oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jul 1, 2024 21:50:04 GMT
Teaser tweets from pollsters never live up to the polls actually being "interesting".
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 1, 2024 21:57:05 GMT
It isn't about ideological purity, it's about fairness and empathy. Private provision of vital services creates a multi-tier system and detaches those in power from the consequences of their actions. Besides, how can anyone seriously look at the shambles we've suffered under successive private school educated leaders and believe this is as good as it gets. Those on the right only really like competition when the odds are stacked in their favour. Exactly, and the flip side of the coin is that we're under-using the talents of individuals from state school backgrounds. I wonder how many excellent prime ministers we never had. And yet no party is planning to reform state schools to ensure every child gets an equal chance and maximises their potential. It isnt happening because it would cost far more than either is willing to spend, even if they wanted to do it. Also bearing in mind that the state system has schools ranging from awful to excellent, so the alternative to paying for your child to get an excellent education privately, is simply to move into the catchment area of an excellent state school, and steal the place which would have gone to a somewhat poorer child.
If you close the private schools, then the 7% or so of kids using them will move to standard state schools, and very likely end up taking places in the 10% best schools. Consigning the kids which would have had them to worse schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jul 1, 2024 21:59:40 GMT
Ukraine: couple of snippets tonight. The Washington Post has seen internal government documents from one of the Russian regions bordering Ukraine which states that in recent months 38 glide bombs have landed in the region. These are guided bombs that are launched some distance from the target, so the planes can evade air defences. The problem here is that the bombs were launched by, er...the Russian air force. This follows a pattern of incompetence, with other analyses claiming 119 cases of Russia bombing themselves, although I don't know the basis of this number.
Also, continue explosions across oil refineries and similar targets in western Russia. A factory producing rocket fuel used in the Kaliber missiles has just gone up in smoke, and this is 680 miles from the border. Ukraine is also stepping up it's attacks on Russian energy grid in the border regions, with several large distribution points attacked and reports of lengthy blackouts across these regions. Russia has been effective in attacking the Ukrainian power system, and this winter is likely to be very tough for Ukraine, and it seems like Zelensky wants to return the favour.
Finally, the first signs that Russia is running out of manpower. They have claimed to be generating 30,000 troops a month, and in June it's estimated that they are losing 1000 - 1200 troops a day, so this suggests they are struggling to keep numbers as they are. There are now reports of recruitment billboards appearing in Russian cities, and the payments offered are 650% higher than in 2023. Received wisdom is that Putin is desperate to avoid a full mobilisation, which would likely be severely unpopular, and despite theoretically generating millions of potential troops, as they can't equip them, it would be of limited use.
Russia is currently on something of a kamikaze mission, with a second Trump presidency looking to be Putin's only way out of the mess he is in.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 1, 2024 22:07:46 GMT
The UK is, primarily, a non-Tory country, and only a weird electoral system, using a rare first past the post system while also relying on an unbalanced level of engagement between young and old, allied to very lax funding rules, is what has handed them far greater periods in government than Labour. Plus split votes, cuckoos, right-wing economics dominating the media etc. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 1, 2024 22:13:43 GMT
With my University lecturer hat on, I would like to dispute the idea that exam performance and learning (or even learning to learn) equate to the same thing. It is hard to design assessments that really capture someone's understanding and aren't gameable, at least to some extent. Also, your original point was that this exam performance (and learning) makes them better qualified for government and I have explained why I think that is not the case. What I had in mind was that the ruling political class is largely self sustaining by hereditary principle, or at least nepotism, and so no amount of education is going to get outsiders into parliament. In such a situation, both lab and con most recent governments seem to believe its better for people to have been well educated than not. Our parliaments are chosen by the back room leaders of the labour and conservative parties and have been for a very long time. Not by voters, by the small group controlling those parties. Those two parties pick two people out of the 100,000 or so in every constituency one of whom will win. The other 99,998 have zero chance. Widening this, in a few places, maybe 3 or 4 might have a chance. The state does not provide an excellent education for all. Very far from it. Things are getting worse too, not better. Teaching just isnt a very attractive career any more. If what you want to achieve is universally excellent education, then forget about private schools, they are irrelevant. Its the 93% in state schools you need to worry about. The one thing private schools tell you is that many state schools are very poor by comparison. If you abolish private schools it will just make it easier to hide this fact and chances are therefore education for those state kids will get worse. Its a lot more interesting than the campaign at the moment, which seems to be most characterised by politicians not wanting to talk about things, including education. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 1, 2024 22:23:44 GMT
Danny - "But frankly this isnt just about boosting their grades, its also about learning to learn." That's an extremely dubious claim. If I get the time, I'll try to hunt down the data from a couple of studies I saw a few years ago that showed private schools were rather bad at developing pupils compared to state schools. The advantages mainly came from higher skills at entrance, I dont believe the aristocracy (define that as seems best) have innately more capable children. If those kids have higher skills at entrance, I wonder how that could have come about? Private schools are businesses which have customers looking for excellence in education, or at any rate something better than they can get for free from the state. If those private schools did not provide that they would not exist. Obviously. Market forces, you dont send your kids to private schools if they are no better. London schools vary quite a lot. One teacher was telling me how their school has essentially negotiated a deal with local gangs not to disrupt education, because its basically in the members interest. Education starts the day you are born, Im not disagreeing lots of kids first day in formal school sees them already at a disadvantage. Succesive governments agree with you. They reckon its not cost effective to provide an excellent education system, ok on average will do. Thats not the point, the point is more money and more resources will result in a better education. Its funny how politicians do not put it like this, that they personally are well paid and their kids will go to a good school of whatever sort, but the rest of the country's kids will mostly have to make do. |
|
mercian
Member
Posts: 7,723
Member is Online
|
Post by mercian on Jul 1, 2024 22:27:18 GMT
In the saga of the leaflets... Today, there were 2 Labour (personally addressed), along with the anonymous drop, which had an assortment, with a pizza place wrapped round them all: Inside the pizza leaflet, 1 Labour, 1 Green, Another Labour, a hearing aid supplier, and a Reform one. The Reform one is clearly relying on people not knowing what's what*, as it mentions "Stop the Boats and Leave the ECHR: Only Reform UK will turn the boats back to France and leave the undemocratic ECHR" Sometimes I wonder whether those wanting to give up their human rights would be so keen if someone then proceeded to break some of them, such as "freedom from torture", using the individual as a testing ground. * As an example of people not knowing what is meant, some years ago, a team set up a table in a high street, and wanted passers-by to sign their petition "End Women's Suffrage". A scary number thought it was about suffering, and not about being able to vote. Hence, the ECHR isn't expanded out on the leaflet, just in case people twig that they might actually want human rights, rather than thinking it is "some nasty EU stuff" This is a spurious argument. We need to leave the European Court of Human Rights because it can override British courts. We should still remain signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights which we signed up to around 1950. Cases under that convention used to be tried in British courts. Thanks to Blair trying to curry favour with the EU we now have a foreign court able to override our own. Many people think this is not a good idea. |
|
mercian
Member
Posts: 7,723
Member is Online
|
Post by mercian on Jul 1, 2024 22:32:40 GMT
My own “snarky” view is that everybody here is bored rigid by this banging on about Scottish Nationalism. Their country voted against it and are very likely to do the same if asked again - who knows? But leaving that aside, and as I have pointed out in numerous occasions, being harangued about a subject that we have no say in and constantly criticised as though somehow it’s our fault has become tedious in the extreme. I'm heartily sick of it. I agree. The amount of vitriol, condescension and, on occasions, sneering unpleasantness associated with a lot of the exchanges on the subject is disturbing too. I get irritated by it and sometimes make the mistake of venturing into the debate, more often than not in a semi-serious micky-taking way. This attracted a vitriolic and personal attack from OldNat last night. In the short time I have left in this forum before my post election sabbatical, I will venture into the subject no more in my remaining few days. What I was called yesterday has probably hastened that departure. It has certainly reinforced the wisdom of it. I mean who wants to be on the receiving end of personal attacks whilst partaking in a pastime undertaken basically for amusement? Arguments contested, certainly, but vitriolic personal attacks? Not for me. Wimp. Just shrug them off. Anyone who attacks me personally is clearly insane so I just pity them. Works wonders.  |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 1, 2024 22:35:57 GMT
What is worth saying though, and something that might be getting lost here, is that if they do poll about 26% then that is an historical low for them and almost unbelievable for the Conservative Party. A disaster that might be disguised by it being a recovery from unrealistic polling depths. I never thought I'd see these figures for them as long as I lived. Almost unbelievable. Its not unbelievable. Even in 2010 con failed to achieve a majority. In 2015 they only improved on that by adopting the brexit referendum so as to get onboard the extreme right (perversely 'right' here includes some labour voters). Plus, the libs self destructed because in going into coalition they defied the wishes of those who had voted for them. Con won their seats by default. 2017 was another near disaster, only recovered once again in 2019 by whipping the leave vote. Although they have ruled for 14 years, they have never been popular throughout that time. It was similar with Thatcher. Its just that the right has managed to be more united than the left and so under FPP tends to win more. Also of course that the current con line about the need to prevent a labour supermajority is complete tosh, a majority of one is all you need to achieve absolute power.
The last 14 years has been characterised by con making wilder and wilder promises, which when they all failed to materialise were certain to cause the sort of result we see now. It feels very much a re-run of what happened to the tories under Thatcher. Major was a far better alternative leader to rescue their fortunes when Thatcher was forced out than they were able to find under Sunak. Though perhaps better to compare Major to Johnson, because while they are very different people they were both giving the voters what they wanted. Sunak was just 'better than Truss'.
|
|
mercian
Member
Posts: 7,723
Member is Online
|
Post by mercian on Jul 1, 2024 22:38:06 GMT
It isn't about ideological purity, it's about fairness and empathy. Private provision of vital services creates a multi-tier system and detaches those in power from the consequences of their actions. Besides, how can anyone seriously look at the shambles we've suffered under successive private school educated leaders and believe this is as good as it gets. Those on the right only really like competition when the odds are stacked in their favour. Exactly, and the flip side of the coin is that we're under-using the talents of individuals from state school backgrounds. I wonder how many excellent prime ministers we never had. Me for one, though I did go to a Direct Grant school. |
|
mercian
Member
Posts: 7,723
Member is Online
|
Post by mercian on Jul 1, 2024 22:40:38 GMT
alec "My mind is drawn to the sage warnings several of us posted on here about how the Conservative attempts to pack quangos with placemen and women, degrade the courts powers to curb government abuse of power, and various measures to tilt the voting system in their favour were colossal strategic errors that would one day come back to haunt them...........They have gifted Labour license to do these things, even if they weren't good things to do, and in keeping with the general dimness of the Conservative approach to government these last 14 years, they failed to game through what this would mean." Labour may have learnt the lessons well: www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/01/labour-plan-replace-nhs-england-chair-richard-meddings-general-electionNot sure retreads from a decade or more ago chime with Labour's "Change" mantra. The bit I've highlighted certainly happened under Blair, and no doubt in previous regimes. It's been par for the course for decades at least. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 1, 2024 22:48:21 GMT
Russia is currently on something of a kamikaze mission, with a second Trump presidency looking to be Putin's only way out of the mess he is in. I'm not convinced Trump is Putin's get out of jail free card. Though certainly it would be better if Russia ended up in retreat this year. It might now be easier to starve Russian troops out of their constructed defences than fight them out of them. We have to consider that if Trump wins, he cannot be elected again and will not therefore be worrying about his voter base. |
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jul 1, 2024 22:49:09 GMT
So far we have had 3 polls tonight coming up with - Lab 39% Con 24% Ref 13% - 16% LD 10% - 12% Grn 4% - 5% Figures before they adjust for don't knows etc JLP: Lab 42% / Con 22% MiC: Lab 41% / Con 22% Which is similar to the average of other polls who don't adjust in the same way, but I would of thought by now we would have had convergence. The election will hopefully tell us which methodologies were more accurate I am struggling to understand these figures. I have seen at least a couple of polls indicating that of the "don't knows", more would vote Lab than Con if they vote at all. However, the data from Graham indicate a lab lead of 15% and the data from Neilj indicate an average Lab lead of 19.5% prior to correcting for "don't knows". Unless I am missing something, surely the corrected data that Graham reports should show a greater than 19.5% lead for Lab. Either the polling data of "unknowns" is incorrect or the corrected poll shares are incorrect. I suspect the later. |
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Jul 1, 2024 22:49:29 GMT
Just watched Tim Harford on CH4 with a program called 'skint'. Basically about what is wrong with the UK economy, mentioned investment has nosedived since Brexit, but also that we have been investing far too little for far too long in infrastructure, dating back to Thatcher and beyond. In particular Thatcher's changes which halted government housebuilding ever since, but rather than the private sector picking up the demand and building more as government claimed, it too reduced its building rate and prices have soared. He suggested building 650,000 homes a year for ten years to catch up. That much of this could take place on notional greenbelt land around cities, though still only needing 2% of the land so defined...which typically isnt very green anyway. That this 'greenbelt' is a shibboleth which made sense when first defined accompanied by the idea cities would never in future grow, but makes no sense now. How our cities are all less productive than comparable ones in France. Used an example of Cambridge, which wants to build thousands of homes...but cannot because the water infrastructure is inadequate. Which of course means building that.... by those privatised water companies which arent interested. Didnt go on about it, but similarly we arent building new electricity infrastructure either. Filmed quite a bit in Hastings, with the highest number of homeless in the country and nowhere for the council to put them. Mentioned that even our existing homes are smaller, more run down and less energy efficient than typical homes in europe. So it isnt just quantity, its quality. Mentioned inadequate public transport in the UK. The toughest and most unpredictable planning rules in Europe, making any decision slow, refusals likely and outcomes very uncertain. Build a factory in Britain? Way too difficult. Our investment in this sort of public infrastructure has been way down compared to europe for decades, and now its holding back growth in the UK. The solution obviously is to catch all that up. Of course, neither main political party wants to talk about any of this. But they are talking about how growth will solve their cash shortages. Only no infrastrucutre, no growth. Growth in the UK since brexit has been half that in the EU. Which has been half that in the USA. So which party will reverse brexit, and reverse Thatcher? Tried to comment on this but the site and my incompetence stopped me. In my small town within W London I can point to a development of 300 flats going on (mainly market with some affordable) another one approved in planning years ago about 50% built and the rest proceeding at snail pace. One about 500 stalled because the developers can't make the sums add up. Another of 300 stalled for at least 5 years for the same reason (Housing Assoc, mainly affordable) another commercial about 200 partly affordable, same reason - alleging a new proposal now but has been on hold for finances. 100 council flats built but not occupied because of lack of electricity. Another council scheme for 200 allegedly starting later this year. None of this delayed by planning, all by developers not satisfied they can make their gate rate of 20% net profit or infrastructure issues. There are also a number of industrial/office sites that are either unoccupied or very sparsely occupied. Planners don't want their planning use type changed and developers are holding out for residential, where they can make much more. What they can do is 'prior approval' change of offices to resi. they can (and do) do this without any council input, no contribution to infrastructure and in some cases absolutely appalling design - see APT Parkview Brentford on Youtube for an example how appalling this can be |
|
|
|
Post by ping on Jul 1, 2024 22:56:40 GMT
The state does not provide an excellent education for all. Very far from it. Things are getting worse too, not better. Teaching just isnt a very attractive career any more. If what you want to achieve is universally excellent education, then forget about private schools, they are irrelevant. Its the 93% in state schools you need to worry about. The one thing private schools tell you is that many state schools are very poor by comparison. If you abolish private schools it will just make it easier to hide this fact and chances are therefore education for those state kids will get worse. You know what, Danny. I actually think we agree on quite a lot: That private schools provide an advantage otherwise why would people pay for them - I agree That some state schools are excellent, and others are not - I agree That you can buy access to a better state school by moving into a good catchment area - I agree I think where we part company is your view that private schools are irrelevant to the goal of universally excellent education. You've already agreed they provide a competitive advantage (probably one that even excellent state schools struggle to match) so surely they are a contributor to society missing out on the talents of state school students (when they are out-competed for University places/in the jobs market etc.). They also provide a way for very well-resourced and motivated parents to opt-out of the state school system, thereby reducing their inclination to do anything about it. I don't have a solution to this, unfortunately. EDIT: The clock has struck midnight so I must leave the ball. 'Til the morrow. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 1, 2024 22:58:03 GMT
This is a spurious argument. We need to leave the European Court of Human Rights because it can override British courts. We should still remain signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights which we signed up to around 1950. Cases under that convention used to be tried in British courts. Thanks to Blair trying to curry favour with the EU we now have a foreign court able to override our own. Many people think this is not a good idea. No. I seem to recall that indeed issues relating to the ECHR used to be litigated in british courts. However once that process was completed, the losers could still apply to the european court, which would deliver a ruling which might say the Uk was in contravention of the convention. The Uk was then under an obligation under the treaty to fix its contravention. What Blair did was short circuit this, cutting out a lot of the british courts stuff and sending people directly to the Europen court. This might be seen as sensible or bad, because it cut a few years off how long it took someone to appeal. During which time a government could have merrily continued whatver it was doing wrong. Pass the buck to the next government. |
|
Nered
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by Nered on Jul 1, 2024 23:09:54 GMT
"They also provide a way for very well-resourced and motivated parents to opt-out of the state school system, thereby reducing their inclination to do anything about it."
And there is the crux of the matter. Just as in private health provision.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jul 1, 2024 23:10:20 GMT
Exactly, and the flip side of the coin is that we're under-using the talents of individuals from state school backgrounds. I wonder how many excellent prime ministers we never had. And yet no party is planning to reform state schools to ensure every child gets an equal chance and maximises their potential. It isnt happening because it would cost far more than either is willing to spend, even if they wanted to do it. Also bearing in mind that the state system has schools ranging from awful to excellent, so the alternative to paying for your child to get an excellent education privately, is simply to move into the catchment area of an excellent state school, and steal the place which would have gone to a somewhat poorer child.
If you close the private schools, then the 7% or so of kids using them will move to standard state schools, and very likely end up taking places in the 10% best schools. Consigning the kids which would have had them to worse schools.
In reality, if you compare schools according to the demographics of the parents of the kids, you find that there are "very good" schools serving disadvantaged communities, and "really poor" schools delivering crap or mediocre education to the well off - although in these latter schools, the parents can afford tutors to get their kids through exams.
Your Ofsted system of inspection seems incapable of providing such appropriate measures. |
|
mercian
Member
Posts: 7,723
Member is Online
|
Post by mercian on Jul 1, 2024 23:10:45 GMT
Russia is currently on something of a kamikaze mission, with a second Trump presidency looking to be Putin's only way out of the mess he is in. I'm not convinced Trump is Putin's get out of jail free card. Though certainly it would be better if Russia ended up in retreat this year. It might now be easier to starve Russian troops out of their constructed defences than fight them out of them. We have to consider that if Trump wins, he cannot be elected again and will not therefore be worrying about his voter base. Except that he could change the rules. I think FDR had 3 terms. Whatever law they brought in to stop that could presumably be repealed. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 1, 2024 23:13:35 GMT
Figures before they adjust for don't knows etc JLP: Lab 42% / Con 22% MiC: Lab 41% / Con 22% Which is similar to the average of other polls who don't adjust in the same way, but I would of thought by now we would have had convergence. The election will hopefully tell us which methodologies were more accurate I am struggling to understand these figures. I have seen at least a couple of polls indicating that of the "don't knows", more would vote Lab than Con if they vote at all. However, the data from Graham indicate a lab lead of 15% and the data from Neilj indicate an average Lab lead of 19.5% prior to correcting for "don't knows". Unless I am missing something, surely the corrected data that Graham reports should show a greater than 19.5% lead for Lab. Either the polling data of "unknowns" is incorrect or the corrected poll shares are incorrect. I suspect the later. Probably reallocating the DKs to their 2019 vote. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2024 23:15:44 GMT
So, two campaigning days to go, (although 'campaigning' seems rather a grand term for the occasional news item making the mainstream news at present with so many other domestic distractions - Glastonbury, Euros, Wimbledon etc., and such a generally low key campaign).
Thursday will be completely artificial, i.e. the election scarcely mentioned, until 10 pm when the exit poll is announced, and that's when the fun really starts. This place will go mental at 10.01 pm.
My thoughts. Purely unscientific, but I've seen a lot of elections, and I think you get a 'vibe' of what's going on. Firstly, a low turnout. 67.3% last time. I'd be surprised if it's much over 60% this time.
I think the polls generally flatter to deceive. I don't see LAB hitting 40%, or CON falling below 25%. I think RFM have stalled and would be surprised if they reached 15%. LDEM I think will have a very good night, though. Say 14%? LAB to make gains from SNP, but possibly not stellar. The odd GRN here and there. I know little of NI politics, but possibly some DUP setbacks. So, my guess...
LAB 36%
CON 26%
RFM 14%
LDEM 14%
GRN 5%
SNP 3%
OTH 2%
Per EC, LAB majority 178. I'll take that every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 1, 2024 23:17:22 GMT
I think where we part company is your view that private schools are irrelevant to the goal of universally excellent education. You've already agreed they provide a competitive advantage (probably one that even excellent state schools struggle to match) so surely they are a contributor to society missing out on the talents of state school students (when they are out-competed for University places/in the jobs market etc.). They also provide a way for very well-resourced and motivated parents to opt-out of the state school system, thereby reducing their inclination to do anything about it. No. The private schools are a solution to the problem that state schools are poor -for those that can afford to buy education themselves. The problem is that state schools are poor. If you believe our rulers only allow state schools to be poor because they can buy their own education, then it can be argued that their existence perpetuates poor state schools. But I think if you abolish private schools, it just means those parents will use their power and influence to take instead the best state school places. The result will be more poor children educated badly. Its a bit naive to think our rulers will pay to educate all the children in the country just so their own get a good education, whatever system is in place. Its would be very expensive to bring the nations schools up to standard - maybe double the annual bill? One of the justifications for abolishing grammar schools was that they were elitist and provided an unfair advantage. But after their abolition state schools divided into the better and worse, and parents moved to make sure those with the buying power got the best places. Stratification into good and bad schools continued unaffected. There is a further complications in that the job of a teacher has become harder. You need to be more subtle nowadays to control a class, physical means are no longer allowed. Grammars offered an environment in which kids were better motivated and behaved, so the job was easier. It was a bit of an illusion they were getting a better deal, they were just the more academic kids interested and willing to be educated. And then there was an exodus of teachers from the profession who could not manage difficult kids, as now required by many more state schools. |
|
mercian
Member
Posts: 7,723
Member is Online
|
Post by mercian on Jul 1, 2024 23:18:50 GMT
Last thought. I mentioned yesterday that Starmer seemed to be the most unpopular LOTO to win an election (assuming he does). I saw a clip on a news channel where Beth Rigby (I think) asked Starmer about that very point. He waffled of course, but it does make me wonder if some journalists and researchers look at this site. In a way it would be surprising if they didn't, given how many different sources we look at between us.
Anyway, Goodnight folks. You've been a great audience.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jul 1, 2024 23:23:42 GMT
I'm not convinced Trump is Putin's get out of jail free card. Though certainly it would be better if Russia ended up in retreat this year. It might now be easier to starve Russian troops out of their constructed defences than fight them out of them. We have to consider that if Trump wins, he cannot be elected again and will not therefore be worrying about his voter base. Except that he could change the rules. I think FDR had 3 terms. Whatever law they brought in to stop that could presumably be repealed.
The 2 term limit isn't a "law", but the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution. Members of the US legislature normally propose around 200 amendments to the Constitution in each 2 year Congressional term. Virtually none of them proceed, as to change the Constitution requires that such a proposal must be passed by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, and then to be ratified by three-quarter of the states. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on Jul 1, 2024 23:35:02 GMT
I'm not convinced Trump is Putin's get out of jail free card. Though certainly it would be better if Russia ended up in retreat this year. It might now be easier to starve Russian troops out of their constructed defences than fight them out of them. We have to consider that if Trump wins, he cannot be elected again and will not therefore be worrying about his voter base. Except that he could change the rules. I think FDR had 3 terms. Whatever law they brought in to stop that could presumably be repealed. The constitution was changed, 22nd amendment. That cannot be done just by presidential decree, or even by the supreme court or congress. 3/4 of all states must agree the change. Would more than 1/4 of US states refuse? I'm thinking yes. The constituion also specifies a maximum 4 year term. Or at least a four year term but presidents can resign early or be impeached. The US constitution was designed to be a right bugger for anyone to subvert. Also, I'm thinking immunity from prosectution for the president was a feature not a design flaw. The whole idea would be to give him freedom to act. The way to get rid of a rogue president is impeachment, and this was tried. At the time it was written it would have been envisaged states had more control of the total armed forces of the US rather than the central government alone. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 1, 2024 23:58:33 GMT
I'm not convinced Trump is Putin's get out of jail free card. Though certainly it would be better if Russia ended up in retreat this year. It might now be easier to starve Russian troops out of their constructed defences than fight them out of them. We have to consider that if Trump wins, he cannot be elected again and will not therefore be worrying about his voter base. Except that he could change the rules. I think FDR had 3 terms. Whatever law they brought in to stop that could presumably be repealed. FDR had 4 terms (1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944) before his death in 1945 and the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951. Following ratification the limit is 2 terms in total (consecutive or non-consecutive). Interestingly, it also bit against Truman. As he completed FDR's fourth term and this was a period of more than 2 years (1945-1948), he could only serve another term. The Amendment can be re-amended/varied so to speak but Trump would not be able to do it. To even be proposed the motion would need to be passed by 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate. Then it would need to be approved by 38 of the 50 states. |
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 2, 2024 0:00:20 GMT
Except that he could change the rules. I think FDR had 3 terms. Whatever law they brought in to stop that could presumably be repealed.
The 2 term limit isn't a "law", but the 22nd amendment to the US Constitution. Members of the US legislature normally propose around 200 amendments to the Constitution in each 2 year Congressional term. Virtually none of them proceed, as to change the Constitution requires that such a proposal must be passed by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, and then to be ratified by three-quarter of the states.Ha, you got there first! |
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jul 2, 2024 0:38:07 GMT
So, two campaigning days to go, (although 'campaigning' seems rather a grand term for the occasional news item making the mainstream news at present with so many other domestic distractions - Glastonbury, Euros, Wimbledon etc., and such a generally low key campaign). Thursday will be completely artificial, i.e. the election scarcely mentioned, until 10 pm when the exit poll is announced, and that's when the fun really starts. This place will go mental at 10.01 pm. My thoughts. Purely unscientific, but I've seen a lot of elections, and I think you get a 'vibe' of what's going on. Firstly, a low turnout. 67.3% last time. I'd be surprised if it's much over 60% this time. I think the polls generally flatter to deceive. I don't see LAB hitting 40%, or CON falling below 25%. I think RFM have stalled and would be surprised if they reached 15%. LDEM I think will have a very good night, though. Say 14%? LAB to make gains from SNP, but possibly not stellar. The odd GRN here and there. I know little of NI politics, but possibly some DUP setbacks. So, my guess... LAB 36% CON 26% RFM 14% LDEM 14% GRN 5% SNP 3% OTH 2% Per EC, LAB majority 178. I'll take that every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. isa, On the basis of my earlier post, unless something major happens in the next 48 hours, imo Lab will be 42+ % and Con 22-%. I would suggest that on the basis of the areas where both Sunak and Starmer have campained today, and in previous days, they are also of the opinion that Lab will have a lead of 20+% and therefore seats with a Tory lead of ~20% in 2019 have now come into play. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 2, 2024 0:52:48 GMT
AstraZeneca's COVID prevention drug application gets EU fast-track assessment
AstraZeneca (AZN.L) said on Monday that the European Union drug regulator has accepted a market authorisation application for its investigational COVID-19 prevention drug, sipavibart, for an accelerated assessment.
The submission was based on positive data from a late-stage trial that showed the drug reduced the risk of infection in patients with weaker immunity.
"The EMA's (European Medicines Agency) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use(CHMP) granted sipavibart accelerated assessment as it was deemed of major interest for public health and therapeutic innovation," the Anglo-Swedish drugmaker said.
An accelerated assessment aims to speed up the EMA's review of a market authorisation application.
AstraZeneca acquired sipavibart from RQ Bio in May 2022.
|
|
|
|
Post by expatr on Jul 2, 2024 1:15:04 GMT
Figures before they adjust for don't knows etc JLP: Lab 42% / Con 22% MiC: Lab 41% / Con 22% Which is similar to the average of other polls who don't adjust in the same way, but I would of thought by now we would have had convergence. The election will hopefully tell us which methodologies were more accurate I am struggling to understand these figures. I have seen at least a couple of polls indicating that of the "don't knows", more would vote Lab than Con if they vote at all. However, the data from Graham indicate a lab lead of 15% and the data from Neilj indicate an average Lab lead of 19.5% prior to correcting for "don't knows". Unless I am missing something, surely the corrected data that Graham reports should show a greater than 19.5% lead for Lab. Either the polling data of "unknowns" is incorrect or the corrected poll shares are incorrect. I suspect the later. My understanding is that in these cases the pollsters are assuming that don't knows will revert to 2019 whereas the polling on what don't knows are likely to do is based on squeeze questions (who are you leaning to?). If we assume that people are being honest and don't change their mind at the last minute then presumably the squeeze approach is likely to be more accurate
|
|
