pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 28, 2024 16:09:03 GMT
My view is that Biden will be getting a lot of advice over the next few days I believe, or perhaps hope, in the next couple of weeks he will stand down and a unity candidate will arise, who Biden will endorse If that happens it could well be a coronation Okay this is the best case scenario, but I don't think it's a totally unrealistic possibility Unfortunately that would be Harris and she would be very likely to lose to Trump as well. She's even more unpopular than Biden. |
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jun 28, 2024 16:13:05 GMT
I think new from R&W, that lower SCon on 2 polls now.
"Labour leads by 6% in Scotland.
Lowest CON % EVER in our Scottish polling.
🏴 Westminster VI (26-27 June):
Labour 38% (-1)
SNP 32% (+3)
Conservative 11% (-6)
Reform 8% (+4)
Lib Dem 7% (-1)
Green 3% (–)
Alba 1% (–)
Other 0% (-1)
Changes +/- 1-2 June"
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 28, 2024 16:21:01 GMT
We did all that in full yesterday. Short answer - its different. Long answer - read the earlier posts. |
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Jun 28, 2024 16:21:45 GMT
This is economically illiterate unless you move entirely to a command economy. To increase the tax burden in that way would have an immediate effect, at a stage where we need to ensure a steady level of demand, in stifling demand. It is the Socialist equivalent of the Truss approach, tax rates cannot be changed so quickly without causing huge disruption. As I wrote recently, circulation of money is the most important thing that can be achieved at the moment, inflation is not at a dangerous level but we don't wish to create a deflationary spiral by reducing the money available to spend in the economy. You might want to move to those tax rates but it would take a long time not to be economically damaging. The problem is this: we live in a capitalist economy, without significant change to that economic model, government has to approach matters carefully. I would prefer that we had a Socialist model of an economy; we don't. Moves towards creating such an economy must involve gradualism. Why is it economically illiterate to advocate to a tax system similar to that prevalent under the Wilson and Callaghan governments? It was not suggested by serious commentaors that they were running Command economies. Geeoffrey Howe in his first Budget in June 1979 raised VAT from 8% to 15% whilst reducing the Top rate of Income Tax from 83% to 60% and also abolishing the Investment Income Surcharge of 15%. Was that economically illiterate? Thathcher was happy enough to keep the Top Income Tax rate at 60% until 1988.If that was acceptable to her, why cannot a Labour Government return to similar rates? Edit - the defaltionary effect of higher Direct Taxes would be offset by a sharp reduction in Indirect Tavation likely to be beneficial to lower income groups who have a higher marginal Propensity to Consume.
The illiteracy is trying to run a capitalist economy with punitive taxes. I well remember my father reducing his income when the marginal rate got to close to 100% - absolutley no point in working when the tax man confiscates the results of your efforts. Do you not remember them going to the IMF for a bail out? The £ in your pocket etc? Truth is that your sort of socialism hasnt worked anywhere in the world. Even communist china tops out at 45%. Apparently the top tax rate in the world is 60% in the Ivory Coast - I guess you want to emulate their economy! |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 28, 2024 16:22:36 GMT
Although I have been critical of PFI in the past, at the same time, can see why they do it. There are a number of problems with it: it may deprive the state of control, and of an asset, and it can allow the private sector to attach numerous extra charges in the contracts. (I don’t know too much about the details here, but I know my partner inherited some PFI stuff at her school, which caused her to raise an eyebrow at the cost, and I think pjw1961 has had something to say about it in the past?) But the problem is: it occurred to me some years ago on the old board, that if you just go for a pure state investment, then the next government can come along and privatise it anyway. And use the proceeds to buy votes. Unless there is a good solution to stop that happening, it’s quite hard to avoid involving the private sector. Perhaps keeping some state involvement in terms of partial investment is beneficial? France, has somehow managed to retain a majority state ownership of their energy company, whoever was in government. But we tend to have governments that have been keener to privatise outright, whether Tories or Labour, since Thatch. This isn’t necessarily what the public want, but a reflection of how right-wing economics captured the main parties, denying alternatives. Although New Labour were quite keen to privatise some things that the Tories didn’t dare to, they did set up NHS direct, which I thought was quite a good thing. Of course, the minute Tories get in power, they get rid of it. This is the problem: it’s often easier to destroy something that it is to create it. Thus we get politicians who think they are being a genius by taking an axe to everything. Because they don’t know how to do anything else, so they pretend it’s a virtue to wreck everything and get rid of it. It is not PFI. |
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jun 28, 2024 16:28:25 GMT
robbiealive While I have significant sympathy with just stop oil's motivations disrupting people going on holiday at airports will do zero to achieve their aims but will 100% guarantee pissing those impacted off monumentally including those who might actually agree with their intents. I would also point out that the incident you might be referring to when police officers were present resulted in the irate "white van man" being detained by the police. Those incidents which I've seen where members of the public push protesters about appear to have normally occurred when no police officers were present, just stop oil specialise in spontaneous disruption, consequently police officers aren't already there and have no prior notification of the likely disruption, this of course means their egress to the scene along with other emergency services is also disrupted.A five minute delay for a white van man is a minor irritation a similar delay for the fire service or an ambulance could be life threatening. I'm not condoning knuckle draggers attacking protesters but I think it's a tad unfair to blame police for not taking action when they weren't actually there. My own experience of protesters back in the 80's and 90's was that they were highly reluctant to offer evidence against assailants , so this just left public order action to prevent breaches of the police as without a "victim" the options are limited 1. You ignored my remark about Just Stop Oil people being treated like terroists, when they completeyly non-violent. The violence comes from the irate motorists who have such repressed anger they visit on the protestors. www.google.com/search?q=violence+against+just+stop+oil+protestors&oq=violence+against+just+stop+oil+protestors&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTEyMjY3ajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:f6a617d8,vid:IT7LBqTjfm0,st:0 www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RBlZjcN5oswww.youtube.com/shorts/m3pWVvwqx8UViolent thuggish motorists not a pretty site are they. Why don't the police examine the CCTV evidence, look at number plates. And of course you trot out the right-wing media's cliches. 2. The crap about five-minute delayed ambulances/fire engines. Far worse delays happen to both categories in "normal" traffic jams. And people wait hours for ambulances & die or suffer from strokes that are not treated quickly enough, etc. You don't seem bothered about those delays. Total lack of proportion. 3. Oh god. "pissing them off monumentally" -- people at airports are frequently delayed by computer failure, lack of border-control staff, strikes by air traffic controllers, etc. Do you think the latter should be arrested as terrorists? After all they are conspiring to ruin people's holidays. Again no sense of proportion. Sure they piss people off. That's what strikes & protests are designed to do. PS. You mean ingress not egress, unless you mean the police are running from the scene. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jun 28, 2024 16:28:49 GMT
That's what I'd assumed. Hogwarts is the main stage for the magical adventures free from parental/family oversight, where teachers can be either allies or enemies and children build their own societies. And free from OFSTED inspections You are missing that as a magical school it comes under the auspices of the ministry for Magic, who very much interfere in the running of the school. They put the place into secial measures under Dolores Umbridge, not forgetting the rison guard Dementors imposed upon it, and that it became the site of a war. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jun 28, 2024 16:29:24 GMT
pjw1961Harris polls lower however this relates to her function as the vice president it's not remotely clear that this would be the case should she suddenly find herself the first female president of the United States. There would be no choice under the 25th amendment if Biden resigns Harris automatically becomes President.That doesn't mean she would be the democratic candidate for the presidency.
|
|
|
|
Post by birdseye on Jun 28, 2024 16:33:00 GMT
In terms of Labour having more money to spend than might currently seem to be the case, we have looked at one option: the question of the interest payments to the banks relating to QE. I have mentioned a few times, how labour might return to money-printing under quantitative easing, but there is a lesser version of this, where they might reverse the quantitative tightening that is currently being practised. The Bank of England is currently unwinding previous QE by the selling of bonds, at something of a loss – according to the Telegraph it’s costing us roughly 11 billion a year, and the Treasury is picking up the tab. We could stop the current tightening, freeing up that £11 billion. The idea behind borrowing money from the BofE was that it would eventually be repaid thus avoiding the accusation of printing money Weimar stle. Thos at the top of the Treasury believed that this slight of hand would work and not cause a currency crash as has happened when others have simply printed money. The problem with your suggestion is that it could be seen as printing money by not redeeming dated gilts when there is no short term economic need to do so. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jun 28, 2024 16:34:56 GMT
robbiealiveClearly there wasn't any point in responding to you politely I wasn't ignoring your other points I was referring to the points I addressed only. Because you evidently know fuck all about the significance of a delay of a few minutes for emergency response and have decided that it's a right wing conspiracy I don't think I'll bother to educate you as you obviously know all you want to already i.e. nothing. And thank you so much for picking up on a grammatical error it was absolutely central to the point.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 28, 2024 16:38:37 GMT
pjw1961 Harris polls lower however this relates to her function as the vice president it's not remotely clear that this would be the case should she suddenly find herself the first female president of the United States. There would be no choice under the 25th amendment if Biden resigns Harris automatically becomes President.That doesn't mean she would be the democratic candidate for the presidency. Her polling numbers are related to her personality and record, unfortunately. Those on the left don't like her because she has many right of centre policy positions, especially on law and order issues. The right don't like her because (lets be honest here) she's a black woman. There is zero chance of Biden resigning the presidency. There is a slim chance he might be persuaded to not stand for reelection, although tragically, that seems unlikely at present. The Democratic establishment, who connived to support the unpopular Hilary Clinton as their candidate in 2016 and so inflicted the first Trump presidency on the world, today seem to be rallying round the doomed Biden candidacy. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jun 28, 2024 16:39:07 GMT
Narnia books were very heavily christian mythos. JKR may or may not be into that but it doesnt appear in the books. JKR is apparently a Christian and there are (subtle) Christian references. Subtle enough that US evangelicals tred to ban them. (oh how boring the election has become) |
|
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: 6,733
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 28, 2024 16:40:13 GMT
In terms of Labour having more money to spend than might currently seem to be the case, we have looked at one option: the question of the interest payments to the banks relating to QE. I have mentioned a few times, how labour might return to money-printing under quantitative easing, but there is a lesser version of this, where they might reverse the quantitative tightening that is currently being practised. The Bank of England is currently unwinding previous QE by the selling of bonds, at something of a loss – according to the Telegraph it’s costing us roughly 11 billion a year, and the Treasury is picking up the tab. We could stop the current tightening, freeing up that £11 billion. The idea behind borrowing money from the BofE was that it would eventually be repaid thus avoiding the accusation of printing money Weimar stle. Thos at the top of the Treasury believed that this slight of hand would work and not cause a currency crash as has happened when others have simply printed money. The problem with your suggestion is that it could be seen as printing money by not redeeming dated gilts when there is no short term economic need to do so. Well, printing money isn’t necessarily a problem in itself when you have a fiat currency. There can be a problem with inflation in areas where supply is constrained, but you can act to avoid that. However, bedsides this, you don’t have to stop all of the tightening, you can slow it down instead. Other countries are doing it a lot slower, and as a result, avoiding the same level of losses. p.s. maybe you missed it but I asked you earlier why you had a problem with the train drivers striking, but not the teachers and doctors. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 28, 2024 16:44:24 GMT
Reform UK in meltdown as three campaigners sacked after Channel 4 undercover filming. Three Reform officials helping to run Nigel Farage’s general election campaign were sacked on Friday as a racism and homophobia row engulfed the party with just days to go before voters head to the polls.
The three men are George Jones, who was running events for Mr Farage’s campaign, Rob Bates, a senior Reform UK campaigner, and Roger Gravett, Reform UK’s regional manager for London and candidate in Tottenham, north London, according to Mr Tice.
...
They are not the only Reform representatives to make controversial remarks during the campaign. Today, i revealed that James Gunn, who is standing as the party’s candidate in Oxford West and Abingdon, said that “girls should be aware promiscuity is not attractive” and that women cannot “behave in the same way” as men.
In an interview with i, he also repeated contentious claims around Covid-19, including a suggestion that vaccines could “get something really nasty into a body”.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 28, 2024 16:49:30 GMT
Why is it economically illiterate to advocate to a tax system similar to that prevalent under the Wilson and Callaghan governments? It was not suggested by serious commentaors that they were running Command economies. Geeoffrey Howe in his first Budget in June 1979 raised VAT from 8% to 15% whilst reducing the Top rate of Income Tax from 83% to 60% and also abolishing the Investment Income Surcharge of 15%. Was that economically illiterate? Thathcher was happy enough to keep the Top Income Tax rate at 60% until 1988.If that was acceptable to her, why cannot a Labour Government return to similar rates? Edit - the defaltionary effect of higher Direct Taxes would be offset by a sharp reduction in Indirect Tavation likely to be beneficial to lower income groups who have a higher marginal Propensity to Consume.
The illiteracy is trying to run a capitalist economy with punitive taxes. I well remember my father reducing his income when the marginal rate got to close to 100% - absolutley no point in working when the tax man confiscates the results of your efforts. Do you not remember them going to the IMF for a bail out? The £ in your pocket etc? Truth is that your sort of socialism hasnt worked anywhere in the world. Even communist china tops out at 45%. Apparently the top tax rate in the world is 60% in the Ivory Coast - I guess you want to emulate their economy! Utter poppycock! Income Tax was still at 25% when Thatcher left office!! She was also content to keep the Top Rate at 60% nine years into her time in office Was she a socialist? Throughout the Tory governments of 1951 - 1964 and again from 1970 - 1974 we had standard Income Tax rates in the range of 35% - 40% - and much higher rates for top earners. Were they Socialist governments?
When the Callaghan government left office in May 1979 the basic rate of Income Tax was 33% - whilst VAT was 8%. In Howe's first Budget the basic rate was reduced to 30% whilst VAT almost doubled to 15%. Throughout the Thatcherite 80s the basic rate of Income Tax remained higher than the 25% level to which I have suggested it should be restored whilst cutting VAT to 8%. I do recall the IMF being called in the Autumn of 1976 - but that had nothing to do with the rate of Income tax. That related to a run on the pound caused by alarming PSBR figures. A few months later those figures were revised , and it became clear that there had been no need for the alarm - and no need to call in the IMF at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Lass on Jun 28, 2024 16:53:23 GMT
My view is that Biden will be getting a lot of advice over the next few days I believe, or perhaps hope, in the next couple of weeks he will stand down and a unity candidate will arise, who Biden will endorse If that happens it could well be a coronation Okay this is the best case scenario, but I don't think it's a totally unrealistic possibility Unfortunately that would be Harris and she would be very likely to lose to Trump as well. She's even more unpopular than Biden. Withdrawing his candidacy for the next election is not the same as resigning from the office of President.
It doesn't automatically follow that Harris would be nominated by the Democrats to run for President in November should Biden withdraw.
The two names being suggested seem to be Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom, though whether they would want to run is another thing altogether.
|
|
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: 6,733
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 28, 2024 17:01:08 GMT
Although I have been critical of PFI in the past, at the same time, can see why they do it. There are a number of problems with it: it may deprive the state of control, and of an asset, and it can allow the private sector to attach numerous extra charges in the contracts. (I don’t know too much about the details here, but I know my partner inherited some PFI stuff at her school, which caused her to raise an eyebrow at the cost, and I think pjw1961 has had something to say about it in the past?) But the problem is: it occurred to me some years ago on the old board, that if you just go for a pure state investment, then the next government can come along and privatise it anyway. And use the proceeds to buy votes. Unless there is a good solution to stop that happening, it’s quite hard to avoid involving the private sector. Perhaps keeping some state involvement in terms of partial investment is beneficial? France, has somehow managed to retain a majority state ownership of their energy company, whoever was in government. But we tend to have governments that have been keener to privatise outright, whether Tories or Labour, since Thatch. This isn’t necessarily what the public want, but a reflection of how right-wing economics captured the main parties, denying alternatives. Although New Labour were quite keen to privatise some things that the Tories didn’t dare to, they did set up NHS direct, which I thought was quite a good thing. Of course, the minute Tories get in power, they get rid of it. This is the problem: it’s often easier to destroy something that it is to create it. Thus we get politicians who think they are being a genius by taking an axe to everything. Because they don’t know how to do anything else, so they pretend it’s a virtue to wreck everything and get rid of it. It is not PFI. Didn’t argue that it was. I was just pointing out to Hireton reasons why they might have gone for PFI back in the day. Hence I was talking about New Labour. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jun 28, 2024 17:03:46 GMT
Lakeland LassAbsolutely. However if Biden chose to stand down now on health grounds Harris would be president, this wouldn't automatically make her the Democratic candidate for November but she would remain president until January.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 28, 2024 17:12:25 GMT
Unfortunately that would be Harris and she would be very likely to lose to Trump as well. She's even more unpopular than Biden. Withdrawing his candidacy for the next election is not the same as resigning from the office of President.
It doesn't automatically follow that Harris would be nominated by the Democrats to run for President in November should Biden withdraw.
The two names being suggested seem to be Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom, though whether they would want to run is another thing altogether.
I know, but the suggestion I was replying to was a "unity candidate". Biden would certainly suggest Harris and the Dem establishment would likely go along. To get other candidates in the frame needs the process to be opened up. Newsom has already indicated his support for Biden. I think the chances Biden will be replaced are very low, unless a head of steam can be built up immediately. It is worth remembering Biden's problems didn't start with the debate. His polling ratings have been in the toilet for many, many months. I was posting last year my desperate hopes he would stand down and Harris with him. |
|
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: 6,733
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 28, 2024 17:17:03 GMT
birdseye Regarding money-printing and Weimar. This is classic right-wing Koolaid household economics, connecting money-printing with the idea it will inevitably result in people carting wheelbarrows full of money to the shops. Weimar was something of a special case, in part because the productive capability of the economy had been trashed by the war and the constraints imposed upon the economy in the aftermath by the victors. If you print more money, so that people can buy more stuff, that can cause prices to rise, but what normally would happen is that business and industry then produce more stuff to meet the increased demand, pulling prices back down again. Weimar couldn’t increase production so easily to soak up the excess demand, because of the industrial capacity that had been confiscated etc. in other words, you’re more likely to get inflation if supply is constrained. After the banking crisis, with QE we affectively pumped hundreds of billions of printed money into the economy, but did it cause rampant inflation? In the main, it didn’t. Only where supply was constrained, e.g. with property prices. Happily for us, the Tory government did not agree with your household economics, and were happy to pump money into the economy. (If only they hadn’t made the cuts in the first place…) p.s. regarding the IMF in the mid 70s, The economic difficulties were not due to taxation, but to the problems caused around the world by the massive jump in oil price rises following the Yom Kippur war in 73, causing massive inflation and recession. (This continued into Thatcher’s first term, But after that oil prices fell massively ushering in a world boom that Thatcher benefited from)
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jun 28, 2024 17:17:53 GMT
Stats for Lefties 🍉🏳️⚧️
@leftiestats
🚨 BREAKING: Poll shows that Nigel Farage would be Leader of the Opposition, with Labour in power.
🔴 LAB 38% (-1)
🟣 REF 21% (+1)
🔵 CON 18% (-1)
🟠 LD 11% (-1)
🟢 GRN 7% (+1)
🟡 SNP 2% (-1)
Via
@wstoneinsight
, 26-27 June (+/- vs 19-20 June)
SFL gives Tories 3 seats in total on those figures!
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jun 28, 2024 17:18:49 GMT
robbiealive Clearly there wasn't any point in responding to you politely I wasn't ignoring your other points I was referring to the points I addressed only. Because you evidently know fuck all about the significance of a delay of a few minutes for emergency response and have decided that it's a right wing conspiracy I don't think I'll bother to educate you as you obviously know all you want to already i.e. nothing. And thank you so much for picking up on a grammatical error it was absolutely central to the point. I do apologise if I was too irate. But this site has never taken any interest in the Public Order Act (2023) and the limitations that have been place on protest. Once these things are put in place they usually prove impossible to remove. One lesson one learns is that it's much easier to curb freedoms that to restore those which have been lost. Once gone, they are seldom recovered. The mass arrests that have taken place are a product of that Act & deserve some consideration. I suspect the police could take more action against violent attacks on protestors if they were minded to. My friend has twice been tried for protests & each time has been acquitted because the act has not properly been enforced: she is of the opinion that the officers concerned don't understand the Act. The protestors of course do. I maintain that the amount of fuss made about 5-minute jams is wholly disproportionate to the disruption they cause. No one has produced the slightest evidence that the protests have disrupted emergency services -- it is a cliche that people trot out, a stick with which to beat the protestors,. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 28, 2024 17:29:28 GMT
FT reports Labour targeting 431 seats (via webpage archive to get around the paywall) Analysis by the Financial Times suggests that there are 431 seats where Labour either already holds the constituency or is putting resources into fighting. If it were to secure all of them, it would have a 212-seat majority, well above Tony Blair’s 179-seat majority in 1997.
Labour strategy data — drawn from a website where party activists put in their postcode and are advised where to focus their efforts — gives a clear indication of the breadth of Starmer’s ambition as he enters the final week of campaigning ahead of polling day on July 4.
In one instance, door-knockers from London are being sent 130 miles to Great Yarmouth in Norfolk to help overturn a significant Conservative majority.
...
The picture is harder to discern in Scotland, where the party is not asking activists to move — meaning it is notionally competing in every seat.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,393
|
Post by neilj on Jun 28, 2024 17:30:01 GMT
We Think
🔴 Lab 42% (-1)
🔵 Con 20% (-2)
⚪ Ref 16% (+3)
🟠 LD 10% (NC)
🟢 Green 7% (NC)
🟡 SNP 3% (NC)
🟣 Ind 2% (NC)
Bearing in mind this is Reform voters, there is a big disconnect between them and Farage over Putin being provoked to invade Ukraine
'Nigel Farage said this week that the West provoked the war in Ukraine - our polling shows that only 17% of Reform voters agreed that the West provoked the invasion. Full results:
The decisions of Putin: 61%
The actions of the EU and NATO: 17%
Something else/Don't know: 22%'
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jun 28, 2024 17:30:05 GMT
Erm, they start off saying 3.3% of the population self report as LGB, which is a bit puzzling since they also say 93.4% are straight. The missing 3.3% was 0.6% other and 2.7% dont know/refused to answer. Not sure its legitimate to classify these as not straight? They then note that amongst 16-24 age group 11% of women and 8% of men identify as LGB. There is a wealth of evidence that whether you are straight or gay is not a matter of upbringing but biology. It seems very unlikely the older generations are biologically different to the youngsters. ONS says "The decrease in those identifying as heterosexual or straight may be attributed to more people exploring their sexual identity in combination with changing societal attitudes towards different groups and the expression of these today. " In other words, the oldsters are lying because of societal pressure. Its more like 90% straight, and this is on a falling trend amongst the youngsters in partiular in successive surveys. A teacher observed that something like 5% of their school now identify as non-binary. A growing category. It perhaps suggests that those traditional sterotypes differentiating male and female are still breaking down. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 28, 2024 17:37:00 GMT
WeThink poll
Lab 42%(-1)
Con 20%(-2)
Ref 16%(+3)
LD 10%(NC)
Grn 7%(NC)
SNP 3%(NC)
Ind 2%(NC)
Fieldwork 27/28th June
Changes from 20/21st June
Edit I think LD should read +2 rather than NC!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Lass on Jun 28, 2024 17:40:43 GMT
Withdrawing his candidacy for the next election is not the same as resigning from the office of President.
It doesn't automatically follow that Harris would be nominated by the Democrats to run for President in November should Biden withdraw.
The two names being suggested seem to be Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom, though whether they would want to run is another thing altogether.
I know, but the suggestion I was replying to was a "unity candidate". Biden would certainly suggest Harris and the Dem establishment would likely go along. To get other candidates in the frame needs the process to be opened up. Newsom has already indicated his support for Biden. I think the chances Biden will be replaced are very low, unless a head of steam can be built up immediately. It is worth remembering Biden's problems didn't start with the debate. His polling ratings have been in the toilet for many, many months. I was posting last year my desperate hopes he would stand down and Harris with him. sorry, i misunderstood your original post.
Biden may well support Harris, or indeed refuse to stand down, but at the end of the day these things will be decided by the big donors who bankroll the election campaign. If they withdraw their financial support from Biden / Harris then they will have little choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbold on Jun 28, 2024 17:43:26 GMT
My view is that Biden will be getting a lot of advice over the next few days I believe, or perhaps hope, in the next couple of weeks he will stand down and a unity candidate will arise, who Biden will endorse If that happens it could well be a coronation Okay this is the best case scenario, but I don't think it's a totally unrealistic possibility Unfortunately that would be Harris and she would be very likely to lose to Trump as well. She's even more unpopular than Biden. Two other names that are being mentioned are Gavin Newsom and Michelle Obama.
Sorry, just noticed that Gavin Newsom has been mentioned above on here as well.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Jun 28, 2024 17:45:21 GMT
As for the Trump v Biden TV debate, I haven't watched it but, reading reports about it in the press and on this forum, and considering the likely size of the audience (over 100 million US voters) then it's difficult to imagine this being anything other than a game changing event in the campaign. Perhaps, but it begs the question whether Trump supporters have already discounted his court appearances, etc, and Biden supporters discounted his senility. We get back to the notion that a donkey in the corect party colours would get the same number of votes. |
|
|
|
Post by peterbell on Jun 28, 2024 17:46:44 GMT
My view is that Biden will be getting a lot of advice over the next few days I believe, or perhaps hope, in the next couple of weeks he will stand down and a unity candidate will arise, who Biden will endorse If that happens it could well be a coronation Okay this is the best case scenario, but I don't think it's a totally unrealistic possibility Unfortunately that would be Harris and she would be very likely to lose to Trump as well. She's even more unpopular than Biden. Why does it have to be Harris, I agree that she would almost certainly do worse than Biden. Surely for the good of the Dems, the good of the USA and, more importantly, the good of the world, the Democratic Party leadership can persuade Biden to stand down or, if necessary, threaten to remove all support for him. Biden has lost anyhow, so anything the leadership do to remove him can only help the chances of defeating Trump. Surely ther are people who can be a major improvement on Biden. On several occassions since last November, my wife and I have watched Anthony Blinken on TV and said, "he should be president, not Biden" . There must be others who could also be promoted into the Dem candidate. |
|
