Howdy, Stranger!

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

Interesting by-election stats from the Indy’s John Rentoul – politicalbetting.com

1235

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,867
    Scott_xP said:

    Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today

    Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen."
    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145


    BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a ****. What are you going to do about it?"

    They should volunteer to drive for the rail replacement bus services and take a small detour.

    Here is an interesting question. If a bus hit Boris Johnson, would the inordinate amount of bone in his head mean the bus would be a write off while he wondered what all the noise was?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,680
    Foxy said:

    I think that one is nailed on.
    A general principle: All self interest is ideologically flexible. True of anti net-zeros. True of everyone. Look at the carbon footprint of posh climate activists and their flying habits.

  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    edited June 2022
    I think I’ve found the best front page today. It’s the Daily Star’s burned builder’s bums causing skin cancer story. I’m not actually joking. It’s a good piece of public interest journalism that highlights a serious health risk and is relevant to their readership. They’ve also couched it in quite a good joke which catches interest. I think they might have become one of the better tabloids…
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,137
    No answers from @BorisJohnson about his behaviour except to say people aren’t interested in it. https://twitter.com/kevin_maguire/status/1540598625050542080
  • ydoethur said:

    They should volunteer to drive for the rail replacement bus services and take a small detour.

    Here is an interesting question. If a bus hit Boris Johnson, would the inordinate amount of bone in his head mean the bus would be a write off while he wondered what all the noise was?
    That happens with kangaroos, a vehicle colliding with a kangaroo would be a write-off, while the kangaroo is most likely to just bounce off; but its the muscles that do it not the bones.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,137
    Prime minister tells @BBCr4today that he gets “the big things done” and cites Brexit and the Rwanda immigration scheme. [neither of which have actually been “done”]
    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1540599121312088065
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,867

    That happens with kangaroos, a vehicle colliding with a kangaroo would be a write-off, while the kangaroo is most likely to just bounce off; but its the muscles that do it not the bones.
    We've been repeatedly told Johnson is all bulk muscle...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,137
    This really does look like BoZo's "We fight on" interview

    Totally detached from reality
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,773
    ydoethur said:

    That's not quite true re the ECHR though, is it? My understanding is they can advise, but they cannot enforce, especially not now we've left the EU. Votes for prisoners being an example. And a court that cannot enforce its rulings is junket for old white men who want a cushy number and to feel important, while not being so.

    Even the European Courts couldn't, or France would have had to pay us a stonking fine for illegal bans on our beef they were repeatedly ordered to lift and refused to.

    You're the lawyer of course, not me, but that does seem a very clear difference between the ECHR and the SCOTUS.

    That being said, I agree we don't want to end up with our own Supreme Court (and what a silly name that is, by the way) going down the same route. But the different appointments process makes that less likely.
    Certainly whilst we were in the EU we were effectively bound to comply with the decisions of the ECtHR and its members still are. We are currently bound too as a consequence of the Human Rights Act but I agree that is our choice and that legislation can be repealed as the government are now proposing. Personally, I think that this is a culture war that we do not need right now but it is in the power of Parliament to do it.

    I found some of the decisions in the Hale period of our Supreme Court troubling because it seemed to me that they were arrogating powers to themselves they were not supposed to have by a misapplication of the rule of law. The Court under Reed has stepped back from that considerably but there is no reason why a future president of the court might not go in a different direction.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    Scott_xP said:

    Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today

    Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen."
    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145


    BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a cunt. What are you going to do about it?"

    Self improvement is for suckers. Good to see he's reflected on his shortcomings, which we all have, and decided, 'yeah, it's all good'.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,108
    DavidL said:

    What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly is the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.

    People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.

    The ECHR is very, very different to the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS invented a very strong power of judicial review for itself in 1803, ironically something not stated in the Constitution.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,354
    kle4 said:

    Self improvement is for suckers. Good to see he's reflected on his shortcomings, which we all have, and decided, 'yeah, it's all good'.
    In his defence, it got him to be PM of one of the greatest nations on earth. Why would he change, even if he could?
    The fact that he is totally unsuitedvto the role is not his fault.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,680
    Cyclefree said:

    There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
    That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.

    BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.

    "Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.

  • Scott_xP said:

    Prime minister tells @BBCr4today that he gets “the big things done” and cites Brexit and the Rwanda immigration scheme. [neither of which have actually been “done”]
    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1540599121312088065

    Only someone utterly detached from reality would think Brexit isn't done.

    We've Brexited, we're out, and we're post-Brexit now.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322
    Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.

    Would love to see a transcript.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322
    Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.

    Would love to see a transcript.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,773
    Cyclefree said:

    There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
    Yes, there will be some but the polling indicates that she is very much in the minority of women. So that majority need to react and vote against those who want these laws. It is a large enough gap to be decisive.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,888
    algarkirk said:

    A general principle: All self interest is ideologically flexible. True of anti net-zeros. True of everyone. Look at the carbon footprint of posh climate activists and their flying habits.

    An acquaintance of mine has been rabidly anti-war for decades. He is also very pro-immigration and pro-refugee, particularly from the Middle East (he, and his wife, are British).

    Yet he is supporting Russia in the Ukrainian conflict (in the 'look at those Ukrainian Nazis' and 'I am anti-war. Ukraine should stop the war by giving Russia what it wants; that is better than all the deaths it is causing by fighting Russia') type of thinking.

    He is also apparently anti-Ukrainian refugees: as there are all the refugees in northern France who deserve to get over here first. Why are Ukrainian refugees getting all the help?

    I see his views as utterly inconsistent. He thinks he is being utterly consistent and deeply moral (naturally enough, he sometimes mentions that he is a Christian as though it is some appeal to a higher Authority...)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    DavidL said:

    Certainly whilst we were in the EU we were effectively bound to comply with the decisions of the ECtHR and its members still are. We are currently bound too as a consequence of the Human Rights Act but I agree that is our choice and that legislation can be repealed as the government are now proposing. Personally, I think that this is a culture war that we do not need right now but it is in the power of Parliament to do it.

    I found some of the decisions in the Hale period of our Supreme Court troubling because it seemed to me that they were arrogating powers to themselves they were not supposed to have by a misapplication of the rule of law. The Court under Reed has stepped back from that considerably but there is no reason why a future president of the court might not go in a different direction.
    I think there was a case involving northern ireland which Sumption criticised as Hale and co essentially stating parliament could not possibly have meant what they outright stated they meant when making a law. Joshua Rosenberg mentioned it in his book Enemies of the People as an example where he agreed IIRC, which was generally not the case with him viz a viz Sumption.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    kle4 said:

    Self improvement is for suckers. Good to see he's reflected on his shortcomings, which we all have, and decided, 'yeah, it's all good'.
    He should make sociopathy a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,888
    kjh said:

    Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.

    Would love to see a transcript.

    Does he say the same thing twice? ;)
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,921

    People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have.
    At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two.
    Innocent mistake.
    People do love to judge.
    Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.

    I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063

    In his defence, it got him to be PM of one of the greatest nations on earth. Why would he change, even if he could?
    The fact that he is totally unsuitedvto the role is not his fault.
    It is as he's sought it out, but certainly it's more our fault, the public, and especially Tory MPs.

    They were correct choosing him was needed to win, but that doesnt bind them forever.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    edited June 2022

    The ECHR is very, very different to the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS invented a very strong power of judicial review for itself in 1803, ironically something not stated in the Constitution.
    That is quite amusing. I imagine the sanctity if that decision is inviolable and for once something all the politicians in fancy dress agree on irrespective of it it ever went against a party line.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,454
    edited June 2022

    Oral contraceptives as a concept was new. Viagra, as part of a drug class, was longer established but I agree with you; I was very surprised at how quickly it went through the regulatory system.
    Although by that time the committee was not all male! IIRC!!
    Viagra was first synthesised in 1989, and licensed for Erectile Dysfunction in 1998, so not especially quick. Initially it was investigated as a cardiovascular drug, before a novel side effect of interest stuck out (!).
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,680
    DavidL said:

    What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly is the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.

    People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.

    Exactly right. Courts are a very good servant of democracy but a bad master. The SC case yesterday merely returns the USA states to the same position as UK administrations: this tricky matter is one for democratic decision.

    The best use of courts is as a back stop in extremes (they should intervene to strike down the 'Torturing Children for Fun Legalisation Act') and in ensuring the robust health of the democratic process (I would be delighted if they intervened to stop mass postal voting in public elections as it subverts the rule of law with regard to democratic process).

  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    algarkirk said:

    That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.

    BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.

    "Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.

    That requires adequate provision of contraception, access to sex education, support services, child benefit, properly funded education systems and well resourced fostering and adoption routes. The US is such a patchy clusterfuck that most states now gleefully canning abortion can maybe scrounge up two of those, if they’re lucky.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 23,153
    edited June 2022
    ydoethur said:

    That's not quite true re the ECHR though, is it? My understanding is they can advise, but they cannot enforce, especially not now we've left the EU. Votes for prisoners being an example. And a court that cannot enforce its rulings is junket for old white men who want a cushy number and to feel important, while not being so.

    Even the European Courts couldn't, or France would have had to pay us a stonking fine for illegal bans on our beef they were repeatedly ordered to lift and refused to.

    You're the lawyer of course, not me, but that does seem a very clear difference between the ECHR and the SCOTUS.

    That being said, I agree we don't want to end up with our own Supreme Court (and what a silly name that is, by the way) going down the same route. But the different appointments process makes that less likely.
    Though its worth noting that even SCOTUS executive branches have a history of nonacquiescence with SCOTUS.

    Most infamously with Andrew Jackson and the probably apocryphal quote "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" . . . but the less commented upon example where it was done in a "good" way is that President Lincoln openly refused to follow SCOTUS rulings made by Justice Taney's court (Taney being the author of Dred Scott). Taney himself eventually gave up trying to use the Court to stop Lincoln saying "I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome."

    Had "the rule of law" been strictly followed in the US Civil War then the slave states would have likely won the war, because the pro-slavery SCOTUS was actively trying to sabotage the elected Lincoln.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,354
    Foxy said:

    Viagra was first synthesised in 1989, and licensed for Erectile Dysfunction in 1998, so not especially quick. Initially it was investigated as a cardiovascular drug, before a novel side effect of interest stuck out (!).
    A friend was on some of the initial drug tests. Said it was ‘interesting’ as a healthy early twenties male...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,119
    edited June 2022
    algarkirk said:

    Democracy needs defending. There are always corrupt people manipulating power. Are there enough people in the USA to vote in such a way that an electoral commission can be created so that gerrymandering is nullified by its neutrality? Somehow we manage it reasonably well here.

    If the SC can get Americans to learn that if you want something you have to turn up and vote about it, there will be benefits.

    In a sense the votes of 2014 and 2016 in Scotland the UK sharpened this awareness here.
    One of the reasons that gerrymandering is getting stronger in the US is that there's a degree of self-gerrymandering occurring as liberals concentrate in the cities.

    They probably need to switch to a system of STV, with multi-member seats, to overcome the effects of that, and STV would also help to ensure minority representation without encouraging the creation of minority-majority districts.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,773

    The ECHR is very, very different to the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS invented a very strong power of judicial review for itself in 1803, ironically something not stated in the Constitution.
    It's really not. Both are based on fundamental documents given some magical status. Both have taken upon themselves the right to apply those fundamental documents well beyond the original text. Both claim the right to overrule legislation or declare it incompatible with their interpretation of that original document. Both have a situation where they expect states to comply with their rulings. I would accept that there is a difference of degree here with SCOTUS but it is not a difference of nature.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    Taz said:

    Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.

    I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
    She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    Foxy said:

    Viagra was first synthesised in 1989, and licensed for Erectile Dysfunction in 1998, so not especially quick. Initially it was investigated as a cardiovascular drug, before a novel side effect of interest stuck out (!).
    A hard won effort!
  • kle4 said:

    That is quite amusing. I imagine the sanctity if that decision is inviolable and for once something all the politicians in fancy dress agree on irrespective of it it ever went against a party line.
    You imagine wrong, its inviolable so long as its convenient. Democrats (Jackson) and Republicans (Lincoln) both have a history of refusing to follow SCOTUS when it went against a line they adamantly wanted to follow. Though of course modern Democrats and Republicans are the opposite parties, Jackson would be in Trump's GOP while Lincoln would be a Democrat today.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    kjh said:

    Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.

    Would love to see a transcript.

    Graun feed has some fairly long quotes, but I imagine the more meaningful bits. For instance,

    'Husain asks how it’s fair or right that the top civil servant in the country, Simon Case, asked about job opportunities for Carrie Johnson.

    “I think that the worst thing I could possibly do is get into conversations about my family, my private life.

    “It’s also about a choice, which is, do we focus on personalities, do we focus on Johnson leadership, or do we focus on the things that we are doing for the country, and BBC, I humbly submit to you that this is the time, where I think lots and lots of people, fascinated as they may be by the personal questions you raise, actually they want us as a government and want me to focus on our agenda and get it done,” Johnson says.'
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,708
    DavidL said:

    Yes, there will be some but the polling indicates that she is very much in the minority of women. So that majority need to react and vote against those who want these laws. It is a large enough gap to be decisive.
    It could be that swing voter women may be crucial in key senate elections this autumn. Maybe help Dems keep hold of Senate?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,888
    A sobering Washington Post article on how deadly the Ukrainian war is, in historical terms.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/23/ukraine-war-deaths-soldiers-history/
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,454
    kle4 said:

    She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
    Because she is Caligula's horse, with no other qualification to be in the cabinet. Rather harsh to hold it against the horse though.
  • The ECHR is very, very different to the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS invented a very strong power of judicial review for itself in 1803, ironically something not stated in the Constitution.
    Its worth being clear whether you mean ECHR (Convention) or Court, while I'll call ECtHR.

    The ECtHR is evolving in a similar way to SCOTUS. That is not a good thing.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,708
    kjh said:

    Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.

    Would love to see a transcript.

    Apparently he has said he is not going to change. So that's another couple of listening tory MPs switching to 'get him out' side no doubt.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,708

    Only someone utterly detached from reality would think Brexit isn't done.

    We've Brexited, we're out, and we're post-Brexit now.
    Unfortunately for that view, the people saying the loudest that Brexit isn't done is Johnson and co, as it is all they have left in the locker.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,708
    Scott_xP said:

    Prime minister tells @BBCr4today that he gets “the big things done” and cites Brexit and the Rwanda immigration scheme. [neither of which have actually been “done”]
    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1540599121312088065

    We will all have to endure another Johnson relaunch next week.

    Telegraph reckons this is the 4th.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063

    One of the reasons that gerrymandering is getting stronger in the US is that there's a degree of self-gerrymandering occurring as liberals concentrate in the cities.

    They probably need to switch to a system of STV, with multi-member seats, to overcome the effects of that, and STV would also help to ensure minority representation without encouraging the creation of minority-majority districts.
    Well Alaska just plumped for AV, it's a start?

    Nebraska is presumably an interesting one for gerrymandering if it is a state where redistricting is so partisan. As the legislative is officially by law non partisan (surprised that is deemed constitutional) even though in reality it is not.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,170
    Yesterday was a good day to bury bad news as the tories cancelled the UK's UAS progam.

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mosquito-drone-project-swatted/

    It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
  • We will all have to endure another Johnson relaunch next week.

    Telegraph reckons this is the 4th.

    4th in June surely?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617

    Unfortunately for that view, the people saying the loudest that Brexit isn't done is Johnson and co, as it is all they have left in the locker.
    My NI friend would also be very surprised to learn that the UK has brexited.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,708
    edited June 2022
    kle4 said:

    Self improvement is for suckers. Good to see he's reflected on his shortcomings, which we all have, and decided, 'yeah, it's all good'.
    "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen."

    Is that originally the line he was using with the marriage guidance counsellor?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    Foxy said:

    Because she is Caligula's horse, with no other qualification to be in the cabinet. Rather harsh to hold it against the horse though.
    Incintatus would have made a fine Senator I am sure.

    But people dont react to her merely as a fool or your standard malevolent minister.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,001
    Holy god, hearing an vox-pop onR4 with a pro-lifer.

    Apparently human beings are born with an inalienable right to life and to bear arms.

    Now I get that the right to life is a nice idea but nature has been known to step in and remove that “right” and no court can overrule that.

    I’m somewhat surprised at the idea that humans are born with the right to bear arms as well - I think it’s culture that makes them choose that not a birth right or biological instinct.

    Maybe she meant the right to “bare arms” and is pro extreme limb waxing?

    She also confused the “don’t tread on me” snake flag - she thought it was a flag for gun rights and not a revolutionary flag telling would-be oppressive rulers applying laws that interfere with personal freedom. A bit awkward.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,680
    Cyclefree said:

    Indeed. But Roe v Wade did not force women to have abortions against their will. Whereas the anti-abortionists will force women to have children against their will, even when it puts them at risk of death. And they will do nothing to help those women or their children after birth.

    And since a lot of anti-abortionists dislike the idea of contraception or sensible sex education they seem to be less interested in making women independent and avoiding the need for abortion and more about controlling them and treating them as mere "uterus havers".

    Spot on.

    It's the middling, abortion accepting, Clintonish voice that is ignored.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,867
    Dura_Ace said:

    Yesterday was a good day to bury bad news as the tories cancelled the UK's UAS progam.

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mosquito-drone-project-swatted/

    It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.

    Boris Johnson can do all the droning necessary just by opening and shutting his stupid mouth.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322
    kle4 said:

    She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
    For all their faults most politicians aren't obviously stupid. Dorries comes over as very stupid yet she has managed to become a cabinet minister. There are probably a lot of emotions going on: Anger, envy, disbelief, worry of what she may do, etc, etc.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,888
    Dura_Ace said:

    Yesterday was a good day to bury bad news as the tories cancelled the UK's UAS progam.

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mosquito-drone-project-swatted/

    It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.

    from the article:

    "The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"

    That certainly sounds reasonable. I might even argue this is a good thing, if we are learning lessons from the Ukrainian and Azerbaijan/Armenia conflicts.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic.

    Some US states have passed total bans.

    In those states 1 in 50 pregnant women will die.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,773
    kle4 said:

    I think there was a case involving northern ireland which Sumption criticised as Hale and co essentially stating parliament could not possibly have meant what they outright stated they meant when making a law. Joshua Rosenberg mentioned it in his book Enemies of the People as an example where he agreed IIRC, which was generally not the case with him viz a viz Sumption.
    There have been a few but I think the one that came to mind was the decision which quashed Gerry Adam's convictions for attempting to escape the Maze on the basis that his original detention was unlawful.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063

    A sobering Washington Post article on how deadly the Ukrainian war is, in historical terms.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/06/23/ukraine-war-deaths-soldiers-history/

    Soldiers dying per day are remarkably high especially for the modern era it seems. When you consider civilian deaths being lower than many historical examples despite the brutality not a good time to be in the armed forces.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,137

    Apparently he has said he is not going to change. So that's another couple of listening tory MPs switching to 'get him out' side no doubt.

    I have just written to my MP. Again.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    Carnyx said:

    Graun feed has some fairly long quotes, but I imagine the more meaningful bits. For instance,

    'Husain asks how it’s fair or right that the top civil servant in the country, Simon Case, asked about job opportunities for Carrie Johnson.

    “I think that the worst thing I could possibly do is get into conversations about my family, my private life.

    “It’s also about a choice, which is, do we focus on personalities, do we focus on Johnson leadership, or do we focus on the things that we are doing for the country, and BBC, I humbly submit to you that this is the time, where I think lots and lots of people, fascinated as they may be by the personal questions you raise, actually they want us as a government and want me to focus on our agenda and get it done,” Johnson says.'
    The standard 'I dont like your question' dodge.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,680
    OnboardG1 said:

    That requires adequate provision of contraception, access to sex education, support services, child benefit, properly funded education systems and well resourced fostering and adoption routes. The US is such a patchy clusterfuck that most states now gleefully canning abortion can maybe scrounge up two of those, if they’re lucky.
    Maybe. Is that a bit generalised about the USA? You make it sound like Afghanistan on a wet Wednesday following an earthquake when it is a leading rich nation with a great democratic tradition. Is it really the case that women and girls in Wyoming or Montana find themselves so oppressed?

    And crucially, they all have a vote.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    algarkirk said:

    Maybe. Is that a bit generalised about the USA? You make it sound like Afghanistan on a wet Wednesday following an earthquake when it is a leading rich nation with a great democratic tradition. Is it really the case that women and girls in Wyoming or Montana find themselves so oppressed?

    And crucially, they all have a vote.

    They don't. Not in reality, the way access to voting is being systematically suppressed, particularly in poor areas.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,867
    kle4 said:

    The standard 'I dont like your question' dodge.
    I agree with Johnson actually, for once.

    The very worst thing he could do is get into conversations about his family life. If he does, given the state of it and the things he's done to advance his sex life he's totally buggered.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322

    Apparently he has said he is not going to change. So that's another couple of listening tory MPs switching to 'get him out' side no doubt.

    Did he? I didn't understand a word he said.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    Alistair said:

    1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic.

    Some US states have passed total bans.

    In those states 1 in 50 pregnant women will die.

    'Tis God's will.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085

    People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have.
    [...]
    People do love to judge.
    She 'makes mistakes' on a daily basis.

    I'm afraid she really is very, very, stupid. And awestruck by Johnson. Which is also a sign of stupidity.

    People do love to defend.

    The indefensible.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,108
    Foxy said:

    Viagra was first synthesised in 1989, and licensed for Erectile Dysfunction in 1998, so not especially quick. Initially it was investigated as a cardiovascular drug, before a novel side effect of interest stuck out (!).
    Oestrogens and progesterones were first synthesised in the 1930s. First US license as a contraceptive was 1960. The oral contraceptive was first licensed in Japan in 1999.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,680
    Alistair said:

    1 in 50 pregnancies are ectopic.

    Some US states have passed total bans.

    In those states 1 in 50 pregnant women will die.

    If this is true it won't survive the voters' scrutiny for long. I shall take leave to doubt it for now. It will only take a matter of months for the statisticians to demonstrate it. And at least we can be sure the Guardian and BBC will be all over it.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,867
    OnboardG1 said:

    I think there are three reasons.

    The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.

    Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.

    Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.

    None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.

    She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).

    She’s better than JRM at least.
    Rees Mogg seems determined to cause strikes throughout the public sector with his bullying and attitude over office working.

    It may be a plan, of course, to see how many we can do without, before making mass redundancies.

    But I don't think he's intelligent enough to have thought it through to that endpoint.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,680
    Carnyx said:

    They don't. Not in reality, the way access to voting is being systematically suppressed, particularly in poor areas.
    Big claims require decent evidence.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,310
    F1: backed, with tiny stakes, Perez at 10.5 (with boost) and Sainz at 14 (likewise, both each way, third the odds top 2) to win in the UK.

    Both cars have had quite a few reliability problems this year, and if that happens or one car is clearly dominant at the circuit they're a long way faster than third-placed Mercedes. Bizarre that Russell has odds shorter than Sainz to win.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,617
    edited June 2022
    algarkirk said:

    Big claims require decent evidence.

    Widely reported. IANAE but shutting down polling stations, for instance, makes it harder to vote - and race and wealth interact too. For instance:

    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impact-voter-suppression-communities-color
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085
    edited June 2022
    To be a cabinet minister you really ought to have a reasonable amount of intelligence, even if intelligence is measured in multiple ways.

    Sycophancy and blind love should not be a qualification for high office. In fact, they should disbar you. It's a measure of Johnson's personal weakness that he has to surround himself with people like Dorries.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,680
    boulay said:

    Holy god, hearing an vox-pop onR4 with a pro-lifer.

    Apparently human beings are born with an inalienable right to life and to bear arms.

    Now I get that the right to life is a nice idea but nature has been known to step in and remove that “right” and no court can overrule that.

    I’m somewhat surprised at the idea that humans are born with the right to bear arms as well - I think it’s culture that makes them choose that not a birth right or biological instinct.

    Maybe she meant the right to “bare arms” and is pro extreme limb waxing?

    She also confused the “don’t tread on me” snake flag - she thought it was a flag for gun rights and not a revolutionary flag telling would-be oppressive rulers applying laws that interfere with personal freedom. A bit awkward.

    A standard way of doing quiet bias is to interview intelligent person X with opinion A, and dim person with opinion not-A. Over abortion the BBC makes no attempt at all to be neutral, in many ways, including this one. (BTW I am not anti abortion).

  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322

    Does he say the same thing twice? ;)
    JJ I read your post over and over again and didn't understand it, then went back to the original post. Whoops. I have no idea how that happens.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 18,078
    kle4 said:

    The standard 'I dont like your question' dodge.
    Well, there's a very simple way for Johnson to stop being asked those questions.

    I'm sure that HMQ would be happy to find a window in her diary to accept Johnson's resignation.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,170

    from the article:

    "The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
    You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,347
    "PM: I will not undergo psychological transformation after poll defeat"

    Disappointing - the only solution to the problem ruled out.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,287
    DavidL said:

    What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly is the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.

    People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.

    The ECHR judges get far more scrutiny, since they are term limited to nine years. And note that any case involving the UK will have a UK judge sitting.

    Were the court to change dramatically for the worse, it’s always open for us to leave as a last resort.

    Your comparison is a very poor one.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,921
    OnboardG1 said:

    I think there are three reasons.

    The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.

    Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.

    Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.

    None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.

    She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).

    She’s better than JRM at least.
    I also think her role makes her a bit of a focus for media and luvvie types on social media. Her progressive plans on the license fee and channel 4 have gone down so poorly within this group.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,287
    algarkirk said:

    That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.

    BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.

    "Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.

    What does any of that have to do whether or not abortion should be illegal, though ?
    You’re basically saying that you’re above all this argument. Which is a view, I suppose.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 1,589
    ydoethur said:

    Rees Mogg seems determined to cause strikes throughout the public sector with his bullying and attitude over office working.

    It may be a plan, of course, to see how many we can do without, before making mass redundancies.

    But I don't think he's intelligent enough to have thought it through to that endpoint.
    Both are a waste of the fundamental forces of the universe in their immediate proximity but Dories has, at least, done some work that is of benefit to the average person in her life. I can’t stand her Mills and Boonery but my Nan likes them and anything harmless that brings some joy into a 93 year old’s life is fine by me. JRM is of the parasitic middleman class who benefit no one but they and theirs.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 50,454
    ydoethur said:

    I agree with Johnson actually, for once.

    The very worst thing he could do is get into conversations about his family life. If he does, given the state of it and the things he's done to advance his sex life he's totally buggered.
    Carrie wasn't his family at the time he was trying to get her a sinecure, she was his mistress.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,656
    edited June 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Well, the same rules applied before Brexit on passports and visas. I remember endless trouble trying to get a non-EU National a Schengen visa so he could go on an educational day visit to Auschwitz (because there were no staff from the school on the trip) and that was in 2015!
    Aiui it is school trips from Europe to Britain that are harder post-Brexit because we now insist little Jean-Baptiste and Nicole have individual rather than group passports and visas, so it is easier for them to go to other EU countries instead.
    https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jun/04/school-trips-to-uk-from-eu-could-halve-brexit-hits-cultural-exchanges
  • eekeek Posts: 29,399
    Taz said:

    I also think her role makes her a bit of a focus for media and luvvie types on social media. Her progressive plans on the license fee and channel 4 have gone down so poorly within this group.
    That’s because there is no logic behind her plans.

    At the moment all of C4’s profits go back to creating more and better how does an owner extracting a profit from C4 result in more programs when the pot of money is consistent.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,888
    Dura_Ace said:

    You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
    Indeed. But my point still stands.

    One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).

    Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,708
    Foxy said:

    Carrie wasn't his family at the time he was trying to get her a sinecure, she was his mistress.
    Too right. And anyway, him trying to swing her a public-funded job is not his private family life.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,287
    Dura_Ace said:

    You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
    Bayraktars ?
    The statement is a load of meaningless waffle, but possibly they’ve cancelled an aerial Ajax ?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,170
    Nigelb said:

    Bayraktars ?
    The statement is a load of meaningless waffle, but possibly they’ve cancelled an aerial Ajax ?
    Aeralis is going to be the aerial Ajax if it ever manages to siphon enough money out of the MoD to get to too-big-to-fail status.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    Foxy said:

    Carrie wasn't his family at the time he was trying to get her a sinecure, she was his mistress.
    What is a mistress but an opportunity to expand one's sense of family?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,680
    Nigelb said:

    What does any of that have to do whether or not abortion should be illegal, though ?
    You’re basically saying that you’re above all this argument. Which is a view, I suppose.
    Not quite. Your misreading is total. I am one of those who, as I indicated, 'hate the idea of outlawing abortion'. I don't think Clinton could be any clearer when he says 'Safe, legal, rare.'

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,708
    kjh said:

    Did he? I didn't understand a word he said.
    I didn't bother listening as I can't stand to even hear the lying sack speaking now.

    Just going on what BBC website says he said.

    They employ a translator from Borish to English.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085
    Taz said:

    I also think her role makes her a bit of a focus for media and luvvie types on social media. Her progressive plans on the license fee and channel 4 have gone down so poorly within this group.

    I don't think there's much support for the licenCe fee across the board. I think you're pegging your hellbent desire to have the licence fee abolished, on which I agree with you, to the wrong taliswoman.

    She really is very stupid I'm afraid. And so poor on detail. Her 'progressive' plans extend to not even knowing that Channel 4 is publicly owned. She's the minister and she went before a select committee discussing BBC / Channel 4 and didn't even know the most basic, simple, fact of the lot.

    Let's not defend the indefensible please. She's crap.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,708
    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    1h
    Main focus of Thursday's results has obviously been on Boris and Starmer. But one of the biggest stories is the way Ed Davey has successfully completed the detoxification of the Lib Dem brand. That will have major political implications going forward.

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1540584116567085056

    ===

    Is there a book on when LibDems will next hit 20% in a poll?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,867
    kjh said:

    JJ I read your post over and over again and didn't understand it, then went back to the original post. Whoops. I have no idea how that happens.
    It’s because Vanilla is shit. Happy to help.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,923

    d'Hondt (a curse in Klingon?) is fab. But serves a specific purpose in Scotland. It isn't needed in the whole UK for GEs. Yes it would remove the joy of walking up and down the tables at a count. But so what.
    Just there to ensure we remain a colony
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,287
    algarkirk said:

    Not quite. Your misreading is total. I am one of those who, as I indicated, 'hate the idea of outlawing abortion'. I don't think Clinton could be any clearer when he says 'Safe, legal, rare.'

    Only the first two of those words had or has any meaning in policy terms as far as either Clinton or the US is concerned, which is why I’m unimpressed with it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,063
    Dura_Ace said:

    Aeralis is going to be the aerial Ajax if it ever manages to siphon enough money out of the MoD to get to too-big-to-fail status.
    If the people who push ahead with the big stuff ever discover the sunk cost fallacy it'll blow their minds.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,119

    Indeed. But my point still stands.

    One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).

    Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
    We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
This discussion has been closed.