Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
I'm already working on the assumption that the regime provoke enough political violence to suspend at least part of the midterms. Roll that forward and we're into suspending the general election as well due to the ongoing state of emergency.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
They can't enforce suspending the midterms if blue states and purple states run by Democrats go ahead and hold them anyway
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
I'm already working on the assumption that the regime provoke enough political violence to suspend at least part of the midterms. Roll that forward and we're into suspending the general election as well due to the ongoing state of emergency.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
One of the things about the law is that most of the time it doesn't need to be enforced. Most people willingly follow the law, or do so out of fear of the consequences, whether they be social embarrassment, or official sanction.
So the 22nd amendment has never been enforced. No-one had to tell Eisenhower not to run for a third term, nor Reagan, Clinton, Bush II or Obama.
Trump is different. He does not willingly follow the law. He feels no shame or embarrassment. He sees official sanction as the start of a negotiation. And no-one is willing to enforce the law on him, least of all his SCOTUS.
That's why it's only ill health that will stop a third Trump term.
There are a number of people who are probably completely screwed (and know it) as soon as Trump is off the scene. So I suspect Trump runs unless he is 6 foot under
(This is quite an obscure Dickie Bird reference - but I remember him stopping play against the West Indies at Old Trafford due to excess sunlight, reflecting from a window somewhere - loudly complaining "There is a light in that window". Or something.)
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
I'm already working on the assumption that the regime provoke enough political violence to suspend at least part of the midterms. Roll that forward and we're into suspending the general election as well due to the ongoing state of emergency.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
They can't enforce suspending the midterms if blue states and purple states run by Democrats go ahead and hold them anyway
Sure they can. A variety of routes: Send in the guard Call on patriots to protect ballot stations Simply disregard the results because the electors are riddled with terrorists and they don't count
Trump is a fascist and with the new antifa measures anyone opposing him is a terrorist. And he HATES his opponents.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
Personally I think the most likely way forward for Trump regime is that they get SCOTUS to rule that the 22nd meant "consecutive" terms.
I think @EdmundinTokyo has called it, Trump will just run, assuming he's not dead or in a coma. High likelihood that'll he'll win by a higher margin riding a populist wave of "sticking it to the Dems".
Sadly the only way to beat Trump will be with an assassin bullet.
Trump has a 39% approval rating currently, 10% down on the 49.8% who voted for him last year.
Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶
Did you bellow out loud (in the way of we old farts) ‘Where the fuck are the plasters?!’ I’ve had similar experiences based on just chuntering to myself.
No I didn’t. Otherwise that would be the explanation But I did yell in pain and swear very loudly. Then I ran the cold tap for 10 minutes. Then I rummaged in the bathroom cupboard for plasters
Is Alexa now so sophisticated she can work out just from noises that this means - cuts and plasters?
Or the camera on my echo show is always on and saw my thumb plastered?
I hope all those who say Trump’s running again, or cancelling the election, are going to be betting on such an eventuality.
FWIW I reckon at this stage that the Republican nomination is between Marco Rubio and JD Vance, with the Democratic nomination probably between Pete Butigieg and Gretchen Whitmer - although there’s a few 50/1 outsiders who could surprise in the Dem nomination race, as might have happened once before.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
EN do not make the decision. Who is overreaching?
There has been an assessment by the Planning Inspector with input from all parties under the relevant Act of Parliament, and the conclusion is decisive, and is what it is.
If the assessment is that an SSSI will be damaged, it can't be left alone for another 2 or 3 decades, surely?
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
I'm already working on the assumption that the regime provoke enough political violence to suspend at least part of the midterms. Roll that forward and we're into suspending the general election as well due to the ongoing state of emergency.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
They can't enforce suspending the midterms if blue states and purple states run by Democrats go ahead and hold them anyway
Sure they can. A variety of routes: Send in the guard Call on patriots to protect ballot stations Simply disregard the results because the electors are riddled with terrorists and they don't count
Trump is a fascist and with the new antifa measures anyone opposing him is a terrorist. And he HATES his opponents.
The Governor would activate the State Guard to meet them and get state police to remove 'patriots'
I hope all those who say Trump’s running again, or cancelling the election, are going to be betting on such an eventuality.
FWIW I reckon at this stage that the Republican nomination is between Marco Rubio and JD Vance, with the Democratic nomination probably between Pete Butigieg and Gretchen Whitmer - although there’s a few 50/1 outsiders who could surprise in the Dem nomination race, as might have happened once before.
If Beto O Rourke won the Texas Governor or Senate race next year he would also be a contender on the Dem side. Newsom will run but I can't see him winning Iowa or NH or SC which would knock him out before California and NY vote
(This is quite an obscure Dickie Bird reference - but I remember him stopping play against the West Indies at Old Trafford due to excess sunlight, reflecting from a window somewhere - loudly complaining "There is a light in that window". Or something.)
Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶
Did you bellow out loud (in the way of we old farts) ‘Where the fuck are the plasters?!’ I’ve had similar experiences based on just chuntering to myself.
No I didn’t. Otherwise that would be the explanation But I did yell in pain and swear very loudly. Then I ran the cold tap for 10 minutes. Then I rummaged in the bathroom cupboard for plasters
Is Alexa now so sophisticated she can work out just from noises that this means - cuts and plasters?
Or the camera on my echo show is always on and saw my thumb plastered?
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
The issue is that the text of the amendment says this:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.."
The key word there is "elected".
It doesn't say that a person can't be nominated for the election, or is ineligible to serve as President, or cannot be on the ballot paper. It says that they can't be elected.
But how do you take out a restraining order to enforce the constitution on 80 million voters?
It looks as though health issues may prevent this from playing out, but we're yet to see the intensive speculation about a successor that you might expect. I guess no-one wants to upset Trump by implying he's a lame duck.
Personally I think the most likely way forward for Trump regime is that they get SCOTUS to rule that the 22nd meant "consecutive" terms.
I think @EdmundinTokyo has called it, Trump will just run, assuming he's not dead or in a coma. High likelihood that'll he'll win by a higher margin riding a populist wave of "sticking it to the Dems".
Sadly the only way to beat Trump will be with an assassin bullet.
I think father time is on our side too. He does not convince that he is the picture of health.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
That is also covered in the Inspector's Report, I think. EN do not make the decision.
Some of the legal side has changed, and perhaps the event has grown (?). Either way, if the assessment is that an SSSI will be damaged, it can't be left as is, surely?
Think about what you're saying for a moment. Someone walking on an SSSI might damage it. Therefore, by your logic, they should be able to ban walkers because they *may* damage it (*). This is giving Natural England and the like massive power over common land, and preventing its use by locals. And that's exactly what this event was: a use by locals.
AFAICT in that document, NE did not show that any damage had been done by the previous iterations of the festival (and I don't think it was any different in size to previous years).
(*) As it happens, the Icknield Way Trail passes across the heath.
I hope all those who say Trump’s running again, or cancelling the election, are going to be betting on such an eventuality.
FWIW I reckon at this stage that the Republican nomination is between Marco Rubio and JD Vance, with the Democratic nomination probably between Pete Butigieg and Gretchen Whitmer - although there’s a few 50/1 outsiders who could surprise in the Dem nomination race, as might have happened once before.
Agreed. Republicans tend to revere the Constitution. There is no way their vote holds up if Trump tries to stand again. The people who think he will are so blinded by their hate for him that they are losing their grip on reality. Unless, of course, the US has changed so much that reality really has changed.
I hope all those who say Trump’s running again, or cancelling the election, are going to be betting on such an eventuality.
FWIW I reckon at this stage that the Republican nomination is between Marco Rubio and JD Vance, with the Democratic nomination probably between Pete Butigieg and Gretchen Whitmer - although there’s a few 50/1 outsiders who could surprise in the Dem nomination race, as might have happened once before.
Agreed. Republicans tend to revere the Constitution. There is no way their vote holds up if Trump tries to stand again. The people who think he will are so blinded by their hate for him that they are losing their grip on reality. Unless, of course, the US has changed so much that reality really has changed.
Remind me how much did the Republicans revere the constitution on January 6th 2021?
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
I hope all those who say Trump’s running again, or cancelling the election, are going to be betting on such an eventuality.
FWIW I reckon at this stage that the Republican nomination is between Marco Rubio and JD Vance, with the Democratic nomination probably between Pete Butigieg and Gretchen Whitmer - although there’s a few 50/1 outsiders who could surprise in the Dem nomination race, as might have happened once before.
Agreed. Republicans tend to revere the Constitution. There is no way their vote holds up if Trump tries to stand again. The people who think he will are so blinded by their hate for him that they are losing their grip on reality. Unless, of course, the US has changed so much that reality really has changed.
Remind me how much the Republicans revered the constitution on January 6th 2021?
C’mon, these people love the constitution so much they turned up for a tour of the Capitol. Admittedly they got a bit over excited and it got of hand.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
I'm already working on the assumption that the regime provoke enough political violence to suspend at least part of the midterms. Roll that forward and we're into suspending the general election as well due to the ongoing state of emergency.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
They can't enforce suspending the midterms if blue states and purple states run by Democrats go ahead and hold them anyway
Sure they can. A variety of routes: Send in the guard Call on patriots to protect ballot stations Simply disregard the results because the electors are riddled with terrorists and they don't count
Trump is a fascist and with the new antifa measures anyone opposing him is a terrorist. And he HATES his opponents.
The Governor would activate the State Guard to meet them and get state police to remove 'patriots'
Perfect when the objective is to provoke political violence.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
I'm already working on the assumption that the regime provoke enough political violence to suspend at least part of the midterms. Roll that forward and we're into suspending the general election as well due to the ongoing state of emergency.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
There is no provision for suspending elections in America, not even the Civil War, the bloodiest war in America's history (even more than WWI and WWII combined for them IIRC) led to the suspension of them.
If Civil War doesn't suspend elections, no amount of violence foreseeable will.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
That is also covered in the Inspector's Report, I think. EN do not make the decision.
Some of the legal side has changed, and perhaps the event has grown (?). Either way, if the assessment is that an SSSI will be damaged, it can't be left as is, surely?
Think about what you're saying for a moment. Someone walking on an SSSI might damage it. Therefore, by your logic, they should be able to ban walkers because they *may* damage it (*). This is giving Natural England and the like massive power over common land, and preventing its use by locals. And that's exactly what this event was: a use by locals.
AFAICT in that document, NE did not show that any damage had been done by the previous iterations of the festival (and I don't think it was any different in size to previous years).
(*) As it happens, the Icknield Way Trail passes across the heath.
I expect if the likes of the inspector and Natural England had been around in 1845 they'd be like rats up a drainpipe to draft up and enforce the Inclosure act.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Gavin Newsom, he’s upped his game, it feels like he’s hired me to run his social media accounts.
As I’ve mentioned before, far too much effort for Trump to challenge the 22nd Amendment and try to run again.
Why bother when you can just run with a proxy candidate (probably one of the Trump clan) as their “lead advisor” or some such, and retain control of the levers of power after the vote.
There’s nothing in the constitution that says the man behind the desk in the Oval Office has to be the president.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Gavin Newsom, he’s upped his game, it feels like he’s hired me to run his social media accounts.
Oh he’s definitely running, but “Make America California Again” is barely a popular platform in California any more.
Ok this is totally freaky. Last night I cut my thumb deeply on my new handmade Sardinian knife. Luckily the knife is so sharp the clean cut was easy to bind with a bunch of plasters
I told no one about this. Not on WhatsApp, not here, not in emails. Didn’t talk to machines about it. Nothing
I have as a result merely been THINKING about buying more plasters. That’s all. THINKING
Today my Amazon echo show is showing me adverts for plasters
😶😶😶😶😶
Did you bellow out loud (in the way of we old farts) ‘Where the fuck are the plasters?!’ I’ve had similar experiences based on just chuntering to myself.
No I didn’t. Otherwise that would be the explanation But I did yell in pain and swear very loudly. Then I ran the cold tap for 10 minutes. Then I rummaged in the bathroom cupboard for plasters
Is Alexa now so sophisticated she can work out just from noises that this means - cuts and plasters?
Or the camera on my echo show is always on and saw my thumb plastered?
Quite unsettling
Or: "This numpty has bought a ridiculously sharp knife - he's bound to cut himself"
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
That is also covered in the Inspector's Report, I think. EN do not make the decision.
Some of the legal side has changed, and perhaps the event has grown (?). Either way, if the assessment is that an SSSI will be damaged, it can't be left as is, surely?
Think about what you're saying for a moment. Someone walking on an SSSI might damage it. Therefore, by your logic, they should be able to ban walkers because they *may* damage it (*). This is giving Natural England and the like massive power over common land, and preventing its use by locals. And that's exactly what this event was: a use by locals.
AFAICT in that document, NE did not show that any damage had been done by the previous iterations of the festival (and I don't think it was any different in size to previous years).
(*) As it happens, the Icknield Way Trail passes across the heath.
I expect if the likes of the inspector and Natural England had been around in 1845 they'd be like rats up a drainpipe to draft up and enforce the Inclosure act.
I presume their Scottish equivalents will be looking to export all the remaining crofters to empty the land.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Gavin Newsom, he’s upped his game, it feels like he’s hired me to run his social media accounts.
Same thought had occurred to me, though I also detect a touch of @ydoethur every so often. In any event, I suspect he has a very good chance of getting the nomination, simply by being the most visible opposition to Trump.
I hope all those who say Trump’s running again, or cancelling the election, are going to be betting on such an eventuality.
FWIW I reckon at this stage that the Republican nomination is between Marco Rubio and JD Vance, with the Democratic nomination probably between Pete Butigieg and Gretchen Whitmer - although there’s a few 50/1 outsiders who could surprise in the Dem nomination race, as might have happened once before.
Agreed. Republicans tend to revere the Constitution. There is no way their vote holds up if Trump tries to stand again. The people who think he will are so blinded by their hate for him that they are losing their grip on reality. Unless, of course, the US has changed so much that reality really has changed.
Remind me how much the Republicans revered the constitution on January 6th 2021?
C’mon, these people love the constitution so much they turned up for a tour of the Capitol. Admittedly they got a bit over excited and it got of hand.
When I visited the Capitol building in 2004 I also nearly accidentally incited a riot that tried to hang the incumbent vice president, it happens to us all.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
I'm already working on the assumption that the regime provoke enough political violence to suspend at least part of the midterms. Roll that forward and we're into suspending the general election as well due to the ongoing state of emergency.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
There is no provision for suspending elections in America, not even the Civil War, the bloodiest war in America's history (even more than WWI and WWII combined for them IIRC) led to the suspension of them.
If Civil War doesn't suspend elections, no amount of violence foreseeable will.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
As I’ve mentioned before, far too much effort for Trump to challenge the 22nd Amendment and try to run again.
Why bother when you can just run with a proxy candidate (probably one of the Trump clan) as their “lead advisor” or some such, and retain control of the levers of power after the vote.
There’s nothing in the constitution that says the man behind the desk in the Oval Office has to be the president.
Vance will run I think. Like the Medvedev/ Putin campaign of yore
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Kelly? Klobucher? AOC?
Klobuchar’s a good shout there, as is Mark Kelly.
Not sure about AOC, she’s probably running but poor value at 9/1 this far out - and I’m not sure the Dems primary voters are quite so crazy as to actually run her.
Germany’s €83 billion defense plan sends less than 10% to US weapons, with nearly all major contracts; frigates, Eurofighters, air defenses, armored vehicles going to EU suppliers, - Politico
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Gavin Newsom, he’s upped his game, it feels like he’s hired me to run his social media accounts.
Same thought had occurred to me, though I also detect a touch of @ydoethur every so often. In any event, I suspect he has a very good chance of getting the nomination, simply by being the most visible opposition to Trump.
I backed her at 83/1 next Tory leader and was able to lay back at 22/1. Only small size, made £9! But bookies are still 33/1
According to the BBC article he also has 'a five-year sexual harm prevention order - which bans him from contacting any female not already known to him. He will be added to the sex offenders' register for 10 years, the force confirmed in a statement, adding that he would now be subject "to strict monitoring for the whole of that time".'
All very well for Lam to say 'Get out' but what is the chance of getting rid of this fellow?
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
Good article pointing out how difficult it is to put numbers on the cost of regulation (certainly government's own assessments don't really capture these factors).
How bad regulations make infrastructure expensive It's more complicated than you think https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-bad-regulations-make-infrastructure ...Direct costs are only part of the story. The real issue is that regulation can act as an impediment on the methods and strategies that are essential to reducing costs like the fleet approach that has enabled South Korea to build nuclear plants at a sixth of the cost of us.
There are big advantages to modular construction with fewer complex civil works. Modular construction typically involves upfront investment in production lines that needs to be spread across projects. When projects are delayed or cancelled, production lines sitting idle can effectively wipe out the advantage of this approach.
Legal and General attempted to apply the modular approach to housing. They built a factory and employed almost 500 people. The aim was to build homes that were not only cheaper, but greener too. In theory, the upfront investment in a factory could be spread over hundreds of projects across the UK. The problem was every single project they tried to build saw lengthy planning delays (and in one case, outright refusal). The factory closed soon after.
It is near-impossible to quantify these indirect costs of regulation, yet they are real and are why regulation can have a much larger impact on costs than it appears at first glance...
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
I'd want at least 100/1.
She had her chance, and her fault or not (IMO, not), blew it. You only get a second go if there's no one else.
I backed her at 83/1 next Tory leader and was able to lay back at 22/1. Only small size, made £9! But bookies are still 33/1
According to the BBC article he also has 'a five-year sexual harm prevention order - which bans him from contacting any female not already known to him. He will be added to the sex offenders' register for 10 years, the force confirmed in a statement, adding that he would now be subject "to strict monitoring for the whole of that time".'
All very well for Lam to say 'Get out' but what is the chance of getting rid of this fellow?
You know the rules; we're supposed to be happy that we're going to have to pay for the next 30+ years of his valueless noncy existence.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Kelly? Klobucher? AOC?
Klobuchar’s a good shout there, as is Mark Kelly.
Not sure about AOC, she’s probably running but poor value at 9/1 this far out - and I’m not sure the Dems primary voters are quite so crazy as to actually run her.
Yes, I think you are right about the AOC value at this stage.
I've got her at overall winning POTUS at 50 from a while back but not got a position on her getting dem nomination so far.
All this is value seeking for trading at this stage as you say. Got to be a reasonable chance that the nominee is someone we've basically never heard of at this stage.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Gavin Newsom, he’s upped his game, it feels like he’s hired me to run his social media accounts.
Same thought had occurred to me, though I also detect a touch of @ydoethur every so often. In any event, I suspect he has a very good chance of getting the nomination, simply by being the most visible opposition to Trump.
It's probably a bit early to lay his chances.
I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted.
Pure compliment, I assure you. I'm not suggesting the whole thing carries your style.
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
A lot of people feel that bisexuality isn't a real thing and that bisexuals are either straight people trying to look edgy or gays/lesbians not brave enough to go the whole way.
it doesn't help that gay celebrities often use being bisexual as a stepping step to test the waters e.g. Tom Daley, Duncan James.
Also I think the expectation is often that bi people must be attracted to everyone, when like straight and gay people, it will only be a specific subset.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Harris was thrown a hospital pass. But it doesn't help to complain about that now; no one really wants to hear a rehashing of the whole mess.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
That just seems like bogus excuses.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Further, by preventing the established annual pattern of use, Nature England are quite possibly doing environmental damage.
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
A lot of people feel that bisexuality isn't a real thing and that bisexuals are either straight people trying to look edgy or gays/lesbians not brave enough to go the whole way.
it doesn't help that gay celebrities often use being bisexual as a stepping step to test the waters e.g. Tom Daley, Duncan James.
Also I think the expectation is often that bi people must be attracted to everyone, when like straight and gay people, it will only be a specific subset.
I realised I was bisexual at high school as I had crushes on girls and boys. My dad was somewhat of a homophobe so I buried it. Went to uni and found the LGBsoc people thought B were not really a thing and not brave enough and actually a bit of a traitor to the cause actually. So I buried it so deep that I didn't come out for another 20 years.
As you say, it doesn't mean wanting to shag anything that walks...
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
We will have to disagree on that. But I think time has proven that she was right about her opponent.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
I'd want at least 100/1.
She had her chance, and her fault or not (IMO, not), blew it. You only get a second go if there's no one else.
She's had two chances really. She ran to be the candidate in the primaries and bombed but then became the veep candidate under Biden.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
I'd want at least 100/1.
She had her chance, and her fault or not (IMO, not), blew it. You only get a second go if there's no one else.
She's had two chances really. She ran to be the candidate in the primaries and bombed but then became the veep candidate under Biden.
She’s useless and the democrats would be well advised to look to the future. AOC looks interesting to me
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
I honestly don't know if "laying the favourite" is a good idea in Dem elections. It didn't work in 2019 UK when Boris was favourite from the off. Newsom is opening up a lead in polling for the nomination and nobody is stopping him. Would the best strategy in 2025 be simply to wait?
This is one reason not to buy a Chinese one, no one has a clue which companies will survive long term. And I wouldn’t want to own a Chinese car where the manufacturer has gone as getting parts would be a nightmare
Picking up on the Kite Flying festival thing from yesterday, and the populist narrative being put out. I had a dig, and the core issue is damage to the SSSI on a piece of Common Land.
One thing I did note is that Natural England have been gutted since 2010 as badly as Local Councils. It is not a Council Planning application; it is a Section 38 Application for development of designated common land, in this case temporary development. The Common is also a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest.
These are determined by the Planning Inspectorate under S38 of the Commons Act 2006, taking into account various statutory criteria. In this case the Inspector concluded that the proposed works would damage the features which were the reason it is an SSSI (it is chalk grassland). The proposed mowing regime for the previous 4 months would impact species mix etc.
Here the Inspector concluded that:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
That seems unarguable, and the report is here. Here the Rotary Club need to change its game, which I think they will do as most of their argument is around their convenience and the small amount (3k per annum) of money raised. I say an SSSI is more important.
Nor am I impressed with the Conservators of the Common; in 2018 they went for (and I think obtained) Planning Permission to build 8 houses on part of it, providing alternative "replacement" land outside the town as a "swap". That is not reflecting what common land is for, which is for commoners and to be an open space for residents, or the job of the conservators. Residents have to walk a mile to the replacement. The OSS objected to that one. https://www.oss.org.uk/we-fight-planning-application-on-royston-common/
I have no idea how much of that is a quote, because you have used blanket italics, but just to confirm:
So it was Natural England, the 'populist narrative' was entirely correct then. You blamed the council, and now your story is that it was actually right that the festival was cancelled, due to the devastating effect of cutting the grass. You can argue that if you want, but it does nothing to support your previous claims.
That was quick - I updated the italics. The populist narrative is a campaign group jumping on a single correctly handled case as a national ban on 'fun', and that therefore the body protecting SSSIs should be abolished.
I think you need to read the Inspector's report to get beyond your assumptions. Her strong conclusion was that maintaining the maintenance regime necessary would damage the feature which makes the Common Land an SSSI. To wit:
27. I consider that, on balance, the harm to nature conservation and the integrity of the SSSI and the consequent conflict with the duty under section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs would together strongly outweigh the positive benefits to the neighbourhood that would arise from the holding of the Kite Festival.
SSSIs have legally designated features which make them SSSIs, and the Natural England statutory role is to preserve them - which is what they did.
Various options were suggested, which the promoters rejected. They need to adapt to the reality of holding their event on an SSSI, adjusting the date somewhat, or move it elsewhere. I find it surprising that a Rotary are willing to damage their own town.
The wildlife and countryside act has been in place since 1981, the festival has run for many years. Why is it a problem this year and not previously ? It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !) It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
I think the problem is two fold:
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this. 2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
That just seems like bogus excuses.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
Fuck them.
I cannot see how this take is at all controversial
This is one reason not to buy a Chinese one, no one has a clue which companies will survive long term. And I wouldn’t want to own a Chinese car where the manufacturer has gone as getting parts would be a nightmare
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
This is one reason not to buy a Chinese one, no one has a clue which companies will survive long term. And I wouldn’t want to own a Chinese car where the manufacturer has gone as getting parts would be a nightmare
Surely BYD is a reasonably safe bet ?
Yep but I wouldn’t be so sure about the others and Kia is probably a safer option.
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
A lot of people feel that bisexuality isn't a real thing and that bisexuals are either straight people trying to look edgy or gays/lesbians not brave enough to go the whole way.
it doesn't help that gay celebrities often use being bisexual as a stepping step to test the waters e.g. Tom Daley, Duncan James.
Also I think the expectation is often that bi people must be attracted to everyone, when like straight and gay people, it will only be a specific subset.
Some people also assume that Bi people must be promiscuous, because a single sexual partner cannot be both male or female, but you can be attracted to a variety of people and choose to remain faithful to one.
Good advice from Sarah Montague on R4 WATO this the LDs. LDs would be better served by leaving the Tories's blue wall alone and focusing on inner city Labour seats. She suggests the LDs are a left of centre party that will not win over Tory voters, but will win over disillusioned Labour voters.
Sarah also interviewed Daisy Cooper who was surprisingly uninspiring.
Good advice from Sarah Montague on R4 WATO this the LDs. LDs would be better served by leaving the Tories's blue wall alone and focusing on inner city Labour seats. She suggests the LDs are a left of centre party that will not win over Tory voters, but will win over disillusioned Labour voters.
Sarah also interviewed Daisy Cooper who was surprisingly uninspiring.
This is bonkers advice. The more that the remains of the Tory party are subsumed by Farage, the more of their current / former voters are homeless...
I hope all those who say Trump’s running again, or cancelling the election, are going to be betting on such an eventuality.
FWIW I reckon at this stage that the Republican nomination is between Marco Rubio and JD Vance, with the Democratic nomination probably between Pete Butigieg and Gretchen Whitmer - although there’s a few 50/1 outsiders who could surprise in the Dem nomination race, as might have happened once before.
Agreed. Republicans tend to revere the Constitution. There is no way their vote holds up if Trump tries to stand again. The people who think he will are so blinded by their hate for him that they are losing their grip on reality. Unless, of course, the US has changed so much that reality really has changed.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
A lot of people feel that bisexuality isn't a real thing and that bisexuals are either straight people trying to look edgy or gays/lesbians not brave enough to go the whole way.
it doesn't help that gay celebrities often use being bisexual as a stepping step to test the waters e.g. Tom Daley, Duncan James.
Also I think the expectation is often that bi people must be attracted to everyone, when like straight and gay people, it will only be a specific subset.
Some people also assume that Bi people must be promiscuous, because a single sexual partner cannot be both male or female, but you can be attracted to a variety of people and choose to remain faithful to one.
If you read any kind of fanfiction, bisexuals are fetishised. The assumption is that they are promiscuous, keen practisers of incest, and on the lookout for new experiences.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
The odd thing is that Biden as President arguably had the most successful domestic policy agenda of any President as far as I can remember. There's lots of good things happening in terms of infrastructure and business investment because of his legislation. And the achievement to get that legislation through an exceptionally divided Congress is quite something, and speaks to Biden's enduring ability.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
And how it interacts with efficient building design. And why new builds have pokey windows.
Short version - regulations designed for a world where ‘leccy is coal fired are madness in a world where 95% of ‘leccy will be coming from ever cheaper renewables.
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
A lot of people feel that bisexuality isn't a real thing and that bisexuals are either straight people trying to look edgy or gays/lesbians not brave enough to go the whole way.
it doesn't help that gay celebrities often use being bisexual as a stepping step to test the waters e.g. Tom Daley, Duncan James.
Also I think the expectation is often that bi people must be attracted to everyone, when like straight and gay people, it will only be a specific subset.
I realised I was bisexual at high school as I had crushes on girls and boys. My dad was somewhat of a homophobe so I buried it. Went to uni and found the LGBsoc people thought B were not really a thing and not brave enough and actually a bit of a traitor to the cause actually. So I buried it so deep that I didn't come out for another 20 years.
As you say, it doesn't mean wanting to shag anything that walks...
It baffles me that the idea of individual personal attraction seems to be quite offensive, nowadays, to some. Surely it still applies whatever one's orientation.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
And how it interacts with efficient building design. And why new builds have pokey windows.
Short version - regulations designed for a world where ‘leccy is coal fired are madness in a world where 95% of ‘leccy will be coming from ever cheaper renewables.
Good advice from Sarah Montague on R4 WATO this the LDs. LDs would be better served by leaving the Tories's blue wall alone and focusing on inner city Labour seats. She suggests the LDs are a left of centre party that will not win over Tory voters, but will win over disillusioned Labour voters.
Sarah also interviewed Daisy Cooper who was surprisingly uninspiring.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
And how it interacts with efficient building design. And why new builds have pokey windows.
Short version - regulations designed for a world where ‘leccy is coal fired are madness in a world where 95% of ‘leccy will be coming from ever cheaper renewables.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
We will have to disagree on that. But I think time has proven that she was right about her opponent.
Well if your point is Trump is a horrible president, I won't disagree. We might have hoped for less bad but it was hope rather than expectation.
I backed her at 83/1 next Tory leader and was able to lay back at 22/1. Only small size, made £9! But bookies are still 33/1
According to the BBC article he also has 'a five-year sexual harm prevention order - which bans him from contacting any female not already known to him. He will be added to the sex offenders' register for 10 years, the force confirmed in a statement, adding that he would now be subject "to strict monitoring for the whole of that time".'
All very well for Lam to say 'Get out' but what is the chance of getting rid of this fellow?
You know the rules; we're supposed to be happy that we're going to have to pay for the next 30+ years of his valueless noncy existence.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
I backed her at 83/1 next Tory leader and was able to lay back at 22/1. Only small size, made £9! But bookies are still 33/1
According to the BBC article he also has 'a five-year sexual harm prevention order - which bans him from contacting any female not already known to him. He will be added to the sex offenders' register for 10 years, the force confirmed in a statement, adding that he would now be subject "to strict monitoring for the whole of that time".'
All very well for Lam to say 'Get out' but what is the chance of getting rid of this fellow?
Very little based on past experience. This piece of shit will live off the taxpayer for the rest of his existence
This is one reason not to buy a Chinese one, no one has a clue which companies will survive long term. And I wouldn’t want to own a Chinese car where the manufacturer has gone as getting parts would be a nightmare
"Hi Everyone, Today is Bi is a day to recognise the bisexual community and celebrate bisexual people globally. The bisexual community is frequently referred to as the forgotten part of the LGBTQ+ community and they face a number of negative stereotypes and expectations. Bisexual Visibility Day is an opportunity to celebrate bisexuals and discover the difficulties that many members of the bisexual community face."
Not quite sure of the difficulties, but then I'm not bi. Also not sure what celebration I'm supposed to be doing?
A lot of people feel that bisexuality isn't a real thing and that bisexuals are either straight people trying to look edgy or gays/lesbians not brave enough to go the whole way.
it doesn't help that gay celebrities often use being bisexual as a stepping step to test the waters e.g. Tom Daley, Duncan James.
Also I think the expectation is often that bi people must be attracted to everyone, when like straight and gay people, it will only be a specific subset.
I realised I was bisexual at high school as I had crushes on girls and boys. My dad was somewhat of a homophobe so I buried it. Went to uni and found the LGBsoc people thought B were not really a thing and not brave enough and actually a bit of a traitor to the cause actually. So I buried it so deep that I didn't come out for another 20 years.
As you say, it doesn't mean wanting to shag anything that walks...
If it's not too personal a question, does it actually have any impact on your life? Is it not - as an adult - just the same situation as mine i.e. there are lots of people I find physically attractive, of whom I am married to one and therefore all of the others are just people who brighten up the landscape. For me, all the first group are female whereas for yours they are a mix of male and female - but I would have thought it essentially the same outcome?
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
I sort of wondered if he was going to suggest to KC3 that he could be a sub-king of importance within the Trump world kingship. To be honest I think he probably did.
Can we have an official list of all PBers who are predicting their will be no mid-term elections in the USA next year.
I'm sure those PBers will be happy to have their foresight available for all to see.
Can we also get a list of those who predict seriously that Donald Trump will run in 2028.
There are a few ifs and buts, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Firstly Trump Snr. has to survive myriad health issues. Should he do so law change is required, and that is not insurmountable, particularly with compliant legislative and judicial branches of government. Also, you didn't specify Donald Trump Snr. or Jnr. And then there is always Eric, but according to Mary Trump he is the least capable of the lot.
He needs Congress and two thirds of state legislatures to back changing the Constitution. Near impossible and if they did he would likely face Obama who would also run for a third term
Obama can't win Calvinball against the Supreme Court. I think it's unlikely to happen but if it does it could look something like this:
- Republicans push some spurious legal theory about the term limits not being real. After they've all been saying it for a while it becomes a disputed fact and the media start to report it as "Democrats say presidents are limited to two terms, Republicans say they aren't". - Trump runs in the GOP primary and wins. Some Dem states try to keep him off the ballot, Republicans write him in and award him their delegates - When a Dem state tries to keep him off the national ballot, it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS rule that it's not up to the states to decide who is and isn't eligible. They already decided this way over insurrection. - If he wins the election, they rule that he's eligible.
Obama doesn't get to run if this happens, because the Dems don't think he's eligible, and in any case if he won, SCOTUS would rule that he wasn't eligible.
The 22nd Amendment makes clear there is a 2 term limit for President. SCOTUS can't directly contradict what is written in black and white in the constitution however much they may try and spin it.
In the very unlikely event Congress and 2/3 of state legislatures repealed the 22nd Amendment then Obama and Trump would both run. The Democrats assuming they had control of most state legislatures and governors would put Obama on the ballot in all those states and if Obama won would inaugrate him as POTUS whatever the SC said.
It would then come down to who most of the army backed, Trump or Obama, by then the US would be near a second civil war anyway with some deep blue or deep red states starting to secede whichever of Trump or Obama ended up inaugrated
I'm already working on the assumption that the regime provoke enough political violence to suspend at least part of the midterms. Roll that forward and we're into suspending the general election as well due to the ongoing state of emergency.
It's extraordinarily illegal and unconstitutional. Hence the regime already pushing the boundaries of acting outside the law to test how to do it.
There is no provision for suspending elections in America, not even the Civil War, the bloodiest war in America's history (even more than WWI and WWII combined for them IIRC) led to the suspension of them.
If Civil War doesn't suspend elections, no amount of violence foreseeable will.
It seems likely, but hard to prove. "Emperor" Xi would have a strong interest in concealing that, if they are.
I am old enough so that I saw Apple's "1984" ad. It would be hilarious to see the same ad, now.
For the record: Recently, I sent a letter to Tim Cook, offering him a colorful "Free Tibet" bumper sticker, if he would display it prominently. Oddly enough, he has not replied, but he is a busy man.
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
Although this is the classic Chinese playbook, subsidise an industry, let it expand rapidly, then cut back support so the only the strongest will survive. However, are they sure that's 100 totally independent manufacturers, or are many subsidises of others? I watched a video a few months ago of a western car journalist who reviews Chinese cars (and lives in China) and every second stand he went to seemed to be this is the ZingYangFu, who are a brand for the domestic market owned by BYD, Geely, etc.
Lots of cars were also "in association with Xiaomi or Huawei", where loads of the tech including self driving was from them. Again, the classic Chinese, you will use this other companies tech for such and such parts.
Good advice from Sarah Montague on R4 WATO this the LDs. LDs would be better served by leaving the Tories's blue wall alone and focusing on inner city Labour seats. She suggests the LDs are a left of centre party that will not win over Tory voters, but will win over disillusioned Labour voters.
Sarah also interviewed Daisy Cooper who was surprisingly uninspiring.
Which is actually rubbish advice. Voters in inner cities who want a left of Labour party are going Green or even Your Party they will NOT vote for ex Cameron Cabinet Minister Ed Davey's party. This is not Charles Kennedy's left of Labour LDs, most of them returned to Labour when Ed Miliband won the leadership.
The LD vote is now largely made up of those who voted LD even in 2015 for Clegg plus some former Tory Remainers mainly based in the South of England
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg Gretchen Whitmer Wes Moore John Ossoff Josh Shapiro Andy Beshear JB Pritzker
Value from those:
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
Harris is on a book tour at the moment, and seems to be doing a great job of reminding everyone why she was such a terrible candidate last time out.
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
If Harris was a terrible candidate (hint; she was not), then Trump must be an absolutely catastrophic one.
Oh come on Josias, she was awful. She was perceived - I would say rightly, but that doesn't matter: as a candidate, it's the perception that counts - as so far from the concerns of the middle American voter that she was beaten by a charlatan like Trump. Incredible though it seems from this perspective, lots of people perceived him as the safer candidate. Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
Comments
It has Luckyguy, JosiasJessop and myself agreeing this is quite some overreach (And we do not always agree !)
It's a preposterous amount of overmeddling behaviour.
Send in the guard
Call on patriots to protect ballot stations
Simply disregard the results because the electors are riddled with terrorists and they don't count
Trump is a fascist and with the new antifa measures anyone opposing him is a terrorist. And he HATES his opponents.
He is not going to be re elected with that even if the constitution was changed to allow him to run again
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
But I did yell in pain and swear very loudly. Then I ran the cold tap for 10 minutes. Then I rummaged in the bathroom cupboard for plasters
Is Alexa now so sophisticated she can work out just from noises that this means - cuts and plasters?
Or the camera on my echo show is always on and saw my thumb plastered?
Quite unsettling
FWIW I reckon at this stage that the Republican nomination is between Marco Rubio and JD Vance, with the Democratic nomination probably between Pete Butigieg and Gretchen Whitmer - although there’s a few 50/1 outsiders who could surprise in the Dem nomination race, as might have happened once before.
There has been an assessment by the Planning Inspector with input from all parties under the relevant Act of Parliament, and the conclusion is decisive, and is what it is.
If the assessment is that an SSSI will be damaged, it can't be left alone for another 2 or 3 decades, surely?
(Joke - I know they rotated the pitch for other reasons)
AFAICT in that document, NE did not show that any damage had been done by the previous iterations of the festival (and I don't think it was any different in size to previous years).
(*) As it happens, the Icknield Way Trail passes across the heath.
https://polymarket.com/event/democratic-presidential-nominee-2028
I’m definitely laying the favourite (Gavin Newsom).
It’s obviously a name recognition market at this stage, and we have no idea who’s running for at least another two years, but there’s likely to be a handful of those currently at trading 2%-4% involved.
Trading bets for now: what do we reckon?
Pete Buttigieg
Gretchen Whitmer
Wes Moore
John Ossoff
Josh Shapiro
Andy Beshear
JB Pritzker
If Civil War doesn't suspend elections, no amount of violence foreseeable will.
Why bother when you can just run with a proxy candidate (probably one of the Trump clan) as their “lead advisor” or some such, and retain control of the levers of power after the vote.
There’s nothing in the constitution that says the man behind the desk in the Oval Office has to be the president.
In any event, I suspect he has a very good chance of getting the nomination, simply by being the most visible opposition to Trump.
It's probably a bit early to lay his chances.
Pritzker seems to be playing the moment effectively. Feisty opposition but with gravitas.
Harris seems like she wants to run as she's doing a lot of media and the Dems usually pick the next in line. Not clear if losing the election causes you to lose your place in line but she's only 4 cents.
This man, in Britain for all of a week, has been convicted of five sex crimes including against a child.
His says he, “didn’t know the UK was so strict”.
He’s been given a 12 month sentence. He could serve far less. I wouldn’t call that “strict”.
Get out. Never return.
https://x.com/katie_lam_mp/status/1970458799325778371?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I backed her at 83/1 next Tory leader and was able to lay back at 22/1. Only small size, made £9! But bookies are still 33/1
Not sure about AOC, she’s probably running but poor value at 9/1 this far out - and I’m not sure the Dems primary voters are quite so crazy as to actually run her.
Germany’s €83 billion defense plan sends less than 10% to US weapons, with nearly all major contracts; frigates, Eurofighters, air defenses, armored vehicles going to EU suppliers, - Politico
👀 Only limited buys like Patriot missiles and P-8A torpedoes come from USA.
https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1970430159233917122
All very well for Lam to say 'Get out' but what is the chance of getting rid of this fellow?
I can’t image them going for a retread, having given her a coronation last time. I’m expecting a dozen runners for the first debate ahead of the primaries.
How bad regulations make infrastructure expensive
It's more complicated than you think
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/how-bad-regulations-make-infrastructure
...Direct costs are only part of the story. The real issue is that regulation can act as an impediment on the methods and strategies that are essential to reducing costs like the fleet approach that has enabled South Korea to build nuclear plants at a sixth of the cost of us.
There are big advantages to modular construction with fewer complex civil works. Modular construction typically involves upfront investment in production lines that needs to be spread across projects. When projects are delayed or cancelled, production lines sitting idle can effectively wipe out the advantage of this approach.
Legal and General attempted to apply the modular approach to housing. They built a factory and employed almost 500 people. The aim was to build homes that were not only cheaper, but greener too. In theory, the upfront investment in a factory could be spread over hundreds of projects across the UK. The problem was every single project they tried to build saw lengthy planning delays (and in one case, outright refusal). The factory closed soon after.
It is near-impossible to quantify these indirect costs of regulation, yet they are real and are why regulation can have a much larger impact on costs than it appears at first glance...
She had her chance, and her fault or not (IMO, not), blew it.
You only get a second go if there's no one else.
I've got her at overall winning POTUS at 50 from a while back but not got a position on her getting dem nomination so far.
All this is value seeking for trading at this stage as you say. Got to be a reasonable chance that the nominee is someone we've basically never heard of at this stage.
I'm not suggesting the whole thing carries your style.
it doesn't help that gay celebrities often use being bisexual as a stepping step to test the waters e.g. Tom Daley, Duncan James.
Also I think the expectation is often that bi people must be attracted to everyone, when like straight and gay people, it will only be a specific subset.
1) Natural England are running on a shoestring, although their shoestrings are not always well deployed. I have lots of experience of this.
2) They are very risk averse. Ditto.
So in the absence of anyone to go and look, anything on a SSSI will just get put in the 'rejected' pile.
I can't say whether the particular part of the common is important without looking, and neither can they. The normal solution is to send out Mrs Flatlander or her local equivalent to take a look and see what grows on the kite field and suggest a management plan or a compromise but there's clearly no budget for it.
Pasque flowers are endangered and very localised - we have a reintroduction programme in Yorkshire. It would be a shame to lose them when kites could be flown just about anywhere, although of course they may only be elsewhere on this site.
NB SSSIs are under-surveyed because they are an NE responsibility. Local wildlife sites (a lower designation) ironically get more attention because they are the statutory responsibility of the local council.
But it doesn't help to complain about that now; no one really wants to hear a rehashing of the whole mess.
The default should have been for acceptance. It's an event that has run for decades, and AFAICT no evidence of significant harm had been shown from past events. It's not as though they were wanting to hold a new event. And NE get to feel very proud about having protected something that may not be there, and the locals suffer.
Fuck them.
Trump is a catastrophic *president* As a candidate, he was merely bad - as shown by his ability, twice, to beat terrible candidates. When up against another merely bad candidate*, he lost convincingly.
*Biden is a bit sui generis. Because if you look back to the Biden of the noughties and early teenies, he was sharp, articulate, folksy and able to connect - a very good candidate indeed. But by 2020 this Biden was a Biden of the past.
As you say, it doesn't mean wanting to shag anything that walks...
China has more than 100 electric vehicle makers.
From NY Times.
https://x.com/KamalaHarris/status/1845993766441644386
Sarah also interviewed Daisy Cooper who was surprisingly uninspiring.
Obviously the fall of Kabul was devastating, I thought he was too timid on Ukraine, in the end his health failed him, and he should have stuck to his pledge to be a bridge to the next generation, but I think he compares very well to other US Presidents post the fall of the Berlin Wall.
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/legalise-ac
And how it interacts with efficient building design. And why new builds have pokey windows.
Short version - regulations designed for a world where ‘leccy is coal fired are madness in a world where 95% of ‘leccy will be coming from ever cheaper renewables.
When you want five bullet points but only have four policies...
(Edit: Not entirely serious about this obviously)
(that photo of Trump is grotesque)
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Trump for PM? It might just be possible...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/22/trump-pm-might-be-possible/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai
It seems likely, but hard to prove. "Emperor" Xi would have a strong interest in concealing that, if they are.
I am old enough so that I saw Apple's "1984" ad. It would be hilarious to see the same ad, now.
For the record: Recently, I sent a letter to Tim Cook, offering him a colorful "Free Tibet" bumper sticker, if he would display it prominently. Oddly enough, he has not replied, but he is a busy man.
Lots of cars were also "in association with Xiaomi or Huawei", where loads of the tech including self driving was from them. Again, the classic Chinese, you will use this other companies tech for such and such parts.
https://x.com/yorkshireccc/status/1970444467690954836?s=46&t=d8CnRhyZJ-m4vy0k55W8XQ
The LD vote is now largely made up of those who voted LD even in 2015 for Clegg plus some former Tory Remainers mainly based in the South of England
(Spelling apparently Guterres)
She worded it stupidly but I don’t see it as a bad idea