This story was featured on R4 this morning, the phrase killing fields was used. I'm sure when Saudi's smiling tyrant visits us shortly, our pols & officials will be having some firm words with him while they're wanking him off.
Presumably before the executions they invite everyone to have a kickabout, and anyone showing talent is spared and sent to The Toon.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
Whilst this is a great post, politics has been broken for a long time in this country. Like the Post Office Scandal which bubbled away for years out of public view, we're only now becoming (painfully) aware.
I have been saying this - in various different ways - on here for years.
38% of Republicans love Trump and will vote for him, whatever.
38% of Republicans dislike Trump. (Albeit a lot of this group hate Biden.)
24% of Republicans like Trump, but worry about his electability.
That makes Trump the chear favorite, but it also shows there is a real - if narrow - path for an alternative to walk
But those are Rupublicans in general. Primary voters may be a different bunch. Plus, even if Trump only rolls out 35-40% wins, they're still wins in what's overwhelmingly (entirely? I need to check) a winner-take-all system.
It's possible Trump's legal troubles will cause voters to abandon him but unless they do, and unless they can coalesce around someone else (who? why?) before Trump has the nomination, he'll win.
Of course, there is the risk that an obese man with a dreadful diet, in his late-70s and under serious and continual stress will either just drop dead or suffer a health event serious enough to knock him out of the campaign. But as time ticks on, that risk drops day by day.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
Kemi Badenoch is awful.
Why isn’t she all over this ?
Think those two sentences make more sense the other way round.
But the bigger picture is that we get the politicians and public servants we deserve. I absolutely agree with @Cyclefree 's sentiment that
what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible
except that's what most of us do given the chance. How many of us don't take the windfalls as a matter of principle, rather than due to lack of opportunity?
More importantly, how do we put in the guardrails so that it's harder to do the wrong thing and easier to do the right thing?
For a staggering headline, read what the HSJ quotes the NHS England CEO Amanda Pritchard as saying:
One of the recommendations of the Francis Report on Staffordshire was mandatory references for NHS managers.
The government declined to implement that recommendation.
Even so, the various Cheshire managers who resigned after Letby was arrested and charged went on to find other jobs in the NHS. Did none of those trusts ask about the reasons for their resignation or even wonder whether employing someone in charge of a hospital when such things happened might not be, well, wise?
Even without a reference, the lack of curiosity, the lack of judgment are staggering.
Just a few months ago RDS went fav for the GOP nomination in the aftermath of the midterms. Did nothing with it. Perhaps he should have come out then, big launch event, saying, "Forget about Donald Trump. Sweet guy but that's over. I'm a winner ... and oh yeah I'm running. You bet I am."
It might have worked. Maybe not, but they do say fortune favours the brave.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
Whilst this is all true, the fundamental issue would be that they would not be blocking a clear election result, as the candidate was ineligible to be elected. And this is the point - the law may be clear, but the people implementing it are biased.
Remember Arnie? A great state governor but ineligible to be President. But what if a popular movement had demanded he run? If the GOP had run him regardless of ineligibilty. If he had won a popular vote despite the pundits and lawyers all telling people he constitutionally couldn't be President.
This is the scenario we now face. Whither the constitution which is inviolate when it comes to the right of gun owners to murder small children, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to who can run for President.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
I think the US is pretty fucked either way.
If Trump wins it will be due to the electoral collage and a minority of voters who just happen to be geographically spaced in such a way as to benefit him. He could, realistically, get like 45% of the vote and still win the presidency. If that were the case, Congress may consider the desire to go "no, actually" (if it is Democratically controlled, that is, which would be unlikely in this scenario).
The other issue is if Trump wins, he's gonna try and pardon himself and he is gonna have a VP who will support that (because that will be his criteria for choosing them as VP) and staff who will allow that (for the same reason). At that point I think enough Democratic voters would be willing to riot that things will get hairy. He will also lay the foundation for running for a third term - using the same "Russia Hoax" narrative he did during his first term saying that it shouldn't count because of the "fraud" they committed against him by investigating him. Even if he doesn't end up running for a third term (cause he'll be old as hell), he will use that as a rallying cry against democracy.
If Trump loses, why wouldn't he claim it was stolen again and try to raise his base in violence again, only this time with slightly better planning? Last time was a mess, because I don't think he really expected the crowd to follow what he literally told them to do. This time, he knows they will. He can try it again. Granted, a lot of the people who would be willing to do it are still in jail, but that wouldn't likely stop Trump.
And the next generation of GOP politicians look a lot more like Trump than they do the RNC establishment. DeSantis has zero charisma, but someone who can sell it will show up. And the groundwork has been laid. Unless the Democrats really pull their fingers out and give people relief from the worst excesses of their capitalist society, the white grievance will trump (ahah) economics because it's not like the Democrats will have improved the economic reality for many people either.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
Whilst this is a great post, politics has been broken for a long time in this country. Like the Post Office Scandal which bubbled away for years out of public view, we're only now becoming (painfully) aware.
I have been saying this - in various different ways - on here for years.
And the basic problem is that we seem unable or unwilling to recognise this. Starmer will do nothing of substance.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
Kemi Badenoch is awful.
Why isn’t she all over this ?
Think those two sentences make more sense the other way round.
But the bigger picture is that we get the politicians and public servants we deserve. I absolutely agree with @Cyclefree 's sentiment that what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible
except that's what most of us do given the chance. How many of us don't take the windfalls as a matter of principle, rather than due to lack of opportunity?
More importantly, how do we put in the guardrails so that it's harder to do the wrong thing and easier to do the right thing?
For a staggering headline, read what the HSJ quotes the NHS England CEO Amanda Pritchard as saying:
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
I can only admire the optimism of that last sentence.
It implies that it's not already broken beyond repair.
Disgusting behaviour from the Post Office, but sadly not in any way unexpected.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
I can only admire the optimism of that last sentence.
It implies that it's not already broken beyond repair.
Disgusting behaviour from the Post Office, but sadly not in any way unexpected.
NU10K
I look forward to the interviews, in a gloss magazine perhaps. A photo study of a lovely country house, and a chat, with a trembling lip, about the difficulty and pain the scandal has caused - nasty people blaming them for doing their jobs correctly.
One of the Letby Nursing Managers, Alison Kelly, now in charge of nursing in Salford and Rochdale, has been suspended. The scruffy herbert who was the CEO has retired - after a number of other well-paid jobs - with his pension to France.
I trust that Alison Kelly is on full pay, and has her lawyers paid for by her new employers?
Isn't it Ian Harvey, the former medical director, who has reired to France? "Scruffy Herbert", AKA Tony Chambers, the former Chief Executive, has gone on to hold a surprising number of posts as interim chief Executive of NHS Trusts. (Don't people ever ask at job interviews: "Why did you leave your last post?")
In practical terms, how would this disqualification be upheld? Ordinarily it would be self-evident - I can't run for President as I am not a natural-born American. The Tump insurrection is disputed by Trumpers, which means any withholding of his candidacy by (I assume) state officials would be taken to court. Assuming the state official wasn't simply murdered first. And then I assume we're up to Federal and then Supreme Court level.
Trump is ineligible according to the definition of the law. But in practice I can't see how that law would be enforced. So as fun a distraction as this is, we're back to the basics of this election - how dies candidate Trump attract the additional voters required to win the election?
I am going to assume that he can't, so the real battle isn't this ineligibility thing, its what Trumper state officials are going to do to openly rig this election so that Trump wins. He can't win a free and fair election. So cheat.
Republicans across the US rolled back most of the voter expanding policies that came out of covid for the 2020 election - although there is some suggestion that this could have partly helped with the GOP not doing as well in the midterms as 2020 turnout was up for both sides.
I also think if we get a Gore v Bush situation where the tie breaker happens to be one typically red state (let's say Georgia) that SCOTUS may give it to Trump this time. They only turned it down last time because he lost too many states and by too many votes. The argument (that many states changed the terms of the election due to covid and this was somehow unfair) seemed to have some sympathy from Thomas and Alito.
SCOTUS didn't 'give' the election to Bush. That wasn't in their power. Which is fortunate given their recent extraordinary behaviour.
They decided it was not permissible to carry out a recount on the terms Gore was asking for, and actually there were several very good reasons for that none of which involved vote rigging. (With hindsight Gore made a serious mistake in not asking for a Florida-wide recount.)
I agree that criminals like Clarence Thomas probably would rig the election if they could but unless there is an actual reason to do it rather than merely assuage Donald Trump's hurt feelings he won't have the chance to.
It's not exactly a coincidence that three of Bush's lawyers ended up on the Supreme Court. You can't say that of Gore's.
One reason why I don't believe Labour will be any better is exemplified by Starmer's response to Letby saying she won't attend court for her sentencing. He says he'll do something - unspecified, of course - about this / put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system / blah blah.
A moment's thought by him would show that this is nonsense.
Even if a convicted criminal is physically dragged into court, you cannot stop them shouting / singing / insulting the judge / victims and their families etc while in court - or closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear you / not listening la la" and if they do that the usual remedy is to remove them from the court, which is precisely what they want. Or are they going to be bound and gagged while they sit and listen?
And since they go to prison for life or a very long time why would they care if the sentence is extended for a few months?
Starmer knows or ought to know all this.
But still he comes out with performative nonsense. So we'll just get a different flavour from him when he's in charge.
Lucy Letby deciding to not turn up at her sentencing hearing, as expected. She doesn’t want to hear the remarks of the judge, nor the statements from the victims and their families.
One reason why I don't believe Labour will be any better is exemplified by Starmer's response to Letby saying she won't attend court for her sentencing. He says he'll do something - unspecified, of course - about this / put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system / blah blah.
A moment's thought by him would show that this is nonsense.
Even if a convicted criminal is physically dragged into court, you cannot stop them shouting / singing / insulting the judge / victims and their families etc while in court - or closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear you / not listening la la" and if they do that the usual remedy is to remove them from the court, which is precisely what they want. Or are they going to be bound and gagged while they sit and listen?
And since they go to prison for life or a very long time why would they care if the sentence is extended for a few months?
Starmer knows or ought to know all this.
But still he comes out with performative nonsense. So we'll just get a different flavour from him when he's in charge.
What about the actual trial? Can a defendant be forced to attend that other than when they're testifying?
One reason why I don't believe Labour will be any better is exemplified by Starmer's response to Letby saying she won't attend court for her sentencing. He says he'll do something - unspecified, of course - about this / put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system / blah blah.
A moment's thought by him would show that this is nonsense.
Even if a convicted criminal is physically dragged into court, you cannot stop them shouting / singing / insulting the judge / victims and their families etc while in court - or closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear you / not listening la la" and if they do that the usual remedy is to remove them from the court, which is precisely what they want. Or are they going to be bound and gagged while they sit and listen?
And since they go to prison for life or a very long time why would they care if the sentence is extended for a few months?
Starmer knows or ought to know all this.
But still he comes out with performative nonsense. So we'll just get a different flavour from him when he's in charge.
I understand all the practicalities about prisoners not being compelled into court to hear the sentence. I can see how it could go very badly wrong. Yet for the victims/victim's relatives something ought to be done.
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Which other candidate for the nomination has a higher than 5% chance? DeSantis? Ramaswamy? Like, even if Trump was convicted and the GOP therefore said he couldn't be the nominee - I have no idea who they would pick because the party would be in open civil war. Part of how Trump keeps coming out on top in the GOP is that the party cannot face down the base it created, cannot agree on what they want in a leader, and cannot openly say what their policy agenda would be because it is too cruel for even their own voters to accept openly. Who else has the popularity for a coronation? No one! And if it comes down to the convention to replace him, well that could be anyone, even those who didn't run in the primary!
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts...
Why is the Business Secretary, or indeed the Committee of Public Accounts not fulfilling their responsibilities with relation to the PO ?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874283/post-office-limited-shareholder-relationship-framework-part-1.pdf ...The Shareholder’s PAO is the BEIS Permanent Secretary. The PAO is accountable to Parliament in respect of POL and for ensuring that arrangements are in place for effective shareholder oversight of POL. The PAO is responsible for advising the responsible minister on various aspects including but not limited to the following: (i) an appropriate framework of objectives and targets for POL in the light of BEIS’ wider strategic aims and priorities; (ii) an appropriate allocation of BEIS’ budget for POL in the light of BEIS’ overall expenditure priorities; and (iii) how well POL is achieving its strategic objectives and if it is delivering value for money...
As a public corporation, the PAO has designated POL’s Group Chief Executive (GCE) as POL’s AO and expects the GCE to observe the principles set out by HM Treasury in Managing Public Money (“MPM”), with particular regard to the Standards Expected of the Accounting Officer’s Organisation summarised in Box 3.1 of MPM and set out in full at Appendix 1 of this Framework Document. POL’s AO is personally responsible for safeguarding all funds for which he or she has charge; for ensuring propriety, regularity, value for money and feasibility in the handling of those funds; and for the day-to-day operations and management of POL. In addition, he or she should ensure that POL is run on the basis of the standards of governance, decision-making and financial management set out in MPM, as well as ensuring that POL uses internal and external audit to improve its internal controls and performance. As part of these responsibilities, the Committee of Public Accounts may invite the AO to be a witness at its evidence sessions, in which case the AO will be expected to attend...
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
I can only admire the optimism of that last sentence.
It implies that it's not already broken beyond repair.
Disgusting behaviour from the Post Office, but sadly not in any way unexpected.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
I can only admire the optimism of that last sentence.
It implies that it's not already broken beyond repair.
Disgusting behaviour from the Post Office, but sadly not in any way unexpected.
NU10K
I look forward to the interviews, in a gloss magazine perhaps. A photo study of a lovely country house, and a chat, with a trembling lip, about the difficulty and pain the scandal has caused - nasty people blaming them for doing their jobs correctly.
One of the Letby Nursing Managers, Alison Kelly, now in charge of nursing in Salford and Rochdale, has been suspended. The scruffy herbert who was the CEO has retired - after a number of other well-paid jobs - with his pension to France.
I trust that Alison Kelly is on full pay, and has her lawyers paid for by her new employers?
Isn't it Ian Harvey, the former medical director, who has reired to France? "Scruffy Herbert", AKA Tony Chambers, the former Chief Executive, has gone on to hold a surprising number of posts as interim chief Executive of NHS Trusts. (Don't people ever ask at job interviews: "Why did you leave your last post?")
You may well be right. At any event, a lot of these people went on to get other posts. Why? I just don't know how they can sleep at night. Even if they genuinely thought they were trying to do the right thing, knowing that on their watch babies were killed in part because of their actions and failure to act should induce a sense of shame and guilt which - if it happened to me - would make me unfit to do anything.
Or want to do anything, frankly.
How could you - in all conscience - ask or expect people to trust you, unless you had really understood what you did wrong and were open about that and really determined to make amends. And even then ....
Lucy Letby deciding to not turn up at her sentencing hearing, as expected. She doesn’t want to hear the remarks of the judge, nor the statements from the victims and their families.
Hope the judge orders her dragged into court and forced to listen.
Think that through, though.
How do you stop Letby shouting abuse or performatively Not Listening? Basically making things worse? She's already on maximum punishment.
Hence Starmer's wibble. The country still isn't in a mood to hear "no, you can't have that, because it's impossible." And so we continue to giggle and rant into the sea.
One reason why I don't believe Labour will be any better is exemplified by Starmer's response to Letby saying she won't attend court for her sentencing. He says he'll do something - unspecified, of course - about this / put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system / blah blah.
A moment's thought by him would show that this is nonsense.
Even if a convicted criminal is physically dragged into court, you cannot stop them shouting / singing / insulting the judge / victims and their families etc while in court - or closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear you / not listening la la" and if they do that the usual remedy is to remove them from the court, which is precisely what they want. Or are they going to be bound and gagged while they sit and listen?
And since they go to prison for life or a very long time why would they care if the sentence is extended for a few months?
Starmer knows or ought to know all this.
But still he comes out with performative nonsense. So we'll just get a different flavour from him when he's in charge.
I understand all the practicalities about prisoners not being compelled into court to hear the sentence. I can see how it could go very badly wrong. Yet for the victims/victim's relatives something ought to be done.
I don't know what the answer is.
You can't make someone remorseful. If she just sat there, dead eyed and shrugged at her sentence, what closure does that bring? Where possible, if remorse and guilt exists within a person who has committed a crime, they should be made to confront that - and that likely involves hearing their sentence and even explaining themselves for the benefit of the victims. But, if they have none, we can't make them fake it.
One reason why I don't believe Labour will be any better is exemplified by Starmer's response to Letby saying she won't attend court for her sentencing. He says he'll do something - unspecified, of course - about this / put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system / blah blah.
A moment's thought by him would show that this is nonsense.
Even if a convicted criminal is physically dragged into court, you cannot stop them shouting / singing / insulting the judge / victims and their families etc while in court - or closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear you / not listening la la" and if they do that the usual remedy is to remove them from the court, which is precisely what they want. Or are they going to be bound and gagged while they sit and listen?
And since they go to prison for life or a very long time why would they care if the sentence is extended for a few months?
Starmer knows or ought to know all this.
But still he comes out with performative nonsense. So we'll just get a different flavour from him when he's in charge.
I understand all the practicalities about prisoners not being compelled into court to hear the sentence. I can see how it could go very badly wrong. Yet for the victims/victim's relatives something ought to be done.
I don't know what the answer is.
I understand that. But imagine their distress if, when reading out their Victim Impact Statement, the defendant is sticking their tongue out or shouting obscenities or waving 2 fingers or yawning or whatever.
Broadcasting the hearing into their cell is probably the only practical suggestion, if that can be done.
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Which other candidate for the nomination has a higher than 5% chance? DeSantis? Ramaswamy? Like, even if Trump was convicted and the GOP therefore said he couldn't be the nominee - I have no idea who they would pick because the party would be in open civil war. Part of how Trump keeps coming out on top in the GOP is that the party cannot face down the base it created, cannot agree on what they want in a leader, and cannot openly say what their policy agenda would be because it is too cruel for even their own voters to accept openly. Who else has the popularity for a coronation? No one! And if it comes down to the convention to replace him, well that could be anyone, even those who didn't run in the primary!
Yes there's nobody atm. But the 'not Trump' GOP vote is a fat target and I think there's a fair chance somebody will be able to hit it.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
I think the US is pretty fucked either way.
If Trump wins it will be due to the electoral collage and a minority of voters who just happen to be geographically spaced in such a way as to benefit him. He could, realistically, get like 45% of the vote and still win the presidency. If that were the case, Congress may consider the desire to go "no, actually" (if it is Democratically controlled, that is, which would be unlikely in this scenario).
The other issue is if Trump wins, he's gonna try and pardon himself and he is gonna have a VP who will support that (because that will be his criteria for choosing them as VP) and staff who will allow that (for the same reason). At that point I think enough Democratic voters would be willing to riot that things will get hairy. He will also lay the foundation for running for a third term - using the same "Russia Hoax" narrative he did during his first term saying that it shouldn't count because of the "fraud" they committed against him by investigating him. Even if he doesn't end up running for a third term (cause he'll be old as hell), he will use that as a rallying cry against democracy.
If Trump loses, why wouldn't he claim it was stolen again and try to raise his base in violence again, only this time with slightly better planning? Last time was a mess, because I don't think he really expected the crowd to follow what he literally told them to do. This time, he knows they will. He can try it again. Granted, a lot of the people who would be willing to do it are still in jail, but that wouldn't likely stop Trump...
If he loses, he's done. The danger last time round was because he exercised the powers of the Presidency. Without that, you're just talking about a potential large riot.
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Which other candidate for the nomination has a higher than 5% chance? DeSantis? Ramaswamy? Like, even if Trump was convicted and the GOP therefore said he couldn't be the nominee - I have no idea who they would pick because the party would be in open civil war. Part of how Trump keeps coming out on top in the GOP is that the party cannot face down the base it created, cannot agree on what they want in a leader, and cannot openly say what their policy agenda would be because it is too cruel for even their own voters to accept openly. Who else has the popularity for a coronation? No one! And if it comes down to the convention to replace him, well that could be anyone, even those who didn't run in the primary!
Yes there's nobody atm. But the 'not Trump' GOP vote is a fat target and I think there's a fair chance somebody will be able to hit it.
Who? DeSantis is gunning for the Trump vote, as is Ramaswamy. Pence and Christie, the openly "Trump was bad" candidates (expressed in different ways) are super unpopular. The "Business as Usual" GOPers (Haley and Scott?) are barely showing on polling. And again, nobody will be up for just coronating any of these candidates - it would be a fight to the death. And all the people who stayed out because they didn't want to fight Trump (either because they're allies or they didn't want to take the popularity hit of running against him and losing) would come out the wood work and start making their pitches. It would be a shit show.
If the "not Trump" vote agreed on a candidate, they may be able to make a good run at it. But they don't, because the thing that binds them doesn't overcome their differences. Some of them want Trumpism without Trump, so would be fine with DeSantis. Some are neocons who want to go back to Bush era foreign policy, so would be fine with Haley. Others want real moderation (candidate not found). Like, it just isn't a viable coalition. Whereas aggrieved white business owners and their wives, alongside most of the evangelical base are all signed up for Trump.
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Which other candidate for the nomination has a higher than 5% chance? DeSantis? Ramaswamy? Like, even if Trump was convicted and the GOP therefore said he couldn't be the nominee - I have no idea who they would pick because the party would be in open civil war. Part of how Trump keeps coming out on top in the GOP is that the party cannot face down the base it created, cannot agree on what they want in a leader, and cannot openly say what their policy agenda would be because it is too cruel for even their own voters to accept openly. Who else has the popularity for a coronation? No one! And if it comes down to the convention to replace him, well that could be anyone, even those who didn't run in the primary!
Yes there's nobody atm. But the 'not Trump' GOP vote is a fat target and I think there's a fair chance somebody will be able to hit it.
The problem is, he's shown in the past that he's pretty good at picking his republican opponents off one by one. And in the Republican primary system AIUI, even if you've got 70% of the party against you, if you have a comfortable plurality of support (i.e. you have 30%, and all your main challengers have 15% or less), you're home.
I am cheered that you take the view you do however. How big do you reckon is 'a fair chance'?
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
I think the US is pretty fucked either way.
If Trump wins it will be due to the electoral collage and a minority of voters who just happen to be geographically spaced in such a way as to benefit him. He could, realistically, get like 45% of the vote and still win the presidency. If that were the case, Congress may consider the desire to go "no, actually" (if it is Democratically controlled, that is, which would be unlikely in this scenario).
The other issue is if Trump wins, he's gonna try and pardon himself and he is gonna have a VP who will support that (because that will be his criteria for choosing them as VP) and staff who will allow that (for the same reason). At that point I think enough Democratic voters would be willing to riot that things will get hairy. He will also lay the foundation for running for a third term - using the same "Russia Hoax" narrative he did during his first term saying that it shouldn't count because of the "fraud" they committed against him by investigating him. Even if he doesn't end up running for a third term (cause he'll be old as hell), he will use that as a rallying cry against democracy.
If Trump loses, why wouldn't he claim it was stolen again and try to raise his base in violence again, only this time with slightly better planning? Last time was a mess, because I don't think he really expected the crowd to follow what he literally told them to do. This time, he knows they will. He can try it again. Granted, a lot of the people who would be willing to do it are still in jail, but that wouldn't likely stop Trump...
If he loses, he's done. The danger last time round was because he exercised the powers of the Presidency. Without that, you're just talking about a potential large riot.
If he loses, he won't be as much of a threat to US democracy as he was when he was in the WH, true, but he will still try. And he would still be a Sword of Damocles over the GOP. And the GOP would react accordingly, which would continue the embuggerance of US government.
One reason why I don't believe Labour will be any better is exemplified by Starmer's response to Letby saying she won't attend court for her sentencing. He says he'll do something - unspecified, of course - about this / put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system / blah blah.
A moment's thought by him would show that this is nonsense.
Even if a convicted criminal is physically dragged into court, you cannot stop them shouting / singing / insulting the judge / victims and their families etc while in court - or closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear you / not listening la la" and if they do that the usual remedy is to remove them from the court, which is precisely what they want. Or are they going to be bound and gagged while they sit and listen?
And since they go to prison for life or a very long time why would they care if the sentence is extended for a few months?
Starmer knows or ought to know all this.
But still he comes out with performative nonsense. So we'll just get a different flavour from him when he's in charge.
I understand all the practicalities about prisoners not being compelled into court to hear the sentence. I can see how it could go very badly wrong. Yet for the victims/victim's relatives something ought to be done.
I don't know what the answer is.
I understand that. But imagine their distress if, when reading out their Victim Impact Statement, the defendant is sticking their tongue out or shouting obscenities or waving 2 fingers or yawning or whatever.
Broadcasting the hearing into their cell is probably the only practical suggestion, if that can be done.
And some of them will enjoy it - might even be why they did the crime. Can a judge order a defendant to not attend sentencing?
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
Whilst this is a great post, politics has been broken for a long time in this country. Like the Post Office Scandal which bubbled away for years out of public view, we're only now becoming (painfully) aware.
I have been saying this - in various different ways - on here for years.
And the basic problem is that we seem unable or unwilling to recognise this. Starmer will do nothing of substance.
I refer you to my previous posts about having an underlying idea of the world: what is the state of the world, how do you run it, and how do you fix it when it breaks. Both Sunak and Starmer do not have this. They are both technocratic managerialists: decent enough people but they just fix things: triage. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Which other candidate for the nomination has a higher than 5% chance? DeSantis? Ramaswamy? Like, even if Trump was convicted and the GOP therefore said he couldn't be the nominee - I have no idea who they would pick because the party would be in open civil war. Part of how Trump keeps coming out on top in the GOP is that the party cannot face down the base it created, cannot agree on what they want in a leader, and cannot openly say what their policy agenda would be because it is too cruel for even their own voters to accept openly. Who else has the popularity for a coronation? No one! And if it comes down to the convention to replace him, well that could be anyone, even those who didn't run in the primary!
By lane, numbers-out-of-arse, not an offer to bet:
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
Whilst this is all true, the fundamental issue would be that they would not be blocking a clear election result, as the candidate was ineligible to be elected. And this is the point - the law may be clear, but the people implementing it are biased.
Remember Arnie? A great state governor but ineligible to be President. But what if a popular movement had demanded he run? If the GOP had run him regardless of ineligibilty. If he had won a popular vote despite the pundits and lawyers all telling people he constitutionally couldn't be President.
This is the scenario we now face. Whither the constitution which is inviolate when it comes to the right of gun owners to murder small children, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to who can run for President.
But the law isn't clear. Indeed, it seems a pretty extraordinary reach to me to declare a candidate ineligible on the basis of some perceived window into his soul.
If it were Trump seeking a third term then obviously the question of his eligibility would be a major election issue and the question would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court (and despite Trump's best efforts, I'd fully expect it to hand down the standard judgement that Trump would be ineligible; though what would happen next would be interesting - probably the elected VP would be acting president, in which case Trump may end up as proxy anyway), but the argument advanced in The Atlantic is way off such a clear-cut breach.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts...
Why is the Business Secretary, or indeed the Committee of Public Accounts not fulfilling their responsibilities with relation to the PO ?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874283/post-office-limited-shareholder-relationship-framework-part-1.pdf ...The Shareholder’s PAO is the BEIS Permanent Secretary. The PAO is accountable to Parliament in respect of POL and for ensuring that arrangements are in place for effective shareholder oversight of POL. The PAO is responsible for advising the responsible minister on various aspects including but not limited to the following: (i) an appropriate framework of objectives and targets for POL in the light of BEIS’ wider strategic aims and priorities; (ii) an appropriate allocation of BEIS’ budget for POL in the light of BEIS’ overall expenditure priorities; and (iii) how well POL is achieving its strategic objectives and if it is delivering value for money...
As a public corporation, the PAO has designated POL’s Group Chief Executive (GCE) as POL’s AO and expects the GCE to observe the principles set out by HM Treasury in Managing Public Money (“MPM”), with particular regard to the Standards Expected of the Accounting Officer’s Organisation summarised in Box 3.1 of MPM and set out in full at Appendix 1 of this Framework Document. POL’s AO is personally responsible for safeguarding all funds for which he or she has charge; for ensuring propriety, regularity, value for money and feasibility in the handling of those funds; and for the day-to-day operations and management of POL. In addition, he or she should ensure that POL is run on the basis of the standards of governance, decision-making and financial management set out in MPM, as well as ensuring that POL uses internal and external audit to improve its internal controls and performance. As part of these responsibilities, the Committee of Public Accounts may invite the AO to be a witness at its evidence sessions, in which case the AO will be expected to attend...
"In addition to their statutory and common law duties, which include the duty to promote the success of POL for the benefit of the Shareholder and its wider stakeholder community. Board members should also have regard to the principles set out in the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies."
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/809093/Code-of-Conduct-for-Board-Members-of-Public-Bodies-2019-WEB.PDF The key principles upon which this Code of Conduct is based are the Seven Principles of Public Life. These are: Selflessness Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. Integrity Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships. Objectivity Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias. Accountability Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this. Openness Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing. Honesty Holders of public office should be truthful. Leadership Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.
Taking the oath of office is not going to stop Trump even if he does it with his fingers crossed.
Most likely only a criminal conviction and jail sentence will stop him being Republican nominee again or winning the election again next year. The polls show Independents would desert Trump if he is convicted even if his base doesn't and the RNC could change the party nomination rules before the convention to stop convicted criminals being nominee
The GOP would lose really badly if they did that, because the base of the party is more significant than independent voters. Trump will not be convicted prior to the election, and even if he is I assume he'll take it to different courts and aim to take it to SCOTUS if he can get away with it.
Trump will be the GOP nominee. If he is convicted, the GOP will lose many independent voters but will likely hold the very red states. If they kick Trump off the ticket after he wins and is convicted, they could be in "lose Texas and Florida" territory, because Trump will tell his base the GOP are in on the scam and to not vote if the GOP don't defend him.
The RNC establishment might prefer to lose in a Goldwater style landslide with Pence than risk Trump being nominee again and trying to remove them all and replace them with his stooges
The RNC establishment never prefers to lose. The only reason they are against Trump is they think he will lose / stop their agenda. The GOP is already anti democratic and up for Christian Nationalism - we need only look at what the DeSantis' and Cruz's of the party actually want. If they could install Trump as God King forever, they would do it. The main problem for them is Trump can't focus on the job long enough for it to work.
They would prefer to lose and maintain control of the party than win and let Trump control the party
Trump already controls a lot of the party by controlling the base of the party. The establishment of the RNC may resent that, but at the end of the day Trump gets them their wins. He gave them a SCOTUS that said carbon dioxide isn't something the EPA can regulate, that waters near or adjacent to rivers don't come under the Clean Water Act and that states can have their own abortion laws. They will continue to overturn and block any significant moves towards progress that Democrats propose or have already passed. It's win win for them.
Do you know the history of the Business Plot? Where big wig Republicans (including Grandpappy Bush) were trying to do a fascist coup against FDR? That is who the RNC establishment are. When they can get away with this stuff, they are absolutely up for it. They just don't like rolling the dice and losing. Once Trump won in 2020, they all got in line. Because he still managed to deliver. Not as much as a competent politician may have, but in other ways he over delivered because he didn't care and just let the donors or activists pick the people directly (like essentially letting any Federalist society freak become a federal judge, no matter how little experience they had).
No evidence for any Republican coup against FDR at all unlike Mayor Daley and Chicago Democrats literally adding dead bodies to the votes for JFK against Nixon in 1960.
Indeed in 1948 the North East Biden states voted for the Republic Dewey while the now Trump voting Southern and Midwestern states voted for Truman
One reason why I don't believe Labour will be any better is exemplified by Starmer's response to Letby saying she won't attend court for her sentencing. He says he'll do something - unspecified, of course - about this / put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system / blah blah.
A moment's thought by him would show that this is nonsense.
Even if a convicted criminal is physically dragged into court, you cannot stop them shouting / singing / insulting the judge / victims and their families etc while in court - or closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear you / not listening la la" and if they do that the usual remedy is to remove them from the court, which is precisely what they want. Or are they going to be bound and gagged while they sit and listen?
And since they go to prison for life or a very long time why would they care if the sentence is extended for a few months?
Starmer knows or ought to know all this.
But still he comes out with performative nonsense. So we'll just get a different flavour from him when he's in charge.
I understand all the practicalities about prisoners not being compelled into court to hear the sentence. I can see how it could go very badly wrong. Yet for the victims/victim's relatives something ought to be done.
I don't know what the answer is.
I understand that. But imagine their distress if, when reading out their Victim Impact Statement, the defendant is sticking their tongue out or shouting obscenities or waving 2 fingers or yawning or whatever.
Broadcasting the hearing into their cell is probably the only practical suggestion, if that can be done.
And some of them will enjoy it - might even be why they did the crime. Can a judge order a defendant to not attend sentencing?
The most obvious example of this sort of attitude was Anders Breivik. The way Norway dealt with him, essentially allowing him to say what he wanted during the proceedings, seemed odd at the time but perhaps is the sensible way. It usually gives the offender enough rope to hang themselves. It gives an insight into the darkness at their heart. So I don't think hiding offenders away from public because they might enjoy it is necessarily a good rationale for doing so. But on the other hand, forcing them to attend probably doesn't achieve much either. The most important thing, ultimately, is that the right person is convicted and the crime is punished.
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Which other candidate for the nomination has a higher than 5% chance? DeSantis? Ramaswamy? Like, even if Trump was convicted and the GOP therefore said he couldn't be the nominee - I have no idea who they would pick because the party would be in open civil war. Part of how Trump keeps coming out on top in the GOP is that the party cannot face down the base it created, cannot agree on what they want in a leader, and cannot openly say what their policy agenda would be because it is too cruel for even their own voters to accept openly. Who else has the popularity for a coronation? No one! And if it comes down to the convention to replace him, well that could be anyone, even those who didn't run in the primary!
By lane, numbers-out-of-arse, not an offer to bet:
Christie, Pence, Haley and Scott are all below 5%.
DeSantis averages ~15%. Yes, he once rivalled Trump, but the indictments ended that (potentially in part because he defended Trump instead of putting the boot in there, giving his supporters permission to go back to Trump).
Who there can really push themselves out over Trump or if he gets canned by the RNC? No one, in my view.
Taking the oath of office is not going to stop Trump even if he does it with his fingers crossed.
Most likely only a criminal conviction and jail sentence will stop him being Republican nominee again or winning the election again next year. The polls show Independents would desert Trump if he is convicted even if his base doesn't and the RNC could change the party nomination rules before the convention to stop convicted criminals being nominee
The GOP would lose really badly if they did that, because the base of the party is more significant than independent voters. Trump will not be convicted prior to the election, and even if he is I assume he'll take it to different courts and aim to take it to SCOTUS if he can get away with it.
Trump will be the GOP nominee. If he is convicted, the GOP will lose many independent voters but will likely hold the very red states. If they kick Trump off the ticket after he wins and is convicted, they could be in "lose Texas and Florida" territory, because Trump will tell his base the GOP are in on the scam and to not vote if the GOP don't defend him.
The RNC establishment might prefer to lose in a Goldwater style landslide with Pence than risk Trump being nominee again and trying to remove them all and replace them with his stooges
The RNC establishment never prefers to lose. The only reason they are against Trump is they think he will lose / stop their agenda. The GOP is already anti democratic and up for Christian Nationalism - we need only look at what the DeSantis' and Cruz's of the party actually want. If they could install Trump as God King forever, they would do it. The main problem for them is Trump can't focus on the job long enough for it to work.
They would prefer to lose and maintain control of the party than win and let Trump control the party
Trump already controls a lot of the party by controlling the base of the party. The establishment of the RNC may resent that, but at the end of the day Trump gets them their wins. He gave them a SCOTUS that said carbon dioxide isn't something the EPA can regulate, that waters near or adjacent to rivers don't come under the Clean Water Act and that states can have their own abortion laws. They will continue to overturn and block any significant moves towards progress that Democrats propose or have already passed. It's win win for them.
Do you know the history of the Business Plot? Where big wig Republicans (including Grandpappy Bush) were trying to do a fascist coup against FDR? That is who the RNC establishment are. When they can get away with this stuff, they are absolutely up for it. They just don't like rolling the dice and losing. Once Trump won in 2020, they all got in line. Because he still managed to deliver. Not as much as a competent politician may have, but in other ways he over delivered because he didn't care and just let the donors or activists pick the people directly (like essentially letting any Federalist society freak become a federal judge, no matter how little experience they had).
No evidence for any Republican coup against FDR at all unlike Mayor Daley and Chicago Democrats literally adding dead bodies to the votes for JFK against Nixon in 1960.
Indeed in 1948 the North East Biden states voted for the Republic Dewey while the now Trump voting Southern and Midwestern states voted for Truman
Are you denying that the Business Plot was a thing?
This story was featured on R4 this morning, the phrase killing fields was used. I'm sure when Saudi's smiling tyrant visits us shortly, our pols & officials will be having some firm words with him while they're wanking him off.
How ridiculous - they won't even have firm words with him, they'll just put out some tepid words in a statement once he's out the room.
I know realpolitik involves dealing with awful people, but he could at least pretend he wasn't a bit harder.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
I agree with all of this post, and this bit in particular.
I long ago abandoned any belief that those running public services were on my side.
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Which other candidate for the nomination has a higher than 5% chance? DeSantis? Ramaswamy? Like, even if Trump was convicted and the GOP therefore said he couldn't be the nominee - I have no idea who they would pick because the party would be in open civil war. Part of how Trump keeps coming out on top in the GOP is that the party cannot face down the base it created, cannot agree on what they want in a leader, and cannot openly say what their policy agenda would be because it is too cruel for even their own voters to accept openly. Who else has the popularity for a coronation? No one! And if it comes down to the convention to replace him, well that could be anyone, even those who didn't run in the primary!
By lane, numbers-out-of-arse, not an offer to bet:
Christie, Pence, Haley and Scott are all below 5%.
DeSantis averages ~15%. Yes, he once rivalled Trump, but the indictments ended that (potentially in part because he defended Trump instead of putting the boot in there, giving his supporters permission to go back to Trump).
Who there can really push themselves out over Trump or if he gets canned by the RNC? No one, in my view.
It's August, there have been no debates, the voters aren't paying attention yet. One candidate has extremely high name recognition, and also they feel like he needs support. What the polling tells us is that the base don't hate Trump.That's an important data point, but it's not enough to call the race.
We also don't know who the voters are. The only way the anti-Trump candidates might win (absent a very lucky three-way split) is by turning out people who aren't being polled. But they might be able to do that.
Taking the oath of office is not going to stop Trump even if he does it with his fingers crossed.
Most likely only a criminal conviction and jail sentence will stop him being Republican nominee again or winning the election again next year. The polls show Independents would desert Trump if he is convicted even if his base doesn't and the RNC could change the party nomination rules before the convention to stop convicted criminals being nominee
The GOP would lose really badly if they did that, because the base of the party is more significant than independent voters. Trump will not be convicted prior to the election, and even if he is I assume he'll take it to different courts and aim to take it to SCOTUS if he can get away with it.
Trump will be the GOP nominee. If he is convicted, the GOP will lose many independent voters but will likely hold the very red states. If they kick Trump off the ticket after he wins and is convicted, they could be in "lose Texas and Florida" territory, because Trump will tell his base the GOP are in on the scam and to not vote if the GOP don't defend him.
The RNC establishment might prefer to lose in a Goldwater style landslide with Pence than risk Trump being nominee again and trying to remove them all and replace them with his stooges
The RNC establishment never prefers to lose. The only reason they are against Trump is they think he will lose / stop their agenda. The GOP is already anti democratic and up for Christian Nationalism - we need only look at what the DeSantis' and Cruz's of the party actually want. If they could install Trump as God King forever, they would do it. The main problem for them is Trump can't focus on the job long enough for it to work.
They would prefer to lose and maintain control of the party than win and let Trump control the party
Trump already controls a lot of the party by controlling the base of the party. The establishment of the RNC may resent that, but at the end of the day Trump gets them their wins. He gave them a SCOTUS that said carbon dioxide isn't something the EPA can regulate, that waters near or adjacent to rivers don't come under the Clean Water Act and that states can have their own abortion laws. They will continue to overturn and block any significant moves towards progress that Democrats propose or have already passed. It's win win for them.
Do you know the history of the Business Plot? Where big wig Republicans (including Grandpappy Bush) were trying to do a fascist coup against FDR? That is who the RNC establishment are. When they can get away with this stuff, they are absolutely up for it. They just don't like rolling the dice and losing. Once Trump won in 2020, they all got in line. Because he still managed to deliver. Not as much as a competent politician may have, but in other ways he over delivered because he didn't care and just let the donors or activists pick the people directly (like essentially letting any Federalist society freak become a federal judge, no matter how little experience they had).
No evidence for any Republican coup against FDR at all unlike Mayor Daley and Chicago Democrats literally adding dead bodies to the votes for JFK against Nixon in 1960.
Indeed in 1948 the North East Biden states voted for the Republic Dewey while the now Trump voting Southern and Midwestern states voted for Truman
Are you denying that the Business Plot was a thing?
There was certainly no evidence senior Republicans as opposed to a few disgruntled businessmen were involved in any plot to remove FDR unlike the clear evidence of corruption by Chicago Democrats in 1960
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
I agree with all of this post, and this bit in particular.
I long ago abandoned any belief that those running public services were on my side.
I don't have a problem with messages that it's not appropriate to physically assault or verbally attack staff at train stations, hospitals or wherever. I imagine that can be a very stressful part of the job and I've seen it happen, particularly on the railways.
I think the issue is that in some people's mind this extends to "staff have a right to do their jobs without being criticised or challenged". I've witnessed enough fobbing off by health service staff towards members of my family in the last month or so to see there's a pervasive attitude that patients and their relatives are too often seen as a nuisance. The exceptions - when someone actually addresses you as a moderately intelligent human being - stand out because they are exceptions.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
I can only admire the optimism of that last sentence.
It implies that it's not already broken beyond repair.
Disgusting behaviour from the Post Office, but sadly not in any way unexpected.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
I can only admire the optimism of that last sentence.
It implies that it's not already broken beyond repair.
Disgusting behaviour from the Post Office, but sadly not in any way unexpected.
NU10K
I look forward to the interviews, in a gloss magazine perhaps. A photo study of a lovely country house, and a chat, with a trembling lip, about the difficulty and pain the scandal has caused - nasty people blaming them for doing their jobs correctly.
One of the Letby Nursing Managers, Alison Kelly, now in charge of nursing in Salford and Rochdale, has been suspended. The scruffy herbert who was the CEO has retired - after a number of other well-paid jobs - with his pension to France.
I trust that Alison Kelly is on full pay, and has her lawyers paid for by her new employers?
Isn't it Ian Harvey, the former medical director, who has reired to France? "Scruffy Herbert", AKA Tony Chambers, the former Chief Executive, has gone on to hold a surprising number of posts as interim chief Executive of NHS Trusts. (Don't people ever ask at job interviews: "Why did you leave your last post?")
You may well be right. At any event, a lot of these people went on to get other posts. Why? I just don't know how they can sleep at night. Even if they genuinely thought they were trying to do the right thing, knowing that on their watch babies were killed in part because of their actions and failure to act should induce a sense of shame and guilt which - if it happened to me - would make me unfit to do anything.
Or want to do anything, frankly.
How could you - in all conscience - ask or expect people to trust you, unless you had really understood what you did wrong and were open about that and really determined to make amends. And even then ....
There seems to be a lack of shame in the public sector, possibly in society in general. Back in the 80s I attended an inquiry into the murder of a psychiatric social worker in the mental hospital where she worked by an ex-patient. The community care arrangements for the discharged patient had collapsed, her condition deteriorated and she fixated on this social worker, who had tried to help her. The point is that many of those involved: two psychiatrists, a housing officer and a community social worker, had had breakdowns after the murder and felt unable to continue in their career.
In the Letby case, it is difficult to see those professionals involved suffering even a temporary blip in their career.
In the 60s, after being involved in a sex scandal, John Profumo spent decades working in the East End as a form of redemption. Matt Hancock appeared on "I'm a Celebrity...."
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Which other candidate for the nomination has a higher than 5% chance? DeSantis? Ramaswamy? Like, even if Trump was convicted and the GOP therefore said he couldn't be the nominee - I have no idea who they would pick because the party would be in open civil war. Part of how Trump keeps coming out on top in the GOP is that the party cannot face down the base it created, cannot agree on what they want in a leader, and cannot openly say what their policy agenda would be because it is too cruel for even their own voters to accept openly. Who else has the popularity for a coronation? No one! And if it comes down to the convention to replace him, well that could be anyone, even those who didn't run in the primary!
By lane, numbers-out-of-arse, not an offer to bet:
Christie, Pence, Haley and Scott are all below 5%.
DeSantis averages ~15%. Yes, he once rivalled Trump, but the indictments ended that (potentially in part because he defended Trump instead of putting the boot in there, giving his supporters permission to go back to Trump).
Who there can really push themselves out over Trump or if he gets canned by the RNC? No one, in my view.
It's August, there have been no debates, the voters aren't paying attention yet. One candidate has extremely high name recognition, and also they feel like he needs support. What the polling tells us is that the base don't hate Trump.That's an important data point, but it's not enough to call the race.
We also don't know who the voters are. The only way the anti-Trump candidates might win (absent a very lucky three-way split) is by turning out people who aren't being polled. But they might be able to do that.
Trump is a salutary lesson in the power of people with absolute bullet proof self-confidence, zero shame and the will to trample over dissent. Left to his own devices he will continue to steamroller anyone remotely more nuanced than him in a system (primaries) that favours candidates who look like winners, rather than those with good policies.
I know Johnson over here is pretty shameless and unrepentant, but several times now he's shown he is responsive to being tapped on the shoulder by the men in grey suits when the game looks like it's up. Trump was not, even with everything stacked against him. Not the slightest chink in the armour, and that's a key difference. The only people he blinked in front of were foreign leaders, and GOP members don't seem to worry about that. It's going to be down to the Democrats, the voters, and possibly the justice process, to defeat him.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
Whilst this is all true, the fundamental issue would be that they would not be blocking a clear election result, as the candidate was ineligible to be elected. And this is the point - the law may be clear, but the people implementing it are biased.
Remember Arnie? A great state governor but ineligible to be President. But what if a popular movement had demanded he run? If the GOP had run him regardless of ineligibilty. If he had won a popular vote despite the pundits and lawyers all telling people he constitutionally couldn't be President.
This is the scenario we now face. Whither the constitution which is inviolate when it comes to the right of gun owners to murder small children, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to who can run for President.
But the law isn't clear. Indeed, it seems a pretty extraordinary reach to me to declare a candidate ineligible on the basis of some perceived window into his soul.
If it were Trump seeking a third term then obviously the question of his eligibility would be a major election issue and the question would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court (and despite Trump's best efforts, I'd fully expect it to hand down the standard judgement that Trump would be ineligible; though what would happen next would be interesting - probably the elected VP would be acting president, in which case Trump may end up as proxy anyway), but the argument advanced in The Atlantic is way off such a clear-cut breach.
Agreed. The legal analysis based on the 14th Amendment provision is persuasive - but relies on a watertight legal proof of 'insurrection'.
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Which other candidate for the nomination has a higher than 5% chance? DeSantis? Ramaswamy? Like, even if Trump was convicted and the GOP therefore said he couldn't be the nominee - I have no idea who they would pick because the party would be in open civil war. Part of how Trump keeps coming out on top in the GOP is that the party cannot face down the base it created, cannot agree on what they want in a leader, and cannot openly say what their policy agenda would be because it is too cruel for even their own voters to accept openly. Who else has the popularity for a coronation? No one! And if it comes down to the convention to replace him, well that could be anyone, even those who didn't run in the primary!
Yes there's nobody atm. But the 'not Trump' GOP vote is a fat target and I think there's a fair chance somebody will be able to hit it.
The problem is, he's shown in the past that he's pretty good at picking his republican opponents off one by one. And in the Republican primary system AIUI, even if you've got 70% of the party against you, if you have a comfortable plurality of support (i.e. you have 30%, and all your main challengers have 15% or less), you're home.
I am cheered that you take the view you do however. How big do you reckon is 'a fair chance'?
There's so many variables and it's a complex scenario but I think the chances of someone other than Donald Trump being the eventual GOP nominee are better than 50%.
I see the political damage from his criminal indictments as a kind of slow burn that will gradually eat away at his numbers until a tipping point is reached whereby it becomes clear to all bar the brainwashed cult (big but a minority) that he cannot win the presidency. If this happens before he's got the nomination the GOP will have a choice - give Biden/Dem another term or choose someone else.
The latter seems unlikely right now but things can move fast in American presidential politics. It could be different when minds are concentrated, the election is nearer, and it's dawned on enough people that Trump's a loser. That's a powerful incentive to find an alternative. Who, or how, I don't know, but necessity is the mother of invention.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
On the Letby case it is worth looking at the CQC timelines.
2016 CQC inspection found:
"There was a very positive culture throughout the trust. Staff felt well supported, able to raise concerns and develop professionally. Staff were proud of their services and proud of the trust."
What use is an inspectorate that finds this?
Not much.
But as with Ofsted, it requires a lot of courage (running into WW1 No Man's Land playing the trumpet and setting off fireworks courage) to tell an inspector that things aren't good. So the inspectors have to be able to spot problems themselves, which is harder than it looks.
Ofsted does at least have an anonymous staff/leadership questionnaire, which is extremely detailed.
This allows for serious issues to be flagged - when we had a Headteacher running riot, Ofsted came in and used this as part of the evidence gathering (staff had already tried to whistleblow and the governors had sat on their hands, despite carrying out an 'independent review'). Thankfully, they are no longer teaching, having been removed from post.
This story was featured on R4 this morning, the phrase killing fields was used. I'm sure when Saudi's smiling tyrant visits us shortly, our pols & officials will be having some firm words with him while they're wanking him off.
How ridiculous - they won't even have firm words with him, they'll just put out some tepid words in a statement once he's out the room.
I know realpolitik involves dealing with awful people, but he could at least pretend he wasn't a bit harder.
We hear a lot about soft power. Rishi & Co are developing the exciting new concept of blancmange power.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
I think the US is pretty fucked either way.
If Trump wins it will be due to the electoral collage and a minority of voters who just happen to be geographically spaced in such a way as to benefit him. He could, realistically, get like 45% of the vote and still win the presidency. If that were the case, Congress may consider the desire to go "no, actually" (if it is Democratically controlled, that is, which would be unlikely in this scenario).
The other issue is if Trump wins, he's gonna try and pardon himself and he is gonna have a VP who will support that (because that will be his criteria for choosing them as VP) and staff who will allow that (for the same reason). At that point I think enough Democratic voters would be willing to riot that things will get hairy. He will also lay the foundation for running for a third term - using the same "Russia Hoax" narrative he did during his first term saying that it shouldn't count because of the "fraud" they committed against him by investigating him. Even if he doesn't end up running for a third term (cause he'll be old as hell), he will use that as a rallying cry against democracy.
If Trump loses, why wouldn't he claim it was stolen again and try to raise his base in violence again, only this time with slightly better planning? Last time was a mess, because I don't think he really expected the crowd to follow what he literally told them to do. This time, he knows they will. He can try it again. Granted, a lot of the people who would be willing to do it are still in jail, but that wouldn't likely stop Trump.
And the next generation of GOP politicians look a lot more like Trump than they do the RNC establishment. DeSantis has zero charisma, but someone who can sell it will show up. And the groundwork has been laid. Unless the Democrats really pull their fingers out and give people relief from the worst excesses of their capitalist society, the white grievance will trump (ahah) economics because it's not like the Democrats will have improved the economic reality for many people either.
The question for me is if Trump is such a threat then what are the Democrats playing at? Biden has poor approval ratings and many voters think he is too old (he is) and yet the Dems are soft-pedalling the nomination process. Yes, Biden beat Trump in 2020 but that doesn't mean he would now and there's got to be a massive risk of a serious gaffe or a stumble during the campaign.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
I agree with all of this post, and this bit in particular.
I long ago abandoned any belief that those running public services were on my side.
I disagree about the notices. They are there to help front line staff who are often the victims of both patient behaviour and the mismanagement of those higher up.
Even if they don't work, it's serves as a reminder that abusing staff is not acceptable behaviour.
Perhaps they should be paired with posters explaining what the formal complaints procedure is, and which senior manager is personally responsible for the care you are receiving?
The problem with a "Trump can't take the Oath of Office in good faith" argument is that there's no particular reason to think that will stop DJT saying the words anyway.
The trouble with Decent Chaps is that they trust that other Chaps are also Decent.
What a lot of people make the mistake of doing is judging Trump and his voters by their own standards, rather than the standards of the latter.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
I think the US is pretty fucked either way.
If Trump wins it will be due to the electoral collage and a minority of voters who just happen to be geographically spaced in such a way as to benefit him. He could, realistically, get like 45% of the vote and still win the presidency. If that were the case, Congress may consider the desire to go "no, actually" (if it is Democratically controlled, that is, which would be unlikely in this scenario).
The other issue is if Trump wins, he's gonna try and pardon himself and he is gonna have a VP who will support that (because that will be his criteria for choosing them as VP) and staff who will allow that (for the same reason). At that point I think enough Democratic voters would be willing to riot that things will get hairy. He will also lay the foundation for running for a third term - using the same "Russia Hoax" narrative he did during his first term saying that it shouldn't count because of the "fraud" they committed against him by investigating him. Even if he doesn't end up running for a third term (cause he'll be old as hell), he will use that as a rallying cry against democracy.
If Trump loses, why wouldn't he claim it was stolen again and try to raise his base in violence again, only this time with slightly better planning? Last time was a mess, because I don't think he really expected the crowd to follow what he literally told them to do. This time, he knows they will. He can try it again. Granted, a lot of the people who would be willing to do it are still in jail, but that wouldn't likely stop Trump.
And the next generation of GOP politicians look a lot more like Trump than they do the RNC establishment. DeSantis has zero charisma, but someone who can sell it will show up. And the groundwork has been laid. Unless the Democrats really pull their fingers out and give people relief from the worst excesses of their capitalist society, the white grievance will trump (ahah) economics because it's not like the Democrats will have improved the economic reality for many people either.
The question for me is if Trump is such a threat then what are the Democrats playing at? Biden has poor approval ratings and many voters think he is too old (he is) and yet the Dems are soft-pedalling the nomination process. Yes, Biden beat Trump in 2020 but that doesn't mean he would now and there's got to be a massive risk of a serious gaffe or a stumble during the campaign.
I mean, this is one of the major problems of liberalism - it doesn't actually prevent the rise of fascism very well. The Democrats are partly paralyzed by the Good Boy norms that the GOP no longer play by, and partly paralyzed by the fact the old people in charge of the party loathe the idea of someone with a platform like Sanders' being popular in the party. They want to keep being the "we're not them" party rather than offering good policies. They really need to go on the attack - reform SCOTUS, point out that Alito and Thomas (and even Sotomayor) are corrupt and really should vacate the bench or be impeached. The Dems should turn around and say "no, actually, each branch of government has a responsibility to interpret the constitution, and things like student loan relief and making sure we have the ability to regulate emissions is key to my platform and what we were elected to do". The deadlock in Congress is an issue, but they should also expand congress. The house hasn't changed seat numbers in a very long time (it used to grow basically every ten years after the census showed population increases) and territories that could be states (namely DC and PR) should be given the possibility to join the US - again, something that is historically very normal.
I disagree about the notices. They are there to help front line staff who are often the victims of both patient behaviour and the mismanagement of those higher up.
Even if they don't work, it's serves as a reminder that abusing staff is not acceptable behaviour.
Perhaps they should be paired with posters explaining what the formal complaints procedure is, and which senior manager is personally responsible for the care you are receiving?
They put these notices up in plenty of private sector organisations too, e.g. at Cineworld where I was last week. I think it is bloody depressing that people have to be told how to behave but having worked in a front-line role dealing with the public I totally support it because people are horrible and vile.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
Whilst this is all true, the fundamental issue would be that they would not be blocking a clear election result, as the candidate was ineligible to be elected. And this is the point - the law may be clear, but the people implementing it are biased.
Remember Arnie? A great state governor but ineligible to be President. But what if a popular movement had demanded he run? If the GOP had run him regardless of ineligibilty. If he had won a popular vote despite the pundits and lawyers all telling people he constitutionally couldn't be President.
This is the scenario we now face. Whither the constitution which is inviolate when it comes to the right of gun owners to murder small children, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to who can run for President.
But the law isn't clear. Indeed, it seems a pretty extraordinary reach to me to declare a candidate ineligible on the basis of some perceived window into his soul.
If it were Trump seeking a third term then obviously the question of his eligibility would be a major election issue and the question would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court (and despite Trump's best efforts, I'd fully expect it to hand down the standard judgement that Trump would be ineligible; though what would happen next would be interesting - probably the elected VP would be acting president, in which case Trump may end up as proxy anyway), but the argument advanced in The Atlantic is way off such a clear-cut breach.
Agreed. The legal analysis based on the 14th Amendment provision is persuasive - but relies on a watertight legal proof of 'insurrection'.
Agreed - if Trump is ineligible then the 14th Amendment is a much safer legal road to go down. But as you say, that'd still be fiercely contested and from a practical point, those cases should be brought now, not after the event in what would look like a sore-loser scenario.
FWIW, I think he should be barred on those grounds and that Jan 6 did amount to an insurrection / rebellion against the US and its constitution. However, it's no slam-dunk.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
I agree with all of this post, and this bit in particular.
I long ago abandoned any belief that those running public services were on my side.
I disagree about the notices. They are there to help front line staff who are often the victims of both patient behaviour and the mismanagement of those higher up.
Even if they don't work, it's serves as a reminder that abusing staff is not acceptable behaviour.
Perhaps they should be paired with posters explaining what the formal complaints procedure is, and which senior manager is personally responsible for the care you are receiving?
I don't remember such notices being necessary in the past.
FWIW, both my wife and I have been the victims of aggressive behaviour by revenue collectors, who surrounded us and were very rude when arriving at Waterloo and unable to buy a ticket due to the guard's machine not working on board.
We didn't react aggressively but we certainly thought it was uncalled for, and I told them so.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
I can only admire the optimism of that last sentence.
It implies that it's not already broken beyond repair.
Disgusting behaviour from the Post Office, but sadly not in any way unexpected.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
I can only admire the optimism of that last sentence.
It implies that it's not already broken beyond repair.
Disgusting behaviour from the Post Office, but sadly not in any way unexpected.
NU10K
I look forward to the interviews, in a gloss magazine perhaps. A photo study of a lovely country house, and a chat, with a trembling lip, about the difficulty and pain the scandal has caused - nasty people blaming them for doing their jobs correctly.
One of the Letby Nursing Managers, Alison Kelly, now in charge of nursing in Salford and Rochdale, has been suspended. The scruffy herbert who was the CEO has retired - after a number of other well-paid jobs - with his pension to France.
I trust that Alison Kelly is on full pay, and has her lawyers paid for by her new employers?
Isn't it Ian Harvey, the former medical director, who has reired to France? "Scruffy Herbert", AKA Tony Chambers, the former Chief Executive, has gone on to hold a surprising number of posts as interim chief Executive of NHS Trusts. (Don't people ever ask at job interviews: "Why did you leave your last post?")
You may well be right. At any event, a lot of these people went on to get other posts. Why? I just don't know how they can sleep at night. Even if they genuinely thought they were trying to do the right thing, knowing that on their watch babies were killed in part because of their actions and failure to act should induce a sense of shame and guilt which - if it happened to me - would make me unfit to do anything.
Or want to do anything, frankly.
How could you - in all conscience - ask or expect people to trust you, unless you had really understood what you did wrong and were open about that and really determined to make amends. And even then ....
They know that they are righteous. In fact, they're the real victims here.
The rise of the non-apology/refusal to take responsibility for wrong doing or mistakes goes hand in hand with the growing popularity of making fulsome apologies for the actions of people long dead.
Taking the oath of office is not going to stop Trump even if he does it with his fingers crossed.
Most likely only a criminal conviction and jail sentence will stop him being Republican nominee again or winning the election again next year. The polls show Independents would desert Trump if he is convicted even if his base doesn't and the RNC could change the party nomination rules before the convention to stop convicted criminals being nominee
The GOP would lose really badly if they did that, because the base of the party is more significant than independent voters. Trump will not be convicted prior to the election, and even if he is I assume he'll take it to different courts and aim to take it to SCOTUS if he can get away with it.
Trump will be the GOP nominee. If he is convicted, the GOP will lose many independent voters but will likely hold the very red states. If they kick Trump off the ticket after he wins and is convicted, they could be in "lose Texas and Florida" territory, because Trump will tell his base the GOP are in on the scam and to not vote if the GOP don't defend him.
The RNC establishment might prefer to lose in a Goldwater style landslide with Pence than risk Trump being nominee again and trying to remove them all and replace them with his stooges
The RNC establishment never prefers to lose. The only reason they are against Trump is they think he will lose / stop their agenda. The GOP is already anti democratic and up for Christian Nationalism - we need only look at what the DeSantis' and Cruz's of the party actually want. If they could install Trump as God King forever, they would do it. The main problem for them is Trump can't focus on the job long enough for it to work.
They would prefer to lose and maintain control of the party than win and let Trump control the party
Trump already controls a lot of the party by controlling the base of the party. The establishment of the RNC may resent that, but at the end of the day Trump gets them their wins. He gave them a SCOTUS that said carbon dioxide isn't something the EPA can regulate, that waters near or adjacent to rivers don't come under the Clean Water Act and that states can have their own abortion laws. They will continue to overturn and block any significant moves towards progress that Democrats propose or have already passed. It's win win for them.
Do you know the history of the Business Plot? Where big wig Republicans (including Grandpappy Bush) were trying to do a fascist coup against FDR? That is who the RNC establishment are. When they can get away with this stuff, they are absolutely up for it. They just don't like rolling the dice and losing. Once Trump won in 2020, they all got in line. Because he still managed to deliver. Not as much as a competent politician may have, but in other ways he over delivered because he didn't care and just let the donors or activists pick the people directly (like essentially letting any Federalist society freak become a federal judge, no matter how little experience they had).
No evidence for any Republican coup against FDR at all unlike Mayor Daley and Chicago Democrats literally adding dead bodies to the votes for JFK against Nixon in 1960.
Indeed in 1948 the North East Biden states voted for the Republic Dewey while the now Trump voting Southern and Midwestern states voted for Truman
Are you denying that the Business Plot was a thing?
There was certainly no evidence senior Republicans as opposed to a few disgruntled businessmen were involved in any plot to remove FDR unlike the clear evidence of corruption by Chicago Democrats in 1960
Grandpappy Bush was involved and was going to be the official ambassador to Nazi Germany. I'm not claiming that the Republican establishment of the time was involved in the Business Plot, but that the people who were are the same people who are now the Republican establishment.
I disagree about the notices. They are there to help front line staff who are often the victims of both patient behaviour and the mismanagement of those higher up.
Even if they don't work, it's serves as a reminder that abusing staff is not acceptable behaviour.
Perhaps they should be paired with posters explaining what the formal complaints procedure is, and which senior manager is personally responsible for the care you are receiving?
They put these notices up in plenty of private sector organisations too, e.g. at Cineworld where I was last week. I think it is bloody depressing that people have to be told how to behave but having worked in a front-line role dealing with the public I totally support it because people are horrible and vile.
This just comes from my retail experience. Once had a senior army officer reduce a colleague to tears over a refund request, horrible manipulative behaviour.
Manager popped out the office, agreed my colleague had got it wrong, but then asked the customer never to come back in.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
Whilst this is all true, the fundamental issue would be that they would not be blocking a clear election result, as the candidate was ineligible to be elected. And this is the point - the law may be clear, but the people implementing it are biased.
Remember Arnie? A great state governor but ineligible to be President. But what if a popular movement had demanded he run? If the GOP had run him regardless of ineligibilty. If he had won a popular vote despite the pundits and lawyers all telling people he constitutionally couldn't be President.
This is the scenario we now face. Whither the constitution which is inviolate when it comes to the right of gun owners to murder small children, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to who can run for President.
But the law isn't clear. Indeed, it seems a pretty extraordinary reach to me to declare a candidate ineligible on the basis of some perceived window into his soul.
If it were Trump seeking a third term then obviously the question of his eligibility would be a major election issue and the question would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court (and despite Trump's best efforts, I'd fully expect it to hand down the standard judgement that Trump would be ineligible; though what would happen next would be interesting - probably the elected VP would be acting president, in which case Trump may end up as proxy anyway), but the argument advanced in The Atlantic is way off such a clear-cut breach.
Agreed. The legal analysis based on the 14th Amendment provision is persuasive - but relies on a watertight legal proof of 'insurrection'.
Agreed - if Trump is ineligible then the 14th Amendment is a much safer legal road to go down. But as you say, that'd still be fiercely contested and from a practical point, those cases should be brought now, not after the event in what would look like a sore-loser scenario.
FWIW, I think he should be barred on those grounds and that Jan 6 did amount to an insurrection / rebellion against the US and its constitution. However, it's no slam-dunk.
Taking the oath of office is not going to stop Trump even if he does it with his fingers crossed.
Most likely only a criminal conviction and jail sentence will stop him being Republican nominee again or winning the election again next year. The polls show Independents would desert Trump if he is convicted even if his base doesn't and the RNC could change the party nomination rules before the convention to stop convicted criminals being nominee
The GOP would lose really badly if they did that, because the base of the party is more significant than independent voters. Trump will not be convicted prior to the election, and even if he is I assume he'll take it to different courts and aim to take it to SCOTUS if he can get away with it.
Trump will be the GOP nominee. If he is convicted, the GOP will lose many independent voters but will likely hold the very red states. If they kick Trump off the ticket after he wins and is convicted, they could be in "lose Texas and Florida" territory, because Trump will tell his base the GOP are in on the scam and to not vote if the GOP don't defend him.
The RNC establishment might prefer to lose in a Goldwater style landslide with Pence than risk Trump being nominee again and trying to remove them all and replace them with his stooges
The RNC establishment never prefers to lose. The only reason they are against Trump is they think he will lose / stop their agenda. The GOP is already anti democratic and up for Christian Nationalism - we need only look at what the DeSantis' and Cruz's of the party actually want. If they could install Trump as God King forever, they would do it. The main problem for them is Trump can't focus on the job long enough for it to work.
They would prefer to lose and maintain control of the party than win and let Trump control the party
Trump already controls a lot of the party by controlling the base of the party. The establishment of the RNC may resent that, but at the end of the day Trump gets them their wins. He gave them a SCOTUS that said carbon dioxide isn't something the EPA can regulate, that waters near or adjacent to rivers don't come under the Clean Water Act and that states can have their own abortion laws. They will continue to overturn and block any significant moves towards progress that Democrats propose or have already passed. It's win win for them.
Do you know the history of the Business Plot? Where big wig Republicans (including Grandpappy Bush) were trying to do a fascist coup against FDR? That is who the RNC establishment are. When they can get away with this stuff, they are absolutely up for it. They just don't like rolling the dice and losing. Once Trump won in 2020, they all got in line. Because he still managed to deliver. Not as much as a competent politician may have, but in other ways he over delivered because he didn't care and just let the donors or activists pick the people directly (like essentially letting any Federalist society freak become a federal judge, no matter how little experience they had).
No evidence for any Republican coup against FDR at all unlike Mayor Daley and Chicago Democrats literally adding dead bodies to the votes for JFK against Nixon in 1960.
Indeed in 1948 the North East Biden states voted for the Republic Dewey while the now Trump voting Southern and Midwestern states voted for Truman
Are you denying that the Business Plot was a thing?
There was certainly no evidence senior Republicans as opposed to a few disgruntled businessmen were involved in any plot to remove FDR unlike the clear evidence of corruption by Chicago Democrats in 1960
There was similar evidence of GOP shenanigans in southern Illinois.
Historians (as ever) argue over this, but the general consensus is that it was insufficient either way to affect the result. Note Nixon himself argued against making an issue if it, both at the time and in later years.
And the recounts that there were ended up giving Hawaii to Kennedy.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
On the Letby case it is worth looking at the CQC timelines.
2016 CQC inspection found:
"There was a very positive culture throughout the trust. Staff felt well supported, able to raise concerns and develop professionally. Staff were proud of their services and proud of the trust."
What use is an inspectorate that finds this?
Not much.
But as with Ofsted, it requires a lot of courage (running into WW1 No Man's Land playing the trumpet and setting off fireworks courage) to tell an inspector that things aren't good. So the inspectors have to be able to spot problems themselves, which is harder than it looks.
Ofsted does at least have an anonymous staff/leadership questionnaire, which is extremely detailed.
This allows for serious issues to be flagged - when we had a Headteacher running riot, Ofsted came in and used this as part of the evidence gathering (staff had already tried to whistleblow and the governors had sat on their hands, despite carrying out an 'independent review'). Thankfully, they are no longer teaching, having been removed from post.
Announced inspections lead er…. Cleanup beforehand.
See Admirals inspections of RN ships in the 18th cent etc.
the most obvious weapons the Ukrainians are lacking have been fighter jets and long range artillery. We've sent them the storm shadow and France has sent something similar but the US refuses to send ATACMS. The fact we are only now talking about sending fighter jets 18 months after the start of the full scale war is damning. They're obviously going to need them in the longer term so where was the planning?
Is it because the US want to keep Ukraine hanging by a thread and thus maximise their leverage? Do they worry about Russia doing so badly that they fear the internal destabilisation that might bring? Or do they want a protracted war so that Russia is weakened as much as possible? I really don't know.
It is interesting to see the dividing lines in Nato though. The UK/Dutch/Nordics/Baltics/Poles/Czechs seem to be the most belligerent.
There’s so much politics around this war in the US, that’s not the case almost anywhere else.
It starts with every shipment of arms being assigned a massive dollar value, that’s possibly the inflation-adjusted price of the now-obsolete weapons from several decades ago, and isn’t money actually being spent today, but allows opponents to suggest that this ‘money’ may better be spent domestically. The President saying “We are giving another $20bn to Ukraine” when there’s a massive domestic disaster in Hawaii, doesn’t help.
There’s also the running story of Hunter Biden and the very well paid job he had in Ukraine a few years ago, which is allowing Republicans to oppose military aid to Ukraine as a clear rebuke to Biden himself.
I suspect that the messaging would change under a different administration, but the actual result on the ground wouldn’t be too different. A Republican President would bring forward billions of dollars in defence spending to keep jobs in rural states, and casually announce a load of cheap disposals of old stuff to friendly NATO countries.
Nowhere else has such daily political dividing lines about this war, and it’s a little weird to watch their commentary on it. Basically the centrist position is to support the Ukranians, with both the anti-war left and the anti-spending right lined up on the other side.
ATACMS might actually be able to take out the Kerch bridge.
The 'far left' and 'far right' taking the same side, while the centre take the opposite, is not remotely unusual though. Its standard horseshoe theory.
The problem Ukraine and West have though is that currently an extreme is running for one of the mainstream parties.
Trump and DeSantis are no more to be trusted on Ukraine or Russia than Corbyn and McDonnell were.
For the sake of Ukraine and the whole of the West we have to hope they're not victorious.
That doesn't apply to the entire GOP, any more than it applied to all of Labour. If its the likes of Christie who win, just like if Starmer does, then the aid will continue. Under Trump/DeSantis though then all bets are off.
I think that the language used in the US will change considerably under a different administration, but the reality on the ground will continue to be pretty much the same as it is now, no matter who is elected.
That sounds like hopecasting and the future of Ukraine is too important for that.
Do you think the reality on the ground would have been the same in the UK had Corbyn won?
I think that the MIC in the US is more powerful than any president, and that they’ll find ways to continue what they do regardless of who’s nominally in charge.
Similar thinking from the permenant bureaucracy was very much in evidence between Jan 2017 and Jan 2021.
Now normally I’d say that was a bad thing, but in the case of Ukraine I’ll say it’s a good thing.
This is getting into "vote for Leopard's Eating Faces Party as they won't eat our face" territory.
Trump has opposed supporting Ukraine. Trump opposed giving aid to Ukraine while in office. Trump has a grudge against Zelensky as he wouldn't help him with the Hunter Biden issue. Trump supported Putin. Trump literally responded to the invasion of Ukraine by saying it was a "genius" move by Putin. Trump has been purging those who would stand up for the military establishment to surround himself with Yesmen.
To just assume that Ukraine, if it still needs our help by 2025, will get it from Trump when Trump has for years said the polar opposite and wants rid of the MIC establishment people whom he seems to think stood in the way of him keeping power last time ... Is to sacrifice Ukraine and its future.
It's not good enough.
Trump would just be isolationist but continue his trade war with China and the EU.
It is up to European powers and Turkey helped ideally by fellow NATO Canada to fund our militaries enough we don't always need to rely on the US to defend Europe, our own continent and that includes continuing to supply Ukraine v Putin.
We cannot always rely on the US electing Presidents who want to police the globe
And isolationist is a terrible thing, especially when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
We can not always rely on US electing Presidents who want to police the globe, but we should all hope that a President who wants to aide Ukraine to the best of America's abilities is in power at least until the end of this war. Which is not Trump, or DeSantis.
It might be other GOP candidates like Christie, if you want the GOP to win over the Democrats.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
I agree with all of this post, and this bit in particular.
I long ago abandoned any belief that those running public services were on my side.
I disagree about the notices. They are there to help front line staff who are often the victims of both patient behaviour and the mismanagement of those higher up.
Even if they don't work, it's serves as a reminder that abusing staff is not acceptable behaviour.
Perhaps they should be paired with posters explaining what the formal complaints procedure is, and which senior manager is personally responsible for the care you are receiving?
I don't remember such notices being necessary in the past.
FWIW, both my wife and I have been the victims of aggressive behaviour by revenue collectors, who surrounded us and were very rude when arriving at Waterloo and unable to buy a ticket due to the guard's machine not working on board.
We didn't react aggressively but we certainly thought it was uncalled for, and I told them so.
Very common white collar crime, fares evasion, so not at all a reflection on your criminal (or otherwise) appearance. Much complained about in the media, and targeting it is an easier way of meeting HMG targets, keeping DM happy, etc. than buying new trains etc.
But if I was in that position - I'd ask for a note from the guard with the machine on the train, and/or a contact number: always.
This story was featured on R4 this morning, the phrase killing fields was used. I'm sure when Saudi's smiling tyrant visits us shortly, our pols & officials will be having some firm words with him while they're wanking him off.
How ridiculous - they won't even have firm words with him, they'll just put out some tepid words in a statement once he's out the room.
I know realpolitik involves dealing with awful people, but he could at least pretend he wasn't a bit harder.
We hear a lot about soft power. Rishi & Co are developing the exciting new concept of blancmange power.
Just hope that Suella doesn't get any ideas on repelling migrants with artillery, she may rather fancy the idea.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
I think the US is pretty fucked either way.
If Trump wins it will be due to the electoral collage and a minority of voters who just happen to be geographically spaced in such a way as to benefit him. He could, realistically, get like 45% of the vote and still win the presidency. If that were the case, Congress may consider the desire to go "no, actually" (if it is Democratically controlled, that is, which would be unlikely in this scenario).
The other issue is if Trump wins, he's gonna try and pardon himself and he is gonna have a VP who will support that (because that will be his criteria for choosing them as VP) and staff who will allow that (for the same reason). At that point I think enough Democratic voters would be willing to riot that things will get hairy. He will also lay the foundation for running for a third term - using the same "Russia Hoax" narrative he did during his first term saying that it shouldn't count because of the "fraud" they committed against him by investigating him. Even if he doesn't end up running for a third term (cause he'll be old as hell), he will use that as a rallying cry against democracy.
If Trump loses, why wouldn't he claim it was stolen again and try to raise his base in violence again, only this time with slightly better planning? Last time was a mess, because I don't think he really expected the crowd to follow what he literally told them to do. This time, he knows they will. He can try it again. Granted, a lot of the people who would be willing to do it are still in jail, but that wouldn't likely stop Trump.
And the next generation of GOP politicians look a lot more like Trump than they do the RNC establishment. DeSantis has zero charisma, but someone who can sell it will show up. And the groundwork has been laid. Unless the Democrats really pull their fingers out and give people relief from the worst excesses of their capitalist society, the white grievance will trump (ahah) economics because it's not like the Democrats will have improved the economic reality for many people either.
The question for me is if Trump is such a threat then what are the Democrats playing at? Biden has poor approval ratings and many voters think he is too old (he is) and yet the Dems are soft-pedalling the nomination process. Yes, Biden beat Trump in 2020 but that doesn't mean he would now and there's got to be a massive risk of a serious gaffe or a stumble during the campaign.
Incumbency seems to be helpful, he's beaten Trump before, he seems to be able to reach ex-Trump-voting boomers in a way that no other Dem can, Trump is nearly as old as Biden, it's not at all clear the Dem primary voters would pick someone better, the next in line is Kamala Harris who would probably do worse, and challenging a sitting president seems likely to damage them if the plan is for them to stay on. As a result no serious candidate is running against Biden, and they only have a couple of antivaxx cranks who are mainly trying to sell books/podcasts/crystals.
So clearly Biden's age is a risk, but they're doing the right thing to maximize their chances of beating Trump.
the most obvious weapons the Ukrainians are lacking have been fighter jets and long range artillery. We've sent them the storm shadow and France has sent something similar but the US refuses to send ATACMS. The fact we are only now talking about sending fighter jets 18 months after the start of the full scale war is damning. They're obviously going to need them in the longer term so where was the planning?
Is it because the US want to keep Ukraine hanging by a thread and thus maximise their leverage? Do they worry about Russia doing so badly that they fear the internal destabilisation that might bring? Or do they want a protracted war so that Russia is weakened as much as possible? I really don't know.
It is interesting to see the dividing lines in Nato though. The UK/Dutch/Nordics/Baltics/Poles/Czechs seem to be the most belligerent.
There’s so much politics around this war in the US, that’s not the case almost anywhere else.
It starts with every shipment of arms being assigned a massive dollar value, that’s possibly the inflation-adjusted price of the now-obsolete weapons from several decades ago, and isn’t money actually being spent today, but allows opponents to suggest that this ‘money’ may better be spent domestically. The President saying “We are giving another $20bn to Ukraine” when there’s a massive domestic disaster in Hawaii, doesn’t help.
There’s also the running story of Hunter Biden and the very well paid job he had in Ukraine a few years ago, which is allowing Republicans to oppose military aid to Ukraine as a clear rebuke to Biden himself.
I suspect that the messaging would change under a different administration, but the actual result on the ground wouldn’t be too different. A Republican President would bring forward billions of dollars in defence spending to keep jobs in rural states, and casually announce a load of cheap disposals of old stuff to friendly NATO countries.
Nowhere else has such daily political dividing lines about this war, and it’s a little weird to watch their commentary on it. Basically the centrist position is to support the Ukranians, with both the anti-war left and the anti-spending right lined up on the other side.
ATACMS might actually be able to take out the Kerch bridge.
The 'far left' and 'far right' taking the same side, while the centre take the opposite, is not remotely unusual though. Its standard horseshoe theory.
The problem Ukraine and West have though is that currently an extreme is running for one of the mainstream parties.
Trump and DeSantis are no more to be trusted on Ukraine or Russia than Corbyn and McDonnell were.
For the sake of Ukraine and the whole of the West we have to hope they're not victorious.
That doesn't apply to the entire GOP, any more than it applied to all of Labour. If its the likes of Christie who win, just like if Starmer does, then the aid will continue. Under Trump/DeSantis though then all bets are off.
I think that the language used in the US will change considerably under a different administration, but the reality on the ground will continue to be pretty much the same as it is now, no matter who is elected.
That sounds like hopecasting and the future of Ukraine is too important for that.
Do you think the reality on the ground would have been the same in the UK had Corbyn won?
I think that the MIC in the US is more powerful than any president, and that they’ll find ways to continue what they do regardless of who’s nominally in charge.
Similar thinking from the permenant bureaucracy was very much in evidence between Jan 2017 and Jan 2021.
Now normally I’d say that was a bad thing, but in the case of Ukraine I’ll say it’s a good thing.
This is getting into "vote for Leopard's Eating Faces Party as they won't eat our face" territory.
Trump has opposed supporting Ukraine. Trump opposed giving aid to Ukraine while in office. Trump has a grudge against Zelensky as he wouldn't help him with the Hunter Biden issue. Trump supported Putin. Trump literally responded to the invasion of Ukraine by saying it was a "genius" move by Putin. Trump has been purging those who would stand up for the military establishment to surround himself with Yesmen.
To just assume that Ukraine, if it still needs our help by 2025, will get it from Trump when Trump has for years said the polar opposite and wants rid of the MIC establishment people whom he seems to think stood in the way of him keeping power last time ... Is to sacrifice Ukraine and its future.
It's not good enough.
Trump would just be isolationist but continue his trade war with China and the EU.
It is up to European powers and Turkey helped ideally by fellow NATO Canada to fund our militaries enough we don't always need to rely on the US to defend Europe, our own continent and that includes continuing to supply Ukraine v Putin.
We cannot always rely on the US electing Presidents who want to police the globe
And isolationist is a terrible thing, especially when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
We can not always rely on US electing Presidents who want to police the globe, but we should all hope that a President who wants to aide Ukraine to the best of America's abilities is in power at least until the end of this war. Which is not Trump, or DeSantis.
It might be other GOP candidates like Christie, if you want the GOP to win over the Democrats.
Yes but that is up to Americans to decide.
Remember at the end of the day it was the UK under Johnson and Poland who first supplied Zelensky with the weapons he needed to push back Putin, not the US even under Biden and not Paris or Berlin either.
We should take more responsibility for policing our own continent in Europe not rely on US voters not electing an isolationist president and Germany in particular should spend more on defence
Taking the oath of office is not going to stop Trump even if he does it with his fingers crossed.
Most likely only a criminal conviction and jail sentence will stop him being Republican nominee again or winning the election again next year. The polls show Independents would desert Trump if he is convicted even if his base doesn't and the RNC could change the party nomination rules before the convention to stop convicted criminals being nominee
The GOP would lose really badly if they did that, because the base of the party is more significant than independent voters. Trump will not be convicted prior to the election, and even if he is I assume he'll take it to different courts and aim to take it to SCOTUS if he can get away with it.
Trump will be the GOP nominee. If he is convicted, the GOP will lose many independent voters but will likely hold the very red states. If they kick Trump off the ticket after he wins and is convicted, they could be in "lose Texas and Florida" territory, because Trump will tell his base the GOP are in on the scam and to not vote if the GOP don't defend him.
The RNC establishment might prefer to lose in a Goldwater style landslide with Pence than risk Trump being nominee again and trying to remove them all and replace them with his stooges
The RNC establishment never prefers to lose. The only reason they are against Trump is they think he will lose / stop their agenda. The GOP is already anti democratic and up for Christian Nationalism - we need only look at what the DeSantis' and Cruz's of the party actually want. If they could install Trump as God King forever, they would do it. The main problem for them is Trump can't focus on the job long enough for it to work.
They would prefer to lose and maintain control of the party than win and let Trump control the party
Trump already controls a lot of the party by controlling the base of the party. The establishment of the RNC may resent that, but at the end of the day Trump gets them their wins. He gave them a SCOTUS that said carbon dioxide isn't something the EPA can regulate, that waters near or adjacent to rivers don't come under the Clean Water Act and that states can have their own abortion laws. They will continue to overturn and block any significant moves towards progress that Democrats propose or have already passed. It's win win for them.
Do you know the history of the Business Plot? Where big wig Republicans (including Grandpappy Bush) were trying to do a fascist coup against FDR? That is who the RNC establishment are. When they can get away with this stuff, they are absolutely up for it. They just don't like rolling the dice and losing. Once Trump won in 2020, they all got in line. Because he still managed to deliver. Not as much as a competent politician may have, but in other ways he over delivered because he didn't care and just let the donors or activists pick the people directly (like essentially letting any Federalist society freak become a federal judge, no matter how little experience they had).
No evidence for any Republican coup against FDR at all unlike Mayor Daley and Chicago Democrats literally adding dead bodies to the votes for JFK against Nixon in 1960.
Indeed in 1948 the North East Biden states voted for the Republic Dewey while the now Trump voting Southern and Midwestern states voted for Truman
Are you denying that the Business Plot was a thing?
There was certainly no evidence senior Republicans as opposed to a few disgruntled businessmen were involved in any plot to remove FDR unlike the clear evidence of corruption by Chicago Democrats in 1960
There was similar evidence of GOP shenanigans in southern Illinois.
Historians (as ever) argue over this, but the general consensus is that it was insufficient either way to affect the result. Note Nixon himself argued against making an issue if it, both at the time and in later years.
And the recounts that there were ended up giving Hawaii to Kennedy.
Also Kennedy would have won without Illinois.
And Nixon would have won the popular vote without Democrat corruption in Illinois
Taking the oath of office is not going to stop Trump even if he does it with his fingers crossed.
Most likely only a criminal conviction and jail sentence will stop him being Republican nominee again or winning the election again next year. The polls show Independents would desert Trump if he is convicted even if his base doesn't and the RNC could change the party nomination rules before the convention to stop convicted criminals being nominee
The GOP would lose really badly if they did that, because the base of the party is more significant than independent voters. Trump will not be convicted prior to the election, and even if he is I assume he'll take it to different courts and aim to take it to SCOTUS if he can get away with it.
Trump will be the GOP nominee. If he is convicted, the GOP will lose many independent voters but will likely hold the very red states. If they kick Trump off the ticket after he wins and is convicted, they could be in "lose Texas and Florida" territory, because Trump will tell his base the GOP are in on the scam and to not vote if the GOP don't defend him.
The RNC establishment might prefer to lose in a Goldwater style landslide with Pence than risk Trump being nominee again and trying to remove them all and replace them with his stooges
The RNC establishment never prefers to lose. The only reason they are against Trump is they think he will lose / stop their agenda. The GOP is already anti democratic and up for Christian Nationalism - we need only look at what the DeSantis' and Cruz's of the party actually want. If they could install Trump as God King forever, they would do it. The main problem for them is Trump can't focus on the job long enough for it to work.
They would prefer to lose and maintain control of the party than win and let Trump control the party
Trump already controls a lot of the party by controlling the base of the party. The establishment of the RNC may resent that, but at the end of the day Trump gets them their wins. He gave them a SCOTUS that said carbon dioxide isn't something the EPA can regulate, that waters near or adjacent to rivers don't come under the Clean Water Act and that states can have their own abortion laws. They will continue to overturn and block any significant moves towards progress that Democrats propose or have already passed. It's win win for them.
Do you know the history of the Business Plot? Where big wig Republicans (including Grandpappy Bush) were trying to do a fascist coup against FDR? That is who the RNC establishment are. When they can get away with this stuff, they are absolutely up for it. They just don't like rolling the dice and losing. Once Trump won in 2020, they all got in line. Because he still managed to deliver. Not as much as a competent politician may have, but in other ways he over delivered because he didn't care and just let the donors or activists pick the people directly (like essentially letting any Federalist society freak become a federal judge, no matter how little experience they had).
No evidence for any Republican coup against FDR at all unlike Mayor Daley and Chicago Democrats literally adding dead bodies to the votes for JFK against Nixon in 1960.
Indeed in 1948 the North East Biden states voted for the Republic Dewey while the now Trump voting Southern and Midwestern states voted for Truman
Are you denying that the Business Plot was a thing?
There was certainly no evidence senior Republicans as opposed to a few disgruntled businessmen were involved in any plot to remove FDR unlike the clear evidence of corruption by Chicago Democrats in 1960
Grandpappy Bush was involved and was going to be the official ambassador to Nazi Germany. I'm not claiming that the Republican establishment of the time was involved in the Business Plot, but that the people who were are the same people who are now the Republican establishment.
Wrong too, at least in terms of a plot against FDR ' Bush was a partner at Brown Brothers Harriman, which is still a major investment bank based in New York, across the street from Zuccotti Park, their headquarters. And Bush was the — Brown Brothers Harriman was the subject of a different investigation by the same congressional committee, because that committee’s ambit was to investigate all forms of sort of fascist influence and all attempts to subvert American democracy. And because Brown Brothers was part of a separate investigation, they end up sort of in the same folder at the National Archives, and then it ends up sort of getting mixed up in a documentary that came out about 10 years ago. So that’s actually a misunderstanding. Butler never brought up Prescott Bush’s name. ' https://www.democracynow.org/2022/1/26/jonathan_katz_book_gangsters_of_capitalism
JFK's father was also linked to appeasement strategies with the Nazis in the 1930s of course, much of the western establishment was, Churchill being an exception
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Which other candidate for the nomination has a higher than 5% chance? DeSantis? Ramaswamy? Like, even if Trump was convicted and the GOP therefore said he couldn't be the nominee - I have no idea who they would pick because the party would be in open civil war. Part of how Trump keeps coming out on top in the GOP is that the party cannot face down the base it created, cannot agree on what they want in a leader, and cannot openly say what their policy agenda would be because it is too cruel for even their own voters to accept openly. Who else has the popularity for a coronation? No one! And if it comes down to the convention to replace him, well that could be anyone, even those who didn't run in the primary!
By lane, numbers-out-of-arse, not an offer to bet:
Christie, Pence, Haley and Scott are all below 5%.
DeSantis averages ~15%. Yes, he once rivalled Trump, but the indictments ended that (potentially in part because he defended Trump instead of putting the boot in there, giving his supporters permission to go back to Trump).
Who there can really push themselves out over Trump or if he gets canned by the RNC? No one, in my view.
It's August, there have been no debates, the voters aren't paying attention yet. One candidate has extremely high name recognition, and also they feel like he needs support. What the polling tells us is that the base don't hate Trump.That's an important data point, but it's not enough to call the race.
We also don't know who the voters are. The only way the anti-Trump candidates might win (absent a very lucky three-way split) is by turning out people who aren't being polled. But they might be able to do that.
We do know who the voters will likely be; the small number of people who are signed up members of the GOP and (in some states) independents who change their voter ID to GOP. And the GOP membership are fully behind Trump. There is also no turn out game to play with them, it's a shrinking cohort. ~70% of the membership "think Republicans should stand behind Trump amid the investigations and indictments he’s facing" and "say Trump has not committed serious crimes". That would need to essentially half to guarantee that Trump wouldn't be the nominee.
I agree with Mike that Trump has a less than 70% chance of the nomination. But the much better sell imo is for the WH. That's where the betting has it badly wrong. He should be triple the price he is.
Which other candidate for the nomination has a higher than 5% chance? DeSantis? Ramaswamy? Like, even if Trump was convicted and the GOP therefore said he couldn't be the nominee - I have no idea who they would pick because the party would be in open civil war. Part of how Trump keeps coming out on top in the GOP is that the party cannot face down the base it created, cannot agree on what they want in a leader, and cannot openly say what their policy agenda would be because it is too cruel for even their own voters to accept openly. Who else has the popularity for a coronation? No one! And if it comes down to the convention to replace him, well that could be anyone, even those who didn't run in the primary!
By lane, numbers-out-of-arse, not an offer to bet:
Christie, Pence, Haley and Scott are all below 5%.
DeSantis averages ~15%. Yes, he once rivalled Trump, but the indictments ended that (potentially in part because he defended Trump instead of putting the boot in there, giving his supporters permission to go back to Trump).
Who there can really push themselves out over Trump or if he gets canned by the RNC? No one, in my view.
It's August, there have been no debates, the voters aren't paying attention yet. One candidate has extremely high name recognition, and also they feel like he needs support. What the polling tells us is that the base don't hate Trump.That's an important data point, but it's not enough to call the race.
We also don't know who the voters are. The only way the anti-Trump candidates might win (absent a very lucky three-way split) is by turning out people who aren't being polled. But they might be able to do that.
We do know who the voters will likely be; the small number of people who are signed up members of the GOP and (in some states) independents who change their voter ID to GOP. And the GOP membership are fully behind Trump. There is also no turn out game to play with them, it's a shrinking cohort. ~70% of the membership "think Republicans should stand behind Trump amid the investigations and indictments he’s facing" and "say Trump has not committed serious crimes". That would need to essentially half to guarantee that Trump wouldn't be the nominee.
I disagree about the notices. They are there to help front line staff who are often the victims of both patient behaviour and the mismanagement of those higher up.
Even if they don't work, it's serves as a reminder that abusing staff is not acceptable behaviour.
Perhaps they should be paired with posters explaining what the formal complaints procedure is, and which senior manager is personally responsible for the care you are receiving?
They put these notices up in plenty of private sector organisations too, e.g. at Cineworld where I was last week. I think it is bloody depressing that people have to be told how to behave but having worked in a front-line role dealing with the public I totally support it because people are horrible and vile.
I would edit the last bit to say "I totally support it because SOME people are horrible and vile." I am firmly of the opinion that 95% of people anywhere in the world are nice, and do the right thing. Sadly the 5% are shits, everywhere. They are the ones who drop litter. The ones who drive aggresively. The ones who commit crime. And on and on.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
Whilst this is all true, the fundamental issue would be that they would not be blocking a clear election result, as the candidate was ineligible to be elected. And this is the point - the law may be clear, but the people implementing it are biased.
Remember Arnie? A great state governor but ineligible to be President. But what if a popular movement had demanded he run? If the GOP had run him regardless of ineligibilty. If he had won a popular vote despite the pundits and lawyers all telling people he constitutionally couldn't be President.
This is the scenario we now face. Whither the constitution which is inviolate when it comes to the right of gun owners to murder small children, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to who can run for President.
But the law isn't clear. Indeed, it seems a pretty extraordinary reach to me to declare a candidate ineligible on the basis of some perceived window into his soul.
If it were Trump seeking a third term then obviously the question of his eligibility would be a major election issue and the question would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court (and despite Trump's best efforts, I'd fully expect it to hand down the standard judgement that Trump would be ineligible; though what would happen next would be interesting - probably the elected VP would be acting president, in which case Trump may end up as proxy anyway), but the argument advanced in The Atlantic is way off such a clear-cut breach.
Agreed. The legal analysis based on the 14th Amendment provision is persuasive - but relies on a watertight legal proof of 'insurrection'.
Agreed - if Trump is ineligible then the 14th Amendment is a much safer legal road to go down. But as you say, that'd still be fiercely contested and from a practical point, those cases should be brought now, not after the event in what would look like a sore-loser scenario.
FWIW, I think he should be barred on those grounds and that Jan 6 did amount to an insurrection / rebellion against the US and its constitution. However, it's no slam-dunk.
At some point there’s going to have to be a stepping back from the brink, before we get something approximating another civil war.
The question is who’s going to be the person or organisation that can calm things down, rather than trying to escalate further? Trying to prosecute or disqualify Trump will give the GOP the excuse they need, when next in power, to go hard for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and any other Democrat who takes their fancy. Someone needs to agree that trying to put opposition politicians in jail is something that happens in Russia and China.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
Whilst this is all true, the fundamental issue would be that they would not be blocking a clear election result, as the candidate was ineligible to be elected. And this is the point - the law may be clear, but the people implementing it are biased.
Remember Arnie? A great state governor but ineligible to be President. But what if a popular movement had demanded he run? If the GOP had run him regardless of ineligibilty. If he had won a popular vote despite the pundits and lawyers all telling people he constitutionally couldn't be President.
This is the scenario we now face. Whither the constitution which is inviolate when it comes to the right of gun owners to murder small children, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to who can run for President.
But the law isn't clear. Indeed, it seems a pretty extraordinary reach to me to declare a candidate ineligible on the basis of some perceived window into his soul.
If it were Trump seeking a third term then obviously the question of his eligibility would be a major election issue and the question would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court (and despite Trump's best efforts, I'd fully expect it to hand down the standard judgement that Trump would be ineligible; though what would happen next would be interesting - probably the elected VP would be acting president, in which case Trump may end up as proxy anyway), but the argument advanced in The Atlantic is way off such a clear-cut breach.
Agreed. The legal analysis based on the 14th Amendment provision is persuasive - but relies on a watertight legal proof of 'insurrection'.
Agreed - if Trump is ineligible then the 14th Amendment is a much safer legal road to go down. But as you say, that'd still be fiercely contested and from a practical point, those cases should be brought now, not after the event in what would look like a sore-loser scenario.
FWIW, I think he should be barred on those grounds and that Jan 6 did amount to an insurrection / rebellion against the US and its constitution. However, it's no slam-dunk.
Calling it an 'urban legend' on the explicit grounds that Jan 6th was nothing to do with Trump ignores the fact that Trump has been indicted for just such behaviour. As a legal interpretation the article is bunk.
It remains the case, though, that unless Trump is actually convicted, using the 14th to disqualify him is a non starter.
I disagree about the notices. They are there to help front line staff who are often the victims of both patient behaviour and the mismanagement of those higher up.
Even if they don't work, it's serves as a reminder that abusing staff is not acceptable behaviour.
Perhaps they should be paired with posters explaining what the formal complaints procedure is, and which senior manager is personally responsible for the care you are receiving?
They put these notices up in plenty of private sector organisations too, e.g. at Cineworld where I was last week. I think it is bloody depressing that people have to be told how to behave but having worked in a front-line role dealing with the public I totally support it because people are horrible and vile.
I agree there. Before I retired as a teacher I was astounded how vile some parents can be. Unpredictable as well. You can help and bend over backwards for some parents/students all the time, but 1 mistake can then attract a formal complaint.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
Whilst this is all true, the fundamental issue would be that they would not be blocking a clear election result, as the candidate was ineligible to be elected. And this is the point - the law may be clear, but the people implementing it are biased.
Remember Arnie? A great state governor but ineligible to be President. But what if a popular movement had demanded he run? If the GOP had run him regardless of ineligibilty. If he had won a popular vote despite the pundits and lawyers all telling people he constitutionally couldn't be President.
This is the scenario we now face. Whither the constitution which is inviolate when it comes to the right of gun owners to murder small children, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to who can run for President.
But the law isn't clear. Indeed, it seems a pretty extraordinary reach to me to declare a candidate ineligible on the basis of some perceived window into his soul.
If it were Trump seeking a third term then obviously the question of his eligibility would be a major election issue and the question would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court (and despite Trump's best efforts, I'd fully expect it to hand down the standard judgement that Trump would be ineligible; though what would happen next would be interesting - probably the elected VP would be acting president, in which case Trump may end up as proxy anyway), but the argument advanced in The Atlantic is way off such a clear-cut breach.
Agreed. The legal analysis based on the 14th Amendment provision is persuasive - but relies on a watertight legal proof of 'insurrection'.
Agreed - if Trump is ineligible then the 14th Amendment is a much safer legal road to go down. But as you say, that'd still be fiercely contested and from a practical point, those cases should be brought now, not after the event in what would look like a sore-loser scenario.
FWIW, I think he should be barred on those grounds and that Jan 6 did amount to an insurrection / rebellion against the US and its constitution. However, it's no slam-dunk.
At some point there’s going to have to be a stepping back from the brink, before we get something approximating another civil war.
The question is who’s going to be the person or organisation that can calm things down, rather than trying to escalate further? Trying to prosecute or disqualify Trump will give the GOP the excuse they need, when next in power, to go hard for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and any other Democrat who takes their fancy. Someone needs to agree that trying to put opposition politicians in jail is something that happens in Russia and China.
Trump should be prosecuted because he broke the law.
To calm things down, parties should nominate candidates who are not criminals.
Taking the oath of office is not going to stop Trump even if he does it with his fingers crossed.
Most likely only a criminal conviction and jail sentence will stop him being Republican nominee again or winning the election again next year. The polls show Independents would desert Trump if he is convicted even if his base doesn't and the RNC could change the party nomination rules before the convention to stop convicted criminals being nominee
The GOP would lose really badly if they did that, because the base of the party is more significant than independent voters. Trump will not be convicted prior to the election, and even if he is I assume he'll take it to different courts and aim to take it to SCOTUS if he can get away with it.
Trump will be the GOP nominee. If he is convicted, the GOP will lose many independent voters but will likely hold the very red states. If they kick Trump off the ticket after he wins and is convicted, they could be in "lose Texas and Florida" territory, because Trump will tell his base the GOP are in on the scam and to not vote if the GOP don't defend him.
The RNC establishment might prefer to lose in a Goldwater style landslide with Pence than risk Trump being nominee again and trying to remove them all and replace them with his stooges
The RNC establishment never prefers to lose. The only reason they are against Trump is they think he will lose / stop their agenda. The GOP is already anti democratic and up for Christian Nationalism - we need only look at what the DeSantis' and Cruz's of the party actually want. If they could install Trump as God King forever, they would do it. The main problem for them is Trump can't focus on the job long enough for it to work.
They would prefer to lose and maintain control of the party than win and let Trump control the party
Trump already controls a lot of the party by controlling the base of the party. The establishment of the RNC may resent that, but at the end of the day Trump gets them their wins. He gave them a SCOTUS that said carbon dioxide isn't something the EPA can regulate, that waters near or adjacent to rivers don't come under the Clean Water Act and that states can have their own abortion laws. They will continue to overturn and block any significant moves towards progress that Democrats propose or have already passed. It's win win for them.
Do you know the history of the Business Plot? Where big wig Republicans (including Grandpappy Bush) were trying to do a fascist coup against FDR? That is who the RNC establishment are. When they can get away with this stuff, they are absolutely up for it. They just don't like rolling the dice and losing. Once Trump won in 2020, they all got in line. Because he still managed to deliver. Not as much as a competent politician may have, but in other ways he over delivered because he didn't care and just let the donors or activists pick the people directly (like essentially letting any Federalist society freak become a federal judge, no matter how little experience they had).
No evidence for any Republican coup against FDR at all unlike Mayor Daley and Chicago Democrats literally adding dead bodies to the votes for JFK against Nixon in 1960.
Indeed in 1948 the North East Biden states voted for the Republic Dewey while the now Trump voting Southern and Midwestern states voted for Truman
Are you denying that the Business Plot was a thing?
There was certainly no evidence senior Republicans as opposed to a few disgruntled businessmen were involved in any plot to remove FDR unlike the clear evidence of corruption by Chicago Democrats in 1960
Grandpappy Bush was involved and was going to be the official ambassador to Nazi Germany. I'm not claiming that the Republican establishment of the time was involved in the Business Plot, but that the people who were are the same people who are now the Republican establishment.
Wrong too, at least in terms of a plot against FDR ' Bush was a partner at Brown Brothers Harriman, which is still a major investment bank based in New York, across the street from Zuccotti Park, their headquarters. And Bush was the — Brown Brothers Harriman was the subject of a different investigation by the same congressional committee, because that committee’s ambit was to investigate all forms of sort of fascist influence and all attempts to subvert American democracy. And because Brown Brothers was part of a separate investigation, they end up sort of in the same folder at the National Archives, and then it ends up sort of getting mixed up in a documentary that came out about 10 years ago. So that’s actually a misunderstanding. Butler never brought up Prescott Bush’s name. ' https://www.democracynow.org/2022/1/26/jonathan_katz_book_gangsters_of_capitalism
JFK's father was linked to appeasement strategies with the Nazis in the 1930s of course, much of the western establishment was, Churchill being an exception
I mean, the eventual report into the Business Plot was hush hushed as part of FDR's strategy to keep the New Deal alive - no big names were arrested and everyone was given deniability essentially in return for no longer stirring up shit. It was clear that Bush made lots of money from the Nazis, by building their oil refinery infrastructure, as did a lot of people (like the Koch patriarch) whose children or grandchildren later became this generations RNC establishment. It was clear that a lot money was coming from somewhere to try and prop up this coup they wanted Butler to head, and it was clear that this coalition of business people wanted Bush to be their ambassador to Nazi Germany. Even if Bush wasn't in the smoky room Butler got to see, he was in adjacent smoky rooms with the same people.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
Whilst this is all true, the fundamental issue would be that they would not be blocking a clear election result, as the candidate was ineligible to be elected. And this is the point - the law may be clear, but the people implementing it are biased.
Remember Arnie? A great state governor but ineligible to be President. But what if a popular movement had demanded he run? If the GOP had run him regardless of ineligibilty. If he had won a popular vote despite the pundits and lawyers all telling people he constitutionally couldn't be President.
This is the scenario we now face. Whither the constitution which is inviolate when it comes to the right of gun owners to murder small children, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to who can run for President.
But the law isn't clear. Indeed, it seems a pretty extraordinary reach to me to declare a candidate ineligible on the basis of some perceived window into his soul.
If it were Trump seeking a third term then obviously the question of his eligibility would be a major election issue and the question would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court (and despite Trump's best efforts, I'd fully expect it to hand down the standard judgement that Trump would be ineligible; though what would happen next would be interesting - probably the elected VP would be acting president, in which case Trump may end up as proxy anyway), but the argument advanced in The Atlantic is way off such a clear-cut breach.
Agreed. The legal analysis based on the 14th Amendment provision is persuasive - but relies on a watertight legal proof of 'insurrection'.
Agreed - if Trump is ineligible then the 14th Amendment is a much safer legal road to go down. But as you say, that'd still be fiercely contested and from a practical point, those cases should be brought now, not after the event in what would look like a sore-loser scenario.
FWIW, I think he should be barred on those grounds and that Jan 6 did amount to an insurrection / rebellion against the US and its constitution. However, it's no slam-dunk.
At some point there’s going to have to be a stepping back from the brink, before we get something approximating another civil war.
The question is who’s going to be the person or organisation that can calm things down, rather than trying to escalate further? Trying to prosecute or disqualify Trump will give the GOP the excuse they need, when next in power, to go hard for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and any other Democrat who takes their fancy. Someone needs to agree that trying to put opposition politicians in jail is something that happens in Russia and China.
I completely disagree. What you're advocating is for political candidates to be exempt from prosecution. That is a nonsense.
And it's not Biden who is "trying to put opposition politicians in jail". Trump has been inducted by Grand Juries in more than one state. Not by the administration.
On topic, I hold very little value in these quasi-legal pronouncements that take no account of politics. Whether someone can take the presidential oath 'in good faith' isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement; that just demands that the president take the oath. You could argue that it's implicit in an oath that it is taken in good faith but then you could also argue that a president who was impeached but acquitted, and has not been convicted on any criminal charges relating to the incident is, having not been proven guilty, innocent.
But the bigger error is in the 'you can't do that' assertion. Says who, and you and whose army is going to stop it?
Even if the claim is correct, and even if it applies to Trump - and both assertions, but the first in particular, are dubious - who decides, and who is to hold them to account for their decision?
The political reality is that if Trump wins the election, Congress will affirm it and he will be inaugurated. No amount of legalistic jiggery-pokery is going top stop that, for the simple reason that the electorate (through the rather odd prism of the American electoral process) is ultimately supreme in any democracy. It would appear outrageous to deny the people their choice after they had made it. In effect, the people would have decided that Trump *can* take the oath in good faith.
Ironically, nothing could be more Trumpian than an attempt to use extraordinary constitutional procedures to block a clear election result, just because those in charge don't like the result, and because they can*.
* Although as explained above, they can't.
Whilst this is all true, the fundamental issue would be that they would not be blocking a clear election result, as the candidate was ineligible to be elected. And this is the point - the law may be clear, but the people implementing it are biased.
Remember Arnie? A great state governor but ineligible to be President. But what if a popular movement had demanded he run? If the GOP had run him regardless of ineligibilty. If he had won a popular vote despite the pundits and lawyers all telling people he constitutionally couldn't be President.
This is the scenario we now face. Whither the constitution which is inviolate when it comes to the right of gun owners to murder small children, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to who can run for President.
But the law isn't clear. Indeed, it seems a pretty extraordinary reach to me to declare a candidate ineligible on the basis of some perceived window into his soul.
If it were Trump seeking a third term then obviously the question of his eligibility would be a major election issue and the question would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court (and despite Trump's best efforts, I'd fully expect it to hand down the standard judgement that Trump would be ineligible; though what would happen next would be interesting - probably the elected VP would be acting president, in which case Trump may end up as proxy anyway), but the argument advanced in The Atlantic is way off such a clear-cut breach.
Agreed. The legal analysis based on the 14th Amendment provision is persuasive - but relies on a watertight legal proof of 'insurrection'.
Agreed - if Trump is ineligible then the 14th Amendment is a much safer legal road to go down. But as you say, that'd still be fiercely contested and from a practical point, those cases should be brought now, not after the event in what would look like a sore-loser scenario.
FWIW, I think he should be barred on those grounds and that Jan 6 did amount to an insurrection / rebellion against the US and its constitution. However, it's no slam-dunk.
At some point there’s going to have to be a stepping back from the brink, before we get something approximating another civil war.
The question is who’s going to be the person or organisation that can calm things down, rather than trying to escalate further? Trying to prosecute or disqualify Trump will give the GOP the excuse they need, when next in power, to go hard for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and any other Democrat who takes their fancy. Someone needs to agree that trying to put opposition politicians in jail is something that happens in Russia and China.
You can't ringfence a person from the legal consequences of their criminality simply because they're a high profile politician.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
Politics is fast becoming broken in this country.
On the Letby case it is worth looking at the CQC timelines.
2016 CQC inspection found:
"There was a very positive culture throughout the trust. Staff felt well supported, able to raise concerns and develop professionally. Staff were proud of their services and proud of the trust."
What use is an inspectorate that finds this?
Not much.
But as with Ofsted, it requires a lot of courage (running into WW1 No Man's Land playing the trumpet and setting off fireworks courage) to tell an inspector that things aren't good. So the inspectors have to be able to spot problems themselves, which is harder than it looks.
Ofsted does at least have an anonymous staff/leadership questionnaire, which is extremely detailed.
This allows for serious issues to be flagged - when we had a Headteacher running riot, Ofsted came in and used this as part of the evidence gathering (staff had already tried to whistleblow and the governors had sat on their hands, despite carrying out an 'independent review'). Thankfully, they are no longer teaching, having been removed from post.
Announced inspections lead er…. Cleanup beforehand.
See Admirals inspections of RN ships in the 18th cent etc.
Ofsted inspections are typically short notice (e.g. 24-48 hours). Where serious issues have been flagged through the complaints/whistleblowing process, they can simply turn up on the car park without a minute's notice.
the most obvious weapons the Ukrainians are lacking have been fighter jets and long range artillery. We've sent them the storm shadow and France has sent something similar but the US refuses to send ATACMS. The fact we are only now talking about sending fighter jets 18 months after the start of the full scale war is damning. They're obviously going to need them in the longer term so where was the planning?
Is it because the US want to keep Ukraine hanging by a thread and thus maximise their leverage? Do they worry about Russia doing so badly that they fear the internal destabilisation that might bring? Or do they want a protracted war so that Russia is weakened as much as possible? I really don't know.
It is interesting to see the dividing lines in Nato though. The UK/Dutch/Nordics/Baltics/Poles/Czechs seem to be the most belligerent.
There’s so much politics around this war in the US, that’s not the case almost anywhere else.
It starts with every shipment of arms being assigned a massive dollar value, that’s possibly the inflation-adjusted price of the now-obsolete weapons from several decades ago, and isn’t money actually being spent today, but allows opponents to suggest that this ‘money’ may better be spent domestically. The President saying “We are giving another $20bn to Ukraine” when there’s a massive domestic disaster in Hawaii, doesn’t help.
There’s also the running story of Hunter Biden and the very well paid job he had in Ukraine a few years ago, which is allowing Republicans to oppose military aid to Ukraine as a clear rebuke to Biden himself.
I suspect that the messaging would change under a different administration, but the actual result on the ground wouldn’t be too different. A Republican President would bring forward billions of dollars in defence spending to keep jobs in rural states, and casually announce a load of cheap disposals of old stuff to friendly NATO countries.
Nowhere else has such daily political dividing lines about this war, and it’s a little weird to watch their commentary on it. Basically the centrist position is to support the Ukranians, with both the anti-war left and the anti-spending right lined up on the other side.
ATACMS might actually be able to take out the Kerch bridge.
The 'far left' and 'far right' taking the same side, while the centre take the opposite, is not remotely unusual though. Its standard horseshoe theory.
The problem Ukraine and West have though is that currently an extreme is running for one of the mainstream parties.
Trump and DeSantis are no more to be trusted on Ukraine or Russia than Corbyn and McDonnell were.
For the sake of Ukraine and the whole of the West we have to hope they're not victorious.
That doesn't apply to the entire GOP, any more than it applied to all of Labour. If its the likes of Christie who win, just like if Starmer does, then the aid will continue. Under Trump/DeSantis though then all bets are off.
I think that the language used in the US will change considerably under a different administration, but the reality on the ground will continue to be pretty much the same as it is now, no matter who is elected.
That sounds like hopecasting and the future of Ukraine is too important for that.
Do you think the reality on the ground would have been the same in the UK had Corbyn won?
I think that the MIC in the US is more powerful than any president, and that they’ll find ways to continue what they do regardless of who’s nominally in charge.
Similar thinking from the permenant bureaucracy was very much in evidence between Jan 2017 and Jan 2021.
Now normally I’d say that was a bad thing, but in the case of Ukraine I’ll say it’s a good thing.
This is getting into "vote for Leopard's Eating Faces Party as they won't eat our face" territory.
Trump has opposed supporting Ukraine. Trump opposed giving aid to Ukraine while in office. Trump has a grudge against Zelensky as he wouldn't help him with the Hunter Biden issue. Trump supported Putin. Trump literally responded to the invasion of Ukraine by saying it was a "genius" move by Putin. Trump has been purging those who would stand up for the military establishment to surround himself with Yesmen.
To just assume that Ukraine, if it still needs our help by 2025, will get it from Trump when Trump has for years said the polar opposite and wants rid of the MIC establishment people whom he seems to think stood in the way of him keeping power last time ... Is to sacrifice Ukraine and its future.
It's not good enough.
Trump would just be isolationist but continue his trade war with China and the EU.
It is up to European powers and Turkey helped ideally by fellow NATO Canada to fund our militaries enough we don't always need to rely on the US to defend Europe, our own continent and that includes continuing to supply Ukraine v Putin.
We cannot always rely on the US electing Presidents who want to police the globe
And isolationist is a terrible thing, especially when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
We can not always rely on US electing Presidents who want to police the globe, but we should all hope that a President who wants to aide Ukraine to the best of America's abilities is in power at least until the end of this war. Which is not Trump, or DeSantis.
It might be other GOP candidates like Christie, if you want the GOP to win over the Democrats.
Yes but that is up to Americans to decide.
Remember at the end of the day it was the UK under Johnson and Poland who first supplied Zelensky with the weapons he needed to push back Putin, not the US even under Biden and not Paris or Berlin either.
We should take more responsibility for policing our own continent in Europe not rely on US voters not electing an isolationist president and Germany in particular should spend more on defence
Wrong.
The US & U.K. had been involved in training, arming and helping the Ukrainians since 2014. As were some of the neighbouring countries (Poland, Baltics and others)
Who do we reckon the military industrial complex supports? Seems relevant, there's lots of defence production in the swing states of yore and you'd think they could fund somebody generously on the GOP side while Trump blows his war chest on lawyers.
I think a lot of corporate funding of politics has the logic in the other direction. They decide who is most likely to win and throw money at them in the hope of having influence once they're in office.
The worst thing would be to fund the losing candidate and then have the winner pissed off at you.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
I agree with all of this post, and this bit in particular.
I long ago abandoned any belief that those running public services were on my side.
I disagree about the notices. They are there to help front line staff who are often the victims of both patient behaviour and the mismanagement of those higher up.
Even if they don't work, it's serves as a reminder that abusing staff is not acceptable behaviour.
Perhaps they should be paired with posters explaining what the formal complaints procedure is, and which senior manager is personally responsible for the care you are receiving?
I don't remember such notices being necessary in the past.
FWIW, both my wife and I have been the victims of aggressive behaviour by revenue collectors, who surrounded us and were very rude when arriving at Waterloo and unable to buy a ticket due to the guard's machine not working on board.
We didn't react aggressively but we certainly thought it was uncalled for, and I told them so.
PS Interesting question for some of us whether this is commercial behaviour (SWR) or inherited commercial (SE) or public sector (HMG policy on reducing subsidy, SE very recently nationalised).
I've always been against the death penalty. I still am. But reading the victim impact statements on the Letby sentencing is severely challenging my long-held opinions. I was at a funeral of a baby that died at three months of natural causes a few weeks ago and it was absolutely gut-wrenching, terrible. The parents are my friends, they are utterly heartbroken, the grieving process is going to take a long time. It will last all their lives I expect.
Knowing what Letby has done, and the impact it has had on all those families, the dozens of people directly, badly, affected, for the rest of their lives, well it does make make me, for a few seconds, question my long-held beliefs. Lifelong incarceration almost seems too lenient.
Who do we reckon the military industrial complex supports? Seems relevant, there's lots of defence production in the swing states of yore and you'd think they could fund somebody generously on the GOP side while Trump blows his war chest on lawyers.
I think a lot of corporate funding of politics has the logic in the other direction. They decide who is most likely to win and throw money at them in the hope of having influence once they're in office.
The worst thing would be to fund the losing candidate and then have the winner pissed off at you.
Surely you just give 'em both x million and forget about it until the next one
Lucy Letby deciding to not turn up at her sentencing hearing, as expected. She doesn’t want to hear the remarks of the judge, nor the statements from the victims and their families.
Hope the judge orders her dragged into court and forced to listen.
Think that through, though.
How do you stop Letby shouting abuse or performatively Not Listening? Basically making things worse? She's already on maximum punishment.
Hence Starmer's wibble. The country still isn't in a mood to hear "no, you can't have that, because it's impossible." And so we continue to giggle and rant into the sea.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
I agree with all of this post, and this bit in particular.
I long ago abandoned any belief that those running public services were on my side.
No large organisation is on our side, public as well as private. Private just want to make huge profit and financial growth as easily as possible for their shareholders. Whether that's the handful of transnational corporations that manufacture "food" using cheap chemicals instead of actual food, energy companies or Costa coffee, they don't care about you. At least public services are somewhat accountable!
I've always been against the death penalty. I still am. But reading the victim impact statements on the Letby sentencing is severely challenging my long-held opinions. I was at a funeral of a baby that died at three months of natural causes a few weeks ago and it was absolutely gut-wrenching, terrible. The parents are my friends, they are utterly heartbroken, the grieving process is going to take a long time. It will last all their lives I expect.
Knowing what Letby has done, and the impact it has had on all those families, the dozens of people directly, badly, affected, for the rest of their lives, well it does make make me, for a few seconds, question my long-held beliefs. Lifelong incarceration almost seems too lenient.
"To take a life when a life has been taken, is not justice, it is revenge." - Desmond Tutu.
The death penalty is morally outrageous and vile. She should rot in jail for the rest of her life and think about the impact she has had. Death would be the easy way out.
Meanwhile, while everyone's been appalled by the Letby case or following the football, the Post Office Board has written to the Business Select Committee saying that no, the Board members will not be repaying the bonuses they awarded themselves for complying with the Inquiry even though -
- they have not complied with the Inquiry's demands - the accounts they were responsible for were misleading - the bonuses were justified by false information contained in those accounts.
This case, the endless NHS and police scandals and much else are symptomatic of a country with public organizations which are functional only in a basic way because they are running on fuel in the tank - structures, systems, practices etc., - created by previous generations.
But those running them now don't know how to put fuel in the tank or maintain the car. Or even where they're supposed to be driving to.
But what they are mostly good at is nicking the valuable bits out of the car, causing accidents and running away from those accidents as fast as possible.
Lots of people employed by these organisations, especially at the top, seem to think they exist principally for the benefit of those inside them - not to serve any actual purpose or function for others. So reputation (untethered to any actual achievement) becomes more important than anything else. My heart sinks when I see those passive aggressive notices saying that staff have a right to do their jobs without being assaulted etc - not because I disagree with the sentiment (good manners to those providing a service to you should be a given) - but because it so often indicates an organisation which thinks that it is doing you - the customer, client, patient etc., - an enormous favour in bothering to deal with you at all.
I agree with all of this post, and this bit in particular.
I long ago abandoned any belief that those running public services were on my side.
No large organisation is on our side, public as well as private. Private just want to make huge profit and financial growth as easily as possible for their shareholders. Whether that's the handful of transnational corporations that manufacture "food" using cheap chemicals instead of actual food, energy companies or Costa coffee, they don't care about you. At least public services are somewhat accountable!
I'm assuming that by your qualifier of "large", you think that small (or medium?) sized organisations might be on the public's side.
What size would you you be thinking of?
Wondering whether somehow creating smaller organisations within larger organisations might be a way to improve the situation.
I disagree about the notices. They are there to help front line staff who are often the victims of both patient behaviour and the mismanagement of those higher up.
Even if they don't work, it's serves as a reminder that abusing staff is not acceptable behaviour.
Perhaps they should be paired with posters explaining what the formal complaints procedure is, and which senior manager is personally responsible for the care you are receiving?
They put these notices up in plenty of private sector organisations too, e.g. at Cineworld where I was last week. I think it is bloody depressing that people have to be told how to behave but having worked in a front-line role dealing with the public I totally support it because people are horrible and vile.
This just comes from my retail experience. Once had a senior army officer reduce a colleague to tears over a refund request, horrible manipulative behaviour.
Manager popped out the office, agreed my colleague had got it wrong, but then asked the customer never to come back in.
I did retail work for a year and I would never do it again after what I experienced. Out and out racism against certain colleagues, sexism, homophobia, you name it, they tried it.
People are vile, they really are. I have always treated anyone working such a role with the utmost respect and kindness, as I am sure they'll have had somebody be horrible to them that day.
I've always been against the death penalty. I still am. But reading the victim impact statements on the Letby sentencing is severely challenging my long-held opinions. I was at a funeral of a baby that died at three months of natural causes a few weeks ago and it was absolutely gut-wrenching, terrible. The parents are my friends, they are utterly heartbroken, the grieving process is going to take a long time. It will last all their lives I expect.
Knowing what Letby has done, and the impact it has had on all those families, the dozens of people directly, badly, affected, for the rest of their lives, well it does make make me, for a few seconds, question my long-held beliefs. Lifelong incarceration almost seems too lenient.
"To take a life when a life has been taken, is not justice, it is revenge." - Desmond Tutu.
The death penalty is morally outrageous and vile. She should rot in jail for the rest of her life and think about the impact she has had. Death would be the easy way out.
Another, if practical/empirical, point: there are investigations ongoing. Execution does have the effect of making such things more difficult. And we have yet to see what those turn up.
the most obvious weapons the Ukrainians are lacking have been fighter jets and long range artillery. We've sent them the storm shadow and France has sent something similar but the US refuses to send ATACMS. The fact we are only now talking about sending fighter jets 18 months after the start of the full scale war is damning. They're obviously going to need them in the longer term so where was the planning?
Is it because the US want to keep Ukraine hanging by a thread and thus maximise their leverage? Do they worry about Russia doing so badly that they fear the internal destabilisation that might bring? Or do they want a protracted war so that Russia is weakened as much as possible? I really don't know.
It is interesting to see the dividing lines in Nato though. The UK/Dutch/Nordics/Baltics/Poles/Czechs seem to be the most belligerent.
There’s so much politics around this war in the US, that’s not the case almost anywhere else.
It starts with every shipment of arms being assigned a massive dollar value, that’s possibly the inflation-adjusted price of the now-obsolete weapons from several decades ago, and isn’t money actually being spent today, but allows opponents to suggest that this ‘money’ may better be spent domestically. The President saying “We are giving another $20bn to Ukraine” when there’s a massive domestic disaster in Hawaii, doesn’t help.
There’s also the running story of Hunter Biden and the very well paid job he had in Ukraine a few years ago, which is allowing Republicans to oppose military aid to Ukraine as a clear rebuke to Biden himself.
I suspect that the messaging would change under a different administration, but the actual result on the ground wouldn’t be too different. A Republican President would bring forward billions of dollars in defence spending to keep jobs in rural states, and casually announce a load of cheap disposals of old stuff to friendly NATO countries.
Nowhere else has such daily political dividing lines about this war, and it’s a little weird to watch their commentary on it. Basically the centrist position is to support the Ukranians, with both the anti-war left and the anti-spending right lined up on the other side.
ATACMS might actually be able to take out the Kerch bridge.
The 'far left' and 'far right' taking the same side, while the centre take the opposite, is not remotely unusual though. Its standard horseshoe theory.
The problem Ukraine and West have though is that currently an extreme is running for one of the mainstream parties.
Trump and DeSantis are no more to be trusted on Ukraine or Russia than Corbyn and McDonnell were.
For the sake of Ukraine and the whole of the West we have to hope they're not victorious.
That doesn't apply to the entire GOP, any more than it applied to all of Labour. If its the likes of Christie who win, just like if Starmer does, then the aid will continue. Under Trump/DeSantis though then all bets are off.
I think that the language used in the US will change considerably under a different administration, but the reality on the ground will continue to be pretty much the same as it is now, no matter who is elected.
That sounds like hopecasting and the future of Ukraine is too important for that.
Do you think the reality on the ground would have been the same in the UK had Corbyn won?
I think that the MIC in the US is more powerful than any president, and that they’ll find ways to continue what they do regardless of who’s nominally in charge.
Similar thinking from the permenant bureaucracy was very much in evidence between Jan 2017 and Jan 2021.
Now normally I’d say that was a bad thing, but in the case of Ukraine I’ll say it’s a good thing.
This is getting into "vote for Leopard's Eating Faces Party as they won't eat our face" territory.
Trump has opposed supporting Ukraine. Trump opposed giving aid to Ukraine while in office. Trump has a grudge against Zelensky as he wouldn't help him with the Hunter Biden issue. Trump supported Putin. Trump literally responded to the invasion of Ukraine by saying it was a "genius" move by Putin. Trump has been purging those who would stand up for the military establishment to surround himself with Yesmen.
To just assume that Ukraine, if it still needs our help by 2025, will get it from Trump when Trump has for years said the polar opposite and wants rid of the MIC establishment people whom he seems to think stood in the way of him keeping power last time ... Is to sacrifice Ukraine and its future.
It's not good enough.
Trump would just be isolationist but continue his trade war with China and the EU.
It is up to European powers and Turkey helped ideally by fellow NATO Canada to fund our militaries enough we don't always need to rely on the US to defend Europe, our own continent and that includes continuing to supply Ukraine v Putin.
We cannot always rely on the US electing Presidents who want to police the globe
And isolationist is a terrible thing, especially when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
We can not always rely on US electing Presidents who want to police the globe, but we should all hope that a President who wants to aide Ukraine to the best of America's abilities is in power at least until the end of this war. Which is not Trump, or DeSantis.
It might be other GOP candidates like Christie, if you want the GOP to win over the Democrats.
Yes but that is up to Americans to decide.
Remember at the end of the day it was the UK under Johnson and Poland who first supplied Zelensky with the weapons he needed to push back Putin, not the US even under Biden and not Paris or Berlin either.
We should take more responsibility for policing our own continent in Europe not rely on US voters not electing an isolationist president and Germany in particular should spend more on defence
Wrong.
The US & U.K. had been involved in training, arming and helping the Ukrainians since 2014. As were some of the neighbouring countries (Poland, Baltics and others)
Yet it was only the UK and Poland who stepped up weapons supplies in the weeks before Putin's invasion.
At the end of the day it is our responsibility to police our own continent, the US will likely sometimes elect isolationist Presidents and is more focused on containing China now longer term than Russia
Taking the oath of office is not going to stop Trump even if he does it with his fingers crossed.
Most likely only a criminal conviction and jail sentence will stop him being Republican nominee again or winning the election again next year. The polls show Independents would desert Trump if he is convicted even if his base doesn't and the RNC could change the party nomination rules before the convention to stop convicted criminals being nominee
The GOP would lose really badly if they did that, because the base of the party is more significant than independent voters. Trump will not be convicted prior to the election, and even if he is I assume he'll take it to different courts and aim to take it to SCOTUS if he can get away with it.
Trump will be the GOP nominee. If he is convicted, the GOP will lose many independent voters but will likely hold the very red states. If they kick Trump off the ticket after he wins and is convicted, they could be in "lose Texas and Florida" territory, because Trump will tell his base the GOP are in on the scam and to not vote if the GOP don't defend him.
The RNC establishment might prefer to lose in a Goldwater style landslide with Pence than risk Trump being nominee again and trying to remove them all and replace them with his stooges
The RNC establishment never prefers to lose. The only reason they are against Trump is they think he will lose / stop their agenda. The GOP is already anti democratic and up for Christian Nationalism - we need only look at what the DeSantis' and Cruz's of the party actually want. If they could install Trump as God King forever, they would do it. The main problem for them is Trump can't focus on the job long enough for it to work.
They would prefer to lose and maintain control of the party than win and let Trump control the party
Trump already controls a lot of the party by controlling the base of the party. The establishment of the RNC may resent that, but at the end of the day Trump gets them their wins. He gave them a SCOTUS that said carbon dioxide isn't something the EPA can regulate, that waters near or adjacent to rivers don't come under the Clean Water Act and that states can have their own abortion laws. They will continue to overturn and block any significant moves towards progress that Democrats propose or have already passed. It's win win for them.
Do you know the history of the Business Plot? Where big wig Republicans (including Grandpappy Bush) were trying to do a fascist coup against FDR? That is who the RNC establishment are. When they can get away with this stuff, they are absolutely up for it. They just don't like rolling the dice and losing. Once Trump won in 2020, they all got in line. Because he still managed to deliver. Not as much as a competent politician may have, but in other ways he over delivered because he didn't care and just let the donors or activists pick the people directly (like essentially letting any Federalist society freak become a federal judge, no matter how little experience they had).
No evidence for any Republican coup against FDR at all unlike Mayor Daley and Chicago Democrats literally adding dead bodies to the votes for JFK against Nixon in 1960.
Indeed in 1948 the North East Biden states voted for the Republic Dewey while the now Trump voting Southern and Midwestern states voted for Truman
Are you denying that the Business Plot was a thing?
There was certainly no evidence senior Republicans as opposed to a few disgruntled businessmen were involved in any plot to remove FDR unlike the clear evidence of corruption by Chicago Democrats in 1960
Grandpappy Bush was involved and was going to be the official ambassador to Nazi Germany. I'm not claiming that the Republican establishment of the time was involved in the Business Plot, but that the people who were are the same people who are now the Republican establishment.
Wrong too, at least in terms of a plot against FDR ' Bush was a partner at Brown Brothers Harriman, which is still a major investment bank based in New York, across the street from Zuccotti Park, their headquarters. And Bush was the — Brown Brothers Harriman was the subject of a different investigation by the same congressional committee, because that committee’s ambit was to investigate all forms of sort of fascist influence and all attempts to subvert American democracy. And because Brown Brothers was part of a separate investigation, they end up sort of in the same folder at the National Archives, and then it ends up sort of getting mixed up in a documentary that came out about 10 years ago. So that’s actually a misunderstanding. Butler never brought up Prescott Bush’s name. ' https://www.democracynow.org/2022/1/26/jonathan_katz_book_gangsters_of_capitalism
JFK's father was linked to appeasement strategies with the Nazis in the 1930s of course, much of the western establishment was, Churchill being an exception
I mean, the eventual report into the Business Plot was hush hushed as part of FDR's strategy to keep the New Deal alive - no big names were arrested and everyone was given deniability essentially in return for no longer stirring up shit. It was clear that Bush made lots of money from the Nazis, by building their oil refinery infrastructure, as did a lot of people (like the Koch patriarch) whose children or grandchildren later became this generations RNC establishment. It was clear that a lot money was coming from somewhere to try and prop up this coup they wanted Butler to head, and it was clear that this coalition of business people wanted Bush to be their ambassador to Nazi Germany. Even if Bush wasn't in the smoky room Butler got to see, he was in adjacent smoky rooms with the same people.
So still was not directly involved in toppling FDR then, thanks for the confirmation
Comments
It's possible Trump's legal troubles will cause voters to abandon him but unless they do, and unless they can coalesce around someone else (who? why?) before Trump has the nomination, he'll win.
Of course, there is the risk that an obese man with a dreadful diet, in his late-70s and under serious and continual stress will either just drop dead or suffer a health event serious enough to knock him out of the campaign. But as time ticks on, that risk drops day by day.
The government declined to implement that recommendation.
Even so, the various Cheshire managers who resigned after Letby was arrested and charged went on to find other jobs in the NHS. Did none of those trusts ask about the reasons for their resignation or even wonder whether employing someone in charge of a hospital when such things happened might not be, well, wise?
Even without a reference, the lack of curiosity, the lack of judgment are staggering.
It might have worked. Maybe not, but they do say fortune favours the brave.
Remember Arnie? A great state governor but ineligible to be President. But what if a popular movement had demanded he run? If the GOP had run him regardless of ineligibilty. If he had won a popular vote despite the pundits and lawyers all telling people he constitutionally couldn't be President.
This is the scenario we now face. Whither the constitution which is inviolate when it comes to the right of gun owners to murder small children, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to who can run for President.
If Trump wins it will be due to the electoral collage and a minority of voters who just happen to be geographically spaced in such a way as to benefit him. He could, realistically, get like 45% of the vote and still win the presidency. If that were the case, Congress may consider the desire to go "no, actually" (if it is Democratically controlled, that is, which would be unlikely in this scenario).
The other issue is if Trump wins, he's gonna try and pardon himself and he is gonna have a VP who will support that (because that will be his criteria for choosing them as VP) and staff who will allow that (for the same reason). At that point I think enough Democratic voters would be willing to riot that things will get hairy. He will also lay the foundation for running for a third term - using the same "Russia Hoax" narrative he did during his first term saying that it shouldn't count because of the "fraud" they committed against him by investigating him. Even if he doesn't end up running for a third term (cause he'll be old as hell), he will use that as a rallying cry against democracy.
If Trump loses, why wouldn't he claim it was stolen again and try to raise his base in violence again, only this time with slightly better planning? Last time was a mess, because I don't think he really expected the crowd to follow what he literally told them to do. This time, he knows they will. He can try it again. Granted, a lot of the people who would be willing to do it are still in jail, but that wouldn't likely stop Trump.
And the next generation of GOP politicians look a lot more like Trump than they do the RNC establishment. DeSantis has zero charisma, but someone who can sell it will show up. And the groundwork has been laid. Unless the Democrats really pull their fingers out and give people relief from the worst excesses of their capitalist society, the white grievance will trump (ahah) economics because it's not like the Democrats will have improved the economic reality for many people either.
You can't say that of Gore's.
A moment's thought by him would show that this is nonsense.
Even if a convicted criminal is physically dragged into court, you cannot stop them shouting / singing / insulting the judge / victims and their families etc while in court - or closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears going "la la can't hear you / not listening la la" and if they do that the usual remedy is to remove them from the court, which is precisely what they want. Or are they going to be bound and gagged while they sit and listen?
And since they go to prison for life or a very long time why would they care if the sentence is extended for a few months?
Starmer knows or ought to know all this.
But still he comes out with performative nonsense. So we'll just get a different flavour from him when he's in charge.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/21/lucy-letby-nurse-murder-sentencing-live-hmp-bronzefield/
Hope the judge orders her dragged into court and forced to listen.
I don't know what the answer is.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874283/post-office-limited-shareholder-relationship-framework-part-1.pdf
...The Shareholder’s PAO is the BEIS Permanent Secretary. The PAO is accountable to Parliament in respect of POL and for ensuring that arrangements are in place for effective shareholder oversight of POL. The PAO is responsible for advising the responsible minister on various aspects including but not limited to the following:
(i) an appropriate framework of objectives and targets for POL in the light of BEIS’ wider strategic aims and priorities;
(ii) an appropriate allocation of BEIS’ budget for POL in the light of BEIS’ overall expenditure priorities; and
(iii) how well POL is achieving its strategic objectives and if it is delivering value for money...
As a public corporation, the PAO has designated POL’s Group Chief Executive (GCE) as POL’s AO and expects the GCE to observe the principles set out by HM Treasury in Managing Public Money (“MPM”), with particular regard to the Standards Expected of the Accounting Officer’s Organisation summarised in Box 3.1 of MPM and set out in full at Appendix 1 of this Framework Document. POL’s AO is personally responsible for safeguarding all funds for which he or she has charge; for ensuring propriety, regularity, value for money and feasibility in the handling of those funds; and for the day-to-day operations and management of POL. In addition, he or she should ensure that POL is run on the basis of the standards of governance, decision-making and financial management set out in MPM, as well as ensuring that POL uses internal and external audit to improve its internal controls and performance. As part of these responsibilities, the Committee of Public Accounts may invite the AO to be a witness at its evidence sessions, in which case the AO will be expected to attend...
Or want to do anything, frankly.
How could you - in all conscience - ask or expect people to trust you, unless you had really understood what you did wrong and were open about that and really determined to make amends. And even then ....
How do you stop Letby shouting abuse or performatively Not Listening? Basically making things worse? She's already on maximum punishment.
Hence Starmer's wibble. The country still isn't in a mood to hear "no, you can't have that, because it's impossible." And so we continue to giggle and rant into the sea.
Broadcasting the hearing into their cell is probably the only practical suggestion, if that can be done.
The danger last time round was because he exercised the powers of the Presidency. Without that, you're just talking about a potential large riot.
If the "not Trump" vote agreed on a candidate, they may be able to make a good run at it. But they don't, because the thing that binds them doesn't overcome their differences. Some of them want Trumpism without Trump, so would be fine with DeSantis. Some are neocons who want to go back to Bush era foreign policy, so would be fine with Haley. Others want real moderation (candidate not found). Like, it just isn't a viable coalition. Whereas aggrieved white business owners and their wives, alongside most of the evangelical base are all signed up for Trump.
I am cheered that you take the view you do however. How big do you reckon is 'a fair chance'?
Trump: 55%
Trump-picked toady (Ivanka etc): 5%
Trumpist non-Trump (Ramaswamy, DeSantis): 20%
Anti-Trump (Christie, Pence): 10%
Trump-neutral Other (Scott, Haley): 10%
If it were Trump seeking a third term then obviously the question of his eligibility would be a major election issue and the question would no doubt end up in the Supreme Court (and despite Trump's best efforts, I'd fully expect it to hand down the standard judgement that Trump would be ineligible; though what would happen next would be interesting - probably the elected VP would be acting president, in which case Trump may end up as proxy anyway), but the argument advanced in The Atlantic is way off such a clear-cut breach.
The mother of Baby E whose brother Letby also attempted to murder told the court the NHS nurse caused “harm and cruelty to our boys”
“I still struggle to understand why it happened to us...The lies she has told fill me with anger.
“We are living a life sentence because of Lucy’s crimes.”
She said that while families had “attended court day in day out” Letby’s refusal to attend sentencing was “one final act of wickedness from a coward.”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/809093/Code-of-Conduct-for-Board-Members-of-Public-Bodies-2019-WEB.PDF
The key principles upon which this Code of Conduct is based are the Seven Principles of Public Life. These are:
Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
Openness
Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
Honesty
Holders of public office should be truthful.
Leadership
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.
Sack them all.
Republican coup against FDR
at all unlike Mayor Daley and
Chicago Democrats literally
adding dead bodies to the
votes for JFK against Nixon in 1960.
Indeed in 1948 the North East Biden states voted for the Republic Dewey while the now Trump voting Southern and Midwestern states voted for Truman
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national/
Christie, Pence, Haley and Scott are all below 5%.
DeSantis averages ~15%. Yes, he once rivalled Trump, but the indictments ended that (potentially in part because he defended Trump instead of putting the boot in there, giving his supporters permission to go back to Trump).
Who there can really push themselves out over Trump or if he gets canned by the RNC? No one, in my view.
I know realpolitik involves dealing with awful people, but he could at least pretend he wasn't a bit harder.
I long ago abandoned any belief that those running public services were on my side.
We also don't know who the voters are. The only way the anti-Trump candidates might win (absent a very lucky three-way split) is by turning out people who aren't being polled. But they might be able to do that.
I think the issue is that in some people's mind this extends to "staff have a right to do their jobs without being criticised or challenged". I've witnessed enough fobbing off by health service staff towards members of my family in the last month or so to see there's a pervasive attitude that patients and their relatives are too often seen as a nuisance. The exceptions - when someone actually addresses you as a moderately intelligent human being - stand out because they are exceptions.
45% of Republican voters say they wouldn't vote for Trump if convicted however and 52% of Republicans say they wouldn't vote for Trump again if he is jailed
https://www.reuters.com/legal/about-half-us-republicans-could-spurn-trump-if-he-is-convicted-reutersipsos-poll-2023-08-03/
In the Letby case, it is difficult to see those professionals involved suffering even a temporary blip in their career.
In the 60s, after being involved in a sex scandal, John Profumo spent decades working in the East End as a form of redemption. Matt Hancock appeared on "I'm a Celebrity...."
I know Johnson over here is pretty shameless and unrepentant, but several times now he's shown he is responsive to being tapped on the shoulder by the men in grey suits when the game looks like it's up. Trump was not, even with everything stacked against him. Not the slightest chink in the armour, and that's a key difference. The only people he blinked in front of were foreign leaders, and GOP members don't seem to worry about that. It's going to be down to the Democrats, the voters, and possibly the justice process, to defeat him.
The legal analysis based on the 14th Amendment provision is persuasive - but relies on a watertight legal proof of 'insurrection'.
I see the political damage from his criminal indictments as a kind of slow burn that will gradually eat away at his numbers until a tipping point is reached whereby it becomes clear to all bar the brainwashed cult (big but a minority) that he cannot win the presidency. If this happens before he's got the nomination the GOP will have a choice - give Biden/Dem another term or choose someone else.
The latter seems unlikely right now but things can move fast in American presidential politics. It could be different when minds are concentrated, the election is nearer, and it's dawned on enough people that Trump's a loser. That's a powerful incentive to find an alternative. Who, or how, I don't know, but necessity is the mother of invention.
This allows for serious issues to be flagged - when we had a Headteacher running riot, Ofsted came in and used this as part of the evidence gathering (staff had already tried to whistleblow and the governors had sat on their hands, despite carrying out an 'independent review'). Thankfully, they are no longer teaching, having been removed from post.
Even if they don't work, it's serves as a reminder that abusing staff is not acceptable behaviour.
Perhaps they should be paired with posters explaining what the formal complaints procedure is, and which senior manager is personally responsible for the care you are receiving?
FWIW, I think he should be barred on those grounds and that Jan 6 did amount to an insurrection / rebellion against the US and its constitution. However, it's no slam-dunk.
FWIW, both my wife and I have been the victims of aggressive behaviour by revenue collectors, who surrounded us and were very rude when arriving at Waterloo and unable to buy a ticket due to the guard's machine not working on board.
We didn't react aggressively but we certainly thought it was uncalled for, and I told them so.
The rise of the non-apology/refusal to take responsibility for wrong doing or mistakes goes hand in hand with the growing popularity of making fulsome apologies for the actions of people long dead.
Again, another good podcast on this history:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-business-plot-when-rich-fascists-almost-took-over/id1548574516?i=1000507696880
Manager popped out the office, agreed my colleague had got it wrong, but then asked the customer never to come back in.
Historians (as ever) argue over this, but the general consensus is that it was insufficient either way to affect the result.
Note Nixon himself argued against making an issue if it, both at the time and in later years.
And the recounts that there were ended up giving Hawaii to Kennedy.
Also Kennedy would have won without Illinois.
See Admirals inspections of RN ships in the 18th cent etc.
We can not always rely on US electing Presidents who want to police the globe, but we should all hope that a President who wants to aide Ukraine to the best of America's abilities is in power at least until the end of this war. Which is not Trump, or DeSantis.
It might be other GOP candidates like Christie, if you want the GOP to win over the Democrats.
But if I was in that position - I'd ask for a note from the guard with the machine on the train, and/or a contact number: always.
So clearly Biden's age is a risk, but they're doing the right thing to maximize their chances of beating Trump.
Remember at the end of the day it was the UK under Johnson and Poland who first supplied Zelensky with the weapons he needed to push back Putin, not the US even under Biden and not Paris or Berlin either.
We should take more responsibility for policing our own continent in Europe not rely on US voters not electing an isolationist president and Germany in particular should spend more on defence
https://www.democracynow.org/2022/1/26/jonathan_katz_book_gangsters_of_capitalism
JFK's father was also linked to appeasement strategies with the Nazis in the 1930s of course, much of the western establishment was, Churchill being an exception
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/poll-71-gop-voters-stand-trump-investigations-rcna97305
https://www.reuters.com/legal/about-half-us-republicans-could-spurn-trump-if-he-is-convicted-reutersipsos-poll-2023-08-03/
At some point there’s going to have to be a stepping back from the brink, before we get something approximating another civil war.
The question is who’s going to be the person or organisation that can calm things down, rather than trying to escalate further? Trying to prosecute or disqualify Trump will give the GOP the excuse they need, when next in power, to go hard for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and any other Democrat who takes their fancy. Someone needs to agree that trying to put opposition politicians in jail is something that happens in Russia and China.
As a legal interpretation the article is bunk.
It remains the case, though, that unless Trump is actually convicted, using the 14th to disqualify him is a non starter.
To calm things down, parties should nominate candidates who are not criminals.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/21/lucy-letby-nurse-murder-sentencing-live-hmp-bronzefield/
It’s expected that she will receive a whole-life tarrif, given the nature and number of the convictions.
What you're advocating is for political candidates to be exempt from prosecution. That is a nonsense.
And it's not Biden who is "trying to put opposition politicians in jail".
Trump has been inducted by Grand Juries in more than one state. Not by the administration.
The US & U.K. had been involved in training, arming and helping the Ukrainians since 2014. As were some of the neighbouring countries (Poland, Baltics and others)
The worst thing would be to fund the losing candidate and then have the winner pissed off at you.
Rightwing PM Giorgia Meloni has demanded councils register only biological parents on birth certificates, leaving partners in legal limbo
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/21/orphaned-by-decree-italy-same-sex-parents-react-losing-rights
Knowing what Letby has done, and the impact it has had on all those families, the dozens of people directly, badly, affected, for the rest of their lives, well it does make make me, for a few seconds, question my long-held beliefs. Lifelong incarceration almost seems too lenient.
https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/21-august-ukrainian-defense-forces-have-success-southeast
If they can take this town, they can control the railway line to Crimea.
The death penalty is morally outrageous and vile. She should rot in jail for the rest of her life and think about the impact she has had. Death would be the easy way out.
What size would you you be thinking of?
Wondering whether somehow creating smaller organisations within larger organisations might be a way to improve the situation.
People are vile, they really are. I have always treated anyone working such a role with the utmost respect and kindness, as I am sure they'll have had somebody be horrible to them that day.
At the end of the day it is our responsibility to police our own continent, the US will likely sometimes elect isolationist Presidents and is more focused on containing China now longer term than Russia