The argument against is it's a cynical way of satisfying the base for a few years when they are too inadequate to propose proper constitutional reform. It will still leave us with a risible mess of cronies and so called experts and the pressure will be off to change it.

At least this puts paid to the idea that the Parliamentary Party is best placed to decide who's electable or most likely to provide effective leadership.

They used to say it takes one to know one. It doesn't really help explain why someone was so naive as to accept designer specs to say that a greedy scrounger is laughing at them for doing it!

He appears to admit he knew nothing about what was going on around him when he made his lame apologies for it.

Yes, but then how can you be transparent about money for preening? Once you take that you're into a parallel way of thinking to the normal.

I mainly tune in for headlines from international media outlets. But it's dawning on me that one rarely sees comments or further information beyond those of a broad left mainstream. Reporting by NY Times is frequently berated for not taking that line.

More to the point, have they made his hair a bit more normal here?

But then you're not half of Americans 😉

Doesn't it say it all that two presidential candidates had never even met face to face before?

Would you've put Carlson down as a no socks trendy? It looks like he is.