After three tornadoes tore through a huge swath of North Texas late Sunday, officials confirmed the best news: No one was killed or badly hurt.
But there was still plenty of heartache.
“Despite the fact that we didn’t lose any lives last night, I think we all know that we’ve suffered some significant property damage in our city,” Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson said.
In some of the hardest-hit areas, homes and other buildings were devastated. Countless trees were destroyed, and thousands of people were still without power Monday evening.
National Weather Service crews were busy tracing the path of the strongest tornado, which cut a nearly 16-mile path from northwest Dallas into Richardson with winds up to 140 mph.
In Rowlett, a less-powerful tornado generated winds up to 100 mph. North of Wills Point in Van Zandt County, another tornado registered 80-mph winds.
The National Weather Service recorded damage from strong winds and hail across North Texas, including Fort Worth, Denton, Corsicana and Greenville. Reports of damage stretched as far as Sherman, about 60 miles north of Dallas.
Richardson and North Dallas sustained some of the heaviest damage, but Oncor’s accounting of outages reflected the storm’s wide path.
At midday, Oncor spokeswoman Kerri Dunn said 55,000 customers were still without power in the Dallas area. In the company’s entire service area, outages affected 95,000.
She said there was no definite timeline to restore power to everyone, and she cautioned that power structures in some areas need to be completely rebuilt.
Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins declared a local disaster to help get out-of-state resources to help with clean-up and repairs quickly. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared a state of disaster in 15 North Texas counties, including Dallas, Collin and Tarrant.
After reports overnight of natural-gas leaks, Atmos Energy officials said its technicians had responded to more than 200 calls in the Dallas area. Extra crews were working to investigate every emergency call, the company said.
As firefighters were conducting ongoing seraches of collapsed structures in the area, Dallas Fire-Rescue had its own emergency to respond to. Fire Station 41, on Royal Lane near the Dallas North Tollway, was destroyed by high winds. No firefighters were hurt.
Police, who were helping Dallas-Fire Rescue personnel to direct traffic in areas where signals weren’t working, urged people to remain indoors from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Monday through Thursday because of downed power lines and debris in neighborhoods.
Damaged homes near Walnut Hill and Marsh Lane are seen in aerial view of tornado damage on Monday, Oct. 21, 2019, in Dallas. (Smiley N. Pool/The Dallas Morning News)(Smiley N. Pool / Staff Photographer)
Widespread damage
Joanne Taylor told herself Monday would be the day. She’d get up early and go work out at the Planet Fitness at Walnut Hill and Marsh Lane.
“No more excuses,” she said. “Unless the gym isn’t there anymore.”
Monday morning, the northwest Dallas shopping center where the gym had been was a crumpled pile of steel and concrete.
Water poured out of the La Michoacana market from a broken line, pooling in the parking lot and rushing down the street.
The Planet Fitness was hidden behind a mass of rubble.
“It’s wild,” said Taylor, who had taken shelter in a closet when the tornado came through. “I didn’t realize I’d dodged a bullet until I walked into the neighborhood this morning.”
Behind the shopping complex, roofs were caved in and whole sides of apartment buildings were ripped off.
Angel Govea, 18, had been eating dinner with his family when their phones buzzed with the severe weather alert. About two minutes later, the wind picked up with a loud rumble. As the air pressure dropped, it felt like a mosquito bite in his ears, he said.
The tornado passed just south of his house, knocking down branches and toppling a huge live oak across the street into his front yard.
As he and his family began surveying the damage, they saw that their neighbors were missing roofs and walls.
“We’re feeling something,” Govea said, “but they feel it more.”
All morning, chainsaws buzzed as residents and work crews cleared fallen trees.
Two trees landed in Richard Espinosa’s front yard on Constance Street, near Walnut Hill and Marsh lanes. Another destroyed a fence behind his home.
He recalled how long it had taken to recover from Dallas’ bad storms in June, and with his curb already full by late morning, he knew his cleanup work wasn’t finished.
He doesn’t expect all the debris to be picked up soon, but for now he’s more worried about the essentials.
“No water, no gas, no light,” Espinosa said. “Can’t warm anything up to eat.”
Rachel Gutknecht, 28, looks at the damage in her bedroom where the roof collapsed on top of her bed on Oct. 21, 2019, a day after a tornado devastated homes on Rickshaw Drive in Preston Hollow.(Hayat Norimine)
Rachel Gutknecht, whose apartment was severely damaged by flooding on Rickshaw Drive, tried to salvage anything she could Monday as she and her brother prepared to move in with a friend.
The heavy rain had flooded through to the floor after parts of her ceiling and an HVAC unit collapsed.
She said the changing air pressure right before the tornado blew through caused a massive headache. Moments later, the windows in her bedroom shattered.
“I don’t get scared easily,”Gutknecht said. “I was scared.”
The Home Depot employees A.J. Kobena (center) raises the U.S. flag on the slightly bent flagpole outside the destroyed store on N. Central Expressway in Dallas, Monday, October 21, 2019. Jining him were fellow employees Jonathan Shields and Jordan Jasper. A tornado tore through the entire neighborhood knocking down trees and ripping roofs from homes. (Tom Fox/The Dallas Morning News)(Tom Fox / Staff Photographer)
Parts of Lake Highlands sustained serious damage, including Texas Instruments’ south campus near Interstate 635 and Forest Lane.
A company spokeswoman said the campus was closed because of broken windows, debris and water damage. No injuries were reported.
Damage also was widespread In Preston Hollow, where residents were loading salvaged belongings into their vehicles Monday.
At a house on Eppling Lane, a large tree had uprooted and toppled over in the front yard.
Volunteers were helping with cleanup and directing traffic through the neighborhood.
Heavy roof damage exposed the interior of one home, and a gaping hole appeared to have been blasted through the exterior wall of another home.
Damaged homes in a cul-de-sac on Stillmeadow Drive in Richardson are seen in aerial view of tornado damage on Monday, Oct. 21, 2019, in Richardson, Texas. (Smiley N. Pool/The Dallas Morning News)(Smiley N. Pool / Staff Photographer)
In one badly damaged Richardson neighborhood, 71-year-old Gizaw Gedlu walked through his home Monday morning as the sun streamed in through large holes in the roof.
“It’s like a war zone, a disaster,” he said. “It’s gone. It’s unbelievable.”
He and his sister Mena hid in the bathroom as the storm tore through. Two bedrooms and the living room were ripped open, tossing his belongings and pink insulation across the floor.
But the kitchen and garage are just as he left them, he said.
Gedlu, who works as a security guard, said he has insurance, but he isn’t sure when someone will show up. He wants to place tarps on the roof in case it rains again and begin trying to salvage what he can.
His sister was making plans for them to stay in a hotel for the night.
“It’s gone. It’s destroyed,” she said. “Everything is gone.”
Tommy Edmonds, left, embraces his wife, Heidi Edmonds outside of their home, which was destroyed when a tornado hit the night before, on Westway Avenue in Garland, Texas, on Sunday, Oct. 21, 2019. (Ryan Michalesko/The Dallas Morning News)(Ryan Michalesko / Staff Photographer)
In Garland, police reported significant property damage but no serious injuries.
The most severe winds hit between Shiloh Road and Glenbrook Drive, as well as Miller Road and Avenue B, Garland police said. The effects included roof damage, fallen trees, debris, structure damage and downed power lines.
About 5,500 Garland Power and Light customers were without electricity as of 1 a.m. Monday, most in southwestern Garland. The storms took down several transmission lines, which disabled two power substations.
Authorities closed Shiloh Road between Forest Lane and Kingsley Road and warned motorists to be cautious because of malfunctioning traffic lights and downed power lines and other debris.
But officials said it was remarkable the city hadn’t sustained more damage in the tornado that generated winds up to 100 mph.
Rowlett police spokesman Lt. David Nabors said the winds affected only the city’s far northeast side where there are few homes.
One home near President George Bush Tollway and Hickox Road was destroyed and a barn on Larkin Lane also sustained damage, he said.
In Sachse, police said high winds damaged six homes along Eastview Drive, leaving four of them uninhabitable. No injuries were reported.
Police spokesman Martin Cassidy said the homes were near Rowlett, where the most severe damage occurred on the border with Sachse.
He said it was likely the storm had passed over the Bush Turnpike from Sachse to Rowlett. It was unclear whether the damage in Sachse was from a tornado or strong winds.
High winds also blew through northern Ellis County, where officials said Midlothian was most heavily affected by the storms.
Northern Ellis Emergency Dispatch Manager Christine Thompson said officials hadn’t fully assessed the extent of damage in Midlothian.
Kasey Cheshier, executive director of the United Way of West Ellis County, said the storms hit hardest in north Midlothian and Red Oak but that he had not heard of any homes that were uninhabitable.
Businesses near U.S. Highway 67 at North Ninth Street had significant damage, he said.
Transportation
Dallas Area Rapid Transit crews began removing debris and trying to make repairs soon after the tornadoes hit Sunday night, spokesman Gordon Shattles said.
He said branches and wreckage from roofs landed on the overhead catenary lines that power the light-rail trains near the Walnut Hill/Denton station at the intersection of Harry Hines Boulevard and Walnut Hill Lane, close to where the storm hit hardest.
“Teams are out clearing those and trying to verify that those catenary lines are in good shape,” Shattles said.
On Monday morning, DART passengers using the Red and Orange lines, which run along Central Expressway, struggled to get from Plano and Richardson to downtown Dallas because of power outages. Service to downtown was available only from Park Lane Station.
Blue Line service between downtown Rowlett and Garland also was disrupted.
Shattles said the agency expected for service to resume normally on the Red, Orange and Blue lines by peak ridership times abut 5 p.m.
He added, however, that because of heavy damage in northwest Dallas, Green Line service may be a bit slower to fully restore, Shattles said.
“Our teams continue to work diligently to resume service. … [Bus shuttles] will be provided where needed,” Shattles said. “We’ll do our best to keep everyone informed.”
Orange and Red line passengers should expect delays and look for shuttle buses between Park Lane and Spring Valley stations due to issues from last night’s severe weather. Thank you for your patience.
Hundreds of insurance claims already had been filed by early Monday, said Mark Hanna, a spokesman for the Insurance Council of Texas.
Hanna said the only North Texas weather event from recent years that compares to Sunday night’s in scale occurred Dec. 26, 2015, when at least nine tornadoes tore through the area, killing 11 people.
That storm’s insured losses were estimated at $1.2 billion. The Dec. 26 tornado, with winds up to 180 mph, traveled 13 miles and had a maximum width of 550 yards, according to the National Weather Service.
As of Monday afternoon, the National Weather Service had not described the path or other details of the reported tornadoes, but it’s likely Sunday night’s traveled farther than the 2015 one did, Hanna said.
He said it will take at least a couple of days to assess all of the damage, project the number of claims and place a dollar loss on the storm.
State Farm spokesman Chris Pilcic warned residents to be wary of door-to-door solicitors who may try to take advantage of residents in the aftermath of the storm.
He also recommended that people save receipts for home repairs.
“Often in your homeowner’s insurance policy, you’ll have coverage for making temporary repairs,” Pilcic said. “Whether you go out and buy a tarp or plywood and do that work yourself or you hire someone to do it, make sure you save those receipts and take pictures of the temporary work you’ve done until you meet with your insurance company.”
Interabang Books in Preston Royal Shopping Center was one of dozens of businesses destroyed or damaged by Sunday night’s tornado.(Robert Wilonsky / Staff writer)
Restaurants and business closures
At least 11 restaurants and businesses in the Preston Road-Royal Lane area of Dallas were closed because of storm damage Monday morning.
Employees at Fish City Grill hunkered down inside a walk-in cooler as the storm ravaged the restaurant and nearby businesses around it, including Interabang Books and Central Market.
“It’s like a bomb went off,” said Bill Payne, Fish City Grill’s co-founder.
How to help or get help
Dallas’ mayor said the city did not need anyone to donate food, water or other items. People who want to help may donate money to Dallas’ emergency assistance fund here.
Anyone who needs shelter can go to the Bachman Recreation Center in northwest Dallas.
Organizations including the North Texas Food Bank and the Salvation Army are among the organizations offering assistance.
Staff writers Hayat Norimine, Eva-Marie Ayala, Dom DiFurio, Sarah Blaskovich, Maria Halkias, Melissa Repko and Hannah Costley contributed to this report.
Wortman, a denturist, did not possess a firearms license and obtained his weapons illegally. The commission heard that there were “two, and potentially three,” instances when police received information about his access to firearms. Little, if anything, was done, according to testimony.
Al tope del ranking mundial en las pruebas PISA, el modelo educativo de Finlandia es una marca país. Un desarrollo del sistema alemán y sueco que el Ministerio de Educación local busca adaptar, tras firmar acuerdos bilaterales. Teemu Turune, Embajador de Finlandia en Argentina, recibió a NOTICIAS para contar cómo funciona el plan de estudios que revolucionó la manera de educar.
Noticias: Cada vez que se habla de Finlandia, automáticamente se lo referencia con su sistema educativo. ¿Es parte del marketing país?
Teemu Turunen: Nuestro sistema educativo es bien conocido, y es un orgullo. Pero no se arma de un día para el otro, no es marketing. Este año Finlandia cumple 100 años como país independiente. Y durante los 100 años el tema educativo ha sido uno de los pilares de nuestro desarrollo.
Noticias: ¿Cómo se gestó?
Turunen: Finlandia era un país muy pobre, agrario. Por eso pensamos en educar a nuestros hijos para que puedan salir adelante y mejorar la vida de los suyos.
Noticias: Uno no imagina a Finlandia como un país pobre…
Turunen: Nosotros no tenemos muchos recursos naturales, por eso la educación es la clave, una política de estado. Esto significa que la educación es publica y gratuita, y no solo la escuela, sino también el transporte a la escuela, la comida, los libros, todo eso es gratuito. Es el medio por el cual mejor podemos garantizar la igualdad de oportunidades.
Noticias: ¿Y los maestros están bien pagos?
Turunen: Están en el medio de la escala salarial. El sueldo rondaría los 3500 euros mensuales en promedio. Pero no solo es el tema del salario, sino el tema del respeto. Mirando los pueblos pequeños, las personas importantes son el intendente, el médico y el maestro. Y es bastante lógico si uno quiere lo mejor para sus hijos.
Noticias: Pero el sistema de estudio es distinto también…
Turunen: Sí, nosotros creemos que para los niños puedan aprender mejor, es importante cultivar la creatividad, la innovación, no estar en la escuela solo para que el maestro le diga “en 1917 paso tal cosa…”. Lo importante es aprender a pensar y ¿Cómo uno aprende a pensar? Uno aprende a pensar más desde lo lúdico que por repetición.
Noticias: ¿El sistema es exportable?
Turunen: Nuestro sistema lo adaptamos de los alemanes y de los suecos, teniendo en cuenta las particularidades de nuestra sociedad y de nuestra cultura. Pero hay muchos temas que se pueden aprender de lo que otros han hecho bien o lo que han hecho mal, y trabajamos mucho con el Ministerio de Educación de Argentina.
Noticias: Otra de las claves del sistema fines son las horas de estudio.
Turunen: Nosotros intentamos que aprendan todo lo que se pueda en clases, y con ayuda especial a aquellos que lo requieran. Yo te puedo hablar de mi hija. El día suyo normal son 3 o 4 horas. De 8 a 12, o de 9 a 13. Desde el punto de vista científico, se demostró que más horas no generan aprendizaje. Y en muchos municipios hay patios de juego para los más chicos, supervisados por personal idóneo, donde los padre pueden dejar a sus hijos hasta las 16 horas.
Noticias: ¿Qué porcentaje del PBI se invierte en educación?
Turunen: Alrededor del 6,5 % del PBI. Estamos un poquito por encima del promedio de inversión de los países que conforman la OCDE (Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico).
Noticias: ¿En qué consiste el programa antibullying KiVa?
Turunen: Lo que distingue el método KIVa es no solo contemplar a víctima y victimario, sino también a los que están alrededor observando la situación. Si hay condena del grupo en lugar de silencio o complicidad, cambia todo. El programa que fue creado en la Universidad de Turku, ha sido muy exitoso en Finlandia, y casi todas las escuelas lo están aplicando.
Whether a heavy rainstorm leads to destructive flooding, however, depends on a combination of factors: the amount of rainfall, the way that water flows and collects on the landscape, and how all that water is managed. Over time, studies have found, the United States and other countries have managed to reduce their vulnerability to many types of dangerous flooding by building dams, levees and other protective measures.
Still, plenty of risks remain. Cities such as New York are often more vulnerable to sudden downpours because so much of their land area is paved over with impervious surfaces like asphalt, which means that runoff is channeled into streets and sewers rather than being absorbed into the landscape. In Houston, researchers have found that the transformation of open land into paved parking lots and housing developments helped worsen flooding after Hurricane Harvey in 2017.
New York’s subway system, built a century ago, was also not designed to handle more extreme rainfall fueled by climate change. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has invested $2.6 billion in resiliency projects since Hurricane Sandy inundated the city’s subways in 2012, including fortifying 3,500 subway vents, staircases and elevator shafts against flooding. Still, this week’s flash floods showed that the system remains vulnerable.
And as heavy rainfall increases, experts say, more will need to be done. That could include adding more green space in cities to absorb excess runoff, as well as redesigning sewer systems, roads and public transit networks to cope with heavier precipitation. It also includes updating flood-risk maps to account for climate change, so that people have a clearer sense of where it’s risky to build and where they should buy insurance against flooding.
“Pretty much all the infrastructure we’ve built today was designed to deal with historical weather conditions, and that’s no longer enough,” said Jennifer Jacobs, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of New Hampshire. “It’s tough in places like New York City, because there’s just not much room for the water to go, but we need to think more creatively about drainage and how we design our systems for higher levels of precipitation.”
“Primaries go two ways,” he told the Daily News. “If someone picks a fight with somebody else, you fight back. That’s what my parents told me.”
He added, “If you get in the ring, expect that people are going to start throwing punches.”
Meeks, a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), echoed remarks he made in an interview with The Hill on Thursday, when he said that those who try to come after CBC members could face their own primary challengers.
“I don’t know what that agenda is, but if they want to come after members of the Black Caucus, it’s two ways,” warned Meeks, who clashed with Justice Democrats, a progressive group, over support for candidates in a Queens district attorney race last month.
A growing number of progressive House Democrats, frustrated with the feud between Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez, have accused the freshman New York lawmaker of crossing a line when she suggested that Pelosi was treating minority women unfairly, seemingly referencing herself and three other progressive congresswomen known as “the squad.”
“I deal with Nancy Pelosi a lot and we go back and forth and it’s fine, but I think that a group of people is being very disrespectful to her,” Trump said. “And you know what, I don’t think that Nancy can let that go on.”
Meeks called Ocasio-Cortez’s comments “intolerable,” adding that “we’re all on the same team. You don’t go after the speaker like that.”
Meeks also went after Justice Democrats, which supported Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional bid last year, saying both the group and the candidates it supports are potential threats to the Democrats’ House majority.
“I would hope that these individuals would realize who the opposition is here,” Meeks told the Daily News. “The focus should be to keep the majority, grow the majority and win the presidency.”
A second Republican announced Friday that he would launch a campaign challenging Ocasio-Cortez for her seat next year. No Democratic challenger to Ocasio-Cortez has yet to declare their candidacy.
UPDATE: McConnell on Thursday again stopped the Senate from considering the House-passed bill raising the stimulus payments to $2,000.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Wednesday once again blocked legislation to send $2,000 payments to most Americans
McConnell, R-Ky., ignored a new plea from President Donald Trump — who tweeted earlier Wednesday, “$2000 ASAP!”— in refusing to allow a vote on the Senate floor. So did U.S. Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., who blocked a second request for a vote. and U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who blocked a third request.
The Senate leader said there was “no realistic path” for the $2,000 payments “to quickly pass the Senate.”
“Look, it’s no secret that Republicans have a diversity of views about the wisdom of borrowing hundreds of billions more to send out more non-targeted money,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “Our duty is to get help to the people who need help. Like we did to an historic degree just four days ago.”
Both Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., made separate requests to allow the Senate to vote on the House-passed bill increasing the stimulus payments to $2,000. The House overwhelmingly approved the legislation following Trump’s demands for the larger checks.
“For once, Democrats agree with something on President Trump’s Twitter feed,” Schumer said.
Trump has called for the higher payments after he signed the coronavirus stimulus package that included $600 payments on Sunday.
Sanders has threatened to block quick consideration of an effort to override Trump’s veto of the defense policy bill, possibly forcing the Senate to spend New Year’s Day in Washington, unless McConnell agrees to allow a vote on the $2,000 stimulus checks.
“It’s about basic democracy,” Sanders said on the Senate floor. “All that Senator Schumer and I are asking of the majority leader is a very simple request: Allow the members of the United States Senate to cast a vote.
“What’s the problem?”
Senate Republicans refused to answer the question, but rather just criticized the proposal.
“They are in denial of the hardship that the American people are experiencing now,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said during her weekly press conference Wednesday. “Health wise, financially, in every way. Their lives and livelihood in many cases are on the brink. So, they’re in denial of that need in denying this benefit.”
Republicans, though, complained that some checks would be going to wealthier Americans or those who didn’t lose any income during the coronavirus pandemic.
“It is hardly clear that the federal government’s top priority should be sending thousands of dollars to, for example, a childless couple making well into six figures who have been comfortably teleworking all year,” McConnell said.
The $2,000 checks would begin phasing out at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for married couples without children.
Because the base is so much higher than it would be with the $600 checks, a family of four, which would start with $8,000 in stimulus checks, would have to make $310,000 before the entire payment would end, according to calculations by the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget. For a family with five children, the cutoff would be $430,000.
GOP lawmakers in 2017 passed a tax cut that the Congressional Budget Office said would increase the federal deficit by $1.9 trillion over 10 years and independent studies showed gave most of its benefits to corporations and the rich, in part by reducing the estate tax paid only by multimillionaires.
They were investigating the president’s allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election that have been debunked by dozens of judges and state election officials, and repealing liability protections for social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook for the content posted on their sites. Trump and his conservative allies have complained about the sites flagging or removing content the companies deem false.
Twitter is shadow banning like never before. A disgrace that our weak and ineffective political leadership refuses to do anything about Big Tech. They’re either afraid or stupid, nobody really knows!
“The Senate is not going to split apart the three issues that President Trump linked together just because Democrats are afraid to address two of them,” McConnell said.
But the House on Thursday adjourned for the year. A new Congress begins Sunday.
“Any modification or addition to the House bill cannot become law before the end of this Congress. It’s a way to kill — to kill — the bill,” Schumer said. “Make no mistake about it. Either the Senate takes up and passes the House bill, or struggling American families will not get $2,000 checks during the worst economic crisis in 75 years.”
Jurors start deliberating in Roger Stone trial, verdict possible
Roger Stone, a GOP operative and President Donald Trump’s confidant, could face a verdict Thursday on accusations he lied to Congress about his interactions with the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential race. Stone faces seven charges: one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements and one count of witness tampering. A guilty verdict could send the longtime Republican operative to prison and will make him the sixth Trump ally to be convicted of a crime as a result of the special counsel investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. An acquittal could reinforce the president and his allies’ longstanding claim that the Russia probe was a “witch hunt” meant to hurt him politically.
Palm Beach County Fire Rescue check out the ocean as waves crash ashore from Tropical Storm Isaias as it passes through the area on August 2, 2020 in Juno Beach, Fla.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Palm Beach County Fire Rescue check out the ocean as waves crash ashore from Tropical Storm Isaias as it passes through the area on August 2, 2020 in Juno Beach, Fla.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Tropical Storm Isaias is continuing its push toward Florida’s east coast on Sunday after battering the Bahamas with heavy rainfall and gusty winds.
Isaias, which was downgraded to a tropical storm after reaching hurricane status, is whipping up sustained winds of 65 miles per hour and could bring 1 to 7 inches of rainfall from Florida to New England in the coming week, according to the National Hurricane Center.
As of 11 a.m. on Sunday, the center of the storm was situated roughly 55 miles off the Florida coast. The NHC expects the storm to affect the coasts of Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina in the next 36 hours.
The NHC warned that “dangerous storm surge” was possible from the city of Edisto Beach, S.C. to Cape Fear, N.C. The center said water could rise between 2 and 4 feet above ground level along that stretch of coast in the next 48 hours. Storm surge along the coasts of Florida and Georgia could hit between 1 and 3 feet.”
Isaias is expected to remain a tropical storm well into midweek as it tracks up the East Coast. The NHC said that in addition to storm surge, much of the East Coast could see flash flooding and urban flooding as well as ocean swells and tornadoes.
In a news conference Saturday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis warned of power outages from the storm’s strong winds. The governor said Florida’s main utility company has 10,000 workers pre-positioned to restore power. But because of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been more difficult to get out-of-state crews to come into the state, meaning residents could face longer waits for their power to come back on.
DeSantis said nursing homes and assisted living facilities have been checked to make sure they have working generators on site. Palm Beach county issued a voluntary evacuation order Thursday for mobile homes and in areas likely to flood. DeSantis has declared a state of emergency for counties along the state’s Atlantic coast.
“Strengthening is forecast during the next few days, and Dorian is expected to become a major hurricane on Friday,” the National Hurricane Center said. Landfall on Monday is possible anywhere between the Florida Keys and southern Georgia, forecasters said.
Dorian is expected to slow as it approaches Florida, but forecasters say it’s too soon to determine where the greatest impacts will be.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis declared a state of emergency for 26 counties in Dorian’s possible path and said he spoke with President Donald Trump on Wednesday evening about storm preparations.
“Every Florida resident should have seven days of supplies, including food, water and medicine, and should have a plan in case of disaster,” DeSantis said in a statement.
Dorian left the Caribbean relatively unscathed as it pushed past Puerto Rico and the U.S. and British Virgin Islands on Wednesday.
At 11 a.m. Thursday, Dorian was about 370 miles east of the southeastern Bahamas and heading northwest at 13 mph. With winds up to 85 mph, Dorian was a Category 1 hurricane but forecast to reach 130-mph wind as it approaches Florida on Monday.
Threats of storm surge, powerful winds and heavy rains all loomed for Florida and the Bahamas, though the hurricane’s exact path as it nears the U.S. remains uncertain.
Ken Graham, director of the National Hurricane Center, said Thursday that the storm will be slow moving as it approaches land, meaning it can dump more rains and bring more winds across Florida. He said tropical-storm force winds are set to arrive Sunday, so preparations to board windows and stock up on supplies need to be done through Saturday.
Parts of the southeastern U.S. could be drenched in 4 to 8 inches of rainfall, with isolated patches up to a foot, possibly causing “”life-threatening flash floods,” the weather service says.
Shoppers in Florida rushed to stores to buy bottled water and wooden boards. Lines began forming at gas stations, too.
Nicole Krauss, a spokesperson for Publix, the state’s largest grocery store chain, said preparations were well under way before Dorian. Distributions centers were well stocked with bottled water and many of the chain’s stores have emergency generators, she added.
In a tweet Thursday morning, Trump described Puerto Rico as “in great shape” after the storm’s fury largely avoided the island. However, he warned Floridians to prepare.
“Florida get ready! Storm is building and will be BIG!” he tweeted.
Officials in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands breathed a sigh of relief as they assessed minimal impacts from Dorian.
“We’re happy because there are no damages to report,” said William Solís, the mayor of Culebra, a small Puerto Rican island. One community lost power, he said.
Island-wide blackouts affected St. Thomas and St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and St. Croix had scattered outages, government spokesman Richard Motta said.
“We are grateful that it wasn’t a stronger storm,” Motta said. Trees and only one electric pole were downed.
Similarly, the British Virgin Islands saw no major damage, Gov. Augustus Jaspert said.
Meanwhile, far off the mid-Atlantic coast, Post-Tropical Cyclone Erin continued to move northeast, and hit parts of Canada as a weaker tropical storm Friday, forecasters said.
Contributing: Jeff Burlew, Tallahassee Democrat; The Associated Press. Follow USA TODAY’s Ryan Miller on Twitter: @RyanW_Miller
NEW YORK – One person was killed when a helicopter crashed on the roof of a 54-story building in midtown Manhattan Monday, sparking a fire and drawing a massive emergency response.
It happened shortly before 2 p.m. under rainy conditions at the AXA Equitable building at 787 Seventh Ave. The crash spurred an evacuation as crews raced to the top floor to douse the flames.
Authorities say the pilot killed in the crash was the sole occupant of the helicopter, which was privately owned.
The pilot has been identified as Tim McCormack, of Dutchess County.
No one in the building or on the ground was injured.
The helicopter was owned by an upstate New York man who apparently used it to commute to the city.
The crash happened in a part of the city that is under a flight restriction due to its proximity to Trump Tower. Mayor Bill de Blasio says the helicopter would have needed the approval of LaGuardia Tower before heading there, but it’s unclear if that happened.
The mayor says there’s no indication that there is any terrorism linked to the crash, and says there is no ongoing danger to New Yorkers.
City officials say the crash sparked a fuel leak, which has since been mitigated. They say the building is safe.
“Thank God no other people were injured in this absolutely shocking, stunning incident,” said Mayor de Blasio, who lauded emergency crews for their quick response.
The helicopter had taken off from the 134th Street heliport and crashed approximately 11 minutes later.
Video posted to social media appeared to show the helicopter flying erratically ahead of the crash, suddenly plunging in the air before climbing higher.
The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board will investigate the crash.
Jeremy Corbyn was never expected to be the leader of the UK Labour Party, until he was. He was never expected to last in the role, until he did. He was never expected to seriously challenge Theresa May and the Conservative Party in the 2017 election, until he did.
And he is never expected to be prime minister of the United Kingdom.
Corbyn is a left-wing member of Parliament who calls himself a socialist; who’s had decades in politics to accumulate a lengthy record; who’s been haunted by charges of anti-Semitism in his party; who was called everything from a “big girl’s blouse” to “Joseph Stalin” by his main political rival just this year; who’s been noncommittal about Brexit; and who’s currently the most unpopular opposition leader since people have been tracking these things.
So he’s not someone who could ever really be prime minister, right?
And yet maybe, it could still happen.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn answer questions during the ITV Leaders Debate at Media Centre in Salford, England, on November 19, 2019.Jonathan Hordle/ITV via Getty Images
The United Kingdom is holding general elections on December 12, in what Corbyn himself has called a “once-in-a generation” vote. Corbyn will lead the Labour Party against Boris Johnson, the current prime minister and head of the Conservative Party.
Labour’s somewhat muddled stance on Brexit in an election that is absolutely all about Brexit may also be a liability. Labour has said it will renegotiate a new Brexit deal with closer EU ties but will also back another referendum, giving voters the option to remain within the European Union.
Meanwhile, Johnson and the Conservatives are staking their political fortunes on the promise of delivering Brexit by January 31. Other opposition parties, most notably the Liberal Democrats, have carved out a strong position on staying in the EU.
Labour’s platform is trying to please both Brexit supporters and opponents. Amid such polarization, that stance might please no one at all.
Yet Corbyn remains enormously popular with Labour’s activist base, and his ascension to Labour leader has energized the party as he’s moved it leftward, crowding out more centrist figures. He may be the best hope for those who want to figure out a way to stop the UK from leaving the EU — or those who, at the very least, aren’t interested in Johnson’s brand of Brexit.
If British politics in the age of Brexit have proven anything, predictions (or even polling) are not always reliable. A Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn looks unlikely right now. But nothing is for sure until British voters go to the polls on December 12.
To understand why Corbyn is such a divisive figure, and why his party has struggled to define itself during Brexit, here’s what you need to know about the Labour leader who may never enter 10 Downing Street, but who will shape his party — and Britain’s political future — no matter what.
A brief introduction to Jeremy Corbyn
Corbyn describes himself as a socialist. His politics are a throwback to an older version of Britain’s Labour Party, which embraced government control of parts of the economy and big social welfare programs.
Corbyn was first elected to Parliament in 1983, representing Islington North, a reliable Labour seat in London he’s now held for more than 35 years.
Corbyn came to Parliament in a year that was otherwise horrible for the Labour Party. Its 1983 election manifesto (sort of like a party platform in the US) was one the most left-wing in the party’s history to date. One Labour MP at the time famously called it the “longest suicide note in history” after Conservatives, led by Margaret Thatcher, destroyed Labour that year in one of the largest electoral victories in the postwar era.
Jeremy Corbin in 1984, one year after he was elected to Parliament to represent Islington North.Graham Morris/Daily Express/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
That helped begin Labour’s rightward shift to a more moderate, centrist party that is socially liberal but somewhat more fiscally conservative and free-market oriented. That transformation culminated in the election of Tony Blair as Labour leader in 1994. Under Blair, Labour took power in 1997, an era that’s sometimes referred to as “New Labour.”
But Corbyn didn’t shift to the center with the rest of his party. He stayed on the margins, maintaining his ties with other veterans of old Labour and those outside of the party in leftist UK politics.
“He basically spent most of his time opposing the policies of his own party,” Steven Fielding, a professor of political history at the University of Nottingham, told me. Especially when Tony Blair was prime minister, “he was in opposition to everything that was going on,” despite his party being in control of government.
Corbyn, then, was very much an outsider who remained on the backbenches (meaning he never held a ministerial position) for years.
Corbyn’s foreign policy in particular has gotten him into quite a bit of trouble, and it continues to today. He worked closely with Stop the War coalition, which was formed after 9/11 to oppose the intervention in Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, the Stop the War coalition opposed the Iraq War, as did Corbyn. Blair, of course, supported it, a position that would come back to haunt Blair and the Labour Party.
Corbyn has a lot of political baggage, and for 30 or so years, he was kind of an obscure figure in Labour politics — until 2015, that is.
How Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader — and why he’s stayed there
Corbyn became Labour leader in 2015 in an extraordinary upset. He started as a 200-to-1 outsider when the contest began but ended up winning 60 percent of the vote from the Labour Party.
His victory was startling at the time, but in retrospect it makes some sense. The era of New Labour had lasted for more than a decade, but Labour lost its majority in 2010, and Conservatives beat them again in 2015.
The dissatisfaction with Labour during this period had a lot to do with its policies under Blair, namely support for the Iraq War. Many British voters also blamed Labour for the 2008 recession, since the party was in charge at the time of the financial market crash.
Jeremy Corbyn, member of Parliament for Islington North and candidate in the Labour Party leadership election, speaks to supporters outside Great St Mary’s church in Cambridge, England, on September 6, 2015.Rob Stothard/Getty Images
Voters, particularly younger ones, didn’t love the policies of the Conservatives. The party pursued austerity — in other words, basically lots of spending cuts to social and public services. Other issues, like climate change, also motivated the next generation of voters.
Taken together, voters began to blame the establishment politicians of the past for these failures. Within the Labour Party, some also saw the more moderate Blairites as not all that different from the Conservative politicians.
Corbyn emerged against this backdrop as a politician in his 60s who was untainted by those establishment politics. “What you got was the oldest candidate looking like the freshest and the newest,” David Kogan, author of Protest and Power: The Battle for the Labour Party, told me. It’s not unlike the political rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders in the US.
Corbyn went from impossible odds to looking like the favorite. This was terrifying for most politicians in the party, who saw Corbyn’s ascension as a huge electoral disadvantage, given his leftist politics. At the time, Blair said that with Corbyn as leader, “The party won’t just face defeat but annihilation.”
But Labour’s membership also surged after Corbyn’s victory. The party had less than 200,000 members (people who pay dues) before the 2015 election; in 2018, that number surged to more than 500,000 members, making Labour the largest political party in the UK.
As Kogan explained, Labour’s ranks swelled because Corbyn’s victory brought back those traditional Labour members who had fallen away during the Blair years. It also attracted a new base of young voters, many of whom came of age post-2008 recession and supported Corbyn’s left-wing economic policies, though they were also motivated by those other issues, like climate change.
Corbyn energized the activist base of the Labour Party. But divisions between this coalition of “Corbynistas” and other veterans of the party, specifically lawmakers, did not disappear. In 2016, Corbyn faced a leadership challenge shortly after the June Brexit referendum. Labour lawmakers voted against him in a confidence vote, citing, among other things, his failure to do enough to promote Remain, Labour’s official position in the 2016 referendum.
But Corbyn soundly defeated his challenger in that contest, achieving the party’s backing with a slightly greater margin than in 2015. It showed just how strong Corbyn’s support was among the party base, and how quickly he — and his supporters — had started to reshape the party.
The next test for Corbyn came in the 2017 election. Then-Prime Minister Theresa May called a vote in an attempt to shore up her Brexit mandate. She started out with a 20-point lead and looked likely to deliver another Conservative majority.
Instead, that advantage evaporated. Conservatives lost seats and their majority. Labour increased its number of seats in Parliament by 31. May managed to form a government and retain control by entering into an arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party, a conservative party in Northern Ireland. But as Brexit unfolded, that control proved to be pretty precarious.
Meanwhile, Corbyn once again defied expectations with Labour’s relative success. That helped undercut some of the doubters.
But not all of them. Those divisions within Labour persist. Though the base of the party has mostly gone all-in for Corbyn, many lawmakers are still in that more moderate mold. Controversies, particularly criticism of Corbyn for his handling of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, have publicly torn the party apart.
And, of course, there’s the Brexit debate.
Jeremy Corbyn’s big, huge, unavoidable Brexit problem
Corbyn has always been ambivalent about the European Union, which has made him something of an odd fit to be leader during the Brexit debate. Though he voted Remain in 2016, he hasn’t exactly been a full-throated defender of the EU. And he was outright antagonistic at the start of his political career.
Corbyn’s left-wing critique of the EU is a minority view within the party, Eric Shaw, an honorary research fellow in politics at the University of Stirling, told me. But it’s a view some of Corbyn’s associates, who share his ideological bent, support. “The European Union embeds free market principles, embeds corporate power, and membership impedes the capacity of the British government to achieve socialism,” Shaw said, summing up the left-wing critique of the EU.
Protesters hold up placards and Union Jack flags at a pro-Brexit demonstration promoted by the UK Independence Party in central London on December 9, 2018.Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images
They’re sometimes called “Lexiteers,” essentially left-wing Brexiteers.
Corbyn voted to leave the European Economic Community, the precursor to the EU, in 1975. As a member of Parliament, he voted against the Maastricht Treaty, which helped form the current version of the EU.
“The whole basis of the Maastricht Treaty is the establishment of a European central bank which is staffed by bankers, independent of national Governments and national economic policies, and whose sole policy is the maintenance of price stability,” Corbyn said at the time, arguing against the treaty in Parliament. “That will undermine any social objective that any Labour Government in the United Kingdom — or any other government — would wish to carry out.”
Fast-forward to the Brexit referendum in 2016: Labour and Corbyn officially supported Remain (so did then-Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron as well as his successor, Theresa May.)
But Corbyn’s Brexit problem hasn’t gone away. It’s only gotten worse — for both him and the Labour Party.
Labour’s “fence-sitting” on Brexit is hurting its chances in the 2019 election
In March 2017, the UK Parliament overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50, the provision in the EU’s Lisbon Treaty that gives countries the power to withdraw from the bloc. That set off a countdown to a March 2019 Brexit, which, of course, has not happened yet.
At the time, Corbyn and Labour supported triggering Article 50, though some members of his party joined the more than 100 MPs that rebelled against initiating the divorce. This vote happened before the EU and UK ever sat down for serious negotiations, so few knew what kind of Brexit deal then-Prime Minister Theresa May would bring back from Brussels. But the argument at the time was pretty simple: The UK voted to leave, 52 percent to 48 percent, so their representatives had to back the will of the people.
Supporters of Britain’s main opposition Labour Party hold placards as they wait for leader Jeremy Corbyn to arrive at a campaign visit in Colwyn Bay, North Wales, on June 7, 2017.Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images
As mentioned above, the UK held general elections in June 2017, a few months later. May wanted to bolster her majority for Brexit negotiations. Labour backed Brexit, but campaigned for a softer version, meaning closer ties with the EU. In that election, May lost her Conservative majority and Labour did much better than expected.
But “better than expected” meant that Labour remained in the opposition, which also meant it didn’t have the power to solve Brexit. Still, Labour frequently joined with the pro-Remain opposition — such as the Scottish National Party and some pro-Remain rebels within the Conservative Party — and helped spoil the Brexit plans of both May and Johnson, forcing all those extensions and blocking a no-deal Brexit.
Corbyn and the Labour Party, then, stood against whatever the Conservative government brought back. At the same time, Labour vacillated on coming up with its own clear position that wasn’t simply anti-May or anti-Johnson or anti-no-deal.
Labour has some reason for this ambiguity on Brexit. Much of his party favor remaining in the European Union, and that includes a huge portion of its base in cities and even those young, grassroots activists who helped get Corbyn elected. But there are Labour seats in constituencies that voted Leave, many in traditional working-class strongholds such as in the north of England.
Though such voters make up a much smaller percentage, they’re still seen as an important part of Labour’s traditional base. (Does this sound familiar, maybe?) And that’s why Labour defended its somewhat amorphous position on Brexit. Unlike Conservatives, who are more explicitly in favor of leaving the EU (though there are pro-Remain people among them), Labour had a much more complicated coalition to represent.
But in trying to please everyone, Labour risks disappointing everyone. If you want to Leave, you have the Conservative Party and the Brexit Party, both of which promise to deliver that. Johnson and the Conservatives have a clear message: Brexit by January 31. The same is true on the other side of the political spectrum. The much smaller Liberal Democrats, as well as the Greens and the Scottish National Party, also have clear messages: no Brexit.
Labour is trying to find a compromise between the two extremes. And in the polarized Brexit era, that might be the worst of all strategies.
In a recent tweet, here’s how Corbyn described Labour’s position: “Secure a credible deal in three months. Put it to the people for the final say, with the option to remain, in six months.”
“That’s our Brexit policy,” he concluded.
Secure a credible deal in three months.
Put it to the people for the final say, with the option to remain, in six months.
The problem with that Brexit policy: it runs into the same problem Labour has had all along: It’s not quite a commitment to Brexit, but it’s also not quite a commitment to stay in the EU.
“It’s a position that is Labour sitting on the fence,” Eunice Goes, a professor of politics at Richmond University in London, told me. “They’re not declaring in favor of Brexit or of remaining” in the EU.
If you’re a voter who’s eager to stay in the European Union, Labour’s policy doesn’t guarantee that. And if you’re a voter who really wants to Leave, Labour’s policy doesn’t guarantee that either.
Corbyn is selling this as, “We’ll give you a final say on Brexit in six months.” But contrast that with the coherent messages of Labour’s competitors, from Johnson and the Conservative (“Get Brexit Done”) to the Liberal Democrats (“Stop Brexit”). Labour’s stance is much more complicated and unclear, and it will also prolong the divorce process even more — taking weeks or months for negotiations, weeks or months for a referendum, and then who knows what comes after that. It’s just a lot.
There are also some logistical problems here. Renegotiating a new deal and getting those extensions also depends on the EU. After May, and after Johnson, will the EU renegotiate with a third prime minister?
Then there’s the issue of holding a second referendum with the option to Remain. If Labour holds such a referendum, will the party — including Corbyn — campaign against the brand-new deal he just renegotiated, and urge people to vote for Remain? Why would the EU go through the exercise of renegotiating a deal if the UK government is going to actively campaign against it?
And then there’s dealing with the fallout of whatever the outcome: a Brexit plan, or voting to Remain, which is likely going to enrage a huge chunk of people in a polarized country.
It’s still not really clear where Corbyn himself stands on the issue of leaving or remaining. Sure, he supports a second referendum — but what outcome does he want? Corbyn has repeatedly dodged this question. During his first debate with Johnson in November, he wouldn’t give a straight answer other than to say a second referendum was the best option.
In a BBC Question Time session with party leaders, Corbyn, when pressed, finally said he would take a “neutral stance” on any referendum — meaning he wouldn’t campaign for Leave or Remain. In other words, he’ll sit on the fence regarding Brexit, right up to the end. What that might mean for his party, especially the pro-Remain lawmakers who really want to remain, is unclear.
Many experts I spoke to think Labour is taking this muddled approach for the wrong reasons. There are Labour districts that voted Leave in 2016, but Labour is still largely a Remain-leaning party. Even in 2017, research showed that most people who voted Labour — even in those Leave-voting districts — voted Remain.
Paul Webb, a professor of politics at the University of Sussex, said that based on analysis of the 2017 election, even in those Leave-voting areas, “The overwhelming majority of people who voted for Labour in those seats were Remainers, and they weren’t Leavers. So they might have been majority Leave seats, but Labour voters in those seats were Remainers.
“In a sense, by worrying too much about these places,” Webb added, “Labour is kind of pandering to its opponents and people who weren’t inclined to vote for the party anyway.”
In other words, Labour’s attempts to retain Leave voters may not be a winning electoral strategy. And even if it was, a soft Brexit/second referendum might not be the option that appeals to them, especially if Brexit is driving the vote. (And in this election, it’s all about Brexit.) And Conservatives are still framing a vote for Labour as a vote to Remain, anyway.
This is where Corbyn’s public skepticism of Europe comes in. Corbyn’s biggest critics say it’s his distaste for the EU that’s ultimately preventing him from taking Labour off the fence and embracing a more explicitly Reman position.
In other words, it really doesn’t matter what Corbyn says or does — he still comes off as a secret Leave supporter. And Labour’s half-baked Brexit stance hasn’t dispelled that impression.
“He actually wants a position going into this election that will allow him to Leave, because that’s what he really wants to do,” Fielding, the University of Nottingham professor, said, though he acknowledged others might disagree with him.
But, he added, that’s why Corbyn is “to-ing and fro-ing and why he’s been so unwilling — on this one issue — to defy Labour members.”
Brexit isn’t Corbyn’s only problem
Brexit may be a huge problem for Labour. But if you hate Brexit, you’re probably not going to cast a vote for a Conservative MP. There’s a risk, though, that Remain-leaning parties like the Liberal Democrats and Greens could split the votes with Labour, allowing a more pro-Brexit candidate to slip through.
The bunch of Remain parties — including the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and the Welsh party, Plaid Cymru — have pledged to only run the strongest candidate among their parties in certain districts in an effort to avoid any vote-splitting. Some polling has shown that so-called “tactical voting” could boost Labour’s electoral chances, but the party hasn’t signed on. Voters may take it on themselves to vote tactically, or to bet that voting Labour is still the best option to defeat Brexit. But it’s hard to say right now how that will shake out.
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses a European Parliament election campaign rally in Bootle, Merseyside, on May 18, 2019.Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
And Corbyn is still a problem even beyond Brexit. His political past is still a weakness; voters outside of the core of the Labour Party still see him as a radical figure who espouses extreme positions. His critics are also trying to paint him this way — but many of the policies Labour is promoting in its 2019 manifesto, such as more money for the National Health Service, more affordable housing, and evens some of those the nationalization plans, are pretty popular with the general public.
The anti-Semitism crisis within Labour is likely to be another problem for Corbyn. As mentioned above, Corbyn has been more critical of Israel’s government than most members of his party.
But since his ascension to party leader in 2015, he’s also been accused of showing “poor judgment” on the issue of anti-Semitism.
Some Jewish Labour MPs came under attack from the far right, specifically Jewish women MPs who faced incredible vitriol. But there was also evidence that some Labour Party members were also spewing hateful rhetoric at lawmakers. This turned into a crisis this past spring, when nine Labour MPs left the party. The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission launched a formal investigation into the party over those anti-Semitism allegations, a pretty dramatic step.
Corbyn is accused of not having properly condemned the attacks and of allowing this to fester within the party’s ranks. This has damaged “his moral stance as a good man,” Kogan told me. “The accusation of allowing anti-Semitism to take place and not be dealt with, and that’s affected him in his claims to be a different sort of politician.”
The problem isn’t going away, either. The Jewish Chronicle used its front page in early November to call on voters to reject Corbyn. “If this man is chosen as our next prime minister, the message will be stark: that our dismay that he could ever be elevated to a prominent role in British politics, and our fears of where that will lead, are irrelevant,” the newspaper wrote.
The UK’s chief rabbi has also questioned Corbyn’s fitness to be prime minister, weeks into the campaign.
And another former Labour MP, Ian Austin, who left the party over allegations of anti-Semitism earlier this year, said he refused to vote for Corbyn because of his “extremism.” He encouraged voters to select Johnson instead.
Speaking of the current prime minister, contrasting the two further highlights Corbyn’s unpopularity. Johnson is undoubtedly an energetic campaigner, but he’s also a divisive figure who has a lot of baggage. The fact that Corbyn can’t capitalize on Johnson’s weaknesses shows just how broadly he’s disliked.
“I have no doubt that if (as we say here) he was to be run over by a London bus and replaced by the most capable of Labour’s leaders, Keir Starmer, Labour’s ratings would dramatically rise,” Shaw told me, adding that the Conservatives “are prayingfor Corbyn’s good health.”
A July survey found that the public trusts Johnson — a guy who once got fired for lying — more than Corbyn. Just 21 percent of people have a positive opinion of Corbyn; 61 percent have a negative opinion, according to YouGov. In an August YouGov poll, 48 to 35 percent of voters said Corbyn becoming prime minister would be a worse outcome than a no-deal Brexit.
If you’re thinking, “Sure, but Corbyn didn’t do so bad in 2017!” you’re not wrong — but he’s pretty much been trending downward ever since. His approval has steadily decreased, in some instances hitting truly dismal numbers. His approval rating has ticked up slightly in recent weeks to an average of just 22 percent, according to Howard Clarke, a polling expert at the University of Texas at Dallas. But 22 percent going into a general election is horrendously bad.
As Clarke told me via email, recent polls showed Johnson’s approval rating at around 49 percent — not great, but a heck of a lot better than 22 percent.
Harold Clarke, Ashbel Smith professor of political science at the University of Texas at Dallas School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences
“That’s what makes this election such a complicated choice for a lot of people,” Amanda Sloat, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, told me. “You have voters that are opposed to Brexit, but are very concerned about what a Corbyn government would mean for the country’s social and economic policies.”
Is Labour doomed?
“It’s not looking like a good shot,” Kogan told me about Labour’s chances in the next election.
Johnson and the Conservatives have a strong lead in the polls. Corbyn remains unpopular. Labour’s Brexit policy is still wishy washy. But with less than a month go before Britain votes, it’s probably too soon to call it. Johnson’s lead could evaporate — and Corbyn could do better than expected once again.
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn addresses Labour activists during a campaign rally in Whitby, England, on December 1, 2019.Ian Forsyth/Getty Images
Even so, it’s unlikely Labour will win a majority in the 650-seat House of Commons. There have been swings in the polls for Conservatives, with some showing a dramatic lead and others showing a smaller margin of victory, but they’re still ahead in most. Most experts I talked to think Conservatives will win —maybe not with an overwhelming majority, but likely just enough to get Johnson’s Brexit deal through.
Even if that doesn’t happen, an outright Labour majority is still looking difficult to achieve. Instead, the more likely scenario is a hung Parliament, where no one party wins the majority. In this case, it’s possible Labour will do well enough to form some sort of alliance with the Scottish National Party (likely for the price of another Scottish independence referendum), or to at least get the votes of some other pro-Remain parties. Basically, enough anti-Brexit voters will potentially hold their noses for Corbyn to at least try to foil Brexit.
However, experts I talked to agreed that if Labour is defeated outright, Corbyn will almost certainly lose his position as leader. Labour should clean up in these elections. Conservatives have been in charge for 10 years and even they’re promising more spending on things like the National Health Service, in an acknowledgment that the general public is fed up with the Conservatives’ past austerity policies.
Boris Johnson himself is a strange figure in British politics — he’s not all that well-liked nor deeply trusted within the Conservative Party, unable to completely shake the reputation that he’s just out for himself.
If Labour can’t capitalize on this, particularly in this “once-in-a-generation” election, it will be a strong indictment of its leader. But Corbyn’s influence won’t necessarily fade even when he’s gone. He may fail in this election, but the leftward shift he set in motion within Labour could very well outlast him.
Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert joins Tucker Carlson to sound off on Nadler’s claim that he is a tool of Russia. #Tucker#FoxNews
FOX News operates the FOX News Channel (FNC), FOX Business Network (FBN), FOX News Radio, FOX News Headlines 24/7, FOXNews.com and the direct-to-consumer streaming service, FOX Nation. FOX News also produces FOX News Sunday on FOX Broadcasting Company and FOX News Edge. A top five-cable network, FNC has been the most watched news channel in the country for 17 consecutive years. According to a 2018 Research Intelligencer study by Brand Keys, FOX News ranks as the second most trusted television brand in the country. Additionally, a Suffolk University/USA Today survey states Fox News is the most trusted source for television news or commentary in the country, while a 2017 Gallup/Knight Foundation survey found that among Americans who could name an objective news source, FOX News is the top-cited outlet. FNC is available in nearly 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape while routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre.
Half of the qualifiers for the first 2020 Democrat primary debate, including Elizabeth Warren, Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker, will have an opportunity to attack the party frontrunner without pushback; Peter Doocy has a preview from Miami, Florida.
MIAMI — The first primary debate of the 2020 season saw cracks of daylight emerge in a Democratic field that has largely played to the progressive base, with the candidates clashing sharply over controversial policies like “Medicare-for-all” and calls to decriminalize illegal border crossings — while taking ample shots at President Trump in the process.
Staking out the left flank of the party on stage Wednesday night in Miami were Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. — the highest-polling candidate in the first debate batch, with Round 2 coming Thursday — and long-shot Bill de Blasio, the New York City mayor.
They were the only candidates to raise their hands when asked who’s willing to give up their private health insurance for a government option.
Warren went on to staunchly defend 2020 rival Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare-for-all” plan.
“I’m with Bernie on Medicare-for-all and let me tell you why,” she said. “I spent a big chunk of my life studying why families go broke and one of the number-one reasons is the cost of health care. Medical bills.”
Warren said those who challenge the policy are really saying “they just won’t fight for it.”
But the issue sparked fireworks when former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke said he would not replace private health insurance. De Blasio interrupted to say, “private insurance is not working for tens of millions of Americans.”
Former Rep. John Delaney, D-Md., who has positioned himself as more of a centrist, scolded his rivals by saying they “should be the party that keeps what’s working and fixes what’s broken.”
“We’re supporting a bill that would have every hospital close,” Delaney said.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., called a single-payer health care system a “bold approach” but said she worries “about kicking half of America off their health insurance in four years, which is exactly what this bill says.”
The policy was just one wedge on stage Wednesday night. The candidates were largely unified — as expected — in their condemnation of Trump, with O’Rourke calling for “impeachment now” in the wake of Robert Mueller’s report.
“It is the only way we can protect this country,” he said.
But O’Rourke, who was among a handful of candidates who gave some responses in Spanish, repeatedly found himself on the receiving end of swipes from rivals on stage. Former Housing Secretary Julian Castro was among those landing blows as he sought to distinguish himself from the field on the issue of immigration, perhaps gaining traction by targeting the one-time Democratic darling from Texas. And while Warren stayed center stage by hammering her myriad policy proposals and talking up the class divide, the debate production itself gained outsize attention when technical difficulties marred part of the NBC-hosted program — forcing the moderators to cut to commercial break to resolve them when candidates couldn’t hear questions as other voices were piped in over inadvertently open microphones.
Trump, from Air Force One en route to Japan, jeered the network.
But among those looking for a breakout, Castro may have come close with his vocal — and controversial — call for the decriminalization of illegal border crossings, challenging his fellow presidential hopefuls to agree to repeal the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that applies.
“I want to challenge all of the candidates to do that,” Castro said. “If you truly want to change the system then we have to repeal that section.”
He called out O’Rourke by name for not supporting his call. O’Rourke then said he’s more interested in comprehensive reform, saying Castro was looking at “one small part of this.”
Castro said: “I think you should do your homework on this issue. If you did your homework on this issue you would know that we should repeal this section.”
Discussing the heartbreaking photo that emerged this week of a migrant father and toddler daughter who drowned trying to cross the Rio Grande, Castro said it “should piss us all off.”
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., also weighed in, saying that the U.S. “has the power to better deal with this process through the civil process than the criminal process.”
“Our country has made so many mistakes by criminalizing things,” Booker said. There is a humane way that affirms human rights and dignity.”
Meanwhile, de Blasio sought to frame the immigration debate around a class warfare theme.
“Americans have been told immigrants have caused their problems,” de Blasio said. “The immigrants didn’t do that to you. The big corporations did that to you! The 1 percent did that to you!”
Two lower-polling candidates also clashed on the issue of military force. Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard hit back at Tim Ryan after the Ohio Democratic congressman said the United States must stay “engaged” in Afghanistan.
“Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan?” she said. “‘Well, we just have to be engaged.’ As a soldier, I will tell you, that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.”
“I don’t want to be engaged,” Ryan countered. “… But the reality of it is that if the United States doesn’t engage, the Taliban will grow. And they will have bigger, bolder, terrorist acts. We have got to have some presence there.”
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, meanwhile, hammered his signature issue of climate change.
But despite their differences on major issues, the candidates rallied to downplay economic successes and growth under the Trump administration, especially Warren.
“It’s doing great for a thinner and thinner slice at the top,” Warren said of the economy.
The Trump campaign and Republican National Committee rapid response team, though, sent email blasts and tweets “fact-checking” and defending the president’s economic record and the creation of “6 million jobs” since Election Day 2016.
Warren was the highest-polling candidate among those on stage Wednesday but others were looking for their breakout moment or to recapture lost momentum, especially contenders like O’Rourke of Texas. He didn’t appear to get it. Top-polling candidates including former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont are set to face off Thursday night on the same stage.
The format and sheer number of candidates, though, meant candidates had limited opportunity even during two hours of debate to make their case.
The rules, set by the Democratic National Committee, gave candidates 60 seconds to answer questions from the NBC, MSNBC, and Telemundo moderators, and 30 seconds to respond to their follow-up questions. The candidates could not give opening statements but gave closing remarks later in the night.
“This allowed the governor to sexually harass Ms. Bennett, a subordinate employee who is almost 40 years his junior, with impunity,” Ms. Katz said. “We are confident that a thorough investigation of the workplace environment in Governor Cuomo’s office will conclude that the governor and his senior staff fostered a culture of abuse, harassment and secrecy.”
Ms. Garvey, the governor’s special counsel, responded by saying that “Ms. Bennett’s concerns were treated with sensitivity and respect and in accordance with applicable law and policy.”
The paperwork that Ms. James has asked the administration to preserve will be especially important as investigators scrutinize how members of the governor’s staff handled sexual harassment complaints made by its employees. Questions have already been raised about whether Mr. Cuomo’s aides followed proper protocol in reporting the allegations made by Ms. Bennett, who was an executive assistant at the time.
When Ms. Bennett told Jill DesRosiers, the governor’s chief of staff, that Mr. Cuomo had sexually harassed her in June, shortly after the alleged incident, the disclosure should have been reported to a state labor office. That would have prompted an investigation into her complaint.
It remains unclear whether the governor’s aides properly reported her complaint to the labor office, known as the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations, as required under an executive order that Mr. Cuomo issued in 2018 amid the #MeToo movement.
Ms. Bennett said she gave a lengthy statement regarding her interactions with the governor to a special counsel to Mr. Cuomo, Judith Mogul. Ms. Bennett said she made it clear to Ms. Mogul that she believed the governor had propositioned her and was grooming her for sex, telling Mr. Cuomo’s aides that she feared retaliation for reporting his behavior.
Shortly after her initial complaint to Ms. DesRosiers, Ms. Bennett was transferred to another job in a different part of the State Capitol. The governor’s office did not say on Friday whether Ms. Bennett’s complaint was reported or investigated.
“As the documents will reflect, I acted consistent with the information provided, the requirements of the law, and Charlotte’s wishes,” Ms. Mogul said in a statement on Friday.
(AP)-As the latest federal pandemic relief package makes its way to President Joe Biden’s desk, Americans may be wondering when the benefits will reach them.
The $1.9 trillion known as the “American Rescue Plan” is massive, both in size and scope. It includes direct payments to most Americans, aid to small businesses, financial help for schools and much more to help the country recover from the financial ravages of the pandemic.
The house is expected to give its final approval early this week and then it heads to Biden for his signature. The timing of its passage is crucial — most notably because some pandemic unemployment benefits will be coming to an end on Sunday.
Millions of taxpayers could begin to see direct benefits almost immediately, some later this month and others taking several months to accomplish.
Here’s what you need to know about the main planks of the spending plan:
RELIEF CHECKS
The legislation provides a direct payment of $1,400 for a single taxpayer, or $2,800 for a married couple that files jointly, plus $1,400 per dependent. Individuals earning up to $75,000 would get the full amount, as would married couples with incomes up to $150,000.
The size of the check would shrink for those making slightly more, with a hard cut-off at $80,000 for individuals and $160,000 for married couples.
Biden estimates that 85% of Americans will be eligible for the payment. Some groups that were not eligible for prior payments — such as dependent college students and disabled adults — are now eligible.
Biden said the goal is to send out the payments starting this month.
“That means the mortgage can get paid. That means the child can stay in community college. That means maintaining the health insurance you have,” Biden said. “It’s going to make a big difference in so many of lives in this country.”
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday that the administration is doing everything in its power to expedite payments. As such, the Treasury is working to get more payments to taxpayers by direct deposit. The agency will be able to send direct deposit payments to those who have their information on file from 2019 or 2020 tax filings or who provided it through other programs.
Biden’s signature will not appear on the checks, a move his predecessor made that was criticized as a delay in getting payments out.
A new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that 30% of Americans say their current household income remains lower than it was when the pandemic began.
The IRS and the Treasury Department began to issue the last round of payments by both direct deposit and check in only a matter of days after the outlays became law in late December.
UNEMPLOYMENT
Expanded unemployment benefits from the federal government would be extended through Sept. 6 at $300 a week. That’s on top of payments from state unemployment insurance program.
Despite a modest recovery, millions of Americans remain unemployed. The plan would also extend two key pandemic programs, which benefit about 11.8 million Americans.
These pandemic unemployment benefits were set to expire Sunday, so if there is a delay in the bill’s passage there could be a gap in benefits. But the National Employment Law Project anticipates if things are finalized this week, states and existing beneficiaries likely won’t see any interruption in payments.
The first $10,200 of jobless benefits would be non-taxable for households with incomes under $150,000 but only for benefits from 2020. The IRS will have to issue guidelines on how to put this into practice.
Additionally, the measures provides a 100% subsidy of COBRA health insurance premiums to ensure that the laid-off workers can remain on their employer health plans at no cost from April 1 through the end of September.
TAX BREAKS
The package contains a number of valuable tax breaks. One of the most notable is an increase in the tax credit that taxpayers can claim for dependent children.
Under current law, most taxpayers can reduce their federal income tax bill by up to $2,000 per child. The bill would increase the tax break to $3,000 for every child age 6 to 17 and $3,600 for every child under the age of 6.
Families would get the full credit regardless of how little they make in a year.
The aim is to deliver the money, which is an advance payment on the tax credit, in smaller monthly payments instead of one larger lump sum.
The exact timing of when this money would arrive is still unclear. If the Treasury determines that a monthly payment isn’t feasible, then the payments are to be made as frequently as possible.
Elaine Maag, principal research associate in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said monthly payments could begin as soon as July but if the government opts for a quarterly payments it take until could fall.
Add in the $1,400 checks and other items in the proposal, and the legislation would reduce the number of children living in poverty by more than half, according to the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University.
The bill also significantly expands the Earned Income Tax Credit for 2021 by making it available to people without children. The credit for low and moderate-income adults would be worth $543 to $1,502, depending on income and filing status.
The benefit of the EITC would not be felt until taxpayers file their returns for the 2021 tax year, which would typically be in the beginning of 2022.
The plan does not include student loan forgiveness, but it does allow for any income from the forgiveness of student loans be to be tax-free from 2021 through 2025.
___
AP congressional reporter Kevin Freking and staff reporter Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.
Los trabajadores “cincuentones” perjudicados en su jubilación por el régimen mixto implantado en 1996 —que consiste en repartir los aportes entre el sistema solidario del Banco de Previsión Social (BPS) y la capitalización individual en las AFAP— continúan concurrieron a la Justicia para dejar sentado su reclamo. Esta semana unos 200 tuvieron audiencias de conciliación, una instancia previa que habilita al afectado a iniciar un juicio al Estado por los perjuicios económicos cuando se jubile.
“Son audiencias que se vienen haciendo hace más de dos años. Se cita al Poder Legislativo (como la contraparte) que rechaza su responsabilidad y queda abierto el camino para un juicio por reparación patrimonial por la responsabilidad del Estado en el acto legislativo” que creó el sistema mixto, explicó a El País el abogado Hoenir Sarthou, que promueve estos casos. Añadió que “todas las semanas” hay audiencias de este tipo fijadas en los tribunales judiciales.
Los “cincuentones” perjudicados eran trabajadores menores de 40 años en 1996 y fueron obligados a sumarse al régimen mixto por su nivel salarial, pero al momento del retiro laboral en algunos casos se encuentran con una pasividad inferior a la que recibirían por el sistema anterior (hasta 35% según cálculos hechos por el Pit-Cnt).
Aparte de las instancias de conciliación, en el plano judicial existen unos 8.000 recursos de inconstitucionalidad contra la ley que creó el régimen mixto presentado por personas perjudicadas en su jubilación. Sarthou dijo que las dos presentaciones más antiguas “están en carpeta de los ministros (de la Suprema Corte) para dictar sentencia desde noviembre del año pasado”. Según informó ayer el semanario Búsqueda, para los integrantes de la Corte la norma es constitucional y rechazarán el recurso interpuesto por los “cincuentones”.
El abogado detalló que la inconstitucionalidad en caso de que hubiera recibido un fallo favorable tendría efecto sobre los trabajadores activos, mientras que los ya jubilados tienen la opción de demandar al Estado previa audiencia de conciliación en un juicio cuyo monto se deberá estudiar “caso a caso”.
Hace unas semanas la representación de los trabajadores en el BPS presentó un anteproyecto de ley —la iniciativa legislativa en temas de seguridad social es exclusiva del Poder Ejecutivo— en busca de una solución para este colectivo. Plantean que se permita a los mayores de 50 años desafiliarse de las AFAP y jubilarse por el régimen de transición (anterior al sistema mixto), estableciendo un período de dos años (un año para los mayores de 60 años) para que el afiliado pueda asesorase sobre su situación.
De acuerdo con proyecciones hechas el año pasado por el BPS, la solución propuesta por la representación de los trabajadores tendría un costo anual de US$ 121 millones en un escenario de mínima (con 22.860 desafiliados de las AFAP) y de US$ 186 millones en una estimación máxima (con 41.163 desafiliados). Asimismo, como el dinero de los desafiliados volvería al BPS, el Estado tendría dinero suficiente para pagar las pasividades por el régimen de transición sin ningún costo extra por unos 15 años.
Pese a que el reclamo de los “cincuentones” cobró fuerza y las autoridades han reiterado que analizan la situación, fuentes sindicales dijeron a El País que un fallo contrario de la Corte sería motivo suficiente para que el gobierno rechace cualquier compensación para los perjudicados. Por este motivo es que parte del colectivo de “cincuentones” que se movilizó con el apoyo del Pit-Cnt no respaldaba los recursos ante la Justicia, ya que entienden que la solución pasa por una decisión política y no legal.
La periodista mexicana insta a las mujeres a revelarse contra el acoso sexual.
California, Estados Unidos.
La periodista mexicana Karla Amezola pasó de presentar noticias a conducir un Uber de la noche a la mañana.
La joven periodista denunció haber sido víctima de acoso sexual en el canal televisivo donde laboraba, por lo que tuvo que comenzar a trabajar como conductora de Uber.
La rubia trabajaba en Estrella TV, un canal local en Los Ángeles, propiedad de la empresa Liberman Broadcasting Inc. o LBI Media Inc., sin embargo en marzo decidió denunciar a su jefe, quien la acosaba sexualmente.
Ante esta situación fue despedida de la empresa y, al no encontrar empleo como reportera o conductora, la originaria de Tijuana decidió inscribirse en Uber y fue ella misma quien lo dio a conocer en su cuenta de Instagram con una fotografía donde se le ve en un auto.
Hasta el día de hoy, no se sabe si Amezola ha podido levantar cargos contra su jefe, Andrés Angulo, quien supuestamente es vicepresidente de noticias de Estrella TV.
Hace unos días, Karla fue entrevistada por la cadena Univisión Noticias y ahí explicó que, al no encontrar trabajo dentro de su profesión, tuvo que pensar en opciones alternas.
“Comencé a trabajar en Uber y Lyft porque tengo que pagar renta y tengo que comer y al mismo tiempo quiero seguir apoyando a mi familia en México”, indicó.
If recent history is any indication, and of course it is, Michael Cohen’s testimony this week in front of Congress is about to make any lunatic ramblings by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., look like the musings of a wise sage.
Cohen, President Trump’s former gofer, will on Tuesday deliver what is expected to be three days of testimony implicating his ex-boss in a series of crimes Cohen has already pleaded guilty to, including campaign finance violations (Zzz…), lying to Congress, and lying to the FBI.
Cohen has admitted that he lied about the timeline of a real estate venture that the Trump Organization has pursued for decades, including into the 2016 election. Cohen also claimed that he acted on behalf of Trump during the election when he paid hush money to women who claimed they had separate affairs with Trump years before.
A federal judge sentenced Cohen to three years in prison for those crimes, which have some relation to Trump, and others, which don’t, including Cohen’s extensive history of tax evasion and bank fraud.
So far, there is no strong evidence that Trump himself was engaged in any legal wrongdoing. The president denies he ever told Cohen to lie about the pursuit of a Trump Tower in Moscow, a project Trump has dreamed about since the 1980s, and he denies that the payments to his alleged mistresses from roughly 12 years ago were made to influence the 2016 election.
And there’s no reason why Cohen’s testimony should carry any weight. He most recently embarrassed himself in a nationally televised interview by insisting over and over again that he was “taking responsibility” for his crimes.
Cohen is “taking responsibility” by going to prison the same way a deadbeat drunk is “taking responsibility” for being unemployed. When you’re fired from your job, “taking responsibility” is your only option.
There has never been a time that Cohen didn’t look like a delusional mess.
On Election Day 2016, after it was clear that Trump had won the presidency, Cohen reportedly told a group of friends, “Nobody’s going to be able to fuck with us. I think I’m going to run for mayor.”
I imagine Cohen’s grandmother nearby offering an encouraging, “Some day you will, baby! You will!”
In March of last year, Cohen referred to himself as Trump’s “Ray Donovan,” a TV character who made the problems of celebrities go away. If that was Cohen’s paid responsibility for Trump as a “fixer,” the president should ask for a full refund.
But classic Cohen is his interview in 2015 with the Daily Beast, which sought comment from him for a story on Trump’s divorce from Ivana. Apparently unaware that Ray Donovan is not real, Cohen nonetheless channeled his fictional persona, telling the reporter, “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?”
Now that Cohen’s going to prison, though, he’s supposedly gone from Ray Donovan to repentant deacon.
No one took him seriously before, and they shouldn’t take him seriously now.
This is a widget area - If you go to "Appearance" in your WP-Admin you can change the content of this box in "Widgets", or you can remove this box completely under "Theme Options"
