Stay updated with breaking news from Setting policy. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
lends credibility to a policy that you might not agree with. all i can say is, yes, that is a risk, but there were occasions where we overtly, at the podium, disagreed on the evidence that was underlying, or at least explain to the evidence that underlay a decision. so, for example, in the move of the two metre rule to a lower figure, example, in the move of the two metre rule to a lowerfigure, i was clear on the podium that two metres is safer than one metre, full stop. it does not mean it is unreasonable to make a policy decision to move, but the evidence base was clear. so thatis but the evidence base was clear. so that is a rather long answer to your question, because i do not know whether, ultimately, it is the right or wrong thing for us to have been there. i think it is something worth looking at. my gut feeling is it was probably overall beneficial for us to be there. probably overall beneficial for us to be there- probably overall beneficial for us to be there ....
johnson seemed to be bamboozled by the data and by graphs and didn t have a great grasp on the science and it was difficult to explain scientific concepts to. that it is interesting, given how much was made interesting, given how much was made in the run up to lockdown, where the government explained that decisions were being made based on the science. a lot of questions today have been based on how did that happen in practice. if you don t necessarily understand the science, how sound are the political decisions being made. that is something i think we will hear more about. sir patrick vallance was being fair to borisjohnson, he said he remembered a call with with colleagues in different countries who said they all laughed when they had the same situation in all the countries and leaders often struggled with scientific concepts. that is an issue that will be looked at in depth here. it wasn tjust the politicians who didn t grass temperature science. we heard scientist themse ....
screen as we we will keep them coming on the screen as we progress. in what s starting to feel like a routine as we have done for the last week at this time let s go live to the state department in washington. we are going to talk about something that a group of colleagues have put together, it is a draft dissent memo. we will come back to that phrase. it is an opposition to president donald trump s executive order on refugees. this is a draft online. it points out among other things that despite the executive order s focus on them, a vanishingly small number of terror attacks on us soil have been committed by foreign nationals who recently entered the united states on an immigrant or non immigrant visa. barbara plett, state department. explained the format this memo is taking. this is something called a descent cable and it is part of a well established channel for disagreement within the state department called the dissent channel. if an employee or a foreign ....
These rulings that we are discussing, could have a similar impact on 2024? these rulings are all part of a pattern of taking away people s rights, showing that this court is not only out of touch with the american public, but they are not acting as a court, where you are supposed to decide cases on controversies. there is a reaching out and deciding policy. so, for example, again, this website designer case is so significant because there is no actual case. it was a thick plaintive with a fake event that somehow they got this alleged request to make a wedding homosexual website. that was never made a request of. so, when the court reaches out and makes decisions for no good reason, that is setting policy. and you ve got conservative supreme court that is trying to do that against prior judicial presidents. let s switch gears here, ....
The people who are on those extremes aren t the people who are setting policy. there is a tremendous amount of bipartisan support for this war for all the reasons that senator ernst said. she talked about the courageous ukrainians. last fall, i had a group of ukrainian women in the military in my office and one of the things that one of the members, one of those women said to me and i said to her, you know, i m going to use this every opportunity that i have because i think it says so clearly why this war is important. she said, we need you to give us the weapons so that we can fight the russians so that you don t have to. i can tell you when i say that to people in new hampshire, they understand what i m talking about. so i think it s very important for us. this is the ukrainians on the front lines for democracies everywhere, and it s in our national security, as senator ernst said, to ensure that we help them defeat putin, not the russian people. ....