes of abortion.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Appears to be the Republican slogan.0 -
The UK most certainly invaded the USSR.Philip_Thompson said:
Afghanistan has no nuclear deterrent.Endillion said:
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?Philip_Thompson said:
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?kinabalu said:
Totally right. One day we'll get there.Foxy said:
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Why would you want that?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.0 -
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.Cyclefree said:
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.Nigelb said:
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.eek said:
But we are talking about Texas here which in the last 2 days has revoked Roe v Wade and taken race relations back x years by putting it's only black school principal on leave https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/570257-texas-school-puts-its-first-black-principal-on-leave-in for reasons that include his refusal to remove a facebook post with a photo of him and his white wife.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment0 -
The bizarre thing is that Sir Keir's ruminations on Brexit now are 'It's a fait accompli; what's done is done; there's no case for re-joining blah blah blah'. Well, if that's his attitude then why didn't he go for Theresa's deal? What would have been the downside?Philip_Thompson said:
He's out of touch and swallowed his own spin. He really couldn't understand why they'd lost in 2016 and was just convinced that they could get another vote and get the "right" result next time.NerysHughes said:
If he was a decent politician he would have convinced enough people to support May's deal. As soon that was defeated and BJ became PM the Tories were always going to win. He should have realised that, but instead he went on TV to show off about another ruse he came up with to stop Brexit. Those people who voted for Brexit and watched him do this are very unlikley to ever vote Labour with SKS as leader.kle4 said:
I think it is right backing the deal could have screwed Tories more than labour, but have some sympathy that politically it was just unviable for them given their make up and support, even though it would have been a better outcome.isam said:
It was Sir Keir wot lost it. His big gamble of a ‘people’s vote’, his inability to accept the referendum result…isam said:
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
Let’s make him leader!
“ So why not back May’s deal? Here, perhaps, lies the party’s last lost hope. Both Farage and Hague tell me that, had Labour backed May, it is the Tories who would have suffered long-term damage. “If May’s deal had gone through,” says Farage, “there’s a very good chance that a large number of the Spartans [the fiercest Tory Brexiteers] would have got together with my crowd.” Hague agrees that backing a deal “would have transformed” Labour’s situation. May’s team thought Labour was close to supporting them, says Hague, but Starmer, as shadow Brexit secretary, was pivotal in resisting a deal.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse
The public had other ideas.7 -
A point which the liberal dissenters on the Court, notably Sotomayer, also made very clear.Cyclefree said:
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.Nigelb said:
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.eek said:
But we are talking about Texas here which in the last 2 days has revoked Roe v Wade and taken race relations back x years by putting it's only black school principal on leave https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/570257-texas-school-puts-its-first-black-principal-on-leave-in for reasons that include his refusal to remove a facebook post with a photo of him and his white wife.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.0 -
The actual compliant seems to be I can't use an 11 year old death trap as a taxi...Scott_xP said:
See also, 'spoons runs out of beer...northern_monkey said:‘I didn’t think the leopard would eat my face…’
‘Former Brexit Party candidate Wajid Ali blames Brexit for helping to 'cripple taxi industry' in Wakefield’
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/former-brexit-party-candidate-wajid-ali-blames-brexit-for-helping-to-cripple-taxi-industry-in-wakefield-33681340 -
Interesting paper which relates to boosters (published yesterday).
Reactogenicity and immunogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the UK: a substudy of two randomised controlled trials
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01699-8/fulltext
...An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses....0 -
Also going on about the (in effect) Tory criminals who betrayed Brexit. Dolchstoßlegende Ausfuehrung 2? But maybe that isn't new?eek said:
The actual compliant seems to be I can't use an 11 year old death trap as a taxi...Scott_xP said:
See also, 'spoons runs out of beer...northern_monkey said:‘I didn’t think the leopard would eat my face…’
‘Former Brexit Party candidate Wajid Ali blames Brexit for helping to 'cripple taxi industry' in Wakefield’
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/former-brexit-party-candidate-wajid-ali-blames-brexit-for-helping-to-cripple-taxi-industry-in-wakefield-33681340 -
Oh come on, what we really needed over the winter was a desperate and mostly doomed attempt to save Christmas.Alistair said:
As I said at the time the public really did not grasp how absolutely horrific January was.dixiedean said:
That's a striking graph. January really was horrendous.CarlottaVance said:Second wave vs third wave. If the BBC is going to continue giving us daily updates of how many people die from this endemic disease, it should do the same for all other causes of death.
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1433364050377953280?s=20
I still don't think people understand how badly the various UK governments messed it up over winter0 -
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.HYUFD said:
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.Cyclefree said:
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.Nigelb said:
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.eek said:
But we are talking about Texas here which in the last 2 days has revoked Roe v Wade and taken race relations back x years by putting it's only black school principal on leave https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/570257-texas-school-puts-its-first-black-principal-on-leave-in for reasons that include his refusal to remove a facebook post with a photo of him and his white wife.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg
3 -
Yes, that is a very good point. I’ll never understand why they didn’t just vote her deal through. Especially, as you say, when what he considers a worse deal comes to pass, he’s not going to do anything about it.Stark_Dawning said:
The bizarre thing is that Sir Keir's ruminations on Brexit now are 'It's a fait accompli; what's done is done; there's no case for re-joining blah blah blah'. Well, if that's his attitude then why didn't he go for Theresa's deal? What would have been the downside?Philip_Thompson said:
He's out of touch and swallowed his own spin. He really couldn't understand why they'd lost in 2016 and was just convinced that they could get another vote and get the "right" result next time.NerysHughes said:
If he was a decent politician he would have convinced enough people to support May's deal. As soon that was defeated and BJ became PM the Tories were always going to win. He should have realised that, but instead he went on TV to show off about another ruse he came up with to stop Brexit. Those people who voted for Brexit and watched him do this are very unlikley to ever vote Labour with SKS as leader.kle4 said:
I think it is right backing the deal could have screwed Tories more than labour, but have some sympathy that politically it was just unviable for them given their make up and support, even though it would have been a better outcome.isam said:
It was Sir Keir wot lost it. His big gamble of a ‘people’s vote’, his inability to accept the referendum result…isam said:
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
Let’s make him leader!
“ So why not back May’s deal? Here, perhaps, lies the party’s last lost hope. Both Farage and Hague tell me that, had Labour backed May, it is the Tories who would have suffered long-term damage. “If May’s deal had gone through,” says Farage, “there’s a very good chance that a large number of the Spartans [the fiercest Tory Brexiteers] would have got together with my crowd.” Hague agrees that backing a deal “would have transformed” Labour’s situation. May’s team thought Labour was close to supporting them, says Hague, but Starmer, as shadow Brexit secretary, was pivotal in resisting a deal.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse
The public had other ideas.
Really, as Shadow Brexit Sec/Mr People’s Vote, he should have been nowhere near the leadership of a party that campaigned & lost on that strategy (plus Sir Keir said it was “an important point of principle” they would campaign for remain in a hypothetical second referendum) if they’re now going to just say ‘oh well, fair enough’
I didn’t really need to say all that, because you put it perfectly. I must just like the sound of my own virtual voice2 -
Even more bizarre is the perception that he is 'decent' and 'honest' - which seems largely to be based on the fact that he is neither Corbyn on the one side or Johnson on the other. In fact of course he is neither,having stayed mum while his leader set an anti-semitic agenda and now pretends that Brexit is a done deal and a closed matter when everyone knows he'd have the country back in the EU in a heartbeat. He has the poll ratings he deserves - The C2s have him well sussed.Stark_Dawning said:
The bizarre thing is that Sir Keir's ruminations on Brexit now are 'It's a fait accompli; what's done is done; there's no case for re-joining blah blah blah'. Well, if that's his attitude then why didn't he go for Theresa's deal? What would have been the downside?Philip_Thompson said:
He's out of touch and swallowed his own spin. He really couldn't understand why they'd lost in 2016 and was just convinced that they could get another vote and get the "right" result next time.NerysHughes said:
If he was a decent politician he would have convinced enough people to support May's deal. As soon that was defeated and BJ became PM the Tories were always going to win. He should have realised that, but instead he went on TV to show off about another ruse he came up with to stop Brexit. Those people who voted for Brexit and watched him do this are very unlikley to ever vote Labour with SKS as leader.kle4 said:
I think it is right backing the deal could have screwed Tories more than labour, but have some sympathy that politically it was just unviable for them given their make up and support, even though it would have been a better outcome.isam said:
It was Sir Keir wot lost it. His big gamble of a ‘people’s vote’, his inability to accept the referendum result…isam said:
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
Let’s make him leader!
“ So why not back May’s deal? Here, perhaps, lies the party’s last lost hope. Both Farage and Hague tell me that, had Labour backed May, it is the Tories who would have suffered long-term damage. “If May’s deal had gone through,” says Farage, “there’s a very good chance that a large number of the Spartans [the fiercest Tory Brexiteers] would have got together with my crowd.” Hague agrees that backing a deal “would have transformed” Labour’s situation. May’s team thought Labour was close to supporting them, says Hague, but Starmer, as shadow Brexit secretary, was pivotal in resisting a deal.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse
The public had other ideas.3 -
Canada could be worse.HYUFD said:
Canada could see a similar result later this monthNerysHughes said:I found this amazing stat in the Labour lost future document:
"The Tories under Michael Howard had in fact quietly beaten Labour in England by 70,000 votes. But Labour’s well dispersed coalition of voters, and largely intact heartland base, allowed the party to win 92 more English seats."
92 more seats despite losing the popular vote must be one of the most perverse FPTP results ever.
At least Blair's vote was efficient because he appealed to quite a lot of different sorts of people, distributed across England. That is less offensive that someone who can win disproportionate seats while appealling to a homogeneous minority.1 -
I'm not sure we did. We invaded Russia during the civil war, but the USSR wasn't founded until 1922.Carnyx said:
The UK most certainly invaded the USSR.Philip_Thompson said:
Afghanistan has no nuclear deterrent.Endillion said:
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?Philip_Thompson said:
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?kinabalu said:
Totally right. One day we'll get there.Foxy said:
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Why would you want that?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.4 -
An excellent bit of PB pedantry. Quite right, on reflection.JohnLilburne said:
I'm not sure we did. We invaded Russia during the civil war, but the USSR wasn't founded until 1922.Carnyx said:
The UK most certainly invaded the USSR.Philip_Thompson said:
Afghanistan has no nuclear deterrent.Endillion said:
Goodness me. Have you paying any attention at all to goings-on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?Philip_Thompson said:
And go back to having invasions and wars with bullets instead? Rather than no wars due to the threat of weapons that by their very existence means we don't need to fight and can be peaceful instead?kinabalu said:
Totally right. One day we'll get there.Foxy said:
Weapons designed for the mass incineration of cities are an evil that should not be held in a civilised country.Morris_Dancer said:Dr. Foxy, throwing away nukes in a world where China, Pakistan, and North Korea have them (and Iran are seeking them) would be lunacy.
Why would you want that?
Or are you arguing to give the Taliban nuclear weapons?
Since I'm interested in our defence more than anything else I see no bonus to us in proliferation. Proliferation would stop wars elsewhere, but stopping wars here is my priority and nukes have successfully done that.
But hypothetically if in 2001 the Taliban had a credible nuclear deterrent then we would never have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. Just as we never invaded the USSR.4 -
He's a 4D chess player, like Dom.Stark_Dawning said:
The bizarre thing is that Sir Keir's ruminations on Brexit now are 'It's a fait accompli; what's done is done; there's no case for re-joining blah blah blah'. Well, if that's his attitude then why didn't he go for Theresa's deal? What would have been the downside?Philip_Thompson said:
He's out of touch and swallowed his own spin. He really couldn't understand why they'd lost in 2016 and was just convinced that they could get another vote and get the "right" result next time.NerysHughes said:
If he was a decent politician he would have convinced enough people to support May's deal. As soon that was defeated and BJ became PM the Tories were always going to win. He should have realised that, but instead he went on TV to show off about another ruse he came up with to stop Brexit. Those people who voted for Brexit and watched him do this are very unlikley to ever vote Labour with SKS as leader.kle4 said:
I think it is right backing the deal could have screwed Tories more than labour, but have some sympathy that politically it was just unviable for them given their make up and support, even though it would have been a better outcome.isam said:
It was Sir Keir wot lost it. His big gamble of a ‘people’s vote’, his inability to accept the referendum result…isam said:
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
Let’s make him leader!
“ So why not back May’s deal? Here, perhaps, lies the party’s last lost hope. Both Farage and Hague tell me that, had Labour backed May, it is the Tories who would have suffered long-term damage. “If May’s deal had gone through,” says Farage, “there’s a very good chance that a large number of the Spartans [the fiercest Tory Brexiteers] would have got together with my crowd.” Hague agrees that backing a deal “would have transformed” Labour’s situation. May’s team thought Labour was close to supporting them, says Hague, but Starmer, as shadow Brexit secretary, was pivotal in resisting a deal.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse
The public had other ideas.
Stage 1: screw up Labour's brexit response, alienate core voters, ensure GE disaster and Corbyn exit and ensure it is blamed on Corbyn*, not Brexit [DONE]
Stage 2: despite that, become Labour leader [DONE]
Stage 3: ? [TBC]
Stage 4: become PM [TODO]
Stage 5: ? [TBC]
*for the avoidance of doubt, I do think the GE2019 result was more Corbyn than Brexit, although Labour's cack-handed approach to Brexit didn't help either, alienating both leavers and remainers0 -
Rolling out Covid vaccines for children will 'take time' says JCVI, as ministers pile on pressure
https://twitter.com/theipaper/status/1433386592228491268?s=200 -
You mean, it's equally nothing to do with Brexit?Scott_xP said:
See also, 'spoons runs out of beer...northern_monkey said:‘I didn’t think the leopard would eat my face…’
‘Former Brexit Party candidate Wajid Ali blames Brexit for helping to 'cripple taxi industry' in Wakefield’
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/former-brexit-party-candidate-wajid-ali-blames-brexit-for-helping-to-cripple-taxi-industry-in-wakefield-33681340 -
That's all a lol, sorry.Carnyx said:
Also going on about the (in effect) Tory criminals who betrayed Brexit. Dolchstoßlegende Ausfuehrung 2? But maybe that isn't new?eek said:
The actual compliant seems to be I can't use an 11 year old death trap as a taxi...Scott_xP said:
See also, 'spoons runs out of beer...northern_monkey said:‘I didn’t think the leopard would eat my face…’
‘Former Brexit Party candidate Wajid Ali blames Brexit for helping to 'cripple taxi industry' in Wakefield’
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/former-brexit-party-candidate-wajid-ali-blames-brexit-for-helping-to-cripple-taxi-industry-in-wakefield-3368134
First rule of headlines: they never fully represent the article. He blames COVID and Brexit, and would still vote for Brexit.
In the petition, on change.org, he said: "Covid-19 and Brexit effect has already crippled the taxi industry and Wakefield Council must act now to safeguard our future."
Asked on Wednesday to account for this view given his political background, Mr Ali insisted he would still vote for Brexit, but that the government had yet to deliver on the promises it had made after striking a deal with the EU.
He's calling for the Govt to get on with it more.
He said: “The government needs to work with local authorities to make sure that a fair deal trickles down to working class people.
"The promises they made, on things like NHS spending and spending on education, haven’t yet been delivered.
"The fact of the matter is we’ve a high unemployment rate and we’ve a shortage of truck drivers, potentially due to Brexit.:
Mr Ali, who was also a local election candidate in 2021 in Hemsworth for Reform UK, added: "It will take time for us to see the full fruits of Brexit and Covid hasn’t helped.
"Covid has been disastrous for the economic resurgence we’d expected.
"We are at the hands of national government on this."
The only thing he's got wrong is the unemployment rate. Wakefield: 4.7%. UK: 4.8%. EU: 7%.
0 -
If the intersection of Brexit and Starmer being shit hadn't brought out an Isam post, the balance in the force would be out of kilter.isam said:
Yes, that is a very good point. I’ll never understand why they didn’t just vote her deal through. Especially, as you say, when what he considers a worse deal comes to pass, he’s not going to do anything about it.Stark_Dawning said:
The bizarre thing is that Sir Keir's ruminations on Brexit now are 'It's a fait accompli; what's done is done; there's no case for re-joining blah blah blah'. Well, if that's his attitude then why didn't he go for Theresa's deal? What would have been the downside?Philip_Thompson said:
He's out of touch and swallowed his own spin. He really couldn't understand why they'd lost in 2016 and was just convinced that they could get another vote and get the "right" result next time.NerysHughes said:
If he was a decent politician he would have convinced enough people to support May's deal. As soon that was defeated and BJ became PM the Tories were always going to win. He should have realised that, but instead he went on TV to show off about another ruse he came up with to stop Brexit. Those people who voted for Brexit and watched him do this are very unlikley to ever vote Labour with SKS as leader.kle4 said:
I think it is right backing the deal could have screwed Tories more than labour, but have some sympathy that politically it was just unviable for them given their make up and support, even though it would have been a better outcome.isam said:
It was Sir Keir wot lost it. His big gamble of a ‘people’s vote’, his inability to accept the referendum result…isam said:
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
Let’s make him leader!
“ So why not back May’s deal? Here, perhaps, lies the party’s last lost hope. Both Farage and Hague tell me that, had Labour backed May, it is the Tories who would have suffered long-term damage. “If May’s deal had gone through,” says Farage, “there’s a very good chance that a large number of the Spartans [the fiercest Tory Brexiteers] would have got together with my crowd.” Hague agrees that backing a deal “would have transformed” Labour’s situation. May’s team thought Labour was close to supporting them, says Hague, but Starmer, as shadow Brexit secretary, was pivotal in resisting a deal.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse
The public had other ideas.
Really, as Shadow Brexit Sec/Mr People’s Vote, he should have been nowhere near the leadership of a party that campaigned & lost on that strategy (plus Sir Keir said it was “an important point of principle” they would campaign for remain in a hypothetical second referendum) if they’re now going to just say ‘oh well, fair enough’
I didn’t really need to say all that, because you put it perfectly. I must just like the sound of my own virtual voice1 -
Roberts is neither a liberal, nor pro choice.Cyclefree said:
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.HYUFD said:
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.Cyclefree said:
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.Nigelb said:
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.eek said:
But we are talking about Texas here which in the last 2 days has revoked Roe v Wade and taken race relations back x years by putting it's only black school principal on leave https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/570257-texas-school-puts-its-first-black-principal-on-leave-in for reasons that include his refusal to remove a facebook post with a photo of him and his white wife.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/supreme-court-overturn-roe-wade-texas.html
...While Roberts’ dissent was the least impassioned of the four, it may be the most surprising. The chief justice had no obligation to note his vote in this (or any) shadow docket case. Instead, he made it very clear that he could not condone the majority’s hasty, bad-faith retreat from precedent. By doing so, he highlighted the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made all the difference in this case. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were alive, Texas women would have retained their right to reproductive autonomy.
The same would be true if Justice Anthony Kennedy had remained on the court and not been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Or if Merrick Garland, rather than Neil Gorsuch, had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia.) In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was “not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.” Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.
It was predictable that the Supreme Court would abandon Roe after Barrett replaced Ginsburg. But it is still “stunning,” as Sotomayor put it, that it would do so at midnight on a Wednesday in a shadow docket order with a few slapdash sentences of opaque reasoning....0 -
They took a gamble. He, Grieve and others, bet the farm on winning everything but went in eyes wide open that it could mean losing everything, and they decided that was worth it, more than compromising their own views. Others, equally appalled by Brexit, did not think that risk was worth it, and backed May's deal.isam said:
Yes, that is a very good point. I’ll never understand why they didn’t just vote her deal through. Especially, as you say, when what he considers a worse deal comes to pass, he’s not going to do anything about it.Stark_Dawning said:
The bizarre thing is that Sir Keir's ruminations on Brexit now are 'It's a fait accompli; what's done is done; there's no case for re-joining blah blah blah'. Well, if that's his attitude then why didn't he go for Theresa's deal? What would have been the downside?Philip_Thompson said:
He's out of touch and swallowed his own spin. He really couldn't understand why they'd lost in 2016 and was just convinced that they could get another vote and get the "right" result next time.NerysHughes said:
If he was a decent politician he would have convinced enough people to support May's deal. As soon that was defeated and BJ became PM the Tories were always going to win. He should have realised that, but instead he went on TV to show off about another ruse he came up with to stop Brexit. Those people who voted for Brexit and watched him do this are very unlikley to ever vote Labour with SKS as leader.kle4 said:
I think it is right backing the deal could have screwed Tories more than labour, but have some sympathy that politically it was just unviable for them given their make up and support, even though it would have been a better outcome.isam said:
It was Sir Keir wot lost it. His big gamble of a ‘people’s vote’, his inability to accept the referendum result…isam said:
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
Let’s make him leader!
“ So why not back May’s deal? Here, perhaps, lies the party’s last lost hope. Both Farage and Hague tell me that, had Labour backed May, it is the Tories who would have suffered long-term damage. “If May’s deal had gone through,” says Farage, “there’s a very good chance that a large number of the Spartans [the fiercest Tory Brexiteers] would have got together with my crowd.” Hague agrees that backing a deal “would have transformed” Labour’s situation. May’s team thought Labour was close to supporting them, says Hague, but Starmer, as shadow Brexit secretary, was pivotal in resisting a deal.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse
The public had other ideas.
Now I myself voted Brexit, backed May's deal and then when that failed felt that a second referendum was reluctantly the way to go, and many will think that a silly journey to have been on, but as someone more politically engaged than most I weighed up what I thought the risks were, and Keir and others will certainly have done so - it's ok if they did not feel they could vote for any deal under any circumstances (though few were so direct in admitting that), it's ok if they decided reversing Brexit was a chance worth risking a no deal exit etc for, but they went in with no illusions as to what could happen if they failed.
They are not responsible for choices Boris and his government then made, but they definitely opened the door.0 -
There's a good article in the New Statesman this week on 20 years of Labour failure, and it brings home just what a tone-deaf nincompoop Starmer is.
Ed Balls come out the best of them, but far from perfect because he gets a tad too protective of his record and his partisan defences go up.2 -
I know the Supreme Court judges will not always be shills to their parties, but even within the american system I struggle to see the benefit to not at the least time limiting justices. You appoint your hack judge and if you get lucky several more as well, but they are on the bench for decades so in 20 years your party may have altered and regret that the hack judge is not compliant enough to the new thinking. So even on a partisan basis getting to appoint new ones regularly would be benificial.
Obviously I'd argue appointing so partisanly in the first place, and that you can usually (albeit not universally) predict where they will fall based on political preference, is a bigger issue, but that seems unlikely to change.0 -
Fair enough, I think a second referendum would have been a disaster because a lot of people would have boycotted it and it would be used as a justification to halt Brexit.kle4 said:
They took a gamble. He, Grieve and others, bet the farm on winning everything but went in eyes wide open that it could mean losing everything, and they decided that was worth it, more than compromising their own views. Others, equally appalled by Brexit, did not think that risk was worth it, and backed May's deal.isam said:
Yes, that is a very good point. I’ll never understand why they didn’t just vote her deal through. Especially, as you say, when what he considers a worse deal comes to pass, he’s not going to do anything about it.Stark_Dawning said:
The bizarre thing is that Sir Keir's ruminations on Brexit now are 'It's a fait accompli; what's done is done; there's no case for re-joining blah blah blah'. Well, if that's his attitude then why didn't he go for Theresa's deal? What would have been the downside?Philip_Thompson said:
He's out of touch and swallowed his own spin. He really couldn't understand why they'd lost in 2016 and was just convinced that they could get another vote and get the "right" result next time.NerysHughes said:
If he was a decent politician he would have convinced enough people to support May's deal. As soon that was defeated and BJ became PM the Tories were always going to win. He should have realised that, but instead he went on TV to show off about another ruse he came up with to stop Brexit. Those people who voted for Brexit and watched him do this are very unlikley to ever vote Labour with SKS as leader.kle4 said:
I think it is right backing the deal could have screwed Tories more than labour, but have some sympathy that politically it was just unviable for them given their make up and support, even though it would have been a better outcome.isam said:
It was Sir Keir wot lost it. His big gamble of a ‘people’s vote’, his inability to accept the referendum result…isam said:
aka ‘Why did we have a referendum and why did Leave win?’CarlottaVance said:
“ 3. “We thought the numbers were going to be tiny”
In 2004 Labour had made a seminal decision that would both contribute towards it losing its heartlands and propel the UK out of the EU. When ten eastern European countries (the “A10”) joined the EU that year, the government chose not to impose seven years of “transitional controls” on the free movement of labour, despite every other major European economy doing so.
“We didn’t because we thought the numbers were going to be tiny,” says Ed Balls, Gordon Brown’s lead adviser in the Treasury at the time. “Migration is really good for our economy and our society,” he adds. “I think most people support it, as long as it’s managed and run in a fair way. We didn’t help people prepare for it.” Blair and the Foreign Office saw a diplomatic benefit in backing open borders, while the Home Office predicted between 5,000 and 13,000 arrivals per year in the decade after accession. That estimate was off by an order of magnitude: five years later, more than 800,000 A10 workers had emigrated to Britain.“
Let’s make him leader!
“ So why not back May’s deal? Here, perhaps, lies the party’s last lost hope. Both Farage and Hague tell me that, had Labour backed May, it is the Tories who would have suffered long-term damage. “If May’s deal had gone through,” says Farage, “there’s a very good chance that a large number of the Spartans [the fiercest Tory Brexiteers] would have got together with my crowd.” Hague agrees that backing a deal “would have transformed” Labour’s situation. May’s team thought Labour was close to supporting them, says Hague, but Starmer, as shadow Brexit secretary, was pivotal in resisting a deal.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/09/labour-s-lost-future-inside-story-20-year-collapse
The public had other ideas.
Now I myself voted Brexit, backed May's deal and then when that failed felt that a second referendum was reluctantly the way to go, and many will think that a silly journey to have been on, but as someone more politically engaged than most I weighed up what I thought the risks were, and Keir and others will certainly have done so - it's ok if they did not feel they could vote for any deal under any circumstances (though few were so direct in admitting that), it's ok if they decided reversing Brexit was a chance worth risking a no deal exit etc for, but they went in with no illusions as to what could happen if they failed.
They are not responsible for choices Boris and his government then made, but they definitely opened the door.
The consequences of that would have been far worse than railroading it through. Once the decision was made it had to be implemented.
Fundamentally, the problem was solved by a general election.2 -
Driffield mural divides opinion over lack of diversity
A mural designed as a tribute to shop staff who worked through the pandemic has been criticised because it "screams welcome to our white town".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-58419692
Might be that Driffield is 97% white.....should they have invented a non-white shopkeeper? They would then get criticized for tokenism.0 -
Yes, I've just read it. Ed Miliband is also portrayed as a twit of the highest order, but, as you say, Sir Keir comes across as a comparable dud.Casino_Royale said:There's a good article in the New Statesman this week on 20 years of Labour failure, and it brings home just what a tone-deaf nincompoop Starmer is.
Ed Balls come out the best of them, but far from perfect because he gets a tad too protective of his record and his partisan defences go up.2 -
It divides opinion in the sense that a very small minority of progressive activists have gone onto Twitter to rail against it, which the BBC has picked up upon as it agrees, but no-one else cares.FrancisUrquhart said:Driffield mural divides opinion over lack of diversity
A mural designed as a tribute to shop staff who worked through the pandemic has been criticised because it "screams welcome to our white town".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-58419692
Might be that Driffield is 97% white.....should they have invented a non-white shopkeeper?
2 -
Is there a website that details OTHER countries' red list/travel requirements. Say Turkey -> France ?
Google just bringing up UK's red list for everything.0 -
Surely not....Casino_Royale said:
It divides opinion in the sense that a very small minority of progressive activists have gone onto Twitter to rail against it, which the BBC has picked up upon as it agrees, but no-one else cares.FrancisUrquhart said:Driffield mural divides opinion over lack of diversity
A mural designed as a tribute to shop staff who worked through the pandemic has been criticised because it "screams welcome to our white town".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-humber-58419692
Might be that Driffield is 97% white.....should they have invented a non-white shopkeeper?0 -
Who are the Basisdemokratische Party? They have a few posters up round here, and the guy is posing with his dog which makes him look friendly, whereas the SPD guy looks shifty and the CSU candidate looks a bit simple.0
-
He falls back on tired old shibboleths for why Labour have a problem "Iraq" and "not defending our record in Government properly for the period pre-2008 crash", and then when asked to respond to a critique by Nigel Farage says, "I do not accept any premise from Nigel Farage."Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, I've just read it. Ed Miliband is also portrayed as a twit of the highest order, but, as you say, Sir Keir comes across as a comparable dud.Casino_Royale said:There's a good article in the New Statesman this week on 20 years of Labour failure, and it brings home just what a tone-deaf nincompoop Starmer is.
Ed Balls come out the best of them, but far from perfect because he gets a tad too protective of his record and his partisan defences go up.
Eh? What? He's captured or transmuted a large chunk of your traditional voter base. Why wouldn't you listen to him? You can learn something from anyone; you don't have to like them or agree with what they stand for.
It's for reasons like this that people don't believe Starmer when he sticks up a couple of flags and tries to repackage himself. He's just a typical north-London left-liberal.5 -
Ed Balls is a smart cookie.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, I've just read it. Ed Miliband is also portrayed as a twit of the highest order, but, as you say, Sir Keir comes across as a comparable dud.Casino_Royale said:There's a good article in the New Statesman this week on 20 years of Labour failure, and it brings home just what a tone-deaf nincompoop Starmer is.
Ed Balls come out the best of them, but far from perfect because he gets a tad too protective of his record and his partisan defences go up.
Miliband was massively influenced by the book, the Spirit Level, which has been widely debunked and found to be very selective with their use of "evidence".0 -
They are Deeply Dippy.dixiedean said:
They're too sexy for their sums.eek said:
The sad thing is that a significant proportion of people will read what Right Said Fred says and belief them...BlancheLivermore said:1 -
Lol Susan CollinsNigelb said:
Roberts is neither a liberal, nor pro choice.Cyclefree said:
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.HYUFD said:
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.Cyclefree said:
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.Nigelb said:
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.eek said:
But we are talking about Texas here which in the last 2 days has revoked Roe v Wade and taken race relations back x years by putting it's only black school principal on leave https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/570257-texas-school-puts-its-first-black-principal-on-leave-in for reasons that include his refusal to remove a facebook post with a photo of him and his white wife.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/supreme-court-overturn-roe-wade-texas.html
...While Roberts’ dissent was the least impassioned of the four, it may be the most surprising. The chief justice had no obligation to note his vote in this (or any) shadow docket case. Instead, he made it very clear that he could not condone the majority’s hasty, bad-faith retreat from precedent. By doing so, he highlighted the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made all the difference in this case. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were alive, Texas women would have retained their right to reproductive autonomy.
The same would be true if Justice Anthony Kennedy had remained on the court and not been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Or if Merrick Garland, rather than Neil Gorsuch, had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia.) In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was “not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.” Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.
It was predictable that the Supreme Court would abandon Roe after Barrett replaced Ginsburg. But it is still “stunning,” as Sotomayor put it, that it would do so at midnight on a Wednesday in a shadow docket order with a few slapdash sentences of opaque reasoning....
I bet she is concerned today. Maybe even disappointed.0 -
Anti-lockdown.IanB2 said:Who are the Basisdemokratische Party? They have a few posters up round here, and the guy is posing with his dog which makes him look friendly, whereas the SPD guy looks shifty and the CSU candidate looks a bit simple.
Want more grassroots democracy but unclear what that really means.
Some overlap with the far right but unclear if that is a bug or a feature.0 -
I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.0 -
I've looked at some of the alleged debunking and that uses even more selective arguments.FrancisUrquhart said:
Ed Balls is a smart cookie.Stark_Dawning said:
Yes, I've just read it. Ed Miliband is also portrayed as a twit of the highest order, but, as you say, Sir Keir comes across as a comparable dud.Casino_Royale said:There's a good article in the New Statesman this week on 20 years of Labour failure, and it brings home just what a tone-deaf nincompoop Starmer is.
Ed Balls come out the best of them, but far from perfect because he gets a tad too protective of his record and his partisan defences go up.
Miliband was massively influenced by the book, the Spirit Level, which has been widely debunked and found to be very selective with their use of "evidence".
(Disclaimer: I may not be impartial here - who is? - as I know the Spirit Level authors well and I'm acknowledged in the followup book. I do not however share their political outlook; one of them, at least, preferred Corbyn to Miliband, whereas Miliband's leadership was the only time I've voted Labour in a GE - I was too young to vote when Blair was still cool...)0 -
Of course.kle4 said:I know the Supreme Court judges will not always be shills to their parties, but even within the american system I struggle to see the benefit to not at the least time limiting justices. You appoint your hack judge and if you get lucky several more as well, but they are on the bench for decades so in 20 years your party may have altered and regret that the hack judge is not compliant enough to the new thinking. So even on a partisan basis getting to appoint new ones regularly would be benificial.
Obviously I'd argue appointing so partisanly in the first place, and that you can usually (albeit not universally) predict where they will fall based on political preference, is a bigger issue, but that seems unlikely to change.
But the constitution provides explicitly for lifetime tenure, so changing that would be extremely difficult.0 -
Did conference vote on May's deal? I thought that all happened just before and after Christmas. If Labour had voted it through, what would the consequences have been for the PLP?Northern_Al said:I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.1 -
The Democrats have until the midterms to add at least 2 more Justices to the already-politicised SCOTUS.Nigelb said:
Roberts is neither a liberal, nor pro choice.Cyclefree said:
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.HYUFD said:
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.Cyclefree said:
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.Nigelb said:
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.eek said:
But we are talking about Texas here which in the last 2 days has revoked Roe v Wade and taken race relations back x years by putting it's only black school principal on leave https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/570257-texas-school-puts-its-first-black-principal-on-leave-in for reasons that include his refusal to remove a facebook post with a photo of him and his white wife.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/supreme-court-overturn-roe-wade-texas.html
...While Roberts’ dissent was the least impassioned of the four, it may be the most surprising. The chief justice had no obligation to note his vote in this (or any) shadow docket case. Instead, he made it very clear that he could not condone the majority’s hasty, bad-faith retreat from precedent. By doing so, he highlighted the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made all the difference in this case. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were alive, Texas women would have retained their right to reproductive autonomy.
The same would be true if Justice Anthony Kennedy had remained on the court and not been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Or if Merrick Garland, rather than Neil Gorsuch, had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia.) In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was “not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.” Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.
It was predictable that the Supreme Court would abandon Roe after Barrett replaced Ginsburg. But it is still “stunning,” as Sotomayor put it, that it would do so at midnight on a Wednesday in a shadow docket order with a few slapdash sentences of opaque reasoning....
If they don't, more fool them.0 -
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.Northern_Al said:I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.4 -
The most bizarre one I can remember was from about 2008(?) when 2 pb.commers (I forget who exactly) got into a right set-to over their respective visits to "ground zero" in New York.Dura_Ace said:
This whole discussion is one of the more bizarre I've ever seen on pb.com. And I've seen some shit, man.Selebian said:
Well, Dura Ace does apparently have contacts/friends among people who can precision bomb your house (he's also, from the MTB broken wrist without painkiller anecdote, well 'ard). Contrarian, as far as can be ascertained, does not.Nigelb said:
Not getting this argument at all.Anabobazina said:Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Why would anyone be 'sycophantic' towards @Dura_Ace as opposed to @contrarian ?
It's not as though one exerts any more influence or power than the other - simply that one set of arguments appears to be less offensive, for whatever reason.
'Craven' is a similarly weird choice of epithet.
IIRC, one said it was "just a building site" while the other said visiting it was an almost spiritual experience.
And all hell broke loose.4 -
I mean, they didn't have to lead. They could simply have quietly allowed de Piero et al to vote with the Government instead of leaning on them not to do so.Casino_Royale said:
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.Northern_Al said:I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.
Surely the biggest political miscalculation of modern times. Arguably since Suez.2 -
That's a bit disingenuous. He steered it in that direction by manoeuvring Labour into a position where it couldn't vote for any deal and gave a crowd-pleasing speech with a possibly ad-libbed line about not ruling out Remain.Northern_Al said:I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/10445325742556364802 -
Bigger than Suez IMHO.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I mean, they didn't have to lead. They could simply have quietly allowed de Piero et al to vote with the Government instead of leaning on them not to do so.Casino_Royale said:
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.Northern_Al said:I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.
Surely the biggest political miscalculation of modern times. Arguably since Suez.
Suez is overrated as a political crisis to judge other crises by. At the election after Suez the government that oversaw the crisis increased its majority, winning a landslide 100 seat majority.0 -
Thommo typing continuously for 72 hours to explain how Johnson sending a letter to the EU wasn't Johnson sending a letter to the EU.No_Offence_Alan said:
The most bizarre one I can remember was from about 2008(?) when 2 pb.commers (I forget who exactly) got into a right set-to over their respective visits to "ground zero" in New York.Dura_Ace said:
This whole discussion is one of the more bizarre I've ever seen on pb.com. And I've seen some shit, man.Selebian said:
Well, Dura Ace does apparently have contacts/friends among people who can precision bomb your house (he's also, from the MTB broken wrist without painkiller anecdote, well 'ard). Contrarian, as far as can be ascertained, does not.Nigelb said:
Not getting this argument at all.Anabobazina said:Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Why would anyone be 'sycophantic' towards @Dura_Ace as opposed to @contrarian ?
It's not as though one exerts any more influence or power than the other - simply that one set of arguments appears to be less offensive, for whatever reason.
'Craven' is a similarly weird choice of epithet.
IIRC, one said it was "just a building site" while the other said visiting it was an almost spiritual experience.
And all hell broke loose.2 -
I think the vaccines are probably more effective than the available figures for infections would show. They can only use infections which are confirmed by positive tests. I rather suspect that people who are refusing to get vaccinated would be far less likely to get a test confirming they have covid if they got bad cold/flu-like symptoms that had them in bed for a week.0
-
https://english.elpais.com/society/2021-09-02/in-spain-third-vaccine-dose-will-only-go-to-people-with-compromised-immune-systems.html?utm_source=Facebook&ssm=FB_CM_EN&fbclid=IwAR1LMwQgC475Dt1k9UcuRgiJIupKRY-ERIf5akNRSlR4lDEl_tJYzbUB0TE#Echobox=1630567686
Spain will only offer 3rd dose to those with compromised immune systems. No general 3rd dose at this point.0 -
Talking of which, the BBC documentary about the Pres and administration on 9/11, from earlier this week, is absolutely brilliant.No_Offence_Alan said:
The most bizarre one I can remember was from about 2008(?) when 2 pb.commers (I forget who exactly) got into a right set-to over their respective visits to "ground zero" in New York.Dura_Ace said:
This whole discussion is one of the more bizarre I've ever seen on pb.com. And I've seen some shit, man.Selebian said:
Well, Dura Ace does apparently have contacts/friends among people who can precision bomb your house (he's also, from the MTB broken wrist without painkiller anecdote, well 'ard). Contrarian, as far as can be ascertained, does not.Nigelb said:
Not getting this argument at all.Anabobazina said:Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Why would anyone be 'sycophantic' towards @Dura_Ace as opposed to @contrarian ?
It's not as though one exerts any more influence or power than the other - simply that one set of arguments appears to be less offensive, for whatever reason.
'Craven' is a similarly weird choice of epithet.
IIRC, one said it was "just a building site" while the other said visiting it was an almost spiritual experience.
And all hell broke loose.0 -
Depends if you are talking about internal or foreign political impact, surely. But either criterion is of course applicable to Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Bigger than Suez IMHO.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I mean, they didn't have to lead. They could simply have quietly allowed de Piero et al to vote with the Government instead of leaning on them not to do so.Casino_Royale said:
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.Northern_Al said:I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.
Surely the biggest political miscalculation of modern times. Arguably since Suez.
Suez is overrated as a political crisis to judge other crises by. At the election after Suez the government that oversaw the crisis increased its majority, winning a landslide 100 seat majority.0 -
No, I said that he didn't write it. He didn't, Parliament did.Dura_Ace said:
Thommo typing continuously for 72 hours to explain how Johnson sending a letter to the EU wasn't Johnson sending a letter to the EU.No_Offence_Alan said:
The most bizarre one I can remember was from about 2008(?) when 2 pb.commers (I forget who exactly) got into a right set-to over their respective visits to "ground zero" in New York.Dura_Ace said:
This whole discussion is one of the more bizarre I've ever seen on pb.com. And I've seen some shit, man.Selebian said:
Well, Dura Ace does apparently have contacts/friends among people who can precision bomb your house (he's also, from the MTB broken wrist without painkiller anecdote, well 'ard). Contrarian, as far as can be ascertained, does not.Nigelb said:
Not getting this argument at all.Anabobazina said:Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Why would anyone be 'sycophantic' towards @Dura_Ace as opposed to @contrarian ?
It's not as though one exerts any more influence or power than the other - simply that one set of arguments appears to be less offensive, for whatever reason.
'Craven' is a similarly weird choice of epithet.
IIRC, one said it was "just a building site" while the other said visiting it was an almost spiritual experience.
And all hell broke loose.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.
Did I just write that poem? Or did Philip Larkin write it?0 -
Scotland Daily Coronavirus (COVID-19) Report · Thursday 2nd September.
6,400 new cases (people positive) reported, giving a total of 443,080.
17 new deaths reported, giving a total of 8,144.
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1433415671430385664?s=20
Last week 4,925 cases & 14 deaths, positivity 11.1% (-0.4% vs week ago). WHO definition for "pandemic under control" is below 5%.0 -
Yet there is a clearly defined right to bear arms in US law under the 2nd amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' It is thus impossible for the SC to interpret that to remove the right to bear arms short of the President, Congress and 2/3 of the states voting to repeal it and replace it with another amendment.Cyclefree said:
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.HYUFD said:
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.Cyclefree said:
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.Nigelb said:
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.eek said:
But we are talking about Texas here which in the last 2 days has revoked Roe v Wade and taken race relations back x years by putting it's only black school principal on leave https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/570257-texas-school-puts-its-first-black-principal-on-leave-in for reasons that include his refusal to remove a facebook post with a photo of him and his white wife.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg
The 14th amendment due process clause however 'nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law' does not clearly give a right to abort the lives of the unborn, the SC in Roe v Wade merely interpreted it to give a right to privacy to enable a woman to have an abortion.
If a different more conservative SC like the current one interprets it differently and that it at least does not give a legal and constitutional right to an abortion beyond the first 6 weeks of pregnancy that is its right to do so0 -
I don't understand why DC and Puerto Rico are not states already.Philip_Thompson said:
The Democrats have until the midterms to add at least 2 more Justices to the already-politicised SCOTUS.Nigelb said:
Roberts is neither a liberal, nor pro choice.Cyclefree said:
The extent of what that right (to bear arms) means has however always been interpreted by the Supreme Court. The extent to which the 14th amendment permits abortion has been determined by the Supreme Court. If they rule that it does permit it - as they have - then it is just as much a constitutional right as the right contained in the 14th amendment. Law is law is law.HYUFD said:
There is no defined constitutional right to an abortion in the US, hence it was not legal until Roe v Wade interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing it.Cyclefree said:
It ought to be struck down because it effectively nullifies the Constitution.Nigelb said:
We're also talking about a Supreme Court which is supposed to take note of the constitution. Even disregarding the issue of the long settled precedent of Roe v Wade, this law ought to be struck down on grounds of due process.eek said:
But we are talking about Texas here which in the last 2 days has revoked Roe v Wade and taken race relations back x years by putting it's only black school principal on leave https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/education/570257-texas-school-puts-its-first-black-principal-on-leave-in for reasons that include his refusal to remove a facebook post with a photo of him and his white wife.Cyclefree said:
And this is where those who think like this part company with reality.edmundintokyo said:
I think Kavanaugh has been pretty consistently hackish?MrEd said:
What has been interesting recently on SCOTUS is that Kavanaugh and Comey Barrett - which had been seen as backsliding by Republicans with some of their decisions - now seem to be becoming more confident on siding with Republican / conservative arguments.Philip_Thompson said:
Its easier to think it shouldn't if you're OK with it being permanently rigged in favour of the GOP. Just like you're quite happy to see DC voters denied Statehood.Charles said:@Alasdair
I don’t know how the number of SCOTUS Justices is set. I think (from here) there was legislation at some point.
So I am sure it CAN be changed. I don’t think it SHOULD be changed.
In the last thread you said that if the legislation was changed (which is entirely within Congress and the President's remit and authority) then it would "permanently politicise" SCOTUS. But how has SCOTUS not already been permanently politicised by the actions of the GOP in denying a vote on Obama's nomination then rushing through Trump's?
Had the shoe been on the other foot, had the Democrats acted like the GOP to ensure they had a majority in the Court, then the GOP got control of Congress and the White House then I have no doubt whatsoever that the GOP would be willing to expand the Court in response.
The Court has already been politicised.
However I guess for religious conservatives the really big deal is abortion, nothing else matters anywhere as much. You may generally want to faithfully execute the law but if you think thousands of babies are being murdered every day then when that comes up you're probably more inclined to squint at the constitution and hold it upside-down and see if there's a way you can read it that will stop people killing the babies.
Women don't stop having abortions. They stop having safe abortions. Abortions will continue. They will be illegal and - likely - unsafe. Babies will continue to die, as will some women.
I could not have an abortion myself. I think it is the taking of a life, in some respects. I would prefer it to be safe, legal and rarer than it is. It is an act freighted with moral gravity. But so is forcing a women to carry a child to term against her will. So is forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth to her rapist's child. There are no good choices here. But there are some less bad choices than others. And permitting safe legal abortions is better than turning a blind eye to unsafe illegal abortions and the harm and deaths that result from that. The pro-lifers seem to ignore these. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to promote adequate and widespread contraception and sex education. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to challenge sexual predators. The pro-lifers seem to do very little to provide help to or alternatives for women who don't want an abortion or the child.
Bodily autonomy for women matters. A great deal. We have fought hard for the right to say "no". No to sex, if we don't want it. No to motherhood, if we don't want it. No to being locked up or denied the same rights (education / jobs / votes) as others. We cannot have these advances rolled back just so that others can feel better.
Another state could, for instance, use the same technique to pass a law allowing private citizens to sue anyone involved in the advertising, sale and manufacture of guns. Would the Texas lawmakers and those who support their anti-abortion law go "Oh, all right then. We don't mind that our constitutional right to bear arms has just been abolished." I don't think so.
This law is bad not just because of its substance but because it completely undermines the rule of law, the role of the Constitution and the scope of Federal law in the US.
There has always been a constitutional right to bear arms in the US however under the 2nd amendment
In both cases the Supreme Court has a role to play. The Texas lawmakers are showing those who oppose gun holding a way of getting this banned without any pesky challenges to the Supreme Court. So in seeking to win a battle against abortion they have undermined their constitutional protections - the most significant of which is the right to challenge laws.
One day they will have need of that right and where will they be then if this law remains unchallenged?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqReTJkjjg
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/supreme-court-overturn-roe-wade-texas.html
...While Roberts’ dissent was the least impassioned of the four, it may be the most surprising. The chief justice had no obligation to note his vote in this (or any) shadow docket case. Instead, he made it very clear that he could not condone the majority’s hasty, bad-faith retreat from precedent. By doing so, he highlighted the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote made all the difference in this case. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were alive, Texas women would have retained their right to reproductive autonomy.
The same would be true if Justice Anthony Kennedy had remained on the court and not been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (Or if Merrick Garland, rather than Neil Gorsuch, had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia.) In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was “not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.” Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.
It was predictable that the Supreme Court would abandon Roe after Barrett replaced Ginsburg. But it is still “stunning,” as Sotomayor put it, that it would do so at midnight on a Wednesday in a shadow docket order with a few slapdash sentences of opaque reasoning....
If they don't, more fool them.2 -
Sounds like the Dog Lovers' Party, whom you may remember with mixed feelings.IanB2 said:Who are the Basisdemokratische Party? They have a few posters up round here, and the guy is posing with his dog which makes him look friendly, whereas the SPD guy looks shifty and the CSU candidate looks a bit simple.
0 -
I suspect the nature of Brexit will have a bigger impact on the UK, both internal and foreign, than Suez ever did.Carnyx said:
Depends if you are talking about internal or foreign political impact, surely. But either criterion is of course applicable to Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Bigger than Suez IMHO.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I mean, they didn't have to lead. They could simply have quietly allowed de Piero et al to vote with the Government instead of leaning on them not to do so.Casino_Royale said:
The thing is: a close economic relationship with the EU *was* a credible Labour policy.Northern_Al said:I agree that Starmer is stuck with the "tried to thwart Brexit" label, and will struggle to get rid of it. It could well be his downfall.
However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Starmer didn't determine Labour's (awful) Brexit policy at the relevant time. Conference determined the policy, and the leadership (including Corbyn of course) agreed to it. It's Starmer's misfortune that he was landed with the Shadow Brexit Secretary job at the time. I'm not saying that Starmer disagreed with the policy. I'm merely pointing out that it was not, as many commenters on here say, "his" policy. It was the Labour Party's. Collective responsibility and all that.
They could simply have argued consistently for EEA-EFTA with a customs union, and said they'd negotiate for an emergency brake on free movement too, and just ignored/rebutted those wanting a 2nd referendum saying it had to be implemented.
But, they chose not to lead.
Surely the biggest political miscalculation of modern times. Arguably since Suez.
Suez is overrated as a political crisis to judge other crises by. At the election after Suez the government that oversaw the crisis increased its majority, winning a landslide 100 seat majority.
Its probably the third biggest change in Britain since the war, apart from the introduction of socialism in 1945 and Thatcher's reversal of it in the eighties.0 -
We will never get an objective answer on whether Brexit was a success.
Those who supported it will never admit to being wrong and those that opposed it will also never admit to being wrong.2 -
71 hours, 55 minutes to go and the question will be settled.Philip_Thompson said:
No, I said that he didn't write it. He didn't, Parliament did.Dura_Ace said:
Thommo typing continuously for 72 hours to explain how Johnson sending a letter to the EU wasn't Johnson sending a letter to the EU.No_Offence_Alan said:
The most bizarre one I can remember was from about 2008(?) when 2 pb.commers (I forget who exactly) got into a right set-to over their respective visits to "ground zero" in New York.Dura_Ace said:
This whole discussion is one of the more bizarre I've ever seen on pb.com. And I've seen some shit, man.Selebian said:
Well, Dura Ace does apparently have contacts/friends among people who can precision bomb your house (he's also, from the MTB broken wrist without painkiller anecdote, well 'ard). Contrarian, as far as can be ascertained, does not.Nigelb said:
Not getting this argument at all.Anabobazina said:Yes, as I was saying yesterday, Dura Ace is a common or garden antivaxxer. The reason he gets away with it whereas Contrarian receives daily attacks for it is just good oldfashioned craven PB sycophancy. There is no significant difference in the two antivaxxers’ positions.
Why would anyone be 'sycophantic' towards @Dura_Ace as opposed to @contrarian ?
It's not as though one exerts any more influence or power than the other - simply that one set of arguments appears to be less offensive, for whatever reason.
'Craven' is a similarly weird choice of epithet.
IIRC, one said it was "just a building site" while the other said visiting it was an almost spiritual experience.
And all hell broke loose.
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.
Did I just write that poem? Or did Philip Larkin write it?0 -
I think Trudeau will lose the election in Canada on 20th September, in the sense of getting less seats that the main opposition party.0
This discussion has been closed.