On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
Wondering what British foreign and defence policy would be in a scenario where Trump let Ukraine fall and disbanded NATO.
We would probably have to ‘rearm’ and look for an alliance with the Germans and French, assuming that the latter hadn’t also fallen under Putins spell. Would we take in Ukrainian refugees?
How would the British right react? I can see Farage backing Trump, but there would be a dividing line with the Conservative right that went all in on Ukraine.
Either way a hard path for a new government to navigate.
In that event we should unite in a new Five Eyes/AUKUS pact with the USA
Europe will never spend enough to defend itself
What US interest is there in defending the UK but not France or Germany? That's the realpolitik.
American public sentiment sees Britain and Canada as the allies most worth defending
I don’t believe Trump will go against that. It is highly possible he will abandon mainland Europe
At the same time our multiple military and diplomatic ties to the USA - from Five Eyes to our nuclear deterrent - mean we are dependent on America (and they are dependent on us to a lesser extent) which again makes the choice obvious. Stick with Washington
Your faith in US public opinion is touching but, I would argue, entirely misplaced. A US public that is prepared to stand by and watch Putin trample through the whole of mainland Europe is not going to suddenly demand that the US commits troops and vast sums of money to prevent him crossing the Channel to us.
I’ve just shown you the actual polling, not what is in your head
The polling does not tell us anything about the clamour there would be to save the UK from a Putin who had already overrun the whole of Europe without the US lifting a finger.
Still not sure how Putin is supposed to overrun the whole of Europe when he has had his military smashed in Ukraine where he has somewhat easier logistical lines than pushing through Poland and onto Germany and France. Where will he be getting the millions of trained soldiers and weapons from?
The threat to the UK from Putin is nuclear and sneaky subterfuge.
One side-effect of Ukraine blowing up Russian tanks and planes is that Russia will replace them with new, better tanks and planes. But you are right that in the medium term, a greater danger is posed by Russia interfering in our politics and cutting undersea cables carrying telecoms and electricity.
Russia is struggling to build aircraft, tanks and artillery. This is because of the collapse of the Russian industrial base - which was severely out of date.
This is why they are bombarding Ukraine with Iranian drones, using North Korean shells and ancient tanks as impromptu SPGs.
Building an industrial base of that kind would take billions and a decade or two in a relatively uncorrupt system. The previous attempts under Putin to revitalise the autarkic system foundered on the money being stolen at every level - cheaper to fake domestic production and import.
Wondering what British foreign and defence policy would be in a scenario where Trump let Ukraine fall and disbanded NATO.
We would probably have to ‘rearm’ and look for an alliance with the Germans and French, assuming that the latter hadn’t also fallen under Putins spell. Would we take in Ukrainian refugees?
How would the British right react? I can see Farage backing Trump, but there would be a dividing line with the Conservative right that went all in on Ukraine.
Either way a hard path for a new government to navigate.
In that event we should unite in a new Five Eyes/AUKUS pact with the USA
Europe will never spend enough to defend itself
What US interest is there in defending the UK but not France or Germany? That's the realpolitik.
American public sentiment sees Britain and Canada as the allies most worth defending
I don’t believe Trump will go against that. It is highly possible he will abandon mainland Europe
At the same time our multiple military and diplomatic ties to the USA - from Five Eyes to our nuclear deterrent - mean we are dependent on America (and they are dependent on us to a lesser extent) which again makes the choice obvious. Stick with Washington
Your faith in US public opinion is touching but, I would argue, entirely misplaced. A US public that is prepared to stand by and watch Putin trample through the whole of mainland Europe is not going to suddenly demand that the US commits troops and vast sums of money to prevent him crossing the Channel to us.
I’ve just shown you the actual polling, not what is in your head
The polling does not tell us anything about the clamour there would be to save the UK from a Putin who had already overrun the whole of Europe without the US lifting a finger.
Still not sure how Putin is supposed to overrun the whole of Europe when he has had his military smashed in Ukraine where he has somewhat easier logistical lines than pushing through Poland and onto Germany and France. Where will he be getting the millions of trained soldiers and weapons from?
The threat to the UK from Putin is nuclear and sneaky subterfuge.
The argument is about the UK ditching Europe and throwing in its lot with the US in the wake of a Trump decision to abandon NATO. Of course, in reality Putin is not going to march through the whole of Europe - though he could probably quite easily take the Baltic States, Moldova and absorb smaller C&E states into Moscow's direct sphere of influence.
Our nuke, conventional military and intel ties alone mean that we will stick with the USA. We won’t dump Washington for Brussels. Believing otherwise is Remoaner delusion
In my view it would be the end of five eyes. Trump cannot be trusted. I hope conversations with the other three members are along these lines. If Trump pulls out of Nato? I think it would still be in our interests to keep a reduced Nato going. Europe has the capability to defend the Baltics. Does it have the nerve?
Even without the US, Russia remains bogged down in Ukraine, is haemorrhaging money and soldiers. Putin might not care about the latter but he did revealingly overstate the number of troops he has in Ukraine by 50%. Many of them not being very top draw.
Various European countries are boosting their Ukraine support for 2024 - Nordics, Germany (x2) and Baltics especially.
At present Sunak has afaics said "same in cash terms" followed by lots of words about how much we have done.
The last numbers I saw had non-US support for Ukraine ahead of US support, but non-US does not have enough equipment in the short-term, perhaps.
One thing we hear little about is Ukraine's own domestic industry. Is it all top secret?
Yep, I think the lawyers are in stepping away from the huge dog mess mode. They're now issuing denials that they advised Mone to deny links to Medpro.
I think the most amusing recent tale was Mone threatening the National with legal action if they stated that the made up claim that her Glasgow house was once lived in by Einstein was in fact made up. Frightening to think she was once a person of influence involved (however vestigially) in the government of the UK.
Mind, the different approaches by the legal eagles are striking.
Presumably it all depends when a lawyer is allowed to repeat the client's statements and when a lawyer isn't when they turn out to be untrue - but this is not in court, and lawyers don't often do this (to put it mildly), so I'm slightly surprised that it is happening at all. Am I missing something?
The various lawyers seem to have had differing levels of enthusiasm about issuing threats against the media. I'm assuming it's not a good sign when one of those lawyers is now instructing his own lawyer to issue statements on his behalf.
On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?
My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.
Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.
Of a certainty, SCOTUS will reverse it, and Trump's popularity will rise.
The latter isn't certain. There'll come a point when his legal problems will start to hurt his numbers rather than boost them. Whether this is a 'sooner' or a 'later' is key to how things play out next year.
With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.
I'm not convinced. Looks like the decline isn't especially broad based. Underlying momentum in services is still too high for comfort. Things might look better in a couple of releases but right now I wouldn't be rushing to cut rates.
Since about April, inflation numbers have come in pretty consistently, above expectations. Producer input and output prices are now falling. The B o E should certainly cut rates.
Why should the Bank cut rates now? Inflation of 3.9% is still well above target. Is it a racing certainty that it will fall below 2% without rate cuts? The last thing we want is spivs speculating on asset prices.
Wondering what British foreign and defence policy would be in a scenario where Trump let Ukraine fall and disbanded NATO.
We would probably have to ‘rearm’ and look for an alliance with the Germans and French, assuming that the latter hadn’t also fallen under Putins spell. Would we take in Ukrainian refugees?
How would the British right react? I can see Farage backing Trump, but there would be a dividing line with the Conservative right that went all in on Ukraine.
Either way a hard path for a new government to navigate.
In that event we should unite in a new Five Eyes/AUKUS pact with the USA
Europe will never spend enough to defend itself
What US interest is there in defending the UK but not France or Germany? That's the realpolitik.
American public sentiment sees Britain and Canada as the allies most worth defending
I don’t believe Trump will go against that. It is highly possible he will abandon mainland Europe
At the same time our multiple military and diplomatic ties to the USA - from Five Eyes to our nuclear deterrent - mean we are dependent on America (and they are dependent on us to a lesser extent) which again makes the choice obvious. Stick with Washington
Your faith in US public opinion is touching but, I would argue, entirely misplaced. A US public that is prepared to stand by and watch Putin trample through the whole of mainland Europe is not going to suddenly demand that the US commits troops and vast sums of money to prevent him crossing the Channel to us.
I’ve just shown you the actual polling, not what is in your head
The polling does not tell us anything about the clamour there would be to save the UK from a Putin who had already overrun the whole of Europe without the US lifting a finger.
Still not sure how Putin is supposed to overrun the whole of Europe when he has had his military smashed in Ukraine where he has somewhat easier logistical lines than pushing through Poland and onto Germany and France. Where will he be getting the millions of trained soldiers and weapons from?
The threat to the UK from Putin is nuclear and sneaky subterfuge.
The argument is about the UK ditching Europe and throwing in its lot with the US in the wake of a Trump decision to abandon NATO. Of course, in reality Putin is not going to march through the whole of Europe - though he could probably quite easily take the Baltic States, Moldova and absorb smaller C&E states into Moscow's direct sphere of influence.
Poland would fight. And could probably beat Russia, even with relatively little assistance. If nothing else a huge chunk of Russias capability will be fighting the Ukrainians, still.
On the US/UK structures - the nukes are interesting. The US and U.K. programs are interrwined to the point that Chuck Hansen and others suggested that instead of shared information, the US and the UK build nuclear weapons jointly, with design features from both programs in combined designs. For example, the U.K. introduced the Americans to spherical secondaries (one of the reasons it took so long to get the U.K. H bomb to work).
While the factories are separate - ownership of the designs would be interesting.
Isn't all of that in contravention of the non-profileration treaty?
The non proliferation treaty was *after* the the original 5 nuclear powers got going. Which has led some to say it is a hypocritical pulling up of the ladder.
The key bit, anyway, was that both the US and U.K. were (independently) thermonuclear powers, when they joined their programs.
“The United Kingdom is seen as the United States’ greatest ally Kathy Frankovic March 08, 2021, 1:45 PM GMT+0
One-third of Americans think of the United Kingdom as the United States’ greatest ally (32%), according to the latest Economist/YouGov poll conducted February 27 - March 2.
YouGov asked an open question on the topic, allowing respondents to write in the name of whatever country they wanted in response. Democrats (34%) and Republicans (30%) are similarly likely to name the United Kingdom as the United States’ closest friend”
I don’t think Trump will want to upset Americans by severing ties with the UK
I can see him being ruthlessly mean to the Germans, etc
Trump is, regrettably, a Leader. He loves to be loved, but he's also said and done things the GOP base used to hate and now they love him for it and despise stalwart conservatives as being RINOs. Even the ones who used to sometimes disagree with him on foreign affairs are falling into line.
I think he could do pretty much anything and his grip over the base is so strong they would back it. Having won a second term despite all his legal issues he'd probably see himself as politically invincible.
Trump has a golf course in the UK. For that reason alone he will send US Marines to defend Blighty
Two actually, both in Scotland. Sorry lads, you're going to have to hoor some piece of England's heritage if you want the marines coming in.
He's going demand Buckingham Palace be renamed Trump London isn't he?
Rather, the Bigly House.
The Trump Tower of London.
Balimmoral
Number 2, London?
Would it resemble Edinburgh's infamous "Number Two"?
Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy
I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power
Yes, remind us who coined "lock her up".
A reminder from Sept 2020.
Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?
They were playing a clip from his rally yesterday reacting to the ruling and despite him being an absolute C it’s was “good”. Not “good” for the world but he managed to deliver well a pile of rhetoric which likely plays to a huge swathe of Americans, especially Republicans, with a distrust of government and especially government.
To summarise he said that the government was actually coming for them but they attack him because he stands between the government and the people they are trying to “come for”. He made himself sound like a revolutionary for the people, their protector, the man who defends them from kings, tyrants and their rights being removed. They forget he’s a privileged plutocrat from a glitzy New York social scene and think of him as John Wayne riding the evil rancher out of town.
The average US voter isn’t thinking about constitutional details and facts they want to be told someone is protecting them from a threat real or imagined.
We often think that the US is like us because we speak the same language and there are certain cultural similarities but a huge amount of Americans, especially outside of “New England” and California are very removed from us with their views in the role of the state and have a culture of self-reliance we don’t have. There is often said to be a different culture between “Anglo Saxons” and mainland Europeans but the difference between most Americans and most Europeans (including us) is probably larger.
All of these legal issues feed his narrative and bolster his position and it’s really not great, exasperated by the political nature of prosecutors and courts in the US. Maybe if they had ignored him it would have achieved more.
Short of a stroke or death I think he will win. Maybe him winning will be better in the sense that he gets what he wants and his ego is fed and it deflates the narrative that unseen forces are manipulating the system to keep him out and so the system is corrupt. if he loses I think it will cause an even bigger rupture in the US.
I’d agree with all of that but I think what will be also important is the manner in which he loses - if it is a very tight race with margins in the thousands and there is the same questioning of ballots, particularly Mail-ins (which Jimmy Carter himself said were particularly detrimental), then things could explode.
Unfortunately, I think there are a fair few of Trump’s opponents in the US who believe that all means justify the end of stopping Trump - and, if that attitude prevails, it really is going to be a sh1tshow.
That’s why I reckon there will be an attempt on Trump’s life if he seems VERY VERY close to a second term
The democrats are working themselves up to it
And no, this does not diminish or detract from the fact that some Republicans also have violent intent and indeed a recent history of quasi-insurrection
America is going down a dark tunnel
That has been my view for a long time - that if you truly believe Trump is a threat to democracy, then logic would seem to dictate you will do anything - anything - to stop him getting into power.
It’s the old Hitler argument - if you could kill Hitler pre-power, would you do it? Most would say yes. Many of Trump’s opponents frame things in much the same way.
I agree with @kle4 that we are not there yet but if you have armed nut jobs turning up at Supreme Court justices’ homes armed and ready to kill them (which is where the Left’s logic is also heading them ie take out appointed for life Justices and you can get your own candidates in), I see it more likely than not that someone tries to assassinate Trump
The threat to life in the US is, and always has been, from the Right. There are far more people with guns supporting Trump than opposing him. Biden is at far more risk from people who think he stole the election from Trump. This idea of some gun wielding wokeist is the exact opposite of where the real danger is. Trump may, as he has before, incite violent insurrection
Are you really not aware of the long history of left-wing political violence in the US?
Wondering what British foreign and defence policy would be in a scenario where Trump let Ukraine fall and disbanded NATO.
We would probably have to ‘rearm’ and look for an alliance with the Germans and French, assuming that the latter hadn’t also fallen under Putins spell. Would we take in Ukrainian refugees?
How would the British right react? I can see Farage backing Trump, but there would be a dividing line with the Conservative right that went all in on Ukraine.
Either way a hard path for a new government to navigate.
In that event we should unite in a new Five Eyes/AUKUS pact with the USA
Europe will never spend enough to defend itself
What US interest is there in defending the UK but not France or Germany? That's the realpolitik.
American public sentiment sees Britain and Canada as the allies most worth defending
I don’t believe Trump will go against that. It is highly possible he will abandon mainland Europe
At the same time our multiple military and diplomatic ties to the USA - from Five Eyes to our nuclear deterrent - mean we are dependent on America (and they are dependent on us to a lesser extent) which again makes the choice obvious. Stick with Washington
Your faith in US public opinion is touching but, I would argue, entirely misplaced. A US public that is prepared to stand by and watch Putin trample through the whole of mainland Europe is not going to suddenly demand that the US commits troops and vast sums of money to prevent him crossing the Channel to us.
I’ve just shown you the actual polling, not what is in your head
The polling does not tell us anything about the clamour there would be to save the UK from a Putin who had already overrun the whole of Europe without the US lifting a finger.
Still not sure how Putin is supposed to overrun the whole of Europe when he has had his military smashed in Ukraine where he has somewhat easier logistical lines than pushing through Poland and onto Germany and France. Where will he be getting the millions of trained soldiers and weapons from?
The threat to the UK from Putin is nuclear and sneaky subterfuge.
The argument is about the UK ditching Europe and throwing in its lot with the US in the wake of a Trump decision to abandon NATO. Of course, in reality Putin is not going to march through the whole of Europe - though he could probably quite easily take the Baltic States, Moldova and absorb smaller C&E states into Moscow's direct sphere of influence.
Our nuke, conventional military and intel ties alone mean that we will stick with the USA. We won’t dump Washington for Brussels. Believing otherwise is Remoaner delusion
In my view it would be the end of five eyes. Trump cannot be trusted. I hope conversations with the other three members are along these lines. If Trump pulls out of Nato? I think it would still be in our interests to keep a reduced Nato going. Europe has the capability to defend the Baltics. Does it have the nerve?
Even without the US, Russia remains bogged down in Ukraine, is haemorrhaging money and soldiers. Putin might not care about the latter but he did revealingly overstate the number of troops he has in Ukraine by 50%. Many of them not being very top draw.
Various European countries are boosting their Ukraine support for 2024 - Nordics, Germany (x2) and Baltics especially.
At present Sunak has afaics said "same in cash terms" followed by lots of words about how much we have done.
The last numbers I saw had non-US support for Ukraine ahead of US support, but non-US does not have enough equipment in the short-term, perhaps.
One thing we hear little about is Ukraine's own domestic industry. Is it all top secret?
Edit: Other than drones
They have some chunks of ex-Soviet stuff. Small jet engines for missiles, for example.
They were doing lots of heavy industry stuff for European export, which gives them, in some areas, a more modern industrial base than quite a lot of Russia.
On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?
My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.
Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.
Of a certainty, SCOTUS will reverse it, and Trump's popularity will rise.
There'll come a point when his legal problems will start to hurt his numbers rather than boost them
Why?
He's worried about that, it's why they have gone so hard at the trials being rigged, and had the other candidates pledge to support him even if he is convicted, but for that very reason I don't see why people would change their minds. I don't believe the polls saying that will be the line for many GOP voters - they support his view things are rigged, but will then not back him if convicted? Don't buy it.
On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?
My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.
Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.
Of a certainty, SCOTUS will reverse it, and Trump's popularity will rise.
The latter isn't certain. There'll come a point when his legal problems will start to hurt his numbers rather than boost them. Whether this is a 'sooner' or a 'later' is key to how things play out next year.
That is what ought to happen, not what will happen.
So Miriam Cates MP is facing a parliamentary standards probe for attending a "party" inside parliament in December 2020 that the police have already decided does not meet the threshold to investigate.
Can't believe we're persisting with this nonsense!
On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?
My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.
Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.
Of a certainty, SCOTUS will reverse it, and Trump's popularity will rise.
The latter isn't certain. There'll come a point when his legal problems will start to hurt his numbers rather than boost them. Whether this is a 'sooner' or a 'later' is key to how things play out next year.
That is what ought to happen, not what will happen.
He's had pretty much all his 'outlaw' boost imo. The cult love him more and those outside it inclined to back him because they see a 'witchhunt' will have already done so. Next year the election becomes real rather a prospect, the minds of undecideds focus, the legal quagmire deepens, and I expect his national numbers to slide.
So Miriam Cates MP is facing a parliamentary standards probe for attending a "party" inside parliament in December 2020 that the police have already decided does not meet the threshold to investigate.
Can't believe we're persisting with this nonsense!
With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.
I'm not convinced. Looks like the decline isn't especially broad based. Underlying momentum in services is still too high for comfort. Things might look better in a couple of releases but right now I wouldn't be rushing to cut rates.
Since about April, inflation numbers have come in pretty consistently, above expectations. Producer input and output prices are now falling. The B o E should certainly cut rates.
Why should the Bank cut rates now? Inflation of 3.9% is still well above target. Is it a racing certainty that it will fall below 2% without rate cuts? The last thing we want is spivs speculating on asset prices.
Core inflation = high
Wage growth = high
CPI = double the target
There will be no significant interest rate cuts for some time certainly not during 2024
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.
I'm not convinced. Looks like the decline isn't especially broad based. Underlying momentum in services is still too high for comfort. Things might look better in a couple of releases but right now I wouldn't be rushing to cut rates.
Since about April, inflation numbers have come in pretty consistently, above expectations. Producer input and output prices are now falling. The B o E should certainly cut rates.
That's my experience (Manufacturing). The global shipping situation is uncertain though.
With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.
I'm not convinced. Looks like the decline isn't especially broad based. Underlying momentum in services is still too high for comfort. Things might look better in a couple of releases but right now I wouldn't be rushing to cut rates.
Since about April, inflation numbers have come in pretty consistently, above expectations. Producer input and output prices are now falling. The B o E should certainly cut rates.
Why should the Bank cut rates now? Inflation of 3.9% is still well above target. Is it a racing certainty that it will fall below 2% without rate cuts? The last thing we want is spivs speculating on asset prices.
Core inflation = high
Wage growth = high
CPI = double the target
There will be no significant interest rate cuts for some time certainly not during 2024
Full of festive cheer I see Are you Megan 'Grinch' Greene ?
On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?
My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.
Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.
Of a certainty, SCOTUS will reverse it, and Trump's popularity will rise.
There'll come a point when his legal problems will start to hurt his numbers rather than boost them
Why?
He's worried about that, it's why they have gone so hard at the trials being rigged, and had the other candidates pledge to support him even if he is convicted, but for that very reason I don't see why people would change their minds. I don't believe the polls saying that will be the line for many GOP voters - they support his view things are rigged, but will then not back him if convicted? Don't buy it.
The US is deeply polarized but you don't win the election just with people who love you and/or hate the other guy. You need the votes of undecideds, independents, apoliticals. There are lots of them even in Culture War America and my opinion is that these voters will break heavily against Donald Trump. If this shows up soon enough in the polls it could help the GOP pick someone else. If it doesn't - or it does and they pick him anyway - it will sink him in the general, almost regardless of who the Dem candidate is.
Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy
I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power
Yes, remind us who coined "lock her up".
A reminder from Sept 2020.
Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?
They were playing a clip from his rally yesterday reacting to the ruling and despite him being an absolute C it’s was “good”. Not “good” for the world but he managed to deliver well a pile of rhetoric which likely plays to a huge swathe of Americans, especially Republicans, with a distrust of government and especially government.
To summarise he said that the government was actually coming for them but they attack him because he stands between the government and the people they are trying to “come for”. He made himself sound like a revolutionary for the people, their protector, the man who defends them from kings, tyrants and their rights being removed. They forget he’s a privileged plutocrat from a glitzy New York social scene and think of him as John Wayne riding the evil rancher out of town.
The average US voter isn’t thinking about constitutional details and facts they want to be told someone is protecting them from a threat real or imagined.
We often think that the US is like us because we speak the same language and there are certain cultural similarities but a huge amount of Americans, especially outside of “New England” and California are very removed from us with their views in the role of the state and have a culture of self-reliance we don’t have. There is often said to be a different culture between “Anglo Saxons” and mainland Europeans but the difference between most Americans and most Europeans (including us) is probably larger.
All of these legal issues feed his narrative and bolster his position and it’s really not great, exasperated by the political nature of prosecutors and courts in the US. Maybe if they had ignored him it would have achieved more.
Short of a stroke or death I think he will win. Maybe him winning will be better in the sense that he gets what he wants and his ego is fed and it deflates the narrative that unseen forces are manipulating the system to keep him out and so the system is corrupt. if he loses I think it will cause an even bigger rupture in the US.
I’d agree with all of that but I think what will be also important is the manner in which he loses - if it is a very tight race with margins in the thousands and there is the same questioning of ballots, particularly Mail-ins (which Jimmy Carter himself said were particularly detrimental), then things could explode.
Unfortunately, I think there are a fair few of Trump’s opponents in the US who believe that all means justify the end of stopping Trump - and, if that attitude prevails, it really is going to be a sh1tshow.
That’s why I reckon there will be an attempt on Trump’s life if he seems VERY VERY close to a second term
The democrats are working themselves up to it
And no, this does not diminish or detract from the fact that some Republicans also have violent intent and indeed a recent history of quasi-insurrection
America is going down a dark tunnel
That has been my view for a long time - that if you truly believe Trump is a threat to democracy, then logic would seem to dictate you will do anything - anything - to stop him getting into power.
It’s the old Hitler argument - if you could kill Hitler pre-power, would you do it? Most would say yes. Many of Trump’s opponents frame things in much the same way.
I agree with @kle4 that we are not there yet but if you have armed nut jobs turning up at Supreme Court justices’ homes armed and ready to kill them (which is where the Left’s logic is also heading them ie take out appointed for life Justices and you can get your own candidates in), I see it more likely than not that someone tries to assassinate Trump
The threat to life in the US is, and always has been, from the Right. There are far more people with guns supporting Trump than opposing him. Biden is at far more risk from people who think he stole the election from Trump. This idea of some gun wielding wokeist is the exact opposite of where the real danger is. Trump may, as he has before, incite violent insurrection
Are you really not aware of the long history of left-wing political violence in the US?
Violence can come from any quarter, but most of the political violence in the US is coming from the Right at present. To quote the Oct 2020 Homeland Threat Assessment from the Department of Homeland Security, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2020_10_06_homeland-threat-assessment.pdf , which was issued by Chad Wolf, then Acting United States Secretary of Homeland Security (a Trump appointee and Republican Party member):
"Among DVEs [domestic violent extremists], racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists—specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs)—will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland."
On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?
My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.
Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.
Of a certainty, SCOTUS will reverse it, and Trump's popularity will rise.
There'll come a point when his legal problems will start to hurt his numbers rather than boost them
Why?
He's worried about that, it's why they have gone so hard at the trials being rigged, and had the other candidates pledge to support him even if he is convicted, but for that very reason I don't see why people would change their minds. I don't believe the polls saying that will be the line for many GOP voters - they support his view things are rigged, but will then not back him if convicted? Don't buy it.
The US is deeply polarized but you don't win the election just with people who love you and/or hate the other guy. You need the votes of undecideds, independents, apoliticals. There are lots of them even in Culture War America and my opinion is that these voters will break heavily against Donald Trump. If this shows up soon enough in the polls it could help the GOP pick someone else. If it doesn't - or it does and they pick him anyway - it will sink him in the general, almost regardless of who the Dem candidate is.
Feels to me like the Democrats are maybe destroying democracy in order to save democracy
I seriously wonder if we will see an attempt on Trump’s life if he gets REALLY close to winning. Because, if you honestly think Trump is a new Hitler - and a dictator manque - as many honestly do - then assassination is the lesser crime than letting him seize power
Yes, remind us who coined "lock her up".
A reminder from Sept 2020.
Will you commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election?
They were playing a clip from his rally yesterday reacting to the ruling and despite him being an absolute C it’s was “good”. Not “good” for the world but he managed to deliver well a pile of rhetoric which likely plays to a huge swathe of Americans, especially Republicans, with a distrust of government and especially government.
To summarise he said that the government was actually coming for them but they attack him because he stands between the government and the people they are trying to “come for”. He made himself sound like a revolutionary for the people, their protector, the man who defends them from kings, tyrants and their rights being removed. They forget he’s a privileged plutocrat from a glitzy New York social scene and think of him as John Wayne riding the evil rancher out of town.
The average US voter isn’t thinking about constitutional details and facts they want to be told someone is protecting them from a threat real or imagined.
We often think that the US is like us because we speak the same language and there are certain cultural similarities but a huge amount of Americans, especially outside of “New England” and California are very removed from us with their views in the role of the state and have a culture of self-reliance we don’t have. There is often said to be a different culture between “Anglo Saxons” and mainland Europeans but the difference between most Americans and most Europeans (including us) is probably larger.
All of these legal issues feed his narrative and bolster his position and it’s really not great, exasperated by the political nature of prosecutors and courts in the US. Maybe if they had ignored him it would have achieved more.
Short of a stroke or death I think he will win. Maybe him winning will be better in the sense that he gets what he wants and his ego is fed and it deflates the narrative that unseen forces are manipulating the system to keep him out and so the system is corrupt. if he loses I think it will cause an even bigger rupture in the US.
I’d agree with all of that but I think what will be also important is the manner in which he loses - if it is a very tight race with margins in the thousands and there is the same questioning of ballots, particularly Mail-ins (which Jimmy Carter himself said were particularly detrimental), then things could explode.
Unfortunately, I think there are a fair few of Trump’s opponents in the US who believe that all means justify the end of stopping Trump - and, if that attitude prevails, it really is going to be a sh1tshow.
That’s why I reckon there will be an attempt on Trump’s life if he seems VERY VERY close to a second term
The democrats are working themselves up to it
And no, this does not diminish or detract from the fact that some Republicans also have violent intent and indeed a recent history of quasi-insurrection
America is going down a dark tunnel
That has been my view for a long time - that if you truly believe Trump is a threat to democracy, then logic would seem to dictate you will do anything - anything - to stop him getting into power.
It’s the old Hitler argument - if you could kill Hitler pre-power, would you do it? Most would say yes. Many of Trump’s opponents frame things in much the same way.
I agree with @kle4 that we are not there yet but if you have armed nut jobs turning up at Supreme Court justices’ homes armed and ready to kill them (which is where the Left’s logic is also heading them ie take out appointed for life Justices and you can get your own candidates in), I see it more likely than not that someone tries to assassinate Trump
The threat to life in the US is, and always has been, from the Right. There are far more people with guns supporting Trump than opposing him. Biden is at far more risk from people who think he stole the election from Trump. This idea of some gun wielding wokeist is the exact opposite of where the real danger is. Trump may, as he has before, incite violent insurrection
Are you really not aware of the long history of left-wing political violence in the US?
Violence can come from any quarter, but most of the political violence in the US is coming from the Right at present. To quote the Oct 2020 Homeland Threat Assessment from the Department of Homeland Security, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2020_10_06_homeland-threat-assessment.pdf , which was issued by Chad Wolf, then Acting United States Secretary of Homeland Security (a Trump appointee and Republican Party member):
"Among DVEs [domestic violent extremists], racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists—specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs)—will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland."
It's a bit out of date now, but a 2017 report by The Nation Institute and the Center for Investigative Reporting looked at terrorist attacks in the US 2008-16. There were:
115 far-right terrorist incidents, with 79 deaths.
63 Islamist terrorist incidents, with 90 deaths.
19 far-left inspired terrorist incidents, with 7 deaths.
Going further back, the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism has a database of individuals radicalised by ideologies 1948-2016, with 40% far-right, 25% Islamist and 17% far-left.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
If they overturn Colorado they will be rewriting their constitution to say it's ok to engage in treason if you running for president. Surely not even Trump appointees are willing to accept that.
On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?
My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.
Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.
Of a certainty, SCOTUS will reverse it, and Trump's popularity will rise.
There'll come a point when his legal problems will start to hurt his numbers rather than boost them
Why?
He's worried about that, it's why they have gone so hard at the trials being rigged, and had the other candidates pledge to support him even if he is convicted, but for that very reason I don't see why people would change their minds. I don't believe the polls saying that will be the line for many GOP voters - they support his view things are rigged, but will then not back him if convicted? Don't buy it.
Neither do I and one of the main reasons why - and it hasn’t really been discussed here - is that if you are poor in the States (and here), you are well aware that the odds are always stacked in favour of those who have money and / or the power. So his theme builds on some commonly held related views.
(yes Trump has money but not relative to the authorities).
One of the reasons being stated openly as to why Trump’s support is rising amongst Black voters is because he is vocalising their view the U.S. judicial system is corrupt and he’s - in their eyes - fighting back against it.
"Since January 2022, DVEs have conducted three fatal attacks in the Homeland resulting in 21 deaths and multiple non-lethal attacks. US law enforcement has disrupted over a half dozen other DVE plots. During the same period, only one attack was conducted by an individual inspired by a foreign terrorist organization. The individual—who is awaiting trial—was likely inspired by a spiritual mentor of al-Qa‘ida and Taliban narratives and allegedly wounded three New York City Police Department officers on New Year’s Eve.
"Collectively, these incidents focused on a variety of targets, including law enforcement, government, faith-based organizations, retail locations, ethnic and religious minorities, healthcare infrastructure, transportation, and the energy sector. The most lethal attack this year occurred in May in Allen, Texas, where a now-deceased attacker killed eight people at a shopping mall. The attacker was fixated on mass violence and held views consistent with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist (RMVE) and involuntary celibate violent extremist ideologies, judging from his writings and online activities."
With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.
I'm not convinced. Looks like the decline isn't especially broad based. Underlying momentum in services is still too high for comfort. Things might look better in a couple of releases but right now I wouldn't be rushing to cut rates.
Since about April, inflation numbers have come in pretty consistently, above expectations. Producer input and output prices are now falling. The B o E should certainly cut rates.
Why should the Bank cut rates now? Inflation of 3.9% is still well above target. Is it a racing certainty that it will fall below 2% without rate cuts? The last thing we want is spivs speculating on asset prices.
Core inflation = high
Wage growth = high
CPI = double the target
There will be no significant interest rate cuts for some time certainly not during 2024
I reckon they start cutting in June, after the Fed and ECB.
"Since January 2022, DVEs have conducted three fatal attacks in the Homeland resulting in 21 deaths and multiple non-lethal attacks. US law enforcement has disrupted over a half dozen other DVE plots. During the same period, only one attack was conducted by an individual inspired by a foreign terrorist organization. The individual—who is awaiting trial—was likely inspired by a spiritual mentor of al-Qa‘ida and Taliban narratives and allegedly wounded three New York City Police Department officers on New Year’s Eve.
"Collectively, these incidents focused on a variety of targets, including law enforcement, government, faith-based organizations, retail locations, ethnic and religious minorities, healthcare infrastructure, transportation, and the energy sector. The most lethal attack this year occurred in May in Allen, Texas, where a now-deceased attacker killed eight people at a shopping mall. The attacker was fixated on mass violence and held views consistent with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist (RMVE) and involuntary celibate violent extremist ideologies, judging from his writings and online activities."
Unfortunately though those are not necessarily neutral documents.
For example, the DHS didn’t classify the Waukesha incident where 6 people were killed even though there was plenty of evidence that the defendant (a Black man) deliberately targeted a marching band and crowd they were White. He even said he wanted to kill White people.
However, it didn’t fit the political narrative, so it wasn’t classified as a racially driven terrorism incident.
If they overturn Colorado they will be rewriting their constitution to say it's ok to engage in treason if you running for president. Surely not even Trump appointees are willing to accept that.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
If they were still an MP, then they could be kicked out of Parliament. A sufficiently-long suspension, as Johnson faced, or any custodial sentence would lead to a recall petition and a by-election, but there's nothing there that stops someone from standing again.
The Representation of the People Act 1981, in response to Bobby Sands, bars someone from being an MP if they are serving a sentence of more than a year. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a criminal trial yet, of course.
"Since January 2022, DVEs have conducted three fatal attacks in the Homeland resulting in 21 deaths and multiple non-lethal attacks. US law enforcement has disrupted over a half dozen other DVE plots. During the same period, only one attack was conducted by an individual inspired by a foreign terrorist organization. The individual—who is awaiting trial—was likely inspired by a spiritual mentor of al-Qa‘ida and Taliban narratives and allegedly wounded three New York City Police Department officers on New Year’s Eve.
"Collectively, these incidents focused on a variety of targets, including law enforcement, government, faith-based organizations, retail locations, ethnic and religious minorities, healthcare infrastructure, transportation, and the energy sector. The most lethal attack this year occurred in May in Allen, Texas, where a now-deceased attacker killed eight people at a shopping mall. The attacker was fixated on mass violence and held views consistent with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist (RMVE) and involuntary celibate violent extremist ideologies, judging from his writings and online activities."
Unfortunately though those are not necessarily neutral documents.
For example, the DHS didn’t classify the Waukesha incident where 6 people were killed even though there was plenty of evidence that the defendant (a Black man) deliberately targeted a marching band and crowd they were White. He even said he wanted to kill White people.
However, it didn’t fit the political narrative, so it wasn’t classified as a racially driven terrorism incident.
Your comments about Waukesha do not contradict anything in the quote above. That refers to the "most lethal attack", in which 8 were killed. You mention an attack in which 6 were killed. Eight is larger than six.
I note you didn't comment on the 2020 Assessment that I quoted previously, which came from a Trump appointee and member of the Republican Party, and which was clearer in its identification of white supremacists as the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat.
On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?
My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.
Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.
Of a certainty, SCOTUS will reverse it, and Trump's popularity will rise.
There'll come a point when his legal problems will start to hurt his numbers rather than boost them
Why?
He's worried about that, it's why they have gone so hard at the trials being rigged, and had the other candidates pledge to support him even if he is convicted, but for that very reason I don't see why people would change their minds. I don't believe the polls saying that will be the line for many GOP voters - they support his view things are rigged, but will then not back him if convicted? Don't buy it.
Neither do I and one of the main reasons why - and it hasn’t really been discussed here - is that if you are poor in the States (and here), you are well aware that the odds are always stacked in favour of those who have money and / or the power. So his theme builds on some commonly held related views.
(yes Trump has money but not relative to the authorities).
One of the reasons being stated openly as to why Trump’s support is rising amongst Black voters is because he is vocalising their view the U.S. judicial system is corrupt and he’s - in their eyes - fighting back against it.
Trump the champion of Black America? The most cursory check of his CV will disabuse them of any such notion.
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.
Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).
Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.
Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.
65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid. It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.
You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.
Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising almost nothing.
I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one
It basically says an employee can’t increase their hours enough and the rich wouldn’t want to work harder because they make enough money for a good life anyway.
I will be generous and assume you didn’t read it before posting the link
Absolutely mental, the bastards will not get a penny from me, I will just stick more in pension and get tax relief and they will miss out on the VAT, spending etc. Morons could not run a bath
Is that the sound of the Laffer Curve… laffing?
Thing is, most of the time the laffer curve is (proven) rubbish. But when you have a devolved administration that’s in the same country as and right next door to - and defines itself by its difference to - another regime where the rate is very visibly lower, it does rather focus the mind.
We see the same in the US with state taxes. But this is good. We need experimentation. If higher taxes mean better services then there’s a trade off for people to consider.
You won't have any issue presenting that proof in simple and assimilable terms I take it.
Laffer curve aside there’s definitely an iron rule - let’s call it the Lucky Guy curve - that states that when TimS posts something at a time of day LuckyGuy is online, it will be met within seconds by a withering riposte. Even when the original post is actually sympathetic to his world view.
The original claim was made based on zero actual data. Subsequent analysis shows what is common sense: that higher tax rates raise more tax, unless they go completely bonkers and lead to behavioural change (usually emigration).
Tax policy is complicated and there are no simple rules that can explain taxpayer behaviour. If there were we’d long ago have solved our fiscal problems.
There are one or two things about the Laffer curve which have to be true. At 0% tax rate you raise nothing, and at 100% rate you will in the medium run raise nothing, while making people with any assets at all cross.
As the same basically will apply to a 0.001% rate (there are exceptions) and a 99.8% rate then it follows that there must be a figure somewhere between the two which is the sweet spot. This could be called the Colbert point, after the man who pointed out that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing".
It will likely very considerably between societies, in the real world - but I've seen a few academic papers which put it somewhere between 60 and 70%.
Which would probably have given poor old Laffer conniptions. The great bluffer.
Accords with my sense of it. I've always thought 65%. One for one, two for the pot. No modelling, just pure instinct.
I’m skeptical about tax rates as high as that for more libertarian reasons, but I think the Laffer argument against them largely dishonest, or deluded.
The original Laffer Curve was to illustrate a philosophical point.
Analytics were then done to estimate the shape of the curve (this is behavioural science so never precise).
Politicians and activists have tortured it well beyond what it was ever intended to be.
The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real.
Almost all claims (by left and right) about it are 100% bullshit.
65% I suspect is far, far too high a tax rate as people engage in tax avoidance at that rate or emigrate if they can. They higher the rate, the greater the reward for engaging in tax evasion, if you have a moderate tax rate there's no point evading taxes so people pay it - if its an obscene rate, then people find evading it very valuable.
The Universe's last proponent of the Laffer Curve proclaims: "The Laffer Curve absolutely is 100% real".
Anyone who doesn't think it's real is utterly stupid. It's fairly obvious that a 0% income tax rate will yield very little tax, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 100% income tax will result in very little revenue, as people generally won't work for nothing. Given that we get substantial revenue at some tax rates in between, it therefore follows that there is some sort of a curve connecting these three known points.
You can make plausible sounding cases for all sorts of different curves (it's probably not a neat parabola with the maximum revenue point at 50%), and the curve may well be different shapes in different sorts of societies and cultures, but to deny it exists is up there with membership of the flat earth society.
Thoughtfully (except possibly for the Scots), the Scottish Government seem to have decided to provide some more empirical data to help us plot the curve. I've a sneaking feeling they are about to discover they are well on the wrong side of the curve with a marginal rate of almost 70% for some earners, but the next few years (if they persist with this policy) are going to actually give us some hard data, which is always fun. Of course, the effects won't all show up in year one, as people won't relocate to England overnight - in the just same way as if they raised income tax to 100% from tomorrow, it would raise a load of cash for a month or two, whilst we all adjusted to resorting to paying for everything cash in hand, but in a years time it would be raising almost nothing.
I can give you a whole lot of articles that confirm the Laffer Curve is nonsense. Here's one
I can't read the second article (pay walled), but the 1st article doesn't dispute the existence of a Laffer Curve. It's making claims about its shape, specifically that a tax rate of 35% is not over its peak. It actually say that at very high rates (80-90%) there will be a noticeable effect.
Given our discussion was sparked by the Scottish government going for a marginal rate for some people of 69.5%, rather than denying there is a curve, we could perhaps move on to the more interesting question, namely - is 69.5% over the revenue maximising peak or not?
That's a load of nonsense too. It totally ignores value creation by high earner, presuming that if they earn less because of high tax rates, the organisation they work for gets to keep the money they would have paid them, so it doesn't matter that those high earners earn less.
So imagine a medical consultant decides to only work 3 days a week instead of 5 because of his marginal tax rate. Great, the hospital gets to save 2/5th of his wages. Less great is that he'll only see 3/5ths of the number of patients.
The best case scenario is that the hospital manage to employ another consultant for 2 days a week at the same rate, and which point the government gets no extra tax revenue, and the hospital gets a load of extra admin from having two people doing one job.
If there is a shortage of consultants, which it will be if this behaviour is widely replicated, as we've almost just doubled the number required to do the same amount of work, then their wages will rise (supply and demand). Then they will go into high marginal tax sooner... So may decide to only do two days a week, and round the whole doom loop we go again.
Before long you discover that the results of your high tax policy are to massively increase costs or reduce output for the hospital, whilst raising very little tax. And then you find your consultant working cash in hand on his new "days off" with his mate whose a painter and decorator (don't laugh, I've seen this first hand!).
A hospital consultant on say, £120k, has their take home pay reduced from £75k to £70k because of an increase in marginal rates... will react by cutting their hours by 40% to end up with a take home pay of (checks) £55k. Right.
Snip
Yep that is exactly how people think. We are seeing it loads in all sorts of branches of consulting across lots of industries and also in employment. When people are getting towards the senior end of their careers they look at lot more closely at work/life balance. And things like the tax trap are what make them decide the time has come to scale back. We saw it with GPs when the new working arangments were introduced and lots of them decided the small amounts of extra money they got just wasn't worth the additional commitments.
It may not be logical in purely financial terms but such decisions are based value judgements weighing up lots of factors and doing the same work for less money is definitely one that triggers a lot of people to reassess their careers.
The question people like that will be asking themselves is - if I can work 3 days a week for £350 a day after tax, and I don't really need the money anyway, do I really want to bother to do an extra two days a week for £150 a day? Those two days are already somewhat unappealing at £200 a day, so that 25% cut in pay for working those two extra days may well trigger the final "stuff it, why am I doing this when I could be on the golf course" reaction.
As for the cash in hand - yes it happens! I worked with a fairly senior engineer for a major car company. He spent his "days off" helping his mate who was a builder - I'm fairly sure on a cash basis.
Spot on. These decisions always get made at the margin, and punitive tax rates simply encourage part-time working or semi-retirement.
I’ve been there and done that myself, a couple of decades ago. I was working for a software company and there was unlimited overtime available doing customer support work, which I did loads of as I was saving for a house deposit. The tipping point was when I bumped into the 40% marginal rate, and decided that working Sundays and evenings for £10 an hour wasn’t really worth it. For professionals in their 50s and 60s, often having sent the kids to college and with mortgages mostly paid off, it’s a pretty easy decision to make. Even more so for contractors, who have to deal with the additional burdens of IR35 rules.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
The short answer is that we have multiple mechanisms for ensuring they don't succeed in overturning a valid election result. I don't think we have an obvious mechanism for stopping people being candidates for a further election but that is a matter for voters. Mercifully we don't ever elect a single person to have the sorts of powers a POTUS has.
There are mechanisms for removing this Trump character following election if they personally hold a seat validly. Ask Bone, Boris etc for details.
We also have a Supreme Court which operates properly and is not stuffed with cronies and political appointments.
I think our system is proving less dangerous than the USA. In particular we have no system for directly electing a fascist/dictator to very high office. (Long live the King).
With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.
I'm not convinced. Looks like the decline isn't especially broad based. Underlying momentum in services is still too high for comfort. Things might look better in a couple of releases but right now I wouldn't be rushing to cut rates.
Since about April, inflation numbers have come in pretty consistently, above expectations. Producer input and output prices are now falling. The B o E should certainly cut rates.
Why should the Bank cut rates now? Inflation of 3.9% is still well above target. Is it a racing certainty that it will fall below 2% without rate cuts? The last thing we want is spivs speculating on asset prices.
Core inflation = high
Wage growth = high
CPI = double the target
There will be no significant interest rate cuts for some time certainly not during 2024
I disagree.
All of that high CPI come from early 2023. Over the last six months it has cumulatively been 0.3%. So the recent run rate is well below target.
Once it is clear it's dropping below 2% - which will likely be the case by mid next year - we'll see meaningful rate cuts to move away from restrictive policy.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
If they were still an MP, then they could be kicked out of Parliament. A sufficiently-long suspension, as Johnson faced, or any custodial sentence would lead to a recall petition and a by-election, but there's nothing there that stops someone from standing again.
The Representation of the People Act 1981, in response to Bobby Sands, bars someone from being an MP if they are serving a sentence of more than a year. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a criminal trial yet, of course.
So I guess (as over there) you just have to rely on the voters then. If the voters go mad or bad, bang goes their democracy. At the end of the day maybe that's how it has to be.
On topic: Has Trump actually been convicted of insurrection ?
My guess is SCOTUS will rule 6-3 lifting the Colorado judgement but there is a fair chance Kagan might join the conservative justices.
Actually I'm revising that I think it'll be a 7-2 decision in Trump's favour.
Of a certainty, SCOTUS will reverse it, and Trump's popularity will rise.
There'll come a point when his legal problems will start to hurt his numbers rather than boost them
Why?
He's worried about that, it's why they have gone so hard at the trials being rigged, and had the other candidates pledge to support him even if he is convicted, but for that very reason I don't see why people would change their minds. I don't believe the polls saying that will be the line for many GOP voters - they support his view things are rigged, but will then not back him if convicted? Don't buy it.
The US is deeply polarized but you don't win the election just with people who love you and/or hate the other guy. You need the votes of undecideds, independents, apoliticals. There are lots of them even in Culture War America and my opinion is that these voters will break heavily against Donald Trump. If this shows up soon enough in the polls it could help the GOP pick someone else. If it doesn't - or it does and they pick him anyway - it will sink him in the general, almost regardless of who the Dem candidate is.
That's what I hope too. But it is a hope.
Well if all else fails there's always Michelle. Me and you will be PB legends if that happens.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
The short answer is that we have multiple mechanisms for ensuring they don't succeed in overturning a valid election result. I don't think we have an obvious mechanism for stopping people being candidates for a further election but that is a matter for voters. Mercifully we don't ever elect a single person to have the sorts of powers a POTUS has.
We also have a Supreme Court which operates properly and is not stuffed with cronies and political appointments.
The various procedural steps of certification at state level etc, whilst a good idea, also mean there are far more opportunities for unscrupulous people to launch baseless legal challenges or, if corrupt enough, seek to frustrate the result in the weeks and months after the election, with a veneer of legitimacy.
Over here the MP results are all done 24 hours later, and you cannot somehow toss out a significant portion of those or hold them up.
Like with any system it'd be much more effective to lean on the scales beforehand. I know people who fear the Tories would refuse to give up power if they lost, but I just don't see what mechanism they could use.
With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.
I'm not convinced. Looks like the decline isn't especially broad based. Underlying momentum in services is still too high for comfort. Things might look better in a couple of releases but right now I wouldn't be rushing to cut rates.
Since about April, inflation numbers have come in pretty consistently, above expectations. Producer input and output prices are now falling. The B o E should certainly cut rates.
Why should the Bank cut rates now? Inflation of 3.9% is still well above target. Is it a racing certainty that it will fall below 2% without rate cuts? The last thing we want is spivs speculating on asset prices.
Core inflation = high
Wage growth = high
CPI = double the target
There will be no significant interest rate cuts for some time certainly not during 2024
I disagree.
All of that high CPI come from early 2023. Over the last six months it has cumulatively been 0.3%. So the recent run rate is well below target.
Once it is clear it's dropping below 2% - which will likely be the case by mid next year - we'll see meaningful rate cuts to move away from restrictive policy.
If they overturn Colorado they will be rewriting their constitution to say it's ok to engage in treason if you running for president. Surely not even Trump appointees are willing to accept that.
If they overturn Colorado they will be rewriting their constitution to say it's ok to engage in treason if you running for president. Surely not even Trump appointees are willing to accept that.
The majority opinion will point out that he has not been convicted of treason in any court. It'll be one of the simpler ones for Roberts to write.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
If they were still an MP, then they could be kicked out of Parliament. A sufficiently-long suspension, as Johnson faced, or any custodial sentence would lead to a recall petition and a by-election, but there's nothing there that stops someone from standing again.
The Representation of the People Act 1981, in response to Bobby Sands, bars someone from being an MP if they are serving a sentence of more than a year. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a criminal trial yet, of course.
I am somewhat surprised that someone can run for President if convicted of a crime (or even serving time in prison) when at least in some states, such as Florida, you cannot vote even years after leaving prison, yet they can.
If they overturn Colorado they will be rewriting their constitution to say it's ok to engage in treason if you running for president. Surely not even Trump appointees are willing to accept that.
The majority opinion will point out that he has not been convicted of treason in any court. It'll be one of the simpler ones for Roberts to write.
Should even manage to get some of the Dem judges to agree to that one.
With that fall in inflation, it looks like the Bank of England may have erred again with interest rates.
I'm not convinced. Looks like the decline isn't especially broad based. Underlying momentum in services is still too high for comfort. Things might look better in a couple of releases but right now I wouldn't be rushing to cut rates.
Since about April, inflation numbers have come in pretty consistently, above expectations. Producer input and output prices are now falling. The B o E should certainly cut rates.
Why should the Bank cut rates now? Inflation of 3.9% is still well above target. Is it a racing certainty that it will fall below 2% without rate cuts? The last thing we want is spivs speculating on asset prices.
Core inflation = high
Wage growth = high
CPI = double the target
There will be no significant interest rate cuts for some time certainly not during 2024
Full of festive cheer I see Are you Megan 'Grinch' Greene ?
Yes it does. No matter the majority size any government seat should be presumed to be very much at risk right now, and a modest Labour win is a cautious opening prediction.
If they overturn Colorado they will be rewriting their constitution to say it's ok to engage in treason if you running for president. Surely not even Trump appointees are willing to accept that.
No doubt the originalists on the SC will appreciate that.
Based on - if you take out Confederates convicted post the Civil War - a case involving a New Mexico County official.
There is a lot of wishful thinking on these court cases but, as I said before, to defeat Trump, defeat him at the ballot box - not by trying to knock him off the ballots.
Believing that Richard Kemp would be a great advocate for your cause shows how far down the rabbit hole the Israel stans have fallen.
I remember opining at the start that Israel's response to Oct 7th would be so brutal and indiscriminate it would test the support of all bar their most deeply partisan supporters. We're seeing this now, I think.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
The short answer is that we have multiple mechanisms for ensuring they don't succeed in overturning a valid election result. I don't think we have an obvious mechanism for stopping people being candidates for a further election but that is a matter for voters. Mercifully we don't ever elect a single person to have the sorts of powers a POTUS has.
We also have a Supreme Court which operates properly and is not stuffed with cronies and political appointments.
The various procedural steps of certification at state level etc, whilst a good idea, also mean there are far more opportunities for unscrupulous people to launch baseless legal challenges or, if corrupt enough, seek to frustrate the result in the weeks and months after the election, with a veneer of legitimacy.
Over here the MP results are all done 24 hours later, and you cannot somehow toss out a significant portion of those or hold them up.
Like with any system it'd be much more effective to lean on the scales beforehand. I know people who fear the Tories would refuse to give up power if they lost, but I just don't see what mechanism they could use.
I don't think there is the smallest threat in the UK at the moment to 'losers' consent' as part of our democracy. But, minimal though it is, the greater threat to 'consent' would come from the Tories wining, not the Tories losing.
Wondering what British foreign and defence policy would be in a scenario where Trump let Ukraine fall and disbanded NATO.
We would probably have to ‘rearm’ and look for an alliance with the Germans and French, assuming that the latter hadn’t also fallen under Putins spell. Would we take in Ukrainian refugees?
How would the British right react? I can see Farage backing Trump, but there would be a dividing line with the Conservative right that went all in on Ukraine.
Either way a hard path for a new government to navigate.
In that event we should unite in a new Five Eyes/AUKUS pact with the USA
Europe will never spend enough to defend itself
What US interest is there in defending the UK but not France or Germany? That's the realpolitik.
American public sentiment sees Britain and Canada as the allies most worth defending
I don’t believe Trump will go against that. It is highly possible he will abandon mainland Europe
At the same time our multiple military and diplomatic ties to the USA - from Five Eyes to our nuclear deterrent - mean we are dependent on America (and they are dependent on us to a lesser extent) which again makes the choice obvious. Stick with Washington
It's massively in our interests to ensure a strong European defence.
"Since January 2022, DVEs have conducted three fatal attacks in the Homeland resulting in 21 deaths and multiple non-lethal attacks. US law enforcement has disrupted over a half dozen other DVE plots. During the same period, only one attack was conducted by an individual inspired by a foreign terrorist organization. The individual—who is awaiting trial—was likely inspired by a spiritual mentor of al-Qa‘ida and Taliban narratives and allegedly wounded three New York City Police Department officers on New Year’s Eve.
"Collectively, these incidents focused on a variety of targets, including law enforcement, government, faith-based organizations, retail locations, ethnic and religious minorities, healthcare infrastructure, transportation, and the energy sector. The most lethal attack this year occurred in May in Allen, Texas, where a now-deceased attacker killed eight people at a shopping mall. The attacker was fixated on mass violence and held views consistent with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist (RMVE) and involuntary celibate violent extremist ideologies, judging from his writings and online activities."
Unfortunately though those are not necessarily neutral documents.
For example, the DHS didn’t classify the Waukesha incident where 6 people were killed even though there was plenty of evidence that the defendant (a Black man) deliberately targeted a marching band and crowd they were White. He even said he wanted to kill White people.
However, it didn’t fit the political narrative, so it wasn’t classified as a racially driven terrorism incident.
Your comments about Waukesha do not contradict anything in the quote above. That refers to the "most lethal attack", in which 8 were killed. You mention an attack in which 6 were killed. Eight is larger than six.
I note you didn't comment on the 2020 Assessment that I quoted previously, which came from a Trump appointee and member of the Republican Party, and which was clearer in its identification of white supremacists as the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat.
I’m not disagreeing white extremists are the most dangerous issue and, to use your quote, my comments do not contradict anything you wrote. It is pointing out that, as with most things in the States, politics readily colours definitions in supposedly neutral areas - Waukesha was not defined as domestic terrorism simply because it did not suit the current Administration to have a narrative of a Black man deliberately using a car to deliberately target White people to have it so classified
We have tomorrow the last local by-elections of 2023. There are Lib Dem defences in Blaby and Leicestershire and a Con defence in Isle of Wight. Can the Lib Dems maintain their December record?
It actually looks like a spoof. Maybe it isn't. If your centre of gravity is SW1 I suppose anything north of Caledonian Road station counts as 'the north'. Like the gruel eating, clog wearing vagrants and wastrels that make up the urban squalor that is Cockfosters or Ruislip.
Believing that Richard Kemp would be a great advocate for your cause shows how far down the rabbit hole the Israel stans have fallen.
I remember opining at the start that Israel's response to Oct 7th would be so brutal and indiscriminate it would test the support of all bar their most deeply partisan supporters. We're seeing this now, I think.
Aye, when I were a lad it were all justifications for every action of the IDF round 'ere. Events, eh!
If they overturn Colorado they will be rewriting their constitution to say it's ok to engage in treason if you running for president. Surely not even Trump appointees are willing to accept that.
No doubt the originalists on the SC will appreciate that.
Based on - if you take out Confederates convicted post the Civil War - a case involving a New Mexico County official.
There is a lot of wishful thinking on these court cases but, as I said before, to defeat Trump, defeat him at the ballot box - not by trying to knock him off the ballots.
Precedent is precedent. We'll see how they spin it, but pretending there isn't a case there is just denial.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
The short answer is that we have multiple mechanisms for ensuring they don't succeed in overturning a valid election result. I don't think we have an obvious mechanism for stopping people being candidates for a further election but that is a matter for voters. Mercifully we don't ever elect a single person to have the sorts of powers a POTUS has.
We also have a Supreme Court which operates properly and is not stuffed with cronies and political appointments.
The various procedural steps of certification at state level etc, whilst a good idea, also mean there are far more opportunities for unscrupulous people to launch baseless legal challenges or, if corrupt enough, seek to frustrate the result in the weeks and months after the election, with a veneer of legitimacy.
Over here the MP results are all done 24 hours later, and you cannot somehow toss out a significant portion of those or hold them up.
Like with any system it'd be much more effective to lean on the scales beforehand. I know people who fear the Tories would refuse to give up power if they lost, but I just don't see what mechanism they could use.
The two least willing to give up power in my time were Heath and Brown Our system leaves some power with the PM, some power with MPs and some power with HMK
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
The short answer is that we have multiple mechanisms for ensuring they don't succeed in overturning a valid election result. I don't think we have an obvious mechanism for stopping people being candidates for a further election but that is a matter for voters. Mercifully we don't ever elect a single person to have the sorts of powers a POTUS has.
We also have a Supreme Court which operates properly and is not stuffed with cronies and political appointments.
The various procedural steps of certification at state level etc, whilst a good idea, also mean there are far more opportunities for unscrupulous people to launch baseless legal challenges or, if corrupt enough, seek to frustrate the result in the weeks and months after the election, with a veneer of legitimacy.
Over here the MP results are all done 24 hours later, and you cannot somehow toss out a significant portion of those or hold them up.
Like with any system it'd be much more effective to lean on the scales beforehand. I know people who fear the Tories would refuse to give up power if they lost, but I just don't see what mechanism they could use.
The two least willing to give up power in my time were Heath and Brown Our system leaves some power with the PM, some power with MPs and some power with HMK
There have been very few PMs defeated at the ballot box since mid 60s Wilson Heath Callaghan Major Brown Edit If you were 18 in 1979 when Thatcher replaced Callaghan in 1997 Blair replaced Major In 2010 Cameron replaced Brown You are now 62 and have only seen three PMs defeated
It actually looks like a spoof. Maybe it isn't. If your centre of gravity is SW1 I suppose anything north of Caledonian Road station counts as 'the north'. Like the gruel eating, clog wearing vagrants and wastrels that make up the urban squalor that is Cockfosters or Ruislip.
It does look like a spoof, the the account seems legit (linked from the DfT website). Internal spoof/some pissed off lackey? Or someone actually thinks this is a good thing to advertise? The mind boggles.
Thomas could always recuse himself if he doesn't want to cancel his break.
SCOTUS justices will likely be canceling holiday plans after CO Supreme Court DQ’s Trump from ballot under 14th Amendment. Ballot must be certified by Jan 5. This likely takes priority over Jack Smith’s request for quick SCOTUS review of immunity question. https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/status/1737448119002857698
It actually looks like a spoof. Maybe it isn't. If your centre of gravity is SW1 I suppose anything north of Caledonian Road station counts as 'the north'. Like the gruel eating, clog wearing vagrants and wastrels that make up the urban squalor that is Cockfosters or Ruislip.
It does look like a spoof, the the account seems legit (linked from the DfT website). Internal spoof/some pissed off lackey? Or someone actually thinks this is a good thing to advertise? The mind boggles.
No, remember that in the immediate aftermath of the HS2 cancellation the DfT was advertising improvements in Devon (Cullompton station IIRC?) as being part of the northern improvements to make up for HS2 scrubbing.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
If they were still an MP, then they could be kicked out of Parliament. A sufficiently-long suspension, as Johnson faced, or any custodial sentence would lead to a recall petition and a by-election, but there's nothing there that stops someone from standing again.
The Representation of the People Act 1981, in response to Bobby Sands, bars someone from being an MP if they are serving a sentence of more than a year. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a criminal trial yet, of course.
I am somewhat surprised that someone can run for President if convicted of a crime (or even serving time in prison) when at least in some states, such as Florida, you cannot vote even years after leaving prison, yet they can.
Rules for who can run for President are determined at the federal level, so there’s no consistency necessary with rules determined at the state level.
"Since January 2022, DVEs have conducted three fatal attacks in the Homeland resulting in 21 deaths and multiple non-lethal attacks. US law enforcement has disrupted over a half dozen other DVE plots. During the same period, only one attack was conducted by an individual inspired by a foreign terrorist organization. The individual—who is awaiting trial—was likely inspired by a spiritual mentor of al-Qa‘ida and Taliban narratives and allegedly wounded three New York City Police Department officers on New Year’s Eve.
"Collectively, these incidents focused on a variety of targets, including law enforcement, government, faith-based organizations, retail locations, ethnic and religious minorities, healthcare infrastructure, transportation, and the energy sector. The most lethal attack this year occurred in May in Allen, Texas, where a now-deceased attacker killed eight people at a shopping mall. The attacker was fixated on mass violence and held views consistent with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist (RMVE) and involuntary celibate violent extremist ideologies, judging from his writings and online activities."
Unfortunately though those are not necessarily neutral documents.
For example, the DHS didn’t classify the Waukesha incident where 6 people were killed even though there was plenty of evidence that the defendant (a Black man) deliberately targeted a marching band and crowd they were White. He even said he wanted to kill White people.
However, it didn’t fit the political narrative, so it wasn’t classified as a racially driven terrorism incident.
Your comments about Waukesha do not contradict anything in the quote above. That refers to the "most lethal attack", in which 8 were killed. You mention an attack in which 6 were killed. Eight is larger than six.
I note you didn't comment on the 2020 Assessment that I quoted previously, which came from a Trump appointee and member of the Republican Party, and which was clearer in its identification of white supremacists as the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat.
I’m not disagreeing white extremists are the most dangerous issue and, to use your quote, my comments do not contradict anything you wrote. It is pointing out that, as with most things in the States, politics readily colours definitions in supposedly neutral areas - Waukesha was not defined as domestic terrorism simply because it did not suit the current Administration to have a narrative of a Black man deliberately using a car to deliberately target White people to have it so classified
Great. So, we agree: political violence from the Right is by far the greater threat in the US.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
If they were still an MP, then they could be kicked out of Parliament. A sufficiently-long suspension, as Johnson faced, or any custodial sentence would lead to a recall petition and a by-election, but there's nothing there that stops someone from standing again.
The Representation of the People Act 1981, in response to Bobby Sands, bars someone from being an MP if they are serving a sentence of more than a year. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a criminal trial yet, of course.
I am somewhat surprised that someone can run for President if convicted of a crime (or even serving time in prison) when at least in some states, such as Florida, you cannot vote even years after leaving prison, yet they can.
Rules for who can run for President are determined at the federal level, so there’s no consistency necessary with rules determined at the state level.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Thomas and others are knitting a judgment, already, that the states have no rights over blocking candidates * for Federal elections. Probably using the various laws put in to end Jim Crow.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
If they were still an MP, then they could be kicked out of Parliament. A sufficiently-long suspension, as Johnson faced, or any custodial sentence would lead to a recall petition and a by-election, but there's nothing there that stops someone from standing again.
The Representation of the People Act 1981, in response to Bobby Sands, bars someone from being an MP if they are serving a sentence of more than a year. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a criminal trial yet, of course.
I am somewhat surprised that someone can run for President if convicted of a crime (or even serving time in prison) when at least in some states, such as Florida, you cannot vote even years after leaving prison, yet they can.
Rules for who can run for President are determined at the federal level, so there’s no consistency necessary with rules determined at the state level.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Thomas and others are knitting a judgment, already, that the states have no rights over blocking candidates * for Federal elections. Probably using the various laws put in to end Jim Crow.
*Orange Republicans, only, of course.
A majority decision in favour of Trump is fairly likely. I'm interested to see what their arguments for the ruling will be.
There are compelling arguments for Thomas to recuse, but I seriously doubt he'll even consider it.
If they overturn Colorado they will be rewriting their constitution to say it's ok to engage in treason if you running for president. Surely not even Trump appointees are willing to accept that.
The majority opinion will point out that he has not been convicted of treason in any court. It'll be one of the simpler ones for Roberts to write.
Do you think they'll say the insurrection clause does apply to Presidents, but Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection, or do you think they'll punt entirely on the question of whether the clause would apply to him if he were convicted, on the basis it's a moot hypothetical? My guess is they'll punt.
If they overturn Colorado they will be rewriting their constitution to say it's ok to engage in treason if you running for president. Surely not even Trump appointees are willing to accept that.
No doubt the originalists on the SC will appreciate that.
Based on - if you take out Confederates convicted post the Civil War - a case involving a New Mexico County official.
There is a lot of wishful thinking on these court cases but, as I said before, to defeat Trump, defeat him at the ballot box - not by trying to knock him off the ballots.
I don't fully agree, since the same logic is used to argue he should not be punished for crimes because he should be defeated at the ballot box. But politicians should face legal consequences if they are convicted.
The issue here is not that excluding from standing is inherently wrong, since people are prevented from standing for all sorts of reasons, but whether thos reason is justified.
Legal scholars disagree but it looks thin even if formal conviction was not needed for some confederates. The bar should be very high, and though I think he clearly has committed insurrection it does seem weird to declare him ineligible without a specific conviction for it.
The question people like that will be asking themselves is - if I can work 3 days a week for £350 a day after tax, and I don't really need the money anyway, do I really want to bother to do an extra two days a week for £150 a day? Those two days are already somewhat unappealing at £200 a day, so that 25% cut in pay for working those two extra days may well trigger the final "stuff it, why am I doing this when I could be on the golf course" reaction.
As for the cash in hand - yes it happens! I worked with a fairly senior engineer for a major car company. He spent his "days off" helping his mate who was a builder - I'm fairly sure on a cash basis.
Spot on. These decisions always get made at the margin, and punitive tax rates simply encourage part-time working or semi-retirement.
I’ve been there and done that myself, a couple of decades ago. I was working for a software company and there was unlimited overtime available doing customer support work, which I did loads of as I was saving for a house deposit. The tipping point was when I bumped into the 40% marginal rate, and decided that working Sundays and evenings for £10 an hour wasn’t really worth it. For professionals in their 50s and 60s, often having sent the kids to college and with mortgages mostly paid off, it’s a pretty easy decision to make. Even more so for contractors, who have to deal with the additional burdens of IR35 rules.
I think on balance I prefer the world where people aren't working loads of evening and weekend overtime and their employer (eventually) employs another person to do that work, over the one where some people work a lot and others don't have a job (or have a less well paying job). The former is probably more efficient, but the latter seems to me likely to result in a happier population on average, so if the tax system (or other regulation like the working time directive) kind of nudges us in that direction I don't see it as a bad thing.
The Telegraph, one of our most august journals, is doing some excellent work exposing Starmer as a lawyer.
Is this more or less disqualifying than treason nowadays?
It is no different to criticising Sunak for possibly "benefitting" when govt contracts are awarded to companies, like the Moderna vaccine, because the hedge fund he worked for invested in them.
However a venn diagram of those irate at Starmer and those irate at Sunak would provide very little crossover as it is all fake offence.
The Telegraph, one of our most august journals, is doing some excellent work exposing Starmer as a lawyer.
A good while ago, a friend was assaulted and left badly brain damaged. Couple of kids did it. They claimed the fall and hitting his head was an accident.
His wife wasn’t so sure and got an expert on head injuries to look into the matter. I was astonished when she was shouted at by the prosecuting council outside the courtroom. Apparently her efforts were putting in jeopardy a plan to avoid prison for the two teenagers involved.
In the end they got short sentences.
A few years later, we heard, via her lawyer, that the two perpetrators had been badly injured themselves. It seemed that they had resumed their career of violent mugging - but had violently mugged a very nasty person in the local underworld. Makes you wonder if putting them away for a serious sentence would have saved them.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
If they were still an MP, then they could be kicked out of Parliament. A sufficiently-long suspension, as Johnson faced, or any custodial sentence would lead to a recall petition and a by-election, but there's nothing there that stops someone from standing again.
The Representation of the People Act 1981, in response to Bobby Sands, bars someone from being an MP if they are serving a sentence of more than a year. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a criminal trial yet, of course.
I am somewhat surprised that someone can run for President if convicted of a crime (or even serving time in prison) when at least in some states, such as Florida, you cannot vote even years after leaving prison, yet they can.
Rules for who can run for President are determined at the federal level, so there’s no consistency necessary with rules determined at the state level.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Thomas and others are knitting a judgment, already, that the states have no rights over blocking candidates * for Federal elections. Probably using the various laws put in to end Jim Crow.
*Orange Republicans, only, of course.
Thomas is pretty horrendous, but it'd hardly be controversial to say that the right to stand for federal office is a federal rather than state matter. Indeed, the whole point of the US Supreme Court is to ensure consistency in the interpretation of the US Constitution across states.
I also happen to think the conservative justices in the US Supreme Court (and the original trial judge) are right on this one. Section 3 of the 14th amendment explicitly mentions senators, representatives, and electors for President, but NOT the President. The Colorado Supreme Court argued that inclusion of the President must have been intended within the generality of the term "offices under the United States" but that doesn't really make sense - the Constitution is peppered with explicit references to the President but he is notable by his absence from this one.
I hate to say it, and think it's ludicrous that an insurrectionist can stand. But I do believe that's what the Constitution means, sadly.
The Telegraph, one of our most august journals, is doing some excellent work exposing Starmer as a lawyer.
A good while ago, a friend was assaulted and left badly brain damaged. Couple of kids did it. They claimed the fall and hitting his head was an accident.
His wife wasn’t so sure and got an expert on head injuries to look into the matter. I was astonished when she was shouted at by the prosecuting council outside the courtroom. Apparently her efforts were putting in jeopardy a plan to avoid prison for the two teenagers involved.
In the end they got short sentences.
A few years later, we heard, via her lawyer, that the two perpetrators had been badly injured themselves. It seemed that they had resumed their career of violent mugging - but had violently mugged a very nasty person in the local underworld. Makes you wonder if putting them away for a serious sentence would have saved them.
Roadmen meet real Gangsters, a good life lesson for them.
The Telegraph, one of our most august journals, is doing some excellent work exposing Starmer as a lawyer.
A good while ago, a friend was assaulted and left badly brain damaged. Couple of kids did it. They claimed the fall and hitting his head was an accident.
His wife wasn’t so sure and got an expert on head injuries to look into the matter. I was astonished when she was shouted at by the prosecuting council outside the courtroom. Apparently her efforts were putting in jeopardy a plan to avoid prison for the two teenagers involved.
In the end they got short sentences.
A few years later, we heard, via her lawyer, that the two perpetrators had been badly injured themselves. It seemed that they had resumed their career of violent mugging - but had violently mugged a very nasty person in the local underworld. Makes you wonder if putting them away for a serious sentence would have saved them.
Roadmen meet real Gangsters, a good life lesson for them.
No - another fucking tragedy.
I saw what was left of my friend. You don’t wish that on anyone. Life changing injuries are a very euphemistic expression.
The Telegraph, one of our most august journals, is doing some excellent work exposing Starmer as a lawyer.
A good while ago, a friend was assaulted and left badly brain damaged. Couple of kids did it. They claimed the fall and hitting his head was an accident.
His wife wasn’t so sure and got an expert on head injuries to look into the matter. I was astonished when she was shouted at by the prosecuting council outside the courtroom. Apparently her efforts were putting in jeopardy a plan to avoid prison for the two teenagers involved.
In the end they got short sentences.
A few years later, we heard, via her lawyer, that the two perpetrators had been badly injured themselves. It seemed that they had resumed their career of violent mugging - but had violently mugged a very nasty person in the local underworld. Makes you wonder if putting them away for a serious sentence would have saved them.
Roadmen meet real Gangsters, a good life lesson for them.
Many years ago, when I worked as benefit-fraud investigator, the very first guy I interviewed was a local hard nut / lunatic (had been sacked from his earlier employer for smashing up the yard with a sledge hammer). A year or so later a couple of road men threatened him on the street with a knife. He did no more than take the knife off them and stabbed one of them to death.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
If they were still an MP, then they could be kicked out of Parliament. A sufficiently-long suspension, as Johnson faced, or any custodial sentence would lead to a recall petition and a by-election, but there's nothing there that stops someone from standing again.
The Representation of the People Act 1981, in response to Bobby Sands, bars someone from being an MP if they are serving a sentence of more than a year. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a criminal trial yet, of course.
I am somewhat surprised that someone can run for President if convicted of a crime (or even serving time in prison) when at least in some states, such as Florida, you cannot vote even years after leaving prison, yet they can.
Rules for who can run for President are determined at the federal level, so there’s no consistency necessary with rules determined at the state level.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Thomas and others are knitting a judgment, already, that the states have no rights over blocking candidates * for Federal elections. Probably using the various laws put in to end Jim Crow.
*Orange Republicans, only, of course.
Thomas is pretty horrendous, but it'd hardly be controversial to say that the right to stand for federal office is a federal rather than state matter. Indeed, the whole point of the US Supreme Court is to ensure consistency in the interpretation of the US Constitution across states.
I also happen to think the conservative justices in the US Supreme Court (and the original trial judge) are right on this one. Section 3 of the 14th amendment explicitly mentions senators, representatives, and electors for President, but NOT the President. The Colorado Supreme Court argued that inclusion of the President must have been intended within the generality of the term "offices under the United States" but that doesn't really make sense - the Constitution is peppered with explicit references to the President but he is notable by his absence from this one.
I hate to say it, and think it's ludicrous that an insurrectionist can stand. But I do believe that's what the Constitution means, sadly.
AIUI, the Colorado Supreme Court agrees that the right to stand for federal office is a federal rather than state matter. They are interpreting the federal law/Constitution as the case has come to them. They are now happily handing it over to the federal Supreme Court. Nothing here is about state rules.
The Telegraph, one of our most august journals, is doing some excellent work exposing Starmer as a lawyer.
A good while ago, a friend was assaulted and left badly brain damaged. Couple of kids did it. They claimed the fall and hitting his head was an accident.
His wife wasn’t so sure and got an expert on head injuries to look into the matter. I was astonished when she was shouted at by the prosecuting council outside the courtroom. Apparently her efforts were putting in jeopardy a plan to avoid prison for the two teenagers involved.
In the end they got short sentences.
A few years later, we heard, via her lawyer, that the two perpetrators had been badly injured themselves. It seemed that they had resumed their career of violent mugging - but had violently mugged a very nasty person in the local underworld. Makes you wonder if putting them away for a serious sentence would have saved them.
Roadmen meet real Gangsters, a good life lesson for them.
Many years ago, when I worked as benefit-fraud investigator, the very first guy I interviewed was a local hard nut / lunatic (had been sacked from his earlier employer for smashing up the yard with a sledge hammer). A year or so later a couple of road men threatened him on the street with a knife. He did no more than take the knife off them and stabbed one of them to death.
Horrible.
On a related note, I’ve been told the following. The “local” versions of the supermarkets (Tesco etc) are increasingly franchises. It seems the burden of shop lifting is falling on the franchise holders.
Since they can’t physically stop the shop lifters, one local guy has come up with a solution. A “cousin” who isn’t employed by him, who just hangs around the store. Scraggs shoplifters - and been taken to court for it a couple times already.
I have a feeling of horrible inevitability of where that will end.
The question people like that will be asking themselves is - if I can work 3 days a week for £350 a day after tax, and I don't really need the money anyway, do I really want to bother to do an extra two days a week for £150 a day? Those two days are already somewhat unappealing at £200 a day, so that 25% cut in pay for working those two extra days may well trigger the final "stuff it, why am I doing this when I could be on the golf course" reaction.
As for the cash in hand - yes it happens! I worked with a fairly senior engineer for a major car company. He spent his "days off" helping his mate who was a builder - I'm fairly sure on a cash basis.
Spot on. These decisions always get made at the margin, and punitive tax rates simply encourage part-time working or semi-retirement.
I’ve been there and done that myself, a couple of decades ago. I was working for a software company and there was unlimited overtime available doing customer support work, which I did loads of as I was saving for a house deposit. The tipping point was when I bumped into the 40% marginal rate, and decided that working Sundays and evenings for £10 an hour wasn’t really worth it. For professionals in their 50s and 60s, often having sent the kids to college and with mortgages mostly paid off, it’s a pretty easy decision to make. Even more so for contractors, who have to deal with the additional burdens of IR35 rules.
I think on balance I prefer the world where people aren't working loads of evening and weekend overtime and their employer (eventually) employs another person to do that work, over the one where some people work a lot and others don't have a job (or have a less well paying job). The former is probably more efficient, but the latter seems to me likely to result in a happier population on average, so if the tax system (or other regulation like the working time directive) kind of nudges us in that direction I don't see it as a bad thing.
Trouble is that we've full employment now, and employers are struggling to fill vacancies, so in reality, rather than employing someone else, less work gets done, which makes us all collectively poorer.
Also, in the cases of things like NHS consultants, we've spend a small fortune training them and there isn't exactly an infinite supply of replacements, so encouraging them go part time or retire in their 50s is terrible value of money for us as taxpayers.
Thomas is pretty horrendous, but it'd hardly be controversial to say that the right to stand for federal office is a federal rather than state matter. Indeed, the whole point of the US Supreme Court is to ensure consistency in the interpretation of the US Constitution across states.
I also happen to think the conservative justices in the US Supreme Court (and the original trial judge) are right on this one. Section 3 of the 14th amendment explicitly mentions senators, representatives, and electors for President, but NOT the President. The Colorado Supreme Court argued that inclusion of the President must have been intended within the generality of the term "offices under the United States" but that doesn't really make sense - the Constitution is peppered with explicit references to the President but he is notable by his absence from this one.
I hate to say it, and think it's ludicrous that an insurrectionist can stand. But I do believe that's what the Constitution means, sadly.
I think it's pretty reasonable to say that the person holding the Office of President of the United States holds "an office under the United States". The Colorado SC judgement also cites a quote from the debates at the time where a politician says "shouldn't this list the President" and the politician advocating the text says "not needed, that's covered by the bit where it says 'offices of the US'". Plus it would be an inconsistency with the impeachment clause, which says impeachment disqualifies you from holding an office under the United States. If impeachment didn't disqualify you from the presidency then impeaching the president would be pretty pointless.
The Telegraph, one of our most august journals, is doing some excellent work exposing Starmer as a lawyer.
A good while ago, a friend was assaulted and left badly brain damaged. Couple of kids did it. They claimed the fall and hitting his head was an accident.
His wife wasn’t so sure and got an expert on head injuries to look into the matter. I was astonished when she was shouted at by the prosecuting council outside the courtroom. Apparently her efforts were putting in jeopardy a plan to avoid prison for the two teenagers involved.
In the end they got short sentences.
A few years later, we heard, via her lawyer, that the two perpetrators had been badly injured themselves. It seemed that they had resumed their career of violent mugging - but had violently mugged a very nasty person in the local underworld. Makes you wonder if putting them away for a serious sentence would have saved them.
Roadmen meet real Gangsters, a good life lesson for them.
No - another fucking tragedy.
I saw what was left of my friend. You don’t wish that on anyone. Life changing injuries are a very euphemistic expression.
If they choose that lifestyle they have to accept the consequences that come with it and you will always come across someone tougher than you. So, for the Roadmen, this is a life lesson and a tragedy of their own making.
Their short sentence should have been a wake up call. A longer sentence may have been bad for them especially if the violent muggings are, or were, dependency related. Drugs are quite readily available in the boob after all.
On Topic: The Colorado judgement will probably be nullified by the SC but it's a step in the right direction. The price of trying to overturn the result of the last election with intimidation and violence should be that you can't stand in future elections. This is so blindingly obvious it shouldn't even need debating in sane circles. Sadly this doesn't include the GOP these days. They flunked doing the necessary back when Trump was impeached for the second time. It would have been a big brave call, a quarter of adult Americans are members of his cult, but they really should have made it. It was their patriotic duty. And deferring the problem has only made it worse. Things are going to get very messy stateside next year. Not one of my more original conclusions, I know, but there you go.
I'm wondering how similar events would be dealt with in the UK. The Representation of the People Act 1983 allows for someone to be barred from standing from election, as happened with Luftur Rahman. However, that is for conduct during an election, not for conduct after an election.
Great question. If a British PM behaved as Donald Trump did in the aftermath of losing a GE, do we have a mechanism to throw them out of politics? Surely we do.
If they were still an MP, then they could be kicked out of Parliament. A sufficiently-long suspension, as Johnson faced, or any custodial sentence would lead to a recall petition and a by-election, but there's nothing there that stops someone from standing again.
The Representation of the People Act 1981, in response to Bobby Sands, bars someone from being an MP if they are serving a sentence of more than a year. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a criminal trial yet, of course.
I am somewhat surprised that someone can run for President if convicted of a crime (or even serving time in prison) when at least in some states, such as Florida, you cannot vote even years after leaving prison, yet they can.
Rules for who can run for President are determined at the federal level, so there’s no consistency necessary with rules determined at the state level.
Wouldn’t surprise me if Thomas and others are knitting a judgment, already, that the states have no rights over blocking candidates * for Federal elections. Probably using the various laws put in to end Jim Crow.
*Orange Republicans, only, of course.
Thomas is pretty horrendous, but it'd hardly be controversial to say that the right to stand for federal office is a federal rather than state matter. Indeed, the whole point of the US Supreme Court is to ensure consistency in the interpretation of the US Constitution across states.
I also happen to think the conservative justices in the US Supreme Court (and the original trial judge) are right on this one. Section 3 of the 14th amendment explicitly mentions senators, representatives, and electors for President, but NOT the President. The Colorado Supreme Court argued that inclusion of the President must have been intended within the generality of the term "offices under the United States" but that doesn't really make sense - the Constitution is peppered with explicit references to the President but he is notable by his absence from this one.
I hate to say it, and think it's ludicrous that an insurrectionist can stand. But I do believe that's what the Constitution means, sadly.
The Telegraph, one of our most august journals, is doing some excellent work exposing Starmer as a lawyer.
A good while ago, a friend was assaulted and left badly brain damaged. Couple of kids did it. They claimed the fall and hitting his head was an accident.
His wife wasn’t so sure and got an expert on head injuries to look into the matter. I was astonished when she was shouted at by the prosecuting council outside the courtroom. Apparently her efforts were putting in jeopardy a plan to avoid prison for the two teenagers involved.
In the end they got short sentences.
A few years later, we heard, via her lawyer, that the two perpetrators had been badly injured themselves. It seemed that they had resumed their career of violent mugging - but had violently mugged a very nasty person in the local underworld. Makes you wonder if putting them away for a serious sentence would have saved them.
Roadmen meet real Gangsters, a good life lesson for them.
Many years ago, when I worked as benefit-fraud investigator, the very first guy I interviewed was a local hard nut / lunatic (had been sacked from his earlier employer for smashing up the yard with a sledge hammer). A year or so later a couple of road men threatened him on the street with a knife. He did no more than take the knife off them and stabbed one of them to death.
Ouch !!!!
Did he get off by claiming self defence ?
I cannot recall the stats but a decent minority of stabbings are people having their own weapons used on them.
US State Dept spokesman describes the Houthi attacks on ships as 'reckless' and a threat to global trade. Since threatening global trade is the whole point wouldn't it be better to describe the attacks as deliberate and effective?
Honestly people are taking the p*** out of the west. When are we going to do something?
The Telegraph, one of our most august journals, is doing some excellent work exposing Starmer as a lawyer.
A good while ago, a friend was assaulted and left badly brain damaged. Couple of kids did it. They claimed the fall and hitting his head was an accident.
His wife wasn’t so sure and got an expert on head injuries to look into the matter. I was astonished when she was shouted at by the prosecuting council outside the courtroom. Apparently her efforts were putting in jeopardy a plan to avoid prison for the two teenagers involved.
In the end they got short sentences.
A few years later, we heard, via her lawyer, that the two perpetrators had been badly injured themselves. It seemed that they had resumed their career of violent mugging - but had violently mugged a very nasty person in the local underworld. Makes you wonder if putting them away for a serious sentence would have saved them.
Roadmen meet real Gangsters, a good life lesson for them.
Many years ago, when I worked as benefit-fraud investigator, the very first guy I interviewed was a local hard nut / lunatic (had been sacked from his earlier employer for smashing up the yard with a sledge hammer). A year or so later a couple of road men threatened him on the street with a knife. He did no more than take the knife off them and stabbed one of them to death.
Horrible.
On a related note, I’ve been told the following. The “local” versions of the supermarkets (Tesco etc) are increasingly franchises. It seems the burden of shop lifting is falling on the franchise holders.
Since they can’t physically stop the shop lifters, one local guy has come up with a solution. A “cousin” who isn’t employed by him, who just hangs around the store. Scraggs shoplifters - and been taken to court for it a couple times already.
I have a feeling of horrible inevitability of where that will end.
Surely where it all ends is some places become too risky to have a shop. What you cite is a case of the Police not doing their job so someone else will. Effectively Plods attitude to shoplifting has decriminalised it and why would a Security guard on min wage risk getting stabbed by the local crackhead for a few quid of groceries.
My Stepdad used to be a delivery driver for Sainsburys. One day he was asked to pull his truck in front of a car as they suspected a drive off. He refused. He was not going to risk his wellbeing for 50 quid of petrol. The guy drove off. The cops were not interested. This is not a poor area but an affluent part of the country.
There will come a point, as we see in the USA, where stores will simply pull out of neighbourhoods leaving them with fewer and fewer shops and it will become a vicious circle.
The Telegraph, one of our most august journals, is doing some excellent work exposing Starmer as a lawyer.
A good while ago, a friend was assaulted and left badly brain damaged. Couple of kids did it. They claimed the fall and hitting his head was an accident.
His wife wasn’t so sure and got an expert on head injuries to look into the matter. I was astonished when she was shouted at by the prosecuting council outside the courtroom. Apparently her efforts were putting in jeopardy a plan to avoid prison for the two teenagers involved.
In the end they got short sentences.
A few years later, we heard, via her lawyer, that the two perpetrators had been badly injured themselves. It seemed that they had resumed their career of violent mugging - but had violently mugged a very nasty person in the local underworld. Makes you wonder if putting them away for a serious sentence would have saved them.
Roadmen meet real Gangsters, a good life lesson for them.
No - another fucking tragedy.
I saw what was left of my friend. You don’t wish that on anyone. Life changing injuries are a very euphemistic expression.
If they choose that lifestyle they have to accept the consequences that come with it and you will always come across someone tougher than you. So, for the Roadmen, this is a life lesson and a tragedy of their own making.
Their short sentence should have been a wake up call. A longer sentence may have been bad for them especially if the violent muggings are, or were, dependency related. Drugs are quite readily available in the boob after all.
I don’t agree with that - otherwise we might as well bring back Hot Trod.
I think SCOTUS will have an easy time throwing the judgment out. I actually agree that I think 14th Amendment applies to the office of President, but is the court not being asked to make a finding of guilt in terms of insurrection which is a finding of fact that needs to come from the conclusion of his January 6th trial?
To me the answer seems to be, in theory could he be disqualified- yes. Has he at this time met the conditions for disqualification - no.
Comments
This is why they are bombarding Ukraine with Iranian drones, using North Korean shells and ancient tanks as impromptu SPGs.
Building an industrial base of that kind would take billions and a decade or two in a relatively uncorrupt system. The previous attempts under Putin to revitalise the autarkic system foundered on the money being stolen at every level - cheaper to fake domestic production and import.
Edit: Other than drones
The key bit, anyway, was that both the US and U.K. were (independently) thermonuclear powers, when they joined their programs.
Really quite striking. To me
They were doing lots of heavy industry stuff for European export, which gives them, in some areas, a more modern industrial base than quite a lot of Russia.
He's worried about that, it's why they have gone so hard at the trials being rigged, and had the other candidates pledge to support him even if he is convicted, but for that very reason I don't see why people would change their minds. I don't believe the polls saying that will be the line for many GOP voters - they support his view things are rigged, but will then not back him if convicted? Don't buy it.
98% of arrests, under the PTA, were of young black men.
What else do you need to know about the police?
Wage growth = high
CPI = double the target
There will be no significant interest rate cuts for some time certainly not during 2024
"Among DVEs [domestic violent extremists], racially and ethnically motivated violent extremists—specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs)—will remain the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland."
115 far-right terrorist incidents, with 79 deaths.
63 Islamist terrorist incidents, with 90 deaths.
19 far-left inspired terrorist incidents, with 7 deaths.
Going further back, the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism has a database of individuals radicalised by ideologies 1948-2016, with 40% far-right, 25% Islamist and 17% far-left.
(yes Trump has money but not relative to the authorities).
One of the reasons being stated openly as to why Trump’s support is rising amongst Black voters is because he is vocalising their view the U.S. judicial system is corrupt and he’s - in their eyes - fighting back against it.
"Since January 2022, DVEs have conducted three fatal attacks in the Homeland resulting in 21 deaths and multiple non-lethal attacks. US law enforcement has disrupted over a half dozen other DVE plots. During the same period, only one attack was conducted by an individual inspired by a foreign terrorist organization. The individual—who is awaiting trial—was likely inspired by a spiritual mentor of al-Qa‘ida and Taliban narratives and allegedly wounded three New York City Police Department officers on New Year’s Eve.
"Collectively, these incidents focused on a variety of targets, including law enforcement, government, faith-based organizations, retail locations, ethnic and religious minorities, healthcare infrastructure, transportation, and the energy sector. The most lethal attack this year occurred in May in Allen, Texas, where a now-deceased attacker killed eight people at a shopping mall. The attacker was fixated on mass violence and held views consistent with racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist (RMVE) and involuntary celibate violent
extremist ideologies, judging from his writings and online activities."
For example, the DHS didn’t classify the Waukesha incident where 6 people were killed even though there was plenty of evidence that the defendant (a Black man) deliberately targeted a marching band and crowd they were White. He even said he wanted to kill White people.
However, it didn’t fit the political narrative, so it wasn’t classified as a racially driven terrorism incident.
The Representation of the People Act 1981, in response to Bobby Sands, bars someone from being an MP if they are serving a sentence of more than a year. Trump hasn't been found guilty in a criminal trial yet, of course.
I note you didn't comment on the 2020 Assessment that I quoted previously, which came from a Trump appointee and member of the Republican Party, and which was clearer in its identification of white supremacists as the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat.
I’ve been there and done that myself, a couple of decades ago. I was working for a software company and there was unlimited overtime available doing customer support work, which I did loads of as I was saving for a house deposit. The tipping point was when I bumped into the 40% marginal rate, and decided that working Sundays and evenings for £10 an hour wasn’t really worth it. For professionals in their 50s and 60s, often having sent the kids to college and with mortgages mostly paid off, it’s a pretty easy decision to make. Even more so for contractors, who have to deal with the additional burdens of IR35 rules.
There are mechanisms for removing this Trump character following election if they personally hold a seat validly. Ask Bone, Boris etc for details.
We also have a Supreme Court which operates properly and is not stuffed with cronies and political appointments.
I think our system is proving less dangerous than the USA. In particular we have no system for directly electing a fascist/dictator to very high office. (Long live the King).
All of that high CPI come from early 2023. Over the last six months it has cumulatively been 0.3%. So the recent run rate is well below target.
Once it is clear it's dropping below 2% - which will likely be the case by mid next year - we'll see meaningful rate cuts to move away from restrictive policy.
https://x.com/JakeWSimons/status/1737115736299245949?s=20
Believing that Richard Kemp would be a great advocate for your cause shows how far down the rabbit hole the Israel stans have fallen.
Over here the MP results are all done 24 hours later, and you cannot somehow toss out a significant portion of those or hold them up.
Like with any system it'd be much more effective to lean on the scales beforehand. I know people who fear the Tories would refuse to give up power if they lost, but I just don't see what mechanism they could use.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
No doubt the originalists on the SC will appreciate that.
There is a lot of wishful thinking on these court cases but, as I said before, to defeat Trump, defeat him at the ballot box - not by trying to knock him off the ballots.
The real front line is Poland and the Baltics.
https://twitter.com/transportgovuk/status/1737401590808543620
£235m to improve roads in London
"A Network North project"
Rishi is sharing the money with the South as well as the North!!
We'll see how they spin it, but pretending there isn't a case there is just denial.
Have you read the Colorado ruling ?
Our system leaves some power with the PM, some power with MPs and some power with HMK
https://bearalley.blogspot.com/2019/07/private-eye-cartoon-strips-3-its-grim.html
Wilson
Heath
Callaghan
Major
Brown
Edit
If you were 18 in 1979 when Thatcher replaced Callaghan
in 1997 Blair replaced Major
In 2010 Cameron replaced Brown
You are now 62 and have only seen three PMs defeated
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=365494
SCOTUS justices will likely be canceling holiday plans after CO Supreme Court DQ’s Trump from ballot under 14th Amendment. Ballot must be certified by Jan 5. This likely takes priority over Jack Smith’s request for quick SCOTUS review of immunity question.
https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/status/1737448119002857698
PS: https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2023-10-04/new-train-station-among-south-west-projects-to-get-funding
ISTR however there was some very clumsy announcing which made it seem as if they were offering that as a Northern improvement to keep the Mancs happy.
https://twitter.com/VanityFair/status/1737174975751336220
*Orange Republicans, only, of course.
Surely Starmer didn't start the fire ?
There are compelling arguments for Thomas to recuse, but I seriously doubt he'll even consider it.
Alito will say something insane.
The issue here is not that excluding from standing is inherently wrong, since people are prevented from standing for all sorts of reasons, but whether thos reason is justified.
Legal scholars disagree but it looks thin even if formal conviction was not needed for some confederates. The bar should be very high, and though I think he clearly has committed insurrection it does seem weird to declare him ineligible without a specific conviction for it.
MND and Locked in Syndrome are also horrendous conditions.
However a venn diagram of those irate at Starmer and those irate at Sunak would provide very little crossover as it is all fake offence.
His wife wasn’t so sure and got an expert on head injuries to look into the matter. I was astonished when she was shouted at by the prosecuting council outside the courtroom. Apparently her efforts were putting in jeopardy a plan to avoid prison for the two teenagers involved.
In the end they got short sentences.
A few years later, we heard, via her lawyer, that the two perpetrators had been badly injured themselves. It seemed that they had resumed their career of violent mugging - but had violently mugged a very nasty person in the local underworld. Makes you wonder if putting them away for a serious sentence would have saved them.
I also happen to think the conservative justices in the US Supreme Court (and the original trial judge) are right on this one. Section 3 of the 14th amendment explicitly mentions senators, representatives, and electors for President, but NOT the President. The Colorado Supreme Court argued that inclusion of the President must have been intended within the generality of the term "offices under the United States" but that doesn't really make sense - the Constitution is peppered with explicit references to the President but he is notable by his absence from this one.
I hate to say it, and think it's ludicrous that an insurrectionist can stand. But I do believe that's what the Constitution means, sadly.
I saw what was left of my friend. You don’t wish that on anyone. Life changing injuries are a very euphemistic expression.
On a related note, I’ve been told the following. The “local” versions of the supermarkets (Tesco etc) are increasingly franchises. It seems the burden of shop lifting is falling on the franchise holders.
Since they can’t physically stop the shop lifters, one local guy has come up with a solution. A “cousin” who isn’t employed by him, who just hangs around the store. Scraggs shoplifters - and been taken to court for it a couple times already.
I have a feeling of horrible inevitability of where that will end.
Also, in the cases of things like NHS consultants, we've spend a small fortune training them and there isn't exactly an infinite supply of replacements, so encouraging them go part time or retire in their 50s is terrible value of money for us as taxpayers.
The judgement discusses this in page 70 onward: https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf
Their short sentence should have been a wake up call. A longer sentence may have been bad for them especially if the violent muggings are, or were, dependency related. Drugs are quite readily available in the boob after all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump#Meaning_of_"Officer_of_the_United_States"
Ouch !!!!
Did he get off by claiming self defence ?
I cannot recall the stats but a decent minority of stabbings are people having their own weapons used on them.
Honestly people are taking the p*** out of the west. When are we going to do something?
My Stepdad used to be a delivery driver for Sainsburys. One day he was asked to pull his truck in front of a car as they suspected a drive off. He refused. He was not going to risk his wellbeing for 50 quid of petrol. The guy drove off. The cops were not interested. This is not a poor area but an affluent part of the country.
There will come a point, as we see in the USA, where stores will simply pull out of neighbourhoods leaving them with fewer and fewer shops and it will become a vicious circle.
To me the answer seems to be, in theory could he be disqualified- yes. Has he at this time met the conditions for disqualification - no.