As an aside, I really think the Democrats are missing a trick here. They should propose the abolition of the 22nd Amendment, or perhaps amending it so it says no more than two consecutive terms.
This would (a) be enormously inconvenient for a whole bunch of Republicans with Presidential ambitions; and (b) allow the Democrats to run Obama.
Which would drive Trump quite mad.
I doubt he would be willing to run, Michelle would certainly be very strongly against it.
As an aside, I really think the Democrats are missing a trick here. They should propose the abolition of the 22nd Amendment, or perhaps amending it so it says no more than two consecutive terms.
This would (a) be enormously inconvenient for a whole bunch of Republicans with Presidential ambitions; and (b) allow the Democrats to run Obama.
Which would drive Trump quite mad.
Has Obama still got it, politically speaking? All his recent interventions seem to have fallen flat.
Well: I think he has it more than most of the other Democratic hopefuls. And he's still pretty young.
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Trump and W both won the popular vote in their second reelection. They both lost the popular vote when first elected.
Obviously Trump running for a third term is against the rules, but I don't see why it would be that big a deal if he did find a sneaky way to do it. We allow it, as do many other countries, so it's not as if he is committing some kind of morally reprehensible act
But finding a way which allowed him to run , but not Obama, would be morally prehensible.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
That's not news is it and it's a matter of conscience not party political. Some people want to die with dignity rather than in pain. A friend's parent recently passed with metastatic cancer that had spread to the spine, they were in constant pain at the end and wanted to pass several weeks before they did. My parent has late stage Alzheimer's, they had clearly expressed a wish not to exist as they do now, physically they're in good health so it could be years of cognitive decline, this bill wouldn't help them, but it might help some people. It's not going to be compulsory FFS, it'll give a small number of people a choice.
If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand
At 79 I was quite good for my age, but the dramatic and sudden drop in my health over the next 2 years was entirely unexpected
I have no doubt you are correct
Nine facts.
I was officially declared elderly in the 'nicest of ways' by my doctor this week when she referred me to the falls clinic and 'hesitantly' said it comes under 'elderly care'
I leaned forward, smiled, and said at 81 I fully accept that proposition !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After being badgered by Mrs. F for some time, I finally went for a Prostate check today. Not as embarrassing as I feared, (it was a male doctor). Given the PB demographic, there will be many here who I advise to go for the examination, if you haven’t already.
As an aside, I really think the Democrats are missing a trick here. They should propose the abolition of the 22nd Amendment, or perhaps amending it so it says no more than two consecutive terms.
This would (a) be enormously inconvenient for a whole bunch of Republicans with Presidential ambitions; and (b) allow the Democrats to run Obama.
Which would drive Trump quite mad.
Has Obama still got it, politically speaking? All his recent interventions seem to have fallen flat.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
That's not news is it and it's a matter of conscience not party political. Some people want to die with dignity rather than in pain. A friend's parent recently passed with metastatic cancer that had spread to the spine, they were in constant pain at the end and wanted to pass several weeks before they did. My parent has late stage Alzheimer's, they had clearly expressed a wish not to exist as they do now, physically they're in good health so it could be years of cognitive decline, this bill wouldn't help them, but it might help some people. It's not going to be compulsory FFS, it'll give a small number of people a choice.
The problem is people who are not Plato's Guardians.
I've encountered medical staff who believed that they could judge the value of continued life - while the person in question was compos mentis.
I've seen friends dealing with greedy family members who were vulturing around elderly family members.
If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand
At 79 I was quite good for my age, but the dramatic and sudden drop in my health over the next 2 years was entirely unexpected
I have no doubt you are correct
Nine facts.
I was officially declared elderly in the 'nicest of ways' by my doctor this week when she referred me to the falls clinic and 'hesitantly' said it comes under 'elderly care'
I leaned forward, smiled, and said at 81 I fully accept that proposition !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After being badgered by Mrs. F for some time, I finally went for a Prostate check today. Not as embarrassing as I feared, (it was a male doctor). Given the PB demographic, there will be many here who I advise to go for the examination, if you haven’t already.
If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand
At 79 I was quite good for my age, but the dramatic and sudden drop in my health over the next 2 years was entirely unexpected
I have no doubt you are correct
Nine facts.
I was officially declared elderly in the 'nicest of ways' by my doctor this week when she referred me to the falls clinic and 'hesitantly' said it comes under 'elderly care'
I leaned forward, smiled, and said at 81 I fully accept that proposition !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After being badgered by Mrs. F for some time, I finally went for a Prostate check today. Not as embarrassing as I feared, (it was a male doctor). Given the PB demographic, there will be many here who I advise to go for the examination, if you haven’t already.
If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand
At 79 I was quite good for my age, but the dramatic and sudden drop in my health over the next 2 years was entirely unexpected
I have no doubt you are correct
Nine facts.
I was officially declared elderly in the 'nicest of ways' by my doctor this week when she referred me to the falls clinic and 'hesitantly' said it comes under 'elderly care'
I leaned forward, smiled, and said at 81 I fully accept that proposition !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After being badgered by Mrs. F for some time, I finally went for a Prostate check today. Not as embarrassing as I feared, (it was a male doctor). Given the PB demographic, there will be many here who I advise to go for the examination, if you haven’t already.
As an aside, I really think the Democrats are missing a trick here. They should propose the abolition of the 22nd Amendment, or perhaps amending it so it says no more than two consecutive terms.
This would (a) be enormously inconvenient for a whole bunch of Republicans with Presidential ambitions; and (b) allow the Democrats to run Obama.
Which would drive Trump quite mad.
Trump might not even win a Convention against Dubya....
@PippaCrerar · 58m EXCL: Keir Starmer putting finishing touches to list of dozens of new peerages to be published before Christmas, with Rachel Reeves’s outgoing chief of staff expected to be among them.
The Tories really did shit the bed with immigration (thanks Boris)
Had they got a grip they'd be polling 45%+ now
To be fair to Boris when he was ousted the Tories were still polling 30% with Reform nowhere.
It was Rishi who tightened visa wage requirements and restricted the ability of dependents to come in with Cleverly and reversed the Boriswave. His reward? Landslide defeat and mass defection of Boris 2019 voters to Farage and Reform
If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand
At 79 I was quite good for my age, but the dramatic and sudden drop in my health over the next 2 years was entirely unexpected
I have no doubt you are correct
Nine facts.
I was officially declared elderly in the 'nicest of ways' by my doctor this week when she referred me to the falls clinic and 'hesitantly' said it comes under 'elderly care'
I leaned forward, smiled, and said at 81 I fully accept that proposition !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After being badgered by Mrs. F for some time, I finally went for a Prostate check today. Not as embarrassing as I feared, (it was a male doctor). Given the PB demographic, there will be many here who I advise to go for the examination, if you haven’t already.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
And of course Washington set the tone by resigning.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Last week I posted a comment on the relative unpopularity of Tesla and it descended into a debate about the exact geographic positioning of Hadrian's wall.
Today I post about Trump's mortality and the Star Trek/Wars nerds assemble.
And people wonder why this place is so addictive...
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
But it's not a genuine private member's bill but a government bill that has been stage managed by getting Kim Leadbeater to front it.
Last week I posted a comment on the relative unpopularity of Tesla and it descended into a debate about the exact geographic positioning of Hadrian's wall.
Today I post about Trump's mortality and the Star Trek/Wars nerds assemble.
And people wonder why this place is so addictive...
As noted earlier, his schedule is clear the first couple of days every month. It's almost like he is getting some monthly medical treatment delivered via a canula in his hand, or something...
Last week I posted a comment on the relative unpopularity of Tesla and it descended into a debate about the exact geographic positioning of Hadrian's wall.
Today I post about Trump's mortality and the Star Trek/Wars nerds assemble.
And people wonder why this place is so addictive...
As noted earlier, his schedule is clear the first couple of days every month. It's almost like he is getting some monthly medical treatment delivered via a canula in his hand, or something...
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
But it's not a genuine private member's bill but a government bill that has been stage managed by getting Kim Leadbeater to front it.
Wasn't that equally true of the legalisation of abortion too?
"Private Members’ Bills (PMBs) are bills introduced by Members of the Commons or the Lords who are not government ministers. With limited time available for the consideration of PMBs, generally only those with Government and cross-party support are successful. Although only a minority of PMBs become law, they are a valuable way for backbench Members to raise issues not on the Government’s agenda."
Interesting piece on Ch4 News where we saw Trump and Vance talking `about Somalians in terms that were reminiscent of the Nazis. It's time Starmer decoupled from the Aberdeenshire Hotelier as soon as he's able
Evening all. Why would Trump - or whatever drooling mess is left of him - want to actually run in 2028? If you are having to set aside the constitution why bother with an actual election?
Last week I posted a comment on the relative unpopularity of Tesla and it descended into a debate about the exact geographic positioning of Hadrian's wall.
Today I post about Trump's mortality and the Star Trek/Wars nerds assemble.
And people wonder why this place is so addictive...
"Oh, I'm afraid the Deflector Shield will be quite operational when your friends arrive!"
As noted earlier, his schedule is clear the first couple of days every month. It's almost like he is getting some monthly medical treatment delivered via a canula in his hand, or something...
This seems possible as repeated MRIs are part of the treatment protocol:
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
That's not news is it and it's a matter of conscience not party political. Some people want to die with dignity rather than in pain. A friend's parent recently passed with metastatic cancer that had spread to the spine, they were in constant pain at the end and wanted to pass several weeks before they did. My parent has late stage Alzheimer's, they had clearly expressed a wish not to exist as they do now, physically they're in good health so it could be years of cognitive decline, this bill wouldn't help them, but it might help some people. It's not going to be compulsory FFS, it'll give a small number of people a choice.
The problem is people who are not Plato's Guardians.
I've encountered medical staff who believed that they could judge the value of continued life - while the person in question was compos mentis.
I've seen friends dealing with greedy family members who were vulturing around elderly family members.
Ask for a wheelchair ramp and they offer you death as an alternative.
There are well-founded concerns, safeguards and whether it should be passed are being debated. It is not a party political matter, Labour are just prepared to allow time for it to be debated. There are a wide range of people who have campaigned for this right, it has a high level of public support, why should time not be made available for the debate?
Last week I posted a comment on the relative unpopularity of Tesla and it descended into a debate about the exact geographic positioning of Hadrian's wall.
Today I post about Trump's mortality and the Star Trek/Wars nerds assemble.
And people wonder why this place is so addictive...
Starmer withdraws whip from Markus Campbell Savours for voting against the farmers IHT
Seats to defend by many Labour mps may well see more rebellions
Despicable act by Starmer and well done Markus Campbell Savours for putting the livelihoods of the farmers in his constituency first, one of the few Labour MPs who deserves to be re elected even if this wretched Labour government deserves to be thrown out of office at the next GE
Apparently Starmer withdrew the whip from 7 labour mps when they voted to abolish the 2 child cap
And last week he did just that after reinstating them !!!!!!!!!!
I was astonished that a Government making the case for greatly reducing child poverty last week didn't make it the first act of government 15 months ago.
They should have done that and scrapped the Winter Fuel Payments outright.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
Or perhaps simply because this is the parliamentary norm, and it allows ministers to take different positions on it while remaining in government. So Mahmood can be against and Streeting for AD but both in cabinet.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
What was all that ‘I made a promise to Esther Rantzen’ shite too. Nauseating.
Last week I posted a comment on the relative unpopularity of Tesla and it descended into a debate about the exact geographic positioning of Hadrian's wall.
Today I post about Trump's mortality and the Star Trek/Wars nerds assemble.
And people wonder why this place is so addictive...
And yet, still no mention of Deltics...
Our Penwarden, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy crankshaft cycle will be done; on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily startup. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us And lead us not into four stroke; but deliver us from gas turbines. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
It seems as if it was modelled on the introduction of abortion - private members bill that was really government policy.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
Or perhaps simply because this is the parliamentary norm, and it allows ministers to take different positions on it while remaining in government. So Mahmood can be against and Streeting for AD but both in cabinet.
I'm in favour of putting Starmer out of his misery.
Last week I posted a comment on the relative unpopularity of Tesla and it descended into a debate about the exact geographic positioning of Hadrian's wall.
Today I post about Trump's mortality and the Star Trek/Wars nerds assemble.
And people wonder why this place is so addictive...
And yet, still no mention of Deltics...
Our Penwarden, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy crankshaft cycle will be done; on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily startup. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us And lead us not into four stroke; but deliver us from gas turbines. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
Now let us contemplate the Holy Trinity
Reminds me I need to look out my Dad's naval stuff and do some more sorting, including the manual for the Deltic engine on the Ton class minesweepers.*
*IIRC the biggest defence procurement ever, perhaps even overtaking the nuclear weapons. Not sure if that is true? But thet built a *lot*.
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
"Signalgate" report out tomorrow; Hegseth gets screwed. He "could have endangered troops and risked the mission" when he shared informtion in a private signal goup chat.
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
Or perhaps simply because this is the parliamentary norm, and it allows ministers to take different positions on it while remaining in government. So Mahmood can be against and Streeting for AD but both in cabinet.
I'm in favour of putting Starmer out of his misery.
"From today, German schools can once again cross the Channel with far less paperwork. Under a policy that enters force on 4 November, groups of at least five pupils aged 19 or under travelling on an officially organised study trip are exempt from both the UK’s new Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) and the standard visitor visa.
...
Operational details. EU-citizen students may travel on their national identity cards, while non-EU classmates need only a passport; teachers and adult chaperones must still obtain an ETA or visa. The exemption applies to stays of up to 30 days for educational or cultural purposes and cannot be used for work placements. UK Border Force will accept a group manifest issued by the school and certified by the German Kultusministerium."
Good news. But will the EU throw a strop because it's bilateral?
(We await the inevitable first asylum claim under this scheme...)
As noted earlier, his schedule is clear the first couple of days every month. It's almost like he is getting some monthly medical treatment delivered via a canula in his hand, or something...
Those are hefty bandages? Someone needs to get off bluesky and spend a bit more time in the real world.
As noted earlier, his schedule is clear the first couple of days every month. It's almost like he is getting some monthly medical treatment delivered via a canula in his hand, or something...
Those are hefty bandages? Someone needs to get off bluesky and spend a bit more time in the real world.
Compared to the makeup he normally has, yes, those are hefty
"Signalgate" report out tomorrow; Hegseth gets screwed. He "could have endangered troops and risked the mission" when he shared informtion in a private signal goup chat.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
Or perhaps simply because this is the parliamentary norm, and it allows ministers to take different positions on it while remaining in government. So Mahmood can be against and Streeting for AD but both in cabinet.
I'm in favour of putting Starmer out of his misery.
"Signalgate" report out tomorrow; Hegseth gets screwed. He "could have endangered troops and risked the mission" when he shared informtion in a private signal goup chat.
The Senators who approved his appointment hold responsibility.
If he gets sacked for being incompetent, that's a very bad precedent for the rest of them
Same reason Trump doesn't like people being prosecuted for corruption (not that the Supreme Court makes it easy anyway, for reasons that are pretty obvious when you look at what some of them 'forget' to declare in gifts).
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
Or perhaps simply because this is the parliamentary norm, and it allows ministers to take different positions on it while remaining in government. So Mahmood can be against and Streeting for AD but both in cabinet.
I'm in favour of putting Starmer out of his misery.
As noted earlier, his schedule is clear the first couple of days every month. It's almost like he is getting some monthly medical treatment delivered via a canula in his hand, or something...
Monthly Putin blood transfusion.
Trump as Putins blood-boy. Now there's a photo that really would make him sell out Ukraine.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
Because that's the way you run a government. Starmer, eh?
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
Or perhaps simply because this is the parliamentary norm, and it allows ministers to take different positions on it while remaining in government. So Mahmood can be against and Streeting for AD but both in cabinet.
I'm in favour of putting Starmer out of his misery.
I'm in favour of putting Starmer in "Misery"...
Who’s Kathy Bates’ character ?
A Corbynite making him rewrite the manifesto to keep the promises he made to become Labour leader.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
Or perhaps simply because this is the parliamentary norm, and it allows ministers to take different positions on it while remaining in government. So Mahmood can be against and Streeting for AD but both in cabinet.
I'm in favour of putting Starmer out of his misery.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
Or perhaps simply because this is the parliamentary norm, and it allows ministers to take different positions on it while remaining in government. So Mahmood can be against and Streeting for AD but both in cabinet.
I'm in favour of putting Starmer out of his misery.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
Because that's the way you run a government. Starmer, eh?
(punches wall)
This is exactly how governments are run on matters of conscience.
I suggest you read up on Leo Abse, honourable mention to Lord Arran.
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
According to his son who "recalls the presidential debate with Walter Mondale on 7 October 1984.
"My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered," Ron Reagan writes."
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
He made his "tear down this wall" speech in June 87. That doesn't seem to fit being well into dementia just a few months later.
Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe
The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers
Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength
Both Trump and Putin play on weakness
Sad reality is that Europe's political leaders are weak. They are desperate for the war to end, and their desperation encourages Putin to persist.
It will take a political leader of considerable qualities to break out of this thinking and to aim for victory.
Boris's second act?
I heard Boris talking recently on the war and he was disappointing. Incoherent. Misunderstanding questions posed to him. He can be a good front man for policies devised by others, but the first people a great European leader would need to convince are other European political leaders - they would not be won over by the bumbling Boris act, and nor would the voters of Germany, France and elsewhere.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
The implication is that Starmer is behind it, but introduced it via a kind of mule in the shape of a private members bill from Kim Leadbitter. Maybe so they could claim it wasn't policy if there was a backlash I suppose
Or perhaps simply because this is the parliamentary norm, and it allows ministers to take different positions on it while remaining in government. So Mahmood can be against and Streeting for AD but both in cabinet.
dont you be bringing parliamentary norms into the discussion, they don't like that one bit
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
He made his "tear down this wall" speech in June 87. That doesn't seem to fit being well into dementia just a few months later.
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
According to his son who "recalls the presidential debate with Walter Mondale on 7 October 1984.
"My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered," Ron Reagan writes."
Obviously Trump running for a third term is against the rules, but I don't see why it would be that big a deal if he did find a sneaky way to do it. We allow it, as do many other countries, so it's not as if he is committing some kind of morally reprehensible act
Sticking to an agreed set of rules is in this case more important than what the rules are, which in any case can be changed if people agree to do so.
If you don't stick to one rule then why not ignore another?
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
He made his "tear down this wall" speech in June 87. That doesn't seem to fit being well into dementia just a few months later.
He was already at the stage of confusion and low energy by the aftermath of Iran-Contra in 1986 that his staff were seriously considering asking the cabinet to invoke the 25th.
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
He made his "tear down this wall" speech in June 87. That doesn't seem to fit being well into dementia just a few months later.
Given Trump's recent behaviour towards Putin, Reagan will be spinning in his grave...
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
He made his "tear down this wall" speech in June 87. That doesn't seem to fit being well into dementia just a few months later.
Reading a speech (well) that is written by someone else is possible with early dementia.
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
He made his "tear down this wall" speech in June 87. That doesn't seem to fit being well into dementia just a few months later.
Speaking from the experience of dealing with my grandfather's Alzheimer's, he could have very lucid days for weeks on end, then he'd have a moment where he didn't know any of us were, those days kept on becoming more and more frequent.
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
According to his son who "recalls the presidential debate with Walter Mondale on 7 October 1984.
"My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered," Ron Reagan writes."
"Against that is the word of Michael Reagan, who was adopted by the president and his first wife, Jane Wyman. His book The New Reagan Revolution, is an appeal for a return to his father's political principles of low taxes and small government as a way to making America great again."
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
According to his son who "recalls the presidential debate with Walter Mondale on 7 October 1984.
"My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered," Ron Reagan writes."
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
According to his son who "recalls the presidential debate with Walter Mondale on 7 October 1984.
"My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered," Ron Reagan writes."
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
FDR began the project. And gave it the highest priority.
As Richard Rhodes put it, no one decided *not* to drop the bomb.
From the beginning of the project it was ms assumed it would used and used twice (at least)
The reason for using it twice was that the enemy (Germany originally) might believe that it was only possible to build one bomb every 5 years or so. In fact, after Hiroshima, Japanese scientists offered that as a possibility to the War Cabinet.
The second bomb would prove that there was a production line.
Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe
The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers
Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength
Both Trump and Putin play on weakness
Sad reality is that Europe's political leaders are weak. They are desperate for the war to end, and their desperation encourages Putin to persist.
It will take a political leader of considerable qualities to break out of this thinking and to aim for victory.
I have some hope of the Poles.
Not just Poland. The prevaricating of some countries like Italy or Spain and the Putinism of Hungary conceal some pretty sizeable efforts to support Ukraine.
Denmark has given 2.9% of GDP to support Ukraine. That’s above most countries’ entire military budget. All 3 Baltic states, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have all given more than 1% of GDP according to stats from the Kiel institute. (Poland has given 0.8%).
We’re not in total war yet, but the “Europe is frit” narrative is just lazy MAGA.
It's not what individual countries are doing that matters, but what it amounts to collectively.
Collectively Europe is doing enough to keep Ukraine in the fight for as long as it takes for Russia to break their will to resist. Europe is not doing enough to give Ukraine hope for victory - it's not even trying to win! - and it's that hope they will sustain them through the fight.
Europe needs to say collectively that it will do whatever is necessary to defeat Russia - but they do not. They say they will sort Ukraine, "for as long as it takes," but to do what? What is the objective?
There is no strategy. They are entirely reactive. It is not good enough.
EXC - I've seen a leaked policy document from Labour in opposition which sets out how to approach assisted dying.
The document sets out how it could be introduced as a private member’s bill, suggesting that would still allow “heavy influence” for the government in the process
Why is it being leaked now? Does someone want to give Starmer's premiership an assisted death?
Esther Rantzen asked them to
Isn't this how legislation that has moral and ethical issues but no particular political partisanship has been handled in the past? I am thinking of how in the Sixties David Steeel's bill on legal abortion was passed, with the Wilson government providing parliamentary time.
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
But it's not a genuine private member's bill but a government bill that has been stage managed by getting Kim Leadbeater to front it.
It's a genuine private member's bill. Governments are allowed to support PMBs: that doesn't stop them being PMBs. Governments may fully adopt PMBs, or whip their MPs to support it, or, as in this case, ensure there is parliamentary time for it. Here, there is no whipping and MPs from different parties are supporting or opposing it.
If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand
At 79 I was quite good for my age, but the dramatic and sudden drop in my health over the next 2 years was entirely unexpected
I have no doubt you are correct
Nine facts.
I was officially declared elderly in the 'nicest of ways' by my doctor this week when she referred me to the falls clinic and 'hesitantly' said it comes under 'elderly care'
I leaned forward, smiled, and said at 81 I fully accept that proposition !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After being badgered by Mrs. F for some time, I finally went for a Prostate check today. Not as embarrassing as I feared, (it was a male doctor). Given the PB demographic, there will be many here who I advise to go for the examination, if you haven’t already.
I had a female doctor when I had my prostate felt. Not at all embarrassing either!
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
He made his "tear down this wall" speech in June 87. That doesn't seem to fit being well into dementia just a few months later.
Reading a speech (well) that is written by someone else is possible with early dementia.
I rewatched that speech yesterday as it happens. If he was suffering from dementia there was no sign of it. But it is a confounding disease.
If he isn't already dead, he will be too far gone to stand
At 79 I was quite good for my age, but the dramatic and sudden drop in my health over the next 2 years was entirely unexpected
I have no doubt you are correct
Nine facts.
I was officially declared elderly in the 'nicest of ways' by my doctor this week when she referred me to the falls clinic and 'hesitantly' said it comes under 'elderly care'
I leaned forward, smiled, and said at 81 I fully accept that proposition !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After being badgered by Mrs. F for some time, I finally went for a Prostate check today. Not as embarrassing as I feared, (it was a male doctor). Given the PB demographic, there will be many here who I advise to go for the examination, if you haven’t already.
I had a female doctor when I had my prostate felt. Not at all embarrassing either!
Every day we have leaders calling meetings with each other, and discussing interminable about the war in Ukraine, and yet Putin not only rejects their interventions but says he is ready to conduct war with Europe
The world is going round in circles while Ukraine suffers
Maybe it is time to call Putins bluff and actively intervene in Ukraine militarily and show some strength
Both Trump and Putin play on weakness
Sad reality is that Europe's political leaders are weak. They are desperate for the war to end, and their desperation encourages Putin to persist.
It will take a political leader of considerable qualities to break out of this thinking and to aim for victory.
I have some hope of the Poles.
Not just Poland. The prevaricating of some countries like Italy or Spain and the Putinism of Hungary conceal some pretty sizeable efforts to support Ukraine.
Denmark has given 2.9% of GDP to support Ukraine. That’s above most countries’ entire military budget. All 3 Baltic states, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have all given more than 1% of GDP according to stats from the Kiel institute. (Poland has given 0.8%).
We’re not in total war yet, but the “Europe is frit” narrative is just lazy MAGA.
It's not what individual countries are doing that matters, but what it amounts to collectively.
Collectively Europe is doing enough to keep Ukraine in the fight for as long as it takes for Russia to break their will to resist. Europe is not doing enough to give Ukraine hope for victory - it's not even trying to win! - and it's that hope they will sustain them through the fight.
Europe needs to say collectively that it will do whatever is necessary to defeat Russia - but they do not. They say they will sort Ukraine, "for as long as it takes," but to do what? What is the objective?
There is no strategy. They are entirely reactive. It is not good enough.
Europe wants Ukraine to win. That is their strategy. Individual European countries have to weigh up domestic spending concerns with support for Ukraine and have come to different conclusions. But that doesn't mean they don't have an objective.
Has anyone other than Franklin D. Roosevelt ever mounted four serious runs for the presidency?
I can't think of anyone.
Ronald Reagan, 1968, 1976, 1980, and 1984.
let me rephrase that then to show what I actually meant. Has anyone been a major party nominee for president in four separate elections other than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Reagan and FDR were the two dominant Presidents of the 20th century and both changed their country ideologically as well. Had Reagan run for a 3rd term in 1988 he almost certainly would have beaten Dukakis like Bush 41 did, though he probably still wouldn't have beaten Clinton in 1992 so would not have quite matched FDR had the constitution still allowed more than 2 terms.
Reagan might have beaten Carter in 1976 though, Ford only lost narrowly and his 1976 GOP convention speech was brilliant and many in the hall thought they had nominated the wrong man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuoRDY9c5SQ
The two-term limit has benefited the Republicans. Both Clinton and Obama would have won third terms comfortably. As it was both W and Trump scraped in against much weaker opponents, both losing the popular vote. And, of course, it was the Republicans who brought in the limit, horrified by FDRs four-in-a-row.
Yes Bill Clinton would have beaten Governor George W Bush in 2000 and Obama beaten Trump in 2016. JFK had he lived would likely have beaten Nixon in 1968 as he did in 1960, though IKE would have beaten JFK in 1960 most likely. Reagan would have beaten Dukakis in 1988 but then so did his VP Bush Snr anyway
FDR may have triggered the term limits but it has been an issue and debated in US politics since the days of the formation of the original constitutional convention.
Which makes it all the more interesting that no one managed to get a third term before him, and but for his death might have served twice as long as any other President.
...And quite possibly won again in 1948, since Truman did..
An interesting "alternative history" crossed my mind recently. If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
Yes.
Going back to Reagan, wasn't he well into Alzheimer's by 1988? Seems unlikely that Bush wouldn't have been the nominee even without term limits.
He made his "tear down this wall" speech in June 87. That doesn't seem to fit being well into dementia just a few months later.
Reading a speech (well) that is written by someone else is possible with early dementia.
Professional actor, too. Internalised skill?
Edit: I mean, reading something someone else wrote ...
Comments
Some people want to die with dignity rather than in pain.
A friend's parent recently passed with metastatic cancer that had spread to the spine, they were in constant pain at the end and wanted to pass several weeks before they did.
My parent has late stage Alzheimer's, they had clearly expressed a wish not to exist as they do now, physically they're in good health so it could be years of cognitive decline, this bill wouldn't help them, but it might help some people.
It's not going to be compulsory FFS, it'll give a small number of people a choice.
Make of that what you will.
Interesting.
Had they got a grip they'd be polling 45%+ now
Wash: "Oh, god! Oh, God! We're all going to die?"
I've encountered medical staff who believed that they could judge the value of continued life - while the person in question was compos mentis.
I've seen friends dealing with greedy family members who were vulturing around elderly family members.
And we had this comedy - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/veterans-maid-rcmp-investigation-1.6663885
Ask for a wheelchair ramp and they offer you death as an alternative.
It is a good thing to do
Pippa Crerar
@PippaCrerar
·
58m
EXCL: Keir Starmer putting finishing touches to list of dozens of new peerages to be published before Christmas, with Rachel Reeves’s outgoing chief of staff expected to be among them.
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1996286124122349669
It was Rishi who tightened visa wage requirements and restricted the ability of dependents to come in with Cleverly and reversed the Boriswave. His reward? Landslide defeat and mass defection of Boris 2019 voters to Farage and Reform
How about "you can have assisted dying, but the lethal injection has to be given via a carrot shaped like a willy" as a compromise?
(mutters: and the actual quote is "I've been dead before")
"The Dark Side of the force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural."
Indeed without either tacit or explicit government support virtually no private membrrs bills would pass at all.
So I am unsurprised that Labour gave the AD bill time.
Incidentally I am not in favour.
Today I post about Trump's mortality and the Star Trek/Wars nerds assemble.
And people wonder why this place is so addictive...
Trump had some hefty bandages yesterday on the back of right hand -- the same one that is often discolored
(Chip Somodevilla/Getty)
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m747a7terk2t
As noted earlier, his schedule is clear the first couple of days every month. It's almost like he is getting some monthly medical treatment delivered via a canula in his hand, or something...
"Private Members’ Bills (PMBs) are bills introduced by Members of the Commons or the Lords who are not government ministers. With limited time available for the consideration of PMBs, generally only those with Government and cross-party support are successful. Although only a minority of PMBs become law, they are a valuable way for backbench Members to raise issues not on the Government’s agenda."
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04568/
I am struggling to be outraged here. It seems normal parliamentary procedure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6YhwE_A3RA
https://kisunla.lilly.com/treatment#monthly-dosing
But usual to vary the infusion site and wouldn't usually choose the dominant hand.
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy crankshaft cycle will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily startup.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into four stroke;
but deliver us from gas turbines.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.
Now let us contemplate the Holy Trinity
*IIRC the biggest defence procurement ever, perhaps even overtaking the nuclear weapons. Not sure if that is true? But thet built a *lot*.
If FDR had lived would he have authorised the dropping of The Bomb?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szrxno4mW5E
Bad week. How he survives is questionable.
The Senators who approved his appointment hold responsibility.
...
Operational details. EU-citizen students may travel on their national identity cards, while non-EU classmates need only a passport; teachers and adult chaperones must still obtain an ETA or visa. The exemption applies to stays of up to 30 days for educational or cultural purposes and cannot be used for work placements. UK Border Force will accept a group manifest issued by the school and certified by the German Kultusministerium."
Good news. But will the EU throw a strop because it's bilateral?
(We await the inevitable first asylum claim under this scheme...)
(punches wall)
I suggest you read up on Leo Abse, honourable mention to Lord Arran.
"My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered," Ron Reagan writes."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/17/ronald-reagan-alzheimers-president-son
https://youtu.be/2R8QxCD6ir8?si=wCVPvJ1DIO2nGFLQ
If you don't stick to one rule then why not ignore another?
Errrr.....
As Richard Rhodes put it, no one decided *not* to drop the bomb.
From the beginning of the project it was ms assumed it would used and used twice (at least)
The reason for using it twice was that the enemy (Germany originally) might believe that it was only possible to build one bomb every 5 years or so. In fact, after Hiroshima, Japanese scientists offered that as a possibility to the War Cabinet.
The second bomb would prove that there was a production line.
Collectively Europe is doing enough to keep Ukraine in the fight for as long as it takes for Russia to break their will to resist. Europe is not doing enough to give Ukraine hope for victory - it's not even trying to win! - and it's that hope they will sustain them through the fight.
Europe needs to say collectively that it will do whatever is necessary to defeat Russia - but they do not. They say they will sort Ukraine, "for as long as it takes," but to do what? What is the objective?
There is no strategy. They are entirely reactive. It is not good enough.
73 mins
Liverpool need to get something surely
I got both. (Trainee and tutor.)
Edit: I mean, reading something someone else wrote ...