Skip to content

Your regular reminder that words matter – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,740
edited 6:42AM in General
Your regular reminder that words matter – politicalbetting.com

Good example on how framing makes a big difference on poll questions. Using a split sample – there's a 10 point difference in the number of people who say train services would be better run if they were publicly owned (39%) vs run by the Government (29%). pic.twitter.com/WjVsyybdEh

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,355
    The director-general said personal politics had no place in the Corporation’s news department amid repeated controversy over BBC impartiality.

    “You leave it at the door and your religion is journalism at the BBC. And the problem I’ve got is that people react quite chemically to that,” Mr Davie told the Cheltenham Literature Festival.

    “So you can’t come into the newsroom with a Black Lives Matter T-shirt.

    “We stand absolutely firmly against racism in any form. I find some of the hatred in society at the moment utterly abhorrent, and personally really upsetting.

    “But that is a campaign that has politicised objectives, therefore is not appropriate for a journalist who may be covering that issue to be campaigning in that way,” he told an audience at the festival.

    “And for some people joining the BBC, that is a very difficult thing to accept.

    “I feel very strongly that if you walk into the BBC newsroom you cannot be holding a Kamala Harris mug when you come to the [US] election. No way.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/19/black-lives-matter-not-welcome-bbc-newsroom-tim-davie/
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 25,422
    Logically the polling suggests the public love a QUANGO.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 88,355
    edited 6:49AM
    On the header, they can mean very different things. In public ownership can still mean operated by a private company just the assets are publicly owned.

    Its a misunderstanding about a lot of Swedish "public" services. Paid for by the state i.e. the taxpayer, but commonly privately operated e.g. free child care.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,013
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: I think this is the first time since I made the bet that Verstappen's been shorter than 4 for the title. Not inclined to hedge it, at the moment.

    For what it's worth, I think Las Vegas is going to be a Russell circuit, which may have title implications. But Piastri really needs to get his head together.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275

    The director-general said personal politics had no place in the Corporation’s news department amid repeated controversy over BBC impartiality.

    “You leave it at the door and your religion is journalism at the BBC. And the problem I’ve got is that people react quite chemically to that,” Mr Davie told the Cheltenham Literature Festival.

    “So you can’t come into the newsroom with a Black Lives Matter T-shirt.

    “We stand absolutely firmly against racism in any form. I find some of the hatred in society at the moment utterly abhorrent, and personally really upsetting.

    “But that is a campaign that has politicised objectives, therefore is not appropriate for a journalist who may be covering that issue to be campaigning in that way,” he told an audience at the festival.

    “And for some people joining the BBC, that is a very difficult thing to accept.

    “I feel very strongly that if you walk into the BBC newsroom you cannot be holding a Kamala Harris mug when you come to the [US] election. No way.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/19/black-lives-matter-not-welcome-bbc-newsroom-tim-davie/

    Perhaps he needs to have a chat with Justin Webb about his US coverage, then.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,597

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: I think this is the first time since I made the bet that Verstappen's been shorter than 4 for the title. Not inclined to hedge it, at the moment.

    For what it's worth, I think Las Vegas is going to be a Russell circuit, which may have title implications. But Piastri really needs to get his head together.

    It’s definitely moving from a two-way fight to a three-way fight, and one gets the impression that McLaren no longer have the fastest car having moved their development early to the 2026 project.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: I think this is the first time since I made the bet that Verstappen's been shorter than 4 for the title. Not inclined to hedge it, at the moment.

    For what it's worth, I think Las Vegas is going to be a Russell circuit, which may have title implications. But Piastri really needs to get his head together.

    Yes, his iceman rep hasn't really survived that brush with Norris.

    The latter took his behind-closed-doors reprimand on the chin, and has got on with business.
    Piastri, having had a good whine about Norris's driving, proceeded to do very much the same thing to Norris, taking them both out of the sprint race.
    And had a miserable race to follow that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275
    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: I think this is the first time since I made the bet that Verstappen's been shorter than 4 for the title. Not inclined to hedge it, at the moment.

    For what it's worth, I think Las Vegas is going to be a Russell circuit, which may have title implications. But Piastri really needs to get his head together.

    It’s definitely moving from a two-way fight to a three-way fight, and one gets the impression that McLaren no longer have the fastest car having moved their development early to the 2026 project.
    It's still the McLaren kids' championship to lose.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275
    The "liberal media"...

    Trump posted an AI video showing him DUMPING FECES on No Kings protesters. Here is how the media covered it:

    1. NYT: Trump Posts Fake Video of Himself Flying a ‘King Trump’ Jet Over Protesters

    2. Axios: Trump posts fake video in "KING TRUMP" jet as GOP dismisses No Kings marches

    3. USA Today: Trump jabs 'No Kings' protesters with AI videos of himself wearing crown

    4. People: President Donald Trump Fires Back at 'No Kings Day' by Posting AI Video of Himself Bombing Protesters with Brown Liquid

    5. The Hill: Trump posts AI video in which he dumps brown liquid on ‘No Kings’ protesters

    https://x.com/JuddLegum/status/1980064800974508468

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,370
    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,013
    edited 7:08AM
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: I think this is the first time since I made the bet that Verstappen's been shorter than 4 for the title. Not inclined to hedge it, at the moment.

    For what it's worth, I think Las Vegas is going to be a Russell circuit, which may have title implications. But Piastri really needs to get his head together.

    It’s definitely moving from a two-way fight to a three-way fight, and one gets the impression that McLaren no longer have the fastest car having moved their development early to the 2026 project.
    It's still the McLaren kids' championship to lose.
    Piastri needs two good results and three steady to claim the title.

    Verstappen has to make up good ground pretty much every weekend. But, right now, he looks capable of achieving that.

    Norris is just 14 points off the lead, but Verstappen's only 26 points behind him. If the Ferraris get ahead of Piastri consistently, and Russell sometimes too, that'll make things much harder for the Aussie.

    Edited: also, Hulkenberg's 9th in the standings. He's still never reached Q3.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I wondered about that too.
    Except that he wouldn't call it a budget; it would be "emergency funding".
    The SC might even nod at that.

    The midterms would still happen, assuming we haven't gone full military rule by then. And a Democrat majority, if there were one, could open the House in a basketball stadium, if it chose.

    Then it gets interesting.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,152
    publically owned = us

    Government run = them

    Just a demonstartion of how we hate our overlords.
  • CumberlandGapCumberlandGap Posts: 33
    The idea of public ownership is more ideal than the reality.
    We had some stunning successes with rail privatisation, as the government bit by bit encroached back into the management, regulation and functioning however we have ended up in the worst of both worlds. Paralysed indecision, destruction of corporate invention and renewal. The dead hand of the state and rent seeking by private enterprise leaves us with what feels in many situations and unworkable and unreliable transport system.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,648

    publically owned = us

    Government run = them

    Just a demonstartion of how we hate our overlords.

    Not really. There is a huge difference between "government run" and "publicly owned".

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,610

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    The rules don't matter if they're not enforced. Trump has broken the Constitutional rules on budget spending already, but cancelling funding for Federal agencies mandated by Congress. And SCOTUS has said that it's fine.

    So how much further will they take it?

    This is really fundamental constitutional stuff. It's what Macron is struggling with in France. It's why the civil war was fought in England in the 17th century. Trump is gathering all the power of an absolute monarch.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 53,648
    It kind of puts RFK's friendship with Trump into context:


  • CumberlandGapCumberlandGap Posts: 33
    edited 7:17AM

    On the header, they can mean very different things. In public ownership can still mean operated by a private company just the assets are publicly owned.

    Its a misunderstanding about a lot of Swedish "public" services. Paid for by the state i.e. the taxpayer, but commonly privately operated e.g. free child care.

    Indeed in much of Europe this is the way, some of it due to the Thatcherisation of Europe through the single European act and the systematic breaking down of member state intervention that is detrimental to consumers and competition across the union…
    “You wanna have a public owned network in France? ,You better make sure that a German train company is free to bid for the service to run it. “
    The irony of course… the irony…
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 124,397
    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,257

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    The rules don't matter if they're not enforced. Trump has broken the Constitutional rules on budget spending already, but cancelling funding for Federal agencies mandated by Congress. And SCOTUS has said that it's fine.

    So how much further will they take it?

    This is really fundamental constitutional stuff. It's what Macron is struggling with in France. It's why the civil war was fought in England in the 17th century. Trump is gathering all the power of an absolute monarch.
    If push were to come to shove, what does enforcement look like?

    Is it something really bad? This century, it's usually something really bad.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,916

    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/

    Trump is playing with a fire he does not even understand. The consequences for the US are going to be horrific.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275
    Foxy said:

    publically owned = us

    Government run = them

    Just a demonstartion of how we hate our overlords.

    Not really. There is a huge difference between "government run" and "publicly owned".

    Are there many good examples of publicly owned utilities efficiently managed on private sector contracts ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275
    Cicero said:

    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/

    Trump is playing with a fire he does not even understand. The consequences for the US are going to be horrific.
    Some of those around him understand only too well.
    That goes for domestic policy, too.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,610

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    The rules don't matter if they're not enforced. Trump has broken the Constitutional rules on budget spending already, but cancelling funding for Federal agencies mandated by Congress. And SCOTUS has said that it's fine.

    So how much further will they take it?

    This is really fundamental constitutional stuff. It's what Macron is struggling with in France. It's why the civil war was fought in England in the 17th century. Trump is gathering all the power of an absolute monarch.
    If push were to come to shove, what does enforcement look like?

    Is it something really bad? This century, it's usually something really bad.
    At this stage, enforcing the rules on Trump would require Congress to impeach and convict Trump, ejecting him from office, and demonstrating to Vance, his successor, that he has to follow the Constitution, or they will do likewise.

    Of course, the reaction to Trump being convicted would be pandemonium.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,524
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I wondered about that too.
    Except that he wouldn't call it a budget; it would be "emergency funding".
    The SC might even nod at that.

    The midterms would still happen, assuming we haven't gone full military rule by then. And a Democrat majority, if there were one, could open the House in a basketball stadium, if it chose.

    Then it gets interesting.
    "Since the House passed a short-term funding bill Sept. 19, Johnson and the rest of the House Republican leadership team have kept their members out of Washington. Johnson and his leadership team insist that, because they passed the funding bill, it’s up to Senate Democrats to end the shutdown. In addition, keeping the House out of session means Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona can’t be sworn in."

    I wasn't aware the House had been out of session for just over a month now, with no sign of returning.

    As you say, it's a concerning precedent just over 12 months from the mid-terms.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,152
    Foxy said:

    publically owned = us

    Government run = them

    Just a demonstartion of how we hate our overlords.

    Not really. There is a huge difference between "government run" and "publicly owned".

    The voters are in an ornery mood. "They" are ruining their lives.

    Can't or won't see that the line of breadcrumbs leads from "they" to the people who got voted for "they" by the same ornery voters.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,597

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
  • CumberlandGapCumberlandGap Posts: 33

    publically owned = us

    Government run = them

    Just a demonstartion of how we hate our overlords.

    The meme writes itself about governments and breweries. Not far from me the government ran the brewery/pubs and in good old socialist style prevented anyone else from running a pub. There’s an odd kind of longing to return to it, until you remember just how regulated it was when they ran it.
    You had to be served through a hatch (yes, no bar), you couldn’t buy other people a drink, and you couldn’t run up a bill either. All kinds of very weird and restricted practices, only stopped in 1971.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,610
    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    I think it's pretty usual for most countries to require a budget to be passed every year*. I think the difference is that there's an acknowledgement in every other country that if a party doesn't have the votes to change the status quo, then a stopgap budget will be passed continuing the status quo.

    In the US the divisions are so great that a government shutdown has been used to try to force passage of a budget that doesn't otherwise have the votes necessary to pass, that radically changes the status quo.

    * In Britain the failure to pass a budget would bring down the government and force an election. The need to pass a budget by the end of the year is what is forcing the pace of the political crisis in France right now.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,202

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    The rules don't matter if they're not enforced. Trump has broken the Constitutional rules on budget spending already, but cancelling funding for Federal agencies mandated by Congress. And SCOTUS has said that it's fine.

    So how much further will they take it?

    This is really fundamental constitutional stuff. It's what Macron is struggling with in France. It's why the civil war was fought in England in the 17th century. Trump is gathering all the power of an absolute monarch.
    If push were to come to shove, what does enforcement look like?

    Is it something really bad? This century, it's usually something really bad.
    At this stage, enforcing the rules on Trump would require Congress to impeach and convict Trump, ejecting him from office, and demonstrating to Vance, his successor, that he has to follow the Constitution, or they will do likewise.

    Of course, the reaction to Trump being convicted would be pandemonium.
    I suspect we are beyond that stage. We have only one branch of Government now. Congress is closed for business and SCOTUS are compliant. He is indeed the King.

    Kings need successors. Time to fire Vance and install Don Jnr.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,685
    The header is not quite nuanced enough. 'Publicly owned' and 'run by the government' really have different meanings, and there are other shades too.

    The schools my grandchildren go to, my children went to, and the schools I was chairman of governors of are all, more or less 'publicly owned' though that is a fairly loose description. But it is misleading to say that they are 'run by the government'. Tax payer funded, subject to law and regulation in including that which is quite specific to education, and many other things are true. But 'run by the government' doesn't quite capture it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,152
    Cicero said:

    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/

    Trump is playing with a fire he does not even understand. The consequences for the US are going to be horrific.
    The consequences will be more horrific for Russia. A delay in packing up and going home just exacerbates the period of economic decline that Russia is going to suffer. It will take many years for their economy and their population to return to the status quo ante. Putin risks making that decades.

    Trump is having a toddler tantrum because Zelensky and Putin won't bow down before His Majesty and do as he instructs. Putin because he won't and Zelensky because he can't.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,957
    edited 7:41AM
    Cicero said:

    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/

    Trump is playing with a fire he does not even understand. The consequences for the US are going to be horrific.
    Good morning

    The consequences for everyone looks horrific

    The breakdown in law and order, and decency, is deeply disturbing and I have no idea where this ends

    @Mexicanpete makes a good point about Nathan Gill acceptance of Russian brides and Farage closeness to Putin and why it is not cutting through

    Indeed in Caerphilly this Thursday Llyr Powell is favourite to take the Senedd seat from labour for Reform despite him previously working for Gill

    I have come to the conclusion the public are so disenchanted with the political class they will vote for anyone who is different and not interested in the details as they are 'all the same'
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,412
    AWS – Amazon Web Services, aka ‘the cloud’ (or a large part of it) – is having ‘issues’ right now. Memo to Minister for ID Cards: take note!
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,784
    edited 7:41AM

    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/

    Why the Donetsk is a red line and why Trump threw away the maps rather than study them.

    https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-19-2025/
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 11,370

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    The rules don't matter if they're not enforced. Trump has broken the Constitutional rules on budget spending already, but cancelling funding for Federal agencies mandated by Congress. And SCOTUS has said that it's fine.

    So how much further will they take it?

    This is really fundamental constitutional stuff. It's what Macron is struggling with in France. It's why the civil war was fought in England in the 17th century. Trump is gathering all the power of an absolute monarch.
    If push were to come to shove, what does enforcement look like?

    Is it something really bad? This century, it's usually something really bad.
    It’s a revolution
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275
    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 20,257

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    The rules don't matter if they're not enforced. Trump has broken the Constitutional rules on budget spending already, but cancelling funding for Federal agencies mandated by Congress. And SCOTUS has said that it's fine.

    So how much further will they take it?

    This is really fundamental constitutional stuff. It's what Macron is struggling with in France. It's why the civil war was fought in England in the 17th century. Trump is gathering all the power of an absolute monarch.
    If push were to come to shove, what does enforcement look like?

    Is it something really bad? This century, it's usually something really bad.
    At this stage, enforcing the rules on Trump would require Congress to impeach and convict Trump, ejecting him from office, and demonstrating to Vance, his successor, that he has to follow the Constitution, or they will do likewise.

    Of course, the reaction to Trump being convicted would be pandemonium.
    With the current makeup of Congress, that's vanishingly unlikely to happen, isn't it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,152

    The director-general said personal politics had no place in the Corporation’s news department amid repeated controversy over BBC impartiality.

    “You leave it at the door and your religion is journalism at the BBC. And the problem I’ve got is that people react quite chemically to that,” Mr Davie told the Cheltenham Literature Festival.

    “So you can’t come into the newsroom with a Black Lives Matter T-shirt.

    “We stand absolutely firmly against racism in any form. I find some of the hatred in society at the moment utterly abhorrent, and personally really upsetting.

    “But that is a campaign that has politicised objectives, therefore is not appropriate for a journalist who may be covering that issue to be campaigning in that way,” he told an audience at the festival.

    “And for some people joining the BBC, that is a very difficult thing to accept.

    “I feel very strongly that if you walk into the BBC newsroom you cannot be holding a Kamala Harris mug when you come to the [US] election. No way.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/19/black-lives-matter-not-welcome-bbc-newsroom-tim-davie/

    This kind of position was absolutely normal, and not just at the BBC, HMRC, the local hospital, the national trust, constabularies, but even political bodies like your local council would in the delivery of their services not participate in areas that were political, outside a few radical councils in the eighties. There was an expectation that you don’t campaign on the rate payer.

    I don’t know if it is the Equality Act that is to blame, or is an excuse, but we now have normalised radical political and social action from charitable, private and public institutions that wouldn’t have in the past touched such things with a barge pole.
    Social media, innit?

    Too many folk think they have an untrammelled right to express their opinions without a filter, whether that be "black lives matter" T-shirts or "burn them in their hotels".
  • AugustusCarp2AugustusCarp2 Posts: 494
    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    I think we still go through the elegant farce of renewing the Army Act every year. Because of the historic hostility to England having a standing army following King Charles I and the Civil Wars, Parliament's support for the Army had to be renewed every year - I think it's now just a bit of a tradition, and is done by an Order in Council or something like that, but the point is still made - "The Government" (i.e. "them") cannot have forces over us unless they are approved of by Parliament. The Army, of course, swears an oath of loyalty to the King, so Parliament has to keep an eye on them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    The rules don't matter if they're not enforced. Trump has broken the Constitutional rules on budget spending already, but cancelling funding for Federal agencies mandated by Congress. And SCOTUS has said that it's fine.

    So how much further will they take it?

    This is really fundamental constitutional stuff. It's what Macron is struggling with in France. It's why the civil war was fought in England in the 17th century. Trump is gathering all the power of an absolute monarch.
    If push were to come to shove, what does enforcement look like?

    Is it something really bad? This century, it's usually something really bad.
    At this stage, enforcing the rules on Trump would require Congress to impeach and convict Trump, ejecting him from office, and demonstrating to Vance, his successor, that he has to follow the Constitution, or they will do likewise.

    Of course, the reaction to Trump being convicted would be pandemonium.
    With the current makeup of Congress, that's vanishingly unlikely to happen, isn't it?
    A Democratic House would do it, by a single vote majority if need be, but the constitution requires a supermajority in the Senate to convict on impeachment.

    That seems extremely unlikely.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,202

    Cicero said:

    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/

    Trump is playing with a fire he does not even understand. The consequences for the US are going to be horrific.
    The consequences will be more horrific for Russia. A delay in packing up and going home just exacerbates the period of economic decline that Russia is going to suffer. It will take many years for their economy and their population to return to the status quo ante. Putin risks making that decades.

    Trump is having a toddler tantrum because Zelensky and Putin won't bow down before His Majesty and do as he instructs. Putin because he won't and Zelensky because he can't.
    Or Putin has reminded anyone who had forgotten of kompromat.

    I recall reading about an alleged Golden Shower video filmed in a Moscow hotel room. Should this video exist there were also questions regarding the ages of some of the participants. It might of course all be 24 carat bullshine...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 56,152

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    The rules don't matter if they're not enforced. Trump has broken the Constitutional rules on budget spending already, but cancelling funding for Federal agencies mandated by Congress. And SCOTUS has said that it's fine.

    So how much further will they take it?

    This is really fundamental constitutional stuff. It's what Macron is struggling with in France. It's why the civil war was fought in England in the 17th century. Trump is gathering all the power of an absolute monarch.
    If push were to come to shove, what does enforcement look like?

    Is it something really bad? This century, it's usually something really bad.
    At this stage, enforcing the rules on Trump would require Congress to impeach and convict Trump, ejecting him from office, and demonstrating to Vance, his successor, that he has to follow the Constitution, or they will do likewise.

    Of course, the reaction to Trump being convicted would be pandemonium.
    With the current makeup of Congress, that's vanishingly unlikely to happen, isn't it?
    What is genuinely surprising is that through such an assault on the Constitution, on separation of powers, nobody has crossed the floor, even to sit as an independent.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,524
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
    One thing I find odd is that the GOP is unable to pass a budget despite a very loyal majority in both houses. The rules on these things seem very complex compared to here.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,658

    Cicero said:

    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/

    Trump is playing with a fire he does not even understand. The consequences for the US are going to be horrific.
    The consequences will be more horrific for Russia. A delay in packing up and going home just exacerbates the period of economic decline that Russia is going to suffer. It will take many years for their economy and their population to return to the status quo ante. Putin risks making that decades.

    Trump is having a toddler tantrum because Zelensky and Putin won't bow down before His Majesty and do as he instructs. Putin because he won't and Zelensky because he can't.
    Or Putin has reminded anyone who had forgotten of kompromat.

    I recall reading about an alleged Golden Shower video filmed in a Moscow hotel room. Should this video exist there were also questions regarding the ages of some of the participants. It might of course all be 24 carat bullshine...
    I’m not sure it’s as simple as Kompromat in the form of a grim video - Trump would just say it’s AI/Deepfake and his supporters and a lot of ordinary people would accept that.

    I think it’s more about what Trump can get from this - would you be surprised if there was some huge financial incentive “listen Donald, you get me what I want and I will make you a shareholder in x y z when the war is over, the oil/gas/minerals shares will be worth $100billion to you.”
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,084
    boulay said:

    Cicero said:

    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/

    Trump is playing with a fire he does not even understand. The consequences for the US are going to be horrific.
    The consequences will be more horrific for Russia. A delay in packing up and going home just exacerbates the period of economic decline that Russia is going to suffer. It will take many years for their economy and their population to return to the status quo ante. Putin risks making that decades.

    Trump is having a toddler tantrum because Zelensky and Putin won't bow down before His Majesty and do as he instructs. Putin because he won't and Zelensky because he can't.
    Or Putin has reminded anyone who had forgotten of kompromat.

    I recall reading about an alleged Golden Shower video filmed in a Moscow hotel room. Should this video exist there were also questions regarding the ages of some of the participants. It might of course all be 24 carat bullshine...
    I’m not sure it’s as simple as Kompromat in the form of a grim video - Trump would just say it’s AI/Deepfake and his supporters and a lot of ordinary people would accept that.

    I think it’s more about what Trump can get from this - would you be surprised if there was some huge financial incentive “listen Donald, you get me what I want and I will make you a shareholder in x y z when the war is over, the oil/gas/minerals shares will be worth $100billion to you.”
    I think that Trump just wants to enrich himself and his friends and a war with a nuclear power risks that. Everything else follows
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,597
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
    The House passed a budget, but the Senate (where 60 votes are required) has voted it down 10 times so far.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_government_shutdown

    Senate is back today to vote it down again.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,412

    Cicero said:

    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/

    Trump is playing with a fire he does not even understand. The consequences for the US are going to be horrific.
    The consequences will be more horrific for Russia. A delay in packing up and going home just exacerbates the period of economic decline that Russia is going to suffer. It will take many years for their economy and their population to return to the status quo ante. Putin risks making that decades.

    Trump is having a toddler tantrum because Zelensky and Putin won't bow down before His Majesty and do as he instructs. Putin because he won't and Zelensky because he can't.
    Or Putin has reminded anyone who had forgotten of kompromat.

    I recall reading about an alleged Golden Shower video filmed in a Moscow hotel room. Should this video exist there were also questions regarding the ages of some of the participants. It might of course all be 24 carat bullshine...
    The least unlikely version of the golden shower story is that Trump paid sex workers to urinate on a bed that had previously been used by President Obama, not that the First Todger was directly involved. It comes from the Steele Dossier.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,148
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    publically owned = us

    Government run = them

    Just a demonstartion of how we hate our overlords.

    Not really. There is a huge difference between "government run" and "publicly owned".

    Are there many good examples of publicly owned utilities efficiently managed on private sector contracts ?
    ISTR something called (maybe) Private-Public-Initiative.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,573
    Off topic, is this MoD being allowed to shoot down drones thing just a case of something must be done noise? Outside a live war situation can anyone see a scenario where live ordnance being fired into the skies of this sceptred isle will take place?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,941
    Ratters said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
    One thing I find odd is that the GOP is unable to pass a budget despite a very loyal majority in both houses. The rules on these things seem very complex compared to here.
    I suspect the 60 rule is one of the last checks and balances left in their system
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,573

    The director-general said personal politics had no place in the Corporation’s news department amid repeated controversy over BBC impartiality.

    “You leave it at the door and your religion is journalism at the BBC. And the problem I’ve got is that people react quite chemically to that,” Mr Davie told the Cheltenham Literature Festival.

    “So you can’t come into the newsroom with a Black Lives Matter T-shirt.

    “We stand absolutely firmly against racism in any form. I find some of the hatred in society at the moment utterly abhorrent, and personally really upsetting.

    “But that is a campaign that has politicised objectives, therefore is not appropriate for a journalist who may be covering that issue to be campaigning in that way,” he told an audience at the festival.

    “And for some people joining the BBC, that is a very difficult thing to accept.

    “I feel very strongly that if you walk into the BBC newsroom you cannot be holding a Kamala Harris mug when you come to the [US] election. No way.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/19/black-lives-matter-not-welcome-bbc-newsroom-tim-davie/

    This kind of position was absolutely normal, and not just at the BBC, HMRC, the local hospital, the national trust, constabularies, but even political bodies like your local council would in the delivery of their services not participate in areas that were political, outside a few radical councils in the eighties. There was an expectation that you don’t campaign on the rate payer.

    I don’t know if it is the Equality Act that is to blame, or is an excuse, but we now have normalised radical political and social action from charitable, private and public institutions that wouldn’t have in the past touched such things with a barge pole.
    Social media, innit?

    Too many folk think they have an untrammelled right to express their opinions without a filter, whether that be "black lives matter" T-shirts or "burn them in their hotels".
    Not sure that BLM t-shirts and ‘burn them in their hotels’ are exactly equal but opposite ends of the same problem.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,610

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    The rules don't matter if they're not enforced. Trump has broken the Constitutional rules on budget spending already, but cancelling funding for Federal agencies mandated by Congress. And SCOTUS has said that it's fine.

    So how much further will they take it?

    This is really fundamental constitutional stuff. It's what Macron is struggling with in France. It's why the civil war was fought in England in the 17th century. Trump is gathering all the power of an absolute monarch.
    If push were to come to shove, what does enforcement look like?

    Is it something really bad? This century, it's usually something really bad.
    At this stage, enforcing the rules on Trump would require Congress to impeach and convict Trump, ejecting him from office, and demonstrating to Vance, his successor, that he has to follow the Constitution, or they will do likewise.

    Of course, the reaction to Trump being convicted would be pandemonium.
    With the current makeup of Congress, that's vanishingly unlikely to happen, isn't it?
    It's not going to happen, no.

    Consequently, when trying to anticipate what is going to happen in the future we should remember that the way things have been done in the US in the past, and what the rules say about the way things should be done, are both not good guides to what is likely to happen.

    We do not know the extent or speed at which Trump is going to break the Constitution. Nor do we know how the opposition will react. My guess is further then we dare imagine, quickly, ineffectively.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 57,597
    edited 8:02AM

    Off topic, is this MoD being allowed to shoot down drones thing just a case of something must be done noise? Outside a live war situation can anyone see a scenario where live ordnance being fired into the skies of this sceptred isle will take place?

    They already have permission to shoot down unresponsive or maliciously-flown aircraft, extending those rules of engagement to drones is not surprising. Presumably they’re more interested in Shahed-types that the Russians have been flying around, rather than Pete the Photographer’s DJI.

    There’s very much a war going on.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,479
    Ratters said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
    One thing I find odd is that the GOP is unable to pass a budget despite a very loyal majority in both houses. The rules on these things seem very complex compared to here.
    As I understand it, this one requires a supermajority (60 votes for) in the Senate to proceed. There is a reconciliation process for budget bills where debate is limited to 24 hours and a simple majority is needed, but it can only be used once in the calendar year, and has already been used back in March.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,977
    edited 8:05AM
    algarkirk said:

    The header is not quite nuanced enough. 'Publicly owned' and 'run by the government' really have different meanings, and there are other shades too.

    The schools my grandchildren go to, my children went to, and the schools I was chairman of governors of are all, more or less 'publicly owned' though that is a fairly loose description. But it is misleading to say that they are 'run by the government'. Tax payer funded, subject to law and regulation in including that which is quite specific to education, and many other things are true. But 'run by the government' doesn't quite capture it.

    Exactly my reaction. There is a firm arm's length principle in a number of former civil service agencies: Scottish Nature, the British Museum, National Galleries of Scotland, Historic England/English Heritage, and so on, where a board appointed by the relevant government actually runs the body. The sort of thing that used to be called a quango, in a way.

    As another example, BR was owned by and - some would say - 'interfered with by Government' and the latter would also apply to modern train companies, both publicly owned and privately owned ...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,685

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    I think it's pretty usual for most countries to require a budget to be passed every year*. I think the difference is that there's an acknowledgement in every other country that if a party doesn't have the votes to change the status quo, then a stopgap budget will be passed continuing the status quo.

    In the US the divisions are so great that a government shutdown has been used to try to force passage of a budget that doesn't otherwise have the votes necessary to pass, that radically changes the status quo.

    * In Britain the failure to pass a budget would bring down the government and force an election. The need to pass a budget by the end of the year is what is forcing the pace of the political crisis in France right now.
    In England the development of the system whereby the king didn't have complete personal control over public finances but still needed the find funds for wars and other stuff was the powerful engine leading in the end to our sort of democracy. Most obviously it lay behind the 17th century civil wars, but was a live issue in 14th and 15th century.
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 1,333

    Sandpit said:



    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.

    I think we still go through the elegant farce of renewing the Army Act every year. Because of the historic hostility to England having a standing army following King Charles I and the Civil Wars, Parliament's support for the Army had to be renewed every year - I think it's now just a bit of a tradition, and is done by an Order in Council or something like that, but the point is still made - "The Government" (i.e. "them") cannot have forces over us unless they are approved of by Parliament. The Army, of course, swears an oath of loyalty to the King, so Parliament has to keep an eye on them.
    That's neat, I didn't know that. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10065/ says we have to have primary legislation every five years, with an Order in Council every year in the intervening periods. We're due for another Armed Forces Act next year, since the last one was 2016.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 15,450
    Morning all :)

    The problem I always have with private provision of public services is the profit (or rather, non loss) motive. If a private company can't run or provide a service at a profit, tough, frankly. They took the job on and I'd rather their shareholders suffer than the customers.

    We've seen company after company underbid for services and then when they can't do the job come begging to the Government for extra funding which ends up as bonuses for Directors or Senior Managers. Meanwhile, service provision suffers.

    In the days of compulsory competitive tendering, so beloved of Thatcherites, we had the grotesque sight of councils being forced to award contracts to the lowest bidder and that left us with a legacy of poorly maintained school and other public buildings as the cowboys who got the tender couldn't do the job for the money and couldn't handle the work.

    I've no problem with private provision of public services as long as the private operator/contractor understands if they can't run the service for what was agreed, they absorb the loss rather than compromising the service or begging for extra funds.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275
    edited 8:08AM
    Ratters said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
    One thing I find odd is that the GOP is unable to pass a budget despite a very loyal majority in both houses. The rules on these things seem very complex compared to here.
    They could pass a budget.
    The issue is twofold: they don't have a completely reliable majority in the House, and they're trying to shove through controversial stuff which a few GOP representatives won't vote for. And in the Senate they are using the 60 vote threshold as an excuse - they've happily set that aside (for example) to confirm scores of Trump judges on a straight majority vote.

    The complex rules can all be set aside on a simple majority vote.
    Previous governments have been exceedingly unwilling to do that; in recent years both parties have done it when they really want to (the GOP more often than the Democrats).

    The only ones which can't are those mandated by the constitution (the impeachment supermajority being one example; the fact that setting budgets is the preserve of Congress, not the executive, another).
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 35,202
    edited 8:12AM

    Cicero said:

    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/

    Trump is playing with a fire he does not even understand. The consequences for the US are going to be horrific.
    Good morning

    The consequences for everyone looks horrific

    The breakdown in law and order, and decency, is deeply disturbing and I have no idea where this ends

    @Mexicanpete makes a good point about Nathan Gill acceptance of Russian brides and Farage closeness to Putin and why it is not cutting through

    Indeed in Caerphilly this Thursday Llyr Powell is favourite to take the Senedd seat from labour for Reform despite him previously working for Gill

    I have come to the conclusion the public are so disenchanted with the political class they will vote for anyone who is different and not interested in the details as they are 'all the same'
    The media don't care about Gill and the Farage adjacency. If they can create the story of Farage's elevation to Prime Minister, that is the story and the story is the prize.

    Did you see the debate where Powell was comprehensively taken down by a Caerphilly born young man and his mother. The boy's father I believe was of Asian descent. He and his mother said that having lived in Caerphilly all their lives (where they quoted the non-white population at around 3%) had no racial tensions prior to Powell's candidacy?

    The problem is Starmer (and unfortunately Davey and Badenoch) are panicking and falling for the winning Reform narrative. Maccabi Tel Aviv is a case in point, the outrage shown by Starmer (Davey and Badenoch) at the Villa decision which has been contextualised this weekend by Maccabi fans being restricted in Israel for race related hooliganism promoted the Reform narrative of good and bad (or on their agenda white and non-white-and their supporters) actors.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275

    Ratters said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
    One thing I find odd is that the GOP is unable to pass a budget despite a very loyal majority in both houses. The rules on these things seem very complex compared to here.
    I suspect the 60 rule is one of the last checks and balances left in their system
    it's not really.

    It has been set aside several time in recent years.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,898
    edited 8:11AM
    Something seems to be wrong with the internet this morning. A bunch of apps have stopped working, and I don't think it's just me.

    Edit: Looks like there's a problem with AWS.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,664
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    The problem I always have with private provision of public services is the profit (or rather, non loss) motive. If a private company can't run or provide a service at a profit, tough, frankly. They took the job on and I'd rather their shareholders suffer than the customers.

    We've seen company after company underbid for services and then when they can't do the job come begging to the Government for extra funding which ends up as bonuses for Directors or Senior Managers. Meanwhile, service provision suffers.

    In the days of compulsory competitive tendering, so beloved of Thatcherites, we had the grotesque sight of councils being forced to award contracts to the lowest bidder and that left us with a legacy of poorly maintained school and other public buildings as the cowboys who got the tender couldn't do the job for the money and couldn't handle the work.

    I've no problem with private provision of public services as long as the private operator/contractor understands if they can't run the service for what was agreed, they absorb the loss rather than compromising the service or begging for extra funds.

    The Equites tax farmers of the Eastern Provinces have entered the chat.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,412
    edited 8:11AM
    Sandpit said:

    Off topic, is this MoD being allowed to shoot down drones thing just a case of something must be done noise? Outside a live war situation can anyone see a scenario where live ordnance being fired into the skies of this sceptred isle will take place?

    They already have permission to shoot down unresponsive or maliciously-flown aircraft, extending those rules of engagement to drones is not surprising. Presumably they’re more interested in Shahed-types that the Russians have been flying around, rather than Pete the Photographer’s DJI.

    There’s very much a war going on.
    What about Pyotr the photographer's drone flying around Catterick army camps?

    ETA or a YouTuber's drone videoing the Prime Minister's police convoy on its way to Chequers? Or an illegal streamer's drone over the Arsenal game?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,610
    algarkirk said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    I think it's pretty usual for most countries to require a budget to be passed every year*. I think the difference is that there's an acknowledgement in every other country that if a party doesn't have the votes to change the status quo, then a stopgap budget will be passed continuing the status quo.

    In the US the divisions are so great that a government shutdown has been used to try to force passage of a budget that doesn't otherwise have the votes necessary to pass, that radically changes the status quo.

    * In Britain the failure to pass a budget would bring down the government and force an election. The need to pass a budget by the end of the year is what is forcing the pace of the political crisis in France right now.
    In England the development of the system whereby the king didn't have complete personal control over public finances but still needed the find funds for wars and other stuff was the powerful engine leading in the end to our sort of democracy. Most obviously it lay behind the 17th century civil wars, but was a live issue in 14th and 15th century.
    Yes. Exactly so. Control of the money is the fundamental way that the Legislature asserts its control over the Executive.

    It's also why the early medieval English kings would head to Winchester first, before being crowned in London. For a long while the treasury was kept in Winchester.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,573
    Sandpit said:

    Off topic, is this MoD being allowed to shoot down drones thing just a case of something must be done noise? Outside a live war situation can anyone see a scenario where live ordnance being fired into the skies of this sceptred isle will take place?

    They already have permission to shoot down unresponsive or maliciously-flown aircraft, extending those rules of engagement to drones is not surprising. Presumably they’re more interested in Shahed-types that the Russians have been flying around, rather than Pete the Photographer’s DJI.

    There’s very much a war going on.
    What goes up must come down, whether it’s a hail of bullets or a drone hit by some kind of SAM. I would be amazed if this risk averse government would allow such an action to take place without being able to tell whether a drone was a Shahed or belonged to snapper Pete.
    I believe the Polish government refused to shoot down actual Russian drones due to the risks to people on the ground.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,412

    Something seems to be wrong with the internet this morning. A bunch of apps have stopped working, and I don't think it's just me.

    Edit: Looks like there's a problem with AWS.

    As reported on this very pb.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,977

    Something seems to be wrong with the internet this morning. A bunch of apps have stopped working, and I don't think it's just me.

    Edit: Looks like there's a problem with AWS.

    Quite a few on downdetector.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 31,230

    Something seems to be wrong with the internet this morning. A bunch of apps have stopped working, and I don't think it's just me.

    Edit: Looks like there's a problem with AWS.

    Yes, we're away and Ring thinks its 2 days ago at home. Nor can you login to their website.

    Yay! Amazon have gone bust!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,664

    The idea of public ownership is more ideal than the reality.
    We had some stunning successes with rail privatisation, as the government bit by bit encroached back into the management, regulation and functioning however we have ended up in the worst of both worlds. Paralysed indecision, destruction of corporate invention and renewal. The dead hand of the state and rent seeking by private enterprise leaves us with what feels in many situations and unworkable and unreliable transport system.

    The problem is that once in public ownership, the Treasury will declare that all upgrades and even maintenance are a cost To The Nation. And as much money as possible needs to be sent to the Treasury.

    See the pre privatisation railway - where ticket prices were increased to reduce demand. Since demand meant needing to invest...

    We've seen with the Post Office just how our Public Servants serve the public - with the level of fuckwittery that only the very worst private companies can match.

    When you add in the Vital Requirement of Too Big To Fail - for both the public and private options, the result is that private vs public ends up as more of the same.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,898

    Something seems to be wrong with the internet this morning. A bunch of apps have stopped working, and I don't think it's just me.

    Edit: Looks like there's a problem with AWS.

    As reported on this very pb.
    Oy yes, sorry! I should have scrolled back a bit further :-)
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,941
    I've just heard about the theft of the French Crown Jewels. It's a good job they don't need them anymore...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275
    edited 8:17AM
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
    The House passed a budget, but the Senate (where 60 votes are required) has voted it down 10 times so far.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_government_shutdown

    Senate is back today to vote it down again.
    The Democrats in the Senate are not going to vote for a MAGA budget, quite obviously.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,941
    I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,977

    Something seems to be wrong with the internet this morning. A bunch of apps have stopped working, and I don't think it's just me.

    Edit: Looks like there's a problem with AWS.

    As reported on this very pb.
    Oy yes, sorry! I should have scrolled back a bit further :-)
    https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/snapchat-roblox-duolingo-fortnite-down-not-working-b2848289.html
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 33,412

    The idea of public ownership is more ideal than the reality.
    We had some stunning successes with rail privatisation, as the government bit by bit encroached back into the management, regulation and functioning however we have ended up in the worst of both worlds. Paralysed indecision, destruction of corporate invention and renewal. The dead hand of the state and rent seeking by private enterprise leaves us with what feels in many situations and unworkable and unreliable transport system.

    The problem is that once in public ownership, the Treasury will declare that all upgrades and even maintenance are a cost To The Nation. And as much money as possible needs to be sent to the Treasury.

    See the pre privatisation railway - where ticket prices were increased to reduce demand. Since demand meant needing to invest...

    We've seen with the Post Office just how our Public Servants serve the public - with the level of fuckwittery that only the very worst private companies can match.

    When you add in the Vital Requirement of Too Big To Fail - for both the public and private options, the result is that private vs public ends up as more of the same.
    The trouble with viewing these things through the old lens of public vs private fifty years ago, is that in the past few years, even the thrusting go-ahead private sector has changed beyond recognition. Nowadays it is rarely about investing to provide better services to win more customers, so much as loading up the company with debt and sweating the assets through terminal decline. See Thames Water or Manchester United, for instance.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,664
    boulay said:

    Cicero said:

    Trump's a [moderated].

    Donald Trump demanded that Ukraine submit to Vladimir Putin’s peace terms or face destruction in an angry meeting at the White House last week, it has emerged.

    The US president, who spoke with his Russian counterpart shortly before hosting Volodymyr Zelensky, warned that Putin would “destroy” Ukraine unless a peace deal was in place.

    Shouting and swearing, Mr Trump threw aside Ukrainian maps of the battlefield and pressured Mr Zelensky to surrender the Donetsk region to Russia.

    Putin is demanding the withdrawal of Ukraine’s army from the crucial eastern territory as a precondition for peace.

    However, the surrender of Donetsk is a red line for Ukraine, which has long refused to cede the territory, which Russia has failed to capture despite fighting since 2014.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/19/trump-tells-ukraine-accept-putin-demands-or-be-destroyed/

    Trump is playing with a fire he does not even understand. The consequences for the US are going to be horrific.
    The consequences will be more horrific for Russia. A delay in packing up and going home just exacerbates the period of economic decline that Russia is going to suffer. It will take many years for their economy and their population to return to the status quo ante. Putin risks making that decades.

    Trump is having a toddler tantrum because Zelensky and Putin won't bow down before His Majesty and do as he instructs. Putin because he won't and Zelensky because he can't.
    Or Putin has reminded anyone who had forgotten of kompromat.

    I recall reading about an alleged Golden Shower video filmed in a Moscow hotel room. Should this video exist there were also questions regarding the ages of some of the participants. It might of course all be 24 carat bullshine...
    I’m not sure it’s as simple as Kompromat in the form of a grim video - Trump would just say it’s AI/Deepfake and his supporters and a lot of ordinary people would accept that.

    I think it’s more about what Trump can get from this - would you be surprised if there was some huge financial incentive “listen Donald, you get me what I want and I will make you a shareholder in x y z when the war is over, the oil/gas/minerals shares will be worth $100billion to you.”
    Putin *can't* either. He is riding the tiger of extreme Russian irredentist nationalism. Any end to the Ukraine war that he can't sell as a victory means The Window for him. And for those around him.

    So the war is existential for Ukraine and existential for the current leadership of Russia.

    Trump wants an end to the war - to sell as part of his The Peacemaker Shtick. He is bouncing around, between US allies telling him to support Ukraine, ultra-MAGA wanting Russia to win, who he last talked to and Russian threats to escalate further.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,664

    algarkirk said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    I think it's pretty usual for most countries to require a budget to be passed every year*. I think the difference is that there's an acknowledgement in every other country that if a party doesn't have the votes to change the status quo, then a stopgap budget will be passed continuing the status quo.

    In the US the divisions are so great that a government shutdown has been used to try to force passage of a budget that doesn't otherwise have the votes necessary to pass, that radically changes the status quo.

    * In Britain the failure to pass a budget would bring down the government and force an election. The need to pass a budget by the end of the year is what is forcing the pace of the political crisis in France right now.
    In England the development of the system whereby the king didn't have complete personal control over public finances but still needed the find funds for wars and other stuff was the powerful engine leading in the end to our sort of democracy. Most obviously it lay behind the 17th century civil wars, but was a live issue in 14th and 15th century.
    Yes. Exactly so. Control of the money is the fundamental way that the Legislature asserts its control over the Executive.

    It's also why the early medieval English kings would head to Winchester first, before being crowned in London. For a long while the treasury was kept in Winchester.
    It is said that Prince (then) Charles nearly sold Blair on getting rid of the Civil List, in return for the Crown Revenues. Some tax was involved. It was going quite well until someone pointed out to Blair that he would be making the Monarchy completely independent of Parliamentary control...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,128
    edited 8:29AM
    Start The Week is often one of the most interesting programmes on radio imo. This week's subjects:

    "The Library of Lost Maps by James Cheshire, Professor of Geographic Information and Cartography, tells the story of the discovery of a treasure-trove at the heart of University College London. In a long-forgotten room James found thousands of maps and atlases. This abandoned archive reveals how maps have traced the contours of the world, inspiring some of the greatest scientific discoveries, as well as leading to terrible atrocities and power grabs.

    But maps have not always been used to navigate or reveal the world, according to a new exhibition at the British Library on Secret Maps (from 24 October 2025 to 18 January 2026). Jerry Brotton, Professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary University of London, and author of Four Points of the Compass, explains how mysterious maps throughout history have been used to hide, shape and control knowledge.

    The biographer Jenny Uglow celebrates a different kind of mapping in her new book, A Year with Gilbert White: The First Great Nature Writer. In 1781 the country curate Gilbert White charted the world around him – from close observation of the weather, to the migration of birds to the sex lives of snails and the coming harvest – revealing a natural map of his Hampshire village."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live/bbc_radio_fourfm
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,013

    Finally got a bed at 6am, 20 hours after arrival. It’s a trolley bed, but it’s quite comfortable and has been pushed into an ED consulting room rather than a corridor. I was finally able to breathe relatively comfortably, lying on my right hand side, and get my first sleep since I woke at 5am yesterday

    Between midnight and 6 I was in another consulting room, with two armchairs and a screen between them. In the other chair was mad Irish 88yo Mary. They had a nurse sat with her, and Mary talked very loudly to her for the whole six hours, about five feet from me. I really was struggling to cope..

    I’m still in quite a lot of pain, but I’m a lot more relaxed now. I haven’t seen a doctor for about fifteen hours, and he was quite junior. I’m hoping to see a consultant today who can tell me what’s actually wrong with me

    Hope you get a diagnosis, and remedy, today.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,084

    I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.

    Why? It’s more twisted narrative news.

    https://x.com/gideonfalter/status/1980158882212118622?s=46
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,904

    Finally got a bed at 6am, 20 hours after arrival. It’s a trolley bed, but it’s quite comfortable and has been pushed into an ED consulting room rather than a corridor. I was finally able to breathe relatively comfortably, lying on my right hand side, and get my first sleep since I woke at 5am yesterday

    Between midnight and 6 I was in another consulting room, with two armchairs and a screen between them. In the other chair was mad Irish 88yo Mary. They had a nurse sat with her, and Mary talked very loudly to her for the whole six hours, about five feet from me. I really was struggling to cope..

    I’m still in quite a lot of pain, but I’m a lot more relaxed now. I haven’t seen a doctor for about fifteen hours, and he was quite junior. I’m hoping to see a consultant today who can tell me what’s actually wrong with me

    Doesn't sound good at all. Very best wishes. Hope you get satisfactory advice soon.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 7,658
    Andy_JS said:

    Start The Week is often one of the most interesting programmes on radio imo. This week's subjects:

    "The Library of Lost Maps by James Cheshire, Professor of Geographic Information and Cartography, tells the story of the discovery of a treasure-trove at the heart of University College London. In a long-forgotten room James found thousands of maps and atlases. This abandoned archive reveals how maps have traced the contours of the world, inspiring some of the greatest scientific discoveries, as well as leading to terrible atrocities and power grabs.

    But maps have not always been used to navigate or reveal the world, according to a new exhibition at the British Library on Secret Maps (from 24 October 2025 to 18 January 2026). Jerry Brotton, Professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary University of London, and author of Four Points of the Compass, explains how mysterious maps throughout history have been used to hide, shape and control knowledge.

    The biographer Jenny Uglow celebrates a different kind of mapping in her new book, A Year with Gilbert White: The First Great Nature Writer. In 1781 the country curate Gilbert White charted the world around him – from close observation of the weather, to the migration of birds to the sex lives of snails and the coming harvest – revealing a natural map of his Hampshire village."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live/bbc_radio_fourfm

    Yes, listening to it now. For all my complaints about the BBC I would happily pay the tv licence just to cover Radio 4. It’s not perfect and I get angry when it seems to dumb down but if someone said to me that I could only have one source of entertainment forever - 1 radio station or streamer or channel etc - it would be R4.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 28,380
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
    The House passed a budget, but the Senate (where 60 votes are required) has voted it down 10 times so far.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_government_shutdown

    Senate is back today to vote it down again.
    The Democrats in the Senate are not going to vote for a MAGA budget, quite obviously.
    But at least 7 Dems are going to have to support a budget that can pass.

    That gives them some leverage to get some of what they want but ultimately, as they're in a minority, they will have to accept some things they don't want.

    The alternative is governmental shutdown whereby the people lose out and become ever more disenchanted by federal politicians.

    This pattern will repeat, in various forms, irrespective of who controls Congress.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 57,664
    a

    The idea of public ownership is more ideal than the reality.
    We had some stunning successes with rail privatisation, as the government bit by bit encroached back into the management, regulation and functioning however we have ended up in the worst of both worlds. Paralysed indecision, destruction of corporate invention and renewal. The dead hand of the state and rent seeking by private enterprise leaves us with what feels in many situations and unworkable and unreliable transport system.

    The problem is that once in public ownership, the Treasury will declare that all upgrades and even maintenance are a cost To The Nation. And as much money as possible needs to be sent to the Treasury.

    See the pre privatisation railway - where ticket prices were increased to reduce demand. Since demand meant needing to invest...

    We've seen with the Post Office just how our Public Servants serve the public - with the level of fuckwittery that only the very worst private companies can match.

    When you add in the Vital Requirement of Too Big To Fail - for both the public and private options, the result is that private vs public ends up as more of the same.
    The trouble with viewing these things through the old lens of public vs private fifty years ago, is that in the past few years, even the thrusting go-ahead private sector has changed beyond recognition. Nowadays it is rarely about investing to provide better services to win more customers, so much as loading up the company with debt and sweating the assets through terminal decline. See Thames Water or Manchester United, for instance.
    Finacialisation has always been a thing. See the Solihull Project.

    The problem, at the root, is that the permanent system of Government has no understanding or interest in really managing things. As opposed to some accounting stuff - some nice double entry book keeping. Or some very abstract legalisms. Strangely, all the people with real power are accountants and lawyers by training.

    So, when it came to the Post Office, beyond money coming in and money going out, no one wanted to know. The whole structure was about creating Abstract Management. Which is a system based on the belief that all you need to run an organisation is legal briefs, accounts and Big Reports. You get rid of all that nasty, dirty handed stuff about selling stamps etc. That can be left to The Scum.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,045

    I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.

    Why? It’s more twisted narrative news.

    https://x.com/gideonfalter/status/1980158882212118622?s=46
    Why are Israeli police stopping Jewish fans watching a football game. Can't SKS force them to play and are the Israeli police all antisemitic!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275
    This is some useful background reading on the US budgetary dispute.
    A (very) long read on Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

    From the wholesale gutting of federal agencies to the ongoing government shutdown, Russell Vought has drawn the road map for Trump’s second term. Vought has consolidated power to an extent that insiders say they feel like “he is the commander in chief.”
    https://www.propublica.org/article/russ-vought-trump-shadow-president-omb
    ..The ultimate radical constitutionalist, Vought says, is Donald Trump. In Vought’s view, Trump, the subject of four indictments during his time out of office, is a singular figure in the history of the American republic, a once persecuted leader who returns to power to defeat the deep state. “We have in Donald Trump a man who is so uniquely positioned to serve this role, a man whose own interests perfectly align with the interests of the country,” Vought said in his 2024 speech. “He has seen what it has done to him, and he has seen what they are trying to do to the country. That is nothing more than a gift of God.” As Bannon put it, sitting onstage with Vought at a closed-door conference in 2023, Trump is “a very imperfect instrument, right? But he’s an instrument of the Lord.”

    In Vought’s vision for the U.S. government, an all-powerful executive branch would be able to fire workers, cancel programs, shutter agencies, and undo regulations that govern air and water quality, financial markets, workplace protections and civil rights. The Department of Justice, meanwhile, would shed its historical independence and operate at the direction of the White House. All of this puts Vought at the center of what Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown, described to me as the Trump administration’s “complete disregard” for the law...

    ...Vought and his colleagues at the center also worked closely with the House Freedom Caucus to urge other congressional Republicans to use government shutdowns as a way of forcing through major policy changes. One of their first targets was critical race theory, a once obscure academic concept that had become a flashpoint during the 2020 racial ­justice protests.

    According to previously unreported recordings of briefings held by Citizens for Renewing America, Vought said that he had pressured members of the Freedom Caucus to yoke a ban on critical race theory to must-pass bills on raising the debt limit and funding the government. “We have to have a speaker that goes into these funding fights with a love for the shutdowns,” Vought said during a November 2022 briefing call, “because they create an opportunity to save the country.”..
  • CumberlandGapCumberlandGap Posts: 33

    The director-general said personal politics had no place in the Corporation’s news department amid repeated controversy over BBC impartiality.

    “You leave it at the door and your religion is journalism at the BBC. And the problem I’ve got is that people react quite chemically to that,” Mr Davie told the Cheltenham Literature Festival.

    “So you can’t come into the newsroom with a Black Lives Matter T-shirt.

    “We stand absolutely firmly against racism in any form. I find some of the hatred in society at the moment utterly abhorrent, and personally really upsetting.

    “But that is a campaign that has politicised objectives, therefore is not appropriate for a journalist who may be covering that issue to be campaigning in that way,” he told an audience at the festival.

    “And for some people joining the BBC, that is a very difficult thing to accept.

    “I feel very strongly that if you walk into the BBC newsroom you cannot be holding a Kamala Harris mug when you come to the [US] election. No way.”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/19/black-lives-matter-not-welcome-bbc-newsroom-tim-davie/

    This kind of position was absolutely normal, and not just at the BBC, HMRC, the local hospital, the national trust, constabularies, but even political bodies like your local council would in the delivery of their services not participate in areas that were political, outside a few radical councils in the eighties. There was an expectation that you don’t campaign on the rate payer.

    I don’t know if it is the Equality Act that is to blame, or is an excuse, but we now have normalised radical political and social action from charitable, private and public institutions that wouldn’t have in the past touched such things with a barge pole.
    Social media, innit?

    Too many folk think they have an untrammelled right to express their opinions without a filter, whether that be "black lives matter" T-shirts or "burn them in their hotels".
    Not sure that BLM t-shirts and ‘burn them in their hotels’ are exactly equal but opposite ends of the same problem.
    BLM is dramatically worse, as it’s given cover and described as “mostly peaceful” when cities across the USA were been burned to the ground.
    Nobody died as a result of that tweet, close to fifty died from the blm riots, and billions of dollars of property burnt to the ground.
    You give cover to extreme violence, you get extreme violence, don’t pretend you aren’t part of the problem.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,610
    edited 8:46AM

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
    The House passed a budget, but the Senate (where 60 votes are required) has voted it down 10 times so far.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_government_shutdown

    Senate is back today to vote it down again.
    The Democrats in the Senate are not going to vote for a MAGA budget, quite obviously.
    But at least 7 Dems are going to have to support a budget that can pass.

    That gives them some leverage to get some of what they want but ultimately, as they're in a minority, they will have to accept some things they don't want.

    The alternative is governmental shutdown whereby the people lose out and become ever more disenchanted by federal politicians.

    This pattern will repeat, in various forms, irrespective of who controls Congress.
    If the GOP don't have the votes for their MAGA budget then it's the GOP that have to compromise to get broader support.

    Democrats are not obliged to vote for eyewatering increases in health costs.

    Everywhere else it is accepted that the status quo continues until there are the votes for change. Only in the US do we see a government shutdown as a tactic to coerce legislators.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,128

    I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.

    "Nick Tyrone
    @NicholasTyrone

    The Maccabi Tel Aviv fan ban was wrong on every level. Please stop trying to excuse it because you think it plays into some corner of the omnicause nicely."

    https://x.com/NicholasTyrone/status/1979140025666167017
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,839
    On topic, I think there is a difference between publicly owned and run by the government.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 82,275

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
    The House passed a budget, but the Senate (where 60 votes are required) has voted it down 10 times so far.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_federal_government_shutdown

    Senate is back today to vote it down again.
    The Democrats in the Senate are not going to vote for a MAGA budget, quite obviously.
    But at least 7 Dems are going to have to support a budget that can pass.

    That gives them some leverage to get some of what they want but ultimately, as they're in a minority, they will have to accept some things they don't want.

    The alternative is governmental shutdown whereby the people lose out and become ever more disenchanted by federal politicians.

    This pattern will repeat, in various forms, irrespective of who controls Congress.
    That's why we see continuing resolutions (which keep the show on the road) while the two sides negotiate.

    The GOP have chosen not to go with another continuing resolution, and have shut the government down, rather than compromise. Their best offer is "vote for the budget, and trust us to negotiate"; it doesn't work that way round, not least with a party which has demonstrated to everyone that its wod means nothing at all.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,866
    edited 8:49AM
    A reminder of the classic Yes Minister sketch where just changing the question on national service from a way to improve self discipline amongst the young to militarisation of the young from Sir Humphrey to Hacker made him change his mind.

    Though of course they would be publicly owned franchises
    rather than government run directly
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 38,128
    Another major hacking incident.

    "Ring, Lloyds Bank and Snapchat knocked offline in huge internet blackout
    Amazon web hosting crash takes down dozens of apps and websites

    Dozens of internet services, games and apps including the HMRC website and banks are offline after a crash involving hosting company Amazon Web Services.

    Web users were also unable to access services including the Ring doorbell app, Snapchat and Fortnite on Monday morning.

    The blackout affected the Government’s Gateway login service, which includes HMRC and many other public services. Users also reported problems with Lloyds Bank and Halifax’s apps."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/20/ring-snapchat-amazon-and-more-go-down-in-blackout
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,524

    Ratters said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Fpt

    Nigelb said:

    What if the GOP doesn't reopen Congress ?

    I continue to think the fact that the House Republicans have essentially closed up shop is one of the most consequential, interesting, infuriating, historically bananas things happening right now and I cannot understand why it’s not getting more coverage. Like, first of all, WHY?
    https://x.com/brianschatz/status/1980086949223288866

    Suppose Trump declares a budget by Executive Order. I know it's not Constitutional, but when has that stopped him, and who else would stop him?

    Most of his existing public support would support him on it, as bypassing the Democrats who they blame for the shutdown. Federal employees will be relieved to return to work and receiving their pay again, even if they believe it to be due to an unconstitutional act.

    A lot of low-information voters will simply be relieved that the government is functioning, and probably don't distinguish between the different branches of government that much.

    Once SCOTUS dismisses the case against the Executive budget, what else are Democrats going to do?

    I guess it solves the problem of what to do about the midterm elections if the House simply never sits again. Though most dictators find it useful to have a legislative assembly to give the facade of democracy.

    I would expect the House to return eventually, but it's not 100%.
    I think in the uk there is a rule that there has to be a state opening of parliament by a certain date. So you have the same thing in the US?

    Because I could quite easily see them holding over the current session for a very very long time
    They’re basically two tribes of children at this point, both happy to continue the shutdown for as long as they can blame the other side for it.

    It will probably take a month or so before people get annoyed with government services that are not working, or government workers not being paid, that’s what brings them back to the table.

    It’s a crazy system that even allows for government to shut down at all, not sure any other country has the same constitutional process of brinkmanship. Wasn’t it Belgium that ran just fine for a year with no government after electing a a very hung Parliament?

    IIRC in the UK there’s very little that has to be done, but there’s a few annual renewals such as for income tax and various terrorism-related legislation.
    There's really no justification for that kind of "both sides" analysis.
    The GOP controls all three branches if government, and benefits from a rock solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

    Whatever is going on with government is 100% down to them.
    One thing I find odd is that the GOP is unable to pass a budget despite a very loyal majority in both houses. The rules on these things seem very complex compared to here.
    As I understand it, this one requires a supermajority (60 votes for) in the Senate to proceed. There is a reconciliation process for budget bills where debate is limited to 24 hours and a simple majority is needed, but it can only be used once in the calendar year, and has already been used back in March.
    And so you end up with stupidly complex bills based once a year that can't possibly be properly scrutinised in 24 hours. Or government by executive order.

    I think it'd be better to simply revert to a simple majority being needed to pass bills. And make sure each law passed has property scrutiny, and no need for the opposition to vote for things they are against to stop the government shutting down.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,081

    I can now see the point of Birmingham City council banning the Maccabi football supporters.

    You are being very naive if you believe that rowdy fans was the reason for the ban.
Sign In or Register to comment.