I think he wants to revive David Cameron's plan to force Housing Association to sell off their properties against their will. In many cases, this would entail a breach of the terms on which they were founded.
Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I think he wants to revive David Cameron's plan to force Housing Association to sell off their properties against their will. In many cases, this would entail a breach of the terms on which they were founded.
That's an old story really Tom, there's long been theories he had a Jewish grandfather and its often pushed by holocaust apologists. It might even be true, but it's not relevant
I wonder if the councils will be prohibited from reinvesting in new stock as they were by the witch. One of the reasons for the affordable housing shortage.
Probably.
In the past I have seen some councils claim that drawing down money from the government, to build council houses, meant a higher rate of interest charged, in comparison to borrowing money for other projects, which created dilemmas for the councils as the higher interest payments would mean lowering the amount of money available to spend in other areas.
He strikes me as a sinister version of Comical Ali from when we attacked Iraq all those years ago.
However, I do think that the Russians are so crazy they would attempt that. Given the performance of he rest of their military superstructure, I am a bit sceptical that it will be as devastating as they make out but I hope we will never find out, You do wonder at what point someone in the Russian hierachy will see sense and whether there will ultimately be a coup to permit the Russians to back down from their current position. At the moment, the Western perception is that all the liberal minded people are being allowed to leave Russia which give credence to the poll ratings which suggest support for Putin on a massive scale. I do think that Lavrov is correct that NATO is involved in a proxy war with Russia and the fact that British nationals are fighting out there is not helping resolve the matter. Additionally, whilst there seems to be a consensus that it is ok for NATO countries to send weapons to assist Ukraine ( with the excpetion of Turkey who is proposing to sell missiles to Putin) , I would be very concerned if there are genuine UK personal serving in Ukraine. I understand that they have been involved with training but you can see this role expanding on the ground without the issue of increased military effort being put to the vote in Parliament. There was a lot of deliberation about going to war againt Iraq and all the navel-gazing by Parliament that entailed still resulted in the wrong decision. I feel that there is little scrutiny in this respect with the current government and the increased risk of serious consequences for the UK if Boris gets it wrong. Given that he has made so many mistakes so far in his tenure, this strikes me as alarming. I am coming around to the view that the opinion held by Stop the War is probably the correct one - I wasn;t so convinced about this a month ago.
I have sound the response by some Western media outlets to be no less flakey. MSN keeps on coming up with articles from the Daily Express when I fire up my computer which offer all kinds of ridiculous scenarios about Putin's msystery illness and his intentions for world domination. I think that even the BBC is very partisan in some respects. The united Nations has reported attrocities by both sides in the campaign but the BBC is only mentioning those carried out by Russian. I would prefer that the press in the West do not speculate on more spoofy ideas and stick to reporting the humam tragedy.
It appears from a leaked draft opinion that the Supreme Court of the United States is not only going to overturn Roe v Wade, but is setting its sights on a whole bunch of other decisions that have stuck in the craw of the religious right: Obergefell, which made gay marriage the law of the land, and even Griswold, which legalized contraception use of all things, as all were decided under the same theory of constitutional law they are now tearing up (and explicitly arguing was wrongly created).
Things are going to get really bad in the US, and there aren't many options available for them to be stopped in the short term. There is a reason that the hardline right has pursued a SCOTUS majority for a couple decades: a sufficiently radical court is nearly impossible to dislodge, because there is no workaround for judicial review. Pass laws enumerating these rights? SCOTUS can simply declare them unconstitutional. Expand the court so that the hardliners no longer have a majority? SCOTUS can simply declare that to be unconstitutional, as well. There's no chance of impeaching them, and they cannot be forced to retire. The best hope is to hold political power when a couple of them die.
Now it's a question of whether the right is the dog who finally caught the car. This decision is going to be deeply unpopular; they're taking aim at rights supported by something like 3/4 of Americans (or more, in the case of contraception). The Republicans were expected to take back the House in 2024 and potentially the Senate, but this could potentially upset that, leaving a slim chance of the Democrats being able to control the next judicial appointment(s). But good golly, if they don't pay a political price for a literal coup attempt, and don't pay a price for creating a minoritarian extremist court, then things are pretty damned bleak.
Things are going to get really bad in the US, and there aren't many options available for them to be stopped in the short term. There is a reason that the hardline right has pursued a SCOTUS majority for a couple decades: a sufficiently radical court is nearly impossible to dislodge, because there is no workaround for judicial review. Pass laws enumerating these rights? SCOTUS can simply declare them unconstitutional. Expand the court so that the hardliners no longer have a majority? SCOTUS can simply declare that to be unconstitutional, as well. There's no chance of impeaching them, and they cannot be forced to retire. The best hope is to hold political power when a couple of them die.
Now it's a question of whether the right is the dog who finally caught the car. This decision is going to be deeply unpopular; they're taking aim at rights supported by something like 3/4 of Americans (or more, in the case of contraception). The Republicans were expected to take back the House in 2024 and potentially the Senate, but this could potentially upset that, leaving a slim chance of the Democrats being able to control the next judicial appointment(s). But good golly, if they don't pay a political price for a literal coup attempt, and don't pay a price for creating a minoritarian extremist court, then things are pretty damned bleak.
Well this is the thing isn’t it?
If the reveal of this decision (especially if the other things are tacked on as you suggest) doesn’t result in the democrats keeping control (if not increasing their majority) in the senate and minimising losses (and potentially even keeping control of the house) then it will reflect on both them (how bad they’d have to be) and also call into question those polls about how many support this vs don’t
You’d like to think it is a step too far. But that is by no means a guarantee
I’ve tried questioning this comparison before and usually just get disdained screaming responses (that’s YouTube comments for you)
I expect it is because I have asked about it when people have said that the US is “literally” becoming like it or will be “exactly” like it if xyz happens. Or that it will lead to things turning into this story.
Which isn’t true is it ? Pedantic I know. But it isn’t
Is what people are trying to say is that it is “like” it due to:
- Christian theocratic state
- (Some) women’s bodies controlled by said state
And not that it is will be the same?
I even once said “based on my understanding of the concept having not read the book it doesn’t sound like the law being suggested is very similar at all to what happens in that setting. Have I misunderstood?”.
And I got a reply akin to “how can you make that claim having not read it?”. Despite me basically asking. I think it is because everyone online seems to automatically assume anyone asking from a position that seems like it is against theirs automatically assumes they are asking in bad faith
As mentioned I *think* I have worked out the issue / confusion
Well, kinda. Keep in mind that there are significant structural factors at play, even before you get to the (Supreme Court approved!) voter-suppression campaigns of the GOP. For the Democrats to win the House, in recent years they have needed to win the popular vote by about 5 points:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ll-plummet-in-2022-because-of-gerrymandering/
It's actually a little lower right now, but not much (more like 3 points; that article doesn't reflect the NY State Supreme Court ruling on their map). The Senate is even worse, though, because there are so many blood-red small states.
I am aware of all this but if this issue is as hot button as implied and does indeed have a more than 70:30 split then those things shouldn’t matter . There are lots or marginal seats even with gerrymandering
Democrats won two Georgia senate seats without this being openly on the cards. They narrowly lost governor seats in Florida and Georgia when this wasn’t on the table
Goes all the way down - democrats have been blown out of the water at state level
The tone of almost all debate online can turn toxic very quickly. I have no idea why that is, but have certainly been guilty of it myself in the past. There's a reason why some pubs used to ban conversations about politics or religion, but the internet is far worse than any pub in that regard.
I haven't read The Handmaid's Tale either, nor watched the series. But I imagine it resonates with readers because they see something they recognise.
There actually aren't. There are very few marginal seats: that is the explicit aim of gerrymandering. Cook Political lists a grand total of 43 competitive races, which is less than 10%. 33 of those are already held by Democrats, leaving only 10 theoretical pickups. There are also 3 seats that are currently held by Democrats that they aren't going to win owing to gerrymandering. That leaves very, very few opportunities to gain.
The problem with the Supreme Court of the US is that it’s 1. Not elected by the people and yet it’s supposed to make the laws and 2. The judges serve for life, so once it leans right or left, that can’t be changed until one dues and there happens to be a president who can replace that one with one of his/her choosing.
It’s an archaic institution which is now dictating laws to the US citizens which do not reflect the majority and pander to Christian fundamentalism
So, Gilead as a state (and I’d thoroughly recommend Margaret Attwood’s book - she’s a very far-sighted author) could well come into existence with all potential issues ……
I’ve just been on cook political and it says about 70 which isn’t a lot better
But my point is if you throw in an issue that apparently 70%+ on top it should shake things up. I am aware things aren’t single issue but that is a big margin.
Look at how Brexit wrecked the 2019 U.K. election. In areas where it was apparently about 60-40 or 65-35. Completely upturned it
I appreciate it is different
But you’d think, for example, it would allow that Georgia senate seat that went blue in the general election to stay blue? And it would tip the governorship to the democrats given how close it was
And if it doesn’t - then does that mean it isn’t the issue / priority that it is made out to be? Or does it indicate that those figures in the 70s for percentages are maybe not quite right? Or at least include lots of people who don’t feel overly strongly ?
It is something quite high on my watch list but I would expect the book is far better ?
"Likely" means something like a 5% chance. Here's how Cook defines it:
Likely : These seats are not considered competitive at this point, but have the potential to become engaged.
This is a bit of a strange position. Again, among other things, you have massive voter suppression efforts. If the importance of an issue is whether it so galvanizes the population of a hideously distorted political sphere that they overcome a whole lot of structural barriers, then few things are important. It could absolutely swing the GA Senate seat and gubernatorial races; those are close. Or it might not, because GA's response to the Senate wins and Kemp's close race for governor was to pass an omnibus voter suppression bill to further erode Democratic support, and then the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act even further. Oh, and throw in felon disenfranchisement for good measure. There are a lot of people who simply cannot vote.
If all 70% voted with that as their top priority, would the Democrats win? Sure. But of that 70%, a couple percent of adults cannot vote because they have been legally disenfranchised. So make that 67%. Another portion of the populace, disproportionately minorities, will not vote either because they have been removed from the voter rolls without their foreknowledge, or cannot afford to vote because all of the options beyond "take a day off and wait in line for 9 hours" have been denied to them. So now it's maybe closer to 60%. Throw in a few percent that care but for whom it's not a top priority, probably because they can afford to travel halfway across the country to get an abortion, and you can easily still get more than 50% of the vote and lose an election.
Does that mean that people don't care that much? Not at all. It means that the political landscape has been thoroughly altered over the course of decades in order to make it easier for one party to win elections without majority support. Which is, again, the crux of not only this issue but a great many issues in American politics at current: rather than expand the tent, the Republican Party has focused on using the levers of power to anti-democratic ends.