Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
She shouldn't use social media, it demeans the office she holds. Write something in the Guardian or Times, then she might get taken seriously. As it is she's a complete lightweight playing Mrs Thatcher dress up on Instagram.
She certainly shouldn't be putting up the views of the British state (For that is what she is in her role as Foreign Sec) behind paywalled articles.
I'm sure if she asked they would unpaywall her article. Either way, social media isn't the place for serious discussion or serious people. Her use of it shows how much of a lightweight she is. Dave's old adage is still true to this day - too many tweets make a twat.
The Guardian isn't paywalled.
The Times is, but either way I'm sure News UK would be fine with unpaywalling a piece from the Foreign Secretary in order to get the exclusive.
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
She shouldn't use social media, it demeans the office she holds. Write something in the Guardian or Times, then she might get taken seriously. As it is she's a complete lightweight playing Mrs Thatcher dress up on Instagram.
She certainly shouldn't be putting up the views of the British state (For that is what she is in her role as Foreign Sec) behind paywalled articles.
I'm sure if she asked they would unpaywall her article. Either way, social media isn't the place for serious discussion or serious people. Her use of it shows how much of a lightweight she is. Dave's old adage is still true to this day - too many tweets make a twat.
The Guardian isn't paywalled.
The Times is, but either way I'm sure News UK would be fine with unpaywalling a piece from the Foreign Secretary in order to get the exclusive.
I don't see the problem with someone writing a piece for a paywalled paper.
NEW research from EuroStat has revealed that Scotland has the best-educated population in Europe, in a blow to opposition parties.
According to the body, which is the statistical office of the European Union but also compiles data for non-EU states, Scotland has been number one for the percentage of 25-61-year-olds educated up to degree level for every year between 2011 and 2019 (the last year for which data is available”.
Not as high as London though (which has a bigger population than Scotland).
60% of those of working age in inner London and 50% of those of working age across London as a whole are graduates compared to 41% of Scots of working age who have a degree.
There is a difference though - most graduates in Scotland graduated in Scotland. I would guess that most graduates in London are not native Londoners, rather they have been drawn here by high numbers of graduate jobs in the professions, the arts, finance and the public sector. A few London resident graduates, like me, are even Scottish! Scotland has long had a better record on education than England - for a long time it had 4 universities to England's 2. When I left school in 1993 I think at least half of my year went on to Uni, some after Highers the year before. This was from a comprehensive school well before Blair's drive to have 50% go to university. The attitude that education is a means of social progression is fairly commonplace among working class Scots, in my experience. Down here it is more unusual except among the children of immigrants.
Ha ha, best night of my life, politically speaking. "a new day has dawned, has it not?" The next day the sun was shining and everyone had a smile on their faces, even with a hangover. What a time to be alive!
I remember when the Northavon result came in thinking 'what, where, who'.
John Cope. Ejected by the voters, back in parliament five months later, unflushable until he decided to retire TWENTY THREE years later.
Tactical voting happened in 1997 on a big scale. It is why we saw a much bigger Labour majority than predicted on a much smaller share and margin than foreseen. That was on new boundaries too.
Something similar in '92 as well. From memory, UNS would have given a majority of about 50 and a very different five years following.
The willingness of opposition voters to vote for their second choice to kick the government out has a massive effect at national level. Compare '83 and '92, or '17 and '19.
Ha ha, best night of my life, politically speaking. "a new day has dawned, has it not?" The next day the sun was shining and everyone had a smile on their faces, even with a hangover. What a time to be alive!
I was brought up in a Mail and the Telegraph reading household*, so I was fairly sure Blair was the devil incarnate. But even I, that next morning, thought 'well, maybe Labour are the right people to run the country, let's give them a chance'. The joy was visible.
*my politics changed somewhere between 1997 and going to university three years later. I didn't even mind Hague all that much, but IDS and Howard really put me off the Tories. My first GE was 2001 and I think I went LD, but can't really remember.
Edit: Also, I was a Portillo fan and thought he'd be the person to lead the Tories back to government if they lost in 1997, so was a bit of a shock when he got kicked out. Strange to look back now and remember those opinions - I still don't mind the man, but his politics at the time were very different to mine now. Still, we're all supposed to drift leftwards as we age, aren't we?
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
She shouldn't use social media, it demeans the office she holds. Write something in the Guardian or Times, then she might get taken seriously. As it is she's a complete lightweight playing Mrs Thatcher dress up on Instagram.
She certainly shouldn't be putting up the views of the British state (For that is what she is in her role as Foreign Sec) behind paywalled articles.
I'm sure if she asked they would unpaywall her article. Either way, social media isn't the place for serious discussion or serious people. Her use of it shows how much of a lightweight she is. Dave's old adage is still true to this day - too many tweets make a twat.
The Guardian isn't paywalled.
The Times is, but either way I'm sure News UK would be fine with unpaywalling a piece from the Foreign Secretary in order to get the exclusive.
I don't see the problem with someone writing a piece for a paywalled paper.
Surely if it's being written in their capacity as a minister or MP, it should be available equally to any citizen without payment? Aside from anything else, we've effectively paid for it, so it shouldn't be provided to a private business for them to monetise it.
Interesting that not everyone is as lazy and inattentive as me and that there is a significant amount of tactical voting going on.
I would be interested to know, for example Nick, how you can be sure or reasonably sure that that 22% - 8% gap is tactical voting rather than peoples' change of mind.
It's anecdotal, but I canvass a lot of people so it's lots of anecdotes. If our support had nearly tripled since 2019, I'd expect to have noticed. Membership has gone up a bit and members have been somewhat more active. I've only met a handful who explicitly told me they used to be LibDem but have now switched to Labour (interestingly, this is usually because "the LibDems have gone a bit quiet"), but a lot who say they voted LD last time and probably will again to get the Tories out, though they like Starmer and plan to vote Labour locally.
Conversely, in 2019, I met numerous people, including party members, who said they really liked Labour (yes, even in 2019), but on this occasion they were voting LibDem because they'd had so many leaflets from them, it was obvious they were the main chance of beating the Tories.
To be fair, this is a constituency with a very high level of local identity and education, social media groups for each town and village, and a relatively small population turnover - the public generally know the starting position. When I lived in Islington North there was none of that - people knew Jeremy and they were aware that the other parties put out a leaflet now and then, but I doubt if more than 10% could have told you who the main challengers were.
Tactical voting happened in 1997 on a big scale. It is why we saw a much bigger Labour majority than predicted on a much smaller share and margin than foreseen. That was on new boundaries too.
Something similar in '92 as well. From memory, UNS would have given a majority of about 50 and a very different five years following.
The willingness of opposition voters to vote for their second choice to kick the government out has a massive effect at national level. Compare '83 and '92, or '17 and '19.
Yes for 83 v 92, but I'd say no for 17 v 19.
The difference in the latter is that in 2017, a lot of people were prepared to vote Labour. The Lib Dems still got 11 seats for their 8% of the vote.
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
She shouldn't use social media, it demeans the office she holds. Write something in the Guardian or Times, then she might get taken seriously. As it is she's a complete lightweight playing Mrs Thatcher dress up on Instagram.
She certainly shouldn't be putting up the views of the British state (For that is what she is in her role as Foreign Sec) behind paywalled articles.
I'm sure if she asked they would unpaywall her article. Either way, social media isn't the place for serious discussion or serious people. Her use of it shows how much of a lightweight she is. Dave's old adage is still true to this day - too many tweets make a twat.
The Guardian isn't paywalled.
The Times is, but either way I'm sure News UK would be fine with unpaywalling a piece from the Foreign Secretary in order to get the exclusive.
I don't see the problem with someone writing a piece for a paywalled paper.
Surely if it's being written in their capacity as a minister or MP, it should be available equally to any citizen without payment? Aside from anything else, we've effectively paid for it, so it shouldn't be provided to a private business for them to monetise it.
I don't agree "we've paid for it". Not everything a minister does is owned by us. I think there's an argument for a public-sector guarantee on free-to-air or free-to-read media, and if Truss says anything interesting (unlikely, but it's theoretically possible) then other outlets are of course free to report it. As long as the public get the gist of what she's got to say I think that's fine.
To take a slightly parallel example, if a serving politician writes a book, should the publisher be made to distribute copies to all who want one for free? I think most of us would be taken aback by such a development.
(not about partygate, but repeatedly saying more people are in work when the opposite is true, and repeatedly saying crime has gone down when it has gone up).
Johnson has a pretty full history of repeatedly telling straightforward lies (it's hard to avoid the impression that he enjoys it, rather like Trump), it's kind of perverse to get twisted up in trying to give him the benefit of the doubt about whether he might have believed himself to be telling the truth about breaking social distancing rules. Of course he was lying. He's always got away with it, and benefited from it, even when everyone knows he's lying. So he'll carry on lying until the end.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
With which party? The Tories are uncoalitionable
In its current form you are absolutely correct.
Certainly apart from the DUP but even the DUP would probably now only back the Tories if they invoked Article 16 and moved more in the ERG direction.
So basically either the Tories win another majority at the next general election, or if they fall just short they will have to become even more hardline on Brexit and with the EU to stay in power.
If even the DUP support would not be enough for the Tories to remain in power then the Tories will go into opposition and Starmer would become PM
The other issue is that, on current polling, the DUP will lose seats. Maybe we should be talking about who the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland might support in a hung Parliament?
(not about partygate, but repeatedly saying more people are in work when the opposite is true, and repeatedly saying crime has gone down when it has gone up).
Johnson has a pretty full history of repeatedly telling straightforward lies (it's hard to avoid the impression that he enjoys it, rather like Trump), it's kind of perverse to get twisted up in trying to give him the benefit of the doubt about whether he might have believed himself to be telling the truth about breaking social distancing rules. Of course he was lying. He's always got away with it, and benefited from it, even when everyone knows he's lying. So he'll carry on lying until the end.
The worst part is he has NOT always gotten away with it. He's been fired before for telling lies. At least twice. He never learns his lesson, and nor do those who still support him.
Interesting that not everyone is as lazy and inattentive as me and that there is a significant amount of tactical voting going on.
I would be interested to know, for example Nick, how you can be sure or reasonably sure that that 22% - 8% gap is tactical voting rather than peoples' change of mind.
It's anecdotal, but I canvass a lot of people so it's lots of anecdotes. If our support had nearly tripled since 2019, I'd expect to have noticed. Membership has gone up a bit and members have been somewhat more active. I've only met a handful who explicitly told me they used to be LibDem but have now switched to Labour (interestingly, this is usually because "the LibDems have gone a bit quiet"), but a lot who say they voted LD last time and probably will again to get the Tories out, though they like Starmer and plan to vote Labour locally.
Conversely, in 2019, I met numerous people, including party members, who said they really liked Labour (yes, even in 2019), but on this occasion they were voting LibDem because they'd had so many leaflets from them, it was obvious they were the main chance of beating the Tories.
To be fair, this is a constituency with a very high level of local identity and education, social media groups for each town and village, and a relatively small population turnover - the public generally know the starting position. When I lived in Islington North there was none of that - people knew Jeremy and they were aware that the other parties put out a leaflet now and then, but I doubt if more than 10% could have told you who the main challengers were.
tyvm interesting. I suppose in my mind there is the Ealing Central & Acton results 2015 - 2017 which went from a super marginal via a 12% swing to a Lab safe seat. Turnout was up 10% between the two which accounted for half the Lab majority.
Michael Masi has been removed as F1 race director as part of a restructure at governing body the FIA in the wake of last year's Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.
FIA president Mohammed ben Sulayem announced a series of changes as a result of the inquiry into the controversial end to last year's World Championship.
Masi failed to correctly apply the rules in a late safety car period and had a direct impact on the outcome of the title race.
Two people will now alternate in the role, while extra help will be provided to officials
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
There was something about this on social media recently which said that there's a bias towards posts from twits because it's a lot easier and faster to post some arrant nonsense, while posts from people who are being more thoughtful necessarily take longer.
It's a problem that the signal-to-noise ratio is so low.
(not about partygate, but repeatedly saying more people are in work when the opposite is true, and repeatedly saying crime has gone down when it has gone up).
Johnson has a pretty full history of repeatedly telling straightforward lies (it's hard to avoid the impression that he enjoys it, rather like Trump), it's kind of perverse to get twisted up in trying to give him the benefit of the doubt about whether he might have believed himself to be telling the truth about breaking social distancing rules. Of course he was lying. He's always got away with it, and benefited from it, even when everyone knows he's lying. So he'll carry on lying until the end.
The worst part is he has NOT always gotten away with it. He's been fired before for telling lies. At least twice. He never learns his lesson, and nor do those who still support him.
Boris has learnt that, even if he does get sacked or dumped, it doesn't matter, because he can charm someone else. It works for him, even if it doesn't work for the rest of us.
Honestly if only one out of Masi or Johnson had to lose their jobs this year then I’d want it to be Masi every time and you all know I think Boris Johnson is a cock juggling thunder [moderated].
(not about partygate, but repeatedly saying more people are in work when the opposite is true, and repeatedly saying crime has gone down when it has gone up).
Johnson has a pretty full history of repeatedly telling straightforward lies (it's hard to avoid the impression that he enjoys it, rather like Trump), it's kind of perverse to get twisted up in trying to give him the benefit of the doubt about whether he might have believed himself to be telling the truth about breaking social distancing rules. Of course he was lying. He's always got away with it, and benefited from it, even when everyone knows he's lying. So he'll carry on lying until the end.
The worst part is he has NOT always gotten away with it. He's been fired before for telling lies. At least twice. He never learns his lesson, and nor do those who still support him.
True, I suppose I mean got away with it in the sense of his career not actually suffering despite being sacked. Theresa May shouldn't have made him foreign secretary with his record. Cameron shouldn't have given him a cabinet position. Totally irresponsible.
Honestly if only one out of Masi or Johnson had to lose their jobs this year then I’d want it to be Masi every time and you all know I think Boris Johnson is a cock juggling thunder [moderated].
I get that Masi may have panicked under pressure, but it doesn't explain why the stewards or whoever didn't rectify this after the race? The last lap should have been null and void.
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
There was something about this on social media recently which said that there's a bias towards posts from twits because it's a lot easier and faster to post some arrant nonsense, while posts from people who are being more thoughtful necessarily take longer.
It's a problem that the signal-to-noise ratio is so low.
The issue is whether the UK Foreign Secretary should be giving a running commentary on the Russia/Ukraine crisis via Twitter. My answer is an unequivocal 'no, she shouldn't'. Simple, really.
Honestly if only one out of Masi or Johnson had to lose their jobs this year then I’d want it to be Masi every time and you all know I think Boris Johnson is a cock juggling thunder [moderated].
I get that Masi may have panicked under pressure, but it doesn't explain why the stewards or whoever didn't rectify this after the race? The last lap should have been null and void.
I think they didn't want to be the ones to be accused of handing the titles to one driver or the other.
I'm sure two people alternating will work wonderfully.
They clearly need to clone Charlie Whiting.
Next best thing to cloning Charlie Whiting.
Masi removed as race director. Role to be shared by Eduardo Freitas and Niels Wittich assisted by Herbie Blash, formerly Charlie Whiting's deputy. As expected, no direct communication with race director for teams, and a virtual race control acting as a kind of F1 VAR
(not about partygate, but repeatedly saying more people are in work when the opposite is true, and repeatedly saying crime has gone down when it has gone up).
Johnson has a pretty full history of repeatedly telling straightforward lies (it's hard to avoid the impression that he enjoys it, rather like Trump), it's kind of perverse to get twisted up in trying to give him the benefit of the doubt about whether he might have believed himself to be telling the truth about breaking social distancing rules. Of course he was lying. He's always got away with it, and benefited from it, even when everyone knows he's lying. So he'll carry on lying until the end.
The worst part is he has NOT always gotten away with it. He's been fired before for telling lies. At least twice. He never learns his lesson, and nor do those who still support him.
True, I suppose I mean got away with it in the sense of his career not actually suffering despite being sacked. Theresa May shouldn't have made him foreign secretary with his record. Cameron shouldn't have given him a cabinet position. Totally irresponsible.
Importantly, I'm sure both now regret their choices. I'm a big fan of learning from other people's mistakes. I'm sad so few others are.
*very on topic post, tapped into iPhone in coffee shop.
I’m completely opposite view to you Mike. All Boris has done is filibustered. During the filibuster it’s allowed everyone to realise he can’t survive. That filibuster ends this week. My prediction is BORIS RESIGNS NEXT WEEK AFTER LOSING VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.
Why or how?
His questionnaire has to be read by investigators and prosecutors by Friday. He is going to put a confession in writing, hand it to the MET police and lose control of the situation. He really can’t remain silent about the truth any longer than this week, because that questionnaire could be leaked any moment after Friday, he really can’t avoid the truth coming out beyond this week that he did the wrong thing and lied about it.
I now appreciate there is nothing coordinated or calculating about the letters going in. It’s just random, 54 individuals reaching that place in their mind, they don’t even have to go public. That can happen any second.
I also now appreciate it only takes 54 letter quota to be reached to get rid of Boris. Because the vote of no confidence is a vote whether or not to keep him with a vote of confidence - and everyone on the fence will see that as far too risky and waste of time now.
Your scenario is based upon "He is going to put a confession in writing"
But what if he doesn't?
Why would he? Why would anyone for that matter?
If he says that everything he attended he did for work, or because it was his home, and that he did not consider anything to be illegal or a party then there's no confession of lying there.
This is why people are stupid to pin their hopes on "lying" because it requires more hurdles to be cleared.
In order for something to be a lie you need to demonstrate: 1: That what was said was not true. 2: That the person who said it knew it was untrue when they said it.
If I make a mistake that is not a lie. Ignorance is no defence when it comes to the law, but it is a defence against accusations of lying. If he broke his own laws he should go, whether he knew it or not, ignorance is no defence. But to prove he lied is a much tougher (and unnecessary) threshold to clear.
Always good to hear from you and engaging with you Bart 🙂
It’s very simple and quick for me two answer both these posts.
What if he doesn’t confess?
The simple answer is the investigator doesn’t need him to confess in order to convict.
However, not being straight with the investigator is even more politically damaging. To put on his form different to what the investigator knows and can prove is toxic to all the people receiving forms. To receive a simple fine, yet still be protesting innocence equates to about between 11 and 21 votes of support in the VONC.
All I am saying is, he broke the law, he lied to parliament. Everybody knows this. All his friends know this. Babies speaking their first words are coming out with Boris is a liar. Dogs know it, are barking about it all the time. And the period of kicking can down road ends this week. Because just as he is about to get up at PMQs and say wait for process to finish, it might just have been published by the media and on everyone’s phones - the moment he hands it in he’s lost control.
And when the process does complete/or leaked early, there is no way back, he cannot prevent the 54 letters or loss in VONC.
It is a simple truism that this is not necessarily correct.
A lie is only a lie if you knowingly mislead. Lawbreaking is still law breaking even if you did so unknowingly.
It's possible to be wrong but not lie. Ignorance means you didn't lie, but is no defence on the law.
Furthermore parties isn't relevant to the law and never was. It's entirely possible that he attended illegal gatherings but no illegal parties. In which case he's broken the law, but not lied to Parliament.
So there's multiple ways to say he's broken the law without lying to Parliament. Which is why the former is what people should be concentrating on.
You need an honest plot recap Bart. First of all he told the house there weren’t any parties. He was not aware of any. Then one emerged, and Johnson was furious in the commons it had happened, disgusted with everyone who attended it when rest of the country were following his lockdown rules. Then it emerged he was actually there itself. It was at this moment all hell broke loose in every measure of opinion poll rating. Across the country dogs started barking, birds took to the sky squawking, pigs lifted their heads out the trough and blinked, whilst Boris tried to reclassify parties as work events (still illegal mind you) and totting up the minutes he claimed was at each one.
Out by Tuesday imo.
Except that's not an honest plot recap.
The 'one that emerged' that Stratton had to resign over was allegedly a Christmas Party.
The thing that emerged was Boris having drinks in June. June is not Christmas, its an entirely different event. Another picture has emerged around Christmas time of people on Zoom - which I think anyone would reasonably think is not a party either.
If Boris honestly thought that what he was at in June was a work gathering and not a [Christmas or otherwise] Party then there was no lie. Even if the work gathering turned out to be illegal.
From the picture that emerged, if those were "parties", they're the most boring parties imaginable. What it does look like is potentially illegal gatherings even if they're not parties and that should be sufficient even if Parliament hasn't been misled for him to have to resign.
Ha ha, best night of my life, politically speaking. "a new day has dawned, has it not?" The next day the sun was shining and everyone had a smile on their faces, even with a hangover. What a time to be alive!
I remember when the Northavon result came in thinking 'what, where, who'.
John Cope. Ejected by the voters, back in parliament five months later, unflushable until he decided to retire TWENTY THREE years later.
Interesting that not everyone is as lazy and inattentive as me and that there is a significant amount of tactical voting going on.
I would be interested to know, for example Nick, how you can be sure or reasonably sure that that 22% - 8% gap is tactical voting rather than peoples' change of mind.
It's anecdotal, but I canvass a lot of people so it's lots of anecdotes. If our support had nearly tripled since 2019, I'd expect to have noticed. Membership has gone up a bit and members have been somewhat more active. I've only met a handful who explicitly told me they used to be LibDem but have now switched to Labour (interestingly, this is usually because "the LibDems have gone a bit quiet"), but a lot who say they voted LD last time and probably will again to get the Tories out, though they like Starmer and plan to vote Labour locally.
Conversely, in 2019, I met numerous people, including party members, who said they really liked Labour (yes, even in 2019), but on this occasion they were voting LibDem because they'd had so many leaflets from them, it was obvious they were the main chance of beating the Tories.
To be fair, this is a constituency with a very high level of local identity and education, social media groups for each town and village, and a relatively small population turnover - the public generally know the starting position. When I lived in Islington North there was none of that - people knew Jeremy and they were aware that the other parties put out a leaflet now and then, but I doubt if more than 10% could have told you who the main challengers were.
tyvm interesting. I suppose in my mind there is the Ealing Central & Acton results 2015 - 2017 which went from a super marginal via a 12% swing to a Lab safe seat. Turnout was up 10% between the two which accounted for half the Lab majority.
Portsmouth South (where I did most of my campaigning in 2019) is a rare example of where it's been difficult. See the graph here:
It was LD in 2010, the Tories took it easily in 2015 with LD and Lab close, Lab won in 2017, and in 2019 did even better agaibst the national trend. The LDs in 2019 were still putting out "only we can beat the Tories" leaflets in 2019 even with a Labour MP, which I really thought was disreputable (but would have been entirely credible in 2017), but had its history in the seat being LD 9 years earlier. I met a lot of tactical voters, who figured it out in the end and swung over to Labour.
I think that the parties have to agree that where it's genuinely close as in 2015 there, both parties are going to try to play the tactical card.
Honestly if only one out of Masi or Johnson had to lose their jobs this year then I’d want it to be Masi every time and you all know I think Boris Johnson is a cock juggling thunder [moderated].
It brings to mind Dick Cheney on the subject of Iran vs Iraq....
Three police officers who worked with Sarah Everard’s killer, Wayne Couzens, have been charged over allegations they shared racist and misogynistic messages.
Two serving Metropolitan police officers and one former officer have been charged with sending grossly offensive messages on WhatsApp, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said.
“Each of the three defendants has been charged with sending grossly offensive messages on a public communications network. The alleged offences took place on a WhatsApp group chat,” she said.
Presumably this will be decided in the Mags. Would a jury convict unless someone in the group had made a complaint?
Mr. Farooq, aye, it'd be much better with fewer appointees and more hereditaries.
It would be better if we could get rid of people who are in there. At the moment the process is 1. Wait 2. Keep waiting 3. Go to 2.
My proposal, for those who dont favour outright abolition, is that:
1. No one may be appointed as a Lord within 10 years of having been an MP - this to prevent it being used as a way of rewarding losers or convincing old duffers to retire. Encourages them to seek to do good works after being an MP to earn a spot.
2. Minimum attendance requirements eg present for X percentage of votes over a 2 year period or you lose your place unless absence authorised due to ill health etc. Not required for MPs but they are elected. Prevents peerage being provided as a bauble - yes we want non politician experts etc, but it's a job not a gong, and though not full time they should put in effort.
3. No donor to a political party may be appointed within 5 years of having made a donation, nor may make a political donation within 5 years of being appointed. Possibly more unreasonable but might wean out the most egregious purchasing of peerages, by making sure no one could reasonably claim connection between past generosity, or have them fork up once appointed.
Interesting that not everyone is as lazy and inattentive as me and that there is a significant amount of tactical voting going on.
I would be interested to know, for example Nick, how you can be sure or reasonably sure that that 22% - 8% gap is tactical voting rather than peoples' change of mind.
It's anecdotal, but I canvass a lot of people so it's lots of anecdotes. If our support had nearly tripled since 2019, I'd expect to have noticed. Membership has gone up a bit and members have been somewhat more active. I've only met a handful who explicitly told me they used to be LibDem but have now switched to Labour (interestingly, this is usually because "the LibDems have gone a bit quiet"), but a lot who say they voted LD last time and probably will again to get the Tories out, though they like Starmer and plan to vote Labour locally.
Conversely, in 2019, I met numerous people, including party members, who said they really liked Labour (yes, even in 2019), but on this occasion they were voting LibDem because they'd had so many leaflets from them, it was obvious they were the main chance of beating the Tories.
To be fair, this is a constituency with a very high level of local identity and education, social media groups for each town and village, and a relatively small population turnover - the public generally know the starting position. When I lived in Islington North there was none of that - people knew Jeremy and they were aware that the other parties put out a leaflet now and then, but I doubt if more than 10% could have told you who the main challengers were.
tyvm interesting. I suppose in my mind there is the Ealing Central & Acton results 2015 - 2017 which went from a super marginal via a 12% swing to a Lab safe seat. Turnout was up 10% between the two which accounted for half the Lab majority.
Portsmouth South (where I did most of my campaigning in 2019) is a rare example of where it's been difficult. See the graph here:
It was LD in 2010, the Tories took it easily in 2015 with LD and Lab close, Lab won in 2017, and in 2019 did even better agaibst the national trend. The LDs in 2019 were still putting out "only we can beat the Tories" leaflets in 2019 even with a Labour MP, which I really thought was disreputable (but would have been entirely credible in 2017), but had its history in the seat being LD 9 years earlier. I met a lot of tactical voters, who figured it out in the end and swung over to Labour.
I think that the parties have to agree that where it's genuinely close as in 2015 there, both parties are going to try to play the tactical card.
The bigger problem arises in seats where Labour has taken second place in the post-coalition period yet by any objective measure are most unlikely (aka impossible) to win the seat, whereas in a good year the LibDems might. The North Shropshire situation comes to mind, although in a GE that particular seat would have been beyond a long shot for either main party. But there are others, particularly in the SW, which in a good year the LibDems ought to be able to recover from third place.
RIGA, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Russia's armed forces are positioned to attack Ukraine "at any moment" and are continously being reinforced, Lithuania's top military officer said on Thursday, echoing warnings from other Western capitals.
Russia's defence ministry said on Wednesday its forces were pulling back after exercises near Ukraine, but the United States and NATO accused Moscow of increasing its military presence near the border, not withdrawing its troops.
Sarah Smith was blatantly biased, which is ok for someone like @CarlottaVance or myself, but not for the Scottish editor of the supposedly unbiased national broadcaster. The difference in emphasis between BBC Scotland and both STV and the rest of the BBC was obvious. Since she left, BBC Scotland seems more impartial. Now it just needs to raise its level of professionalism to at least that of the local church magazine.
RIGA, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Russia's armed forces are positioned to attack Ukraine "at any moment" and are continously being reinforced, Lithuania's top military officer said on Thursday, echoing warnings from other Western capitals.
Russia's defence ministry said on Wednesday its forces were pulling back after exercises near Ukraine, but the United States and NATO accused Moscow of increasing its military presence near the border, not withdrawing its troops.
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
There was something about this on social media recently which said that there's a bias towards posts from twits because it's a lot easier and faster to post some arrant nonsense, while posts from people who are being more thoughtful necessarily take longer.
It's a problem that the signal-to-noise ratio is so low.
iirc Twitter's algorithms amplify conservative commentators because their tweets elicit more response.
I’m not sure how the FIA can sack Masi and still justify that farce of a last lap and the resultant outcome.
It's a bit like that wanker Thierry Henry, he blatantly cheated and won the match for his side and there was no real punishment.
Maradona. When I first started to realise the world was unfair. I honestly expected the game to be annulled or replayed. By Lampard in 2010 I knew better...
I’m not sure how the FIA can sack Masi and still justify that farce of a last lap and the resultant outcome.
For the same reason that Graham Poll was dropped from the World Cup after the "three yellow cards" fiasco, but the game result wasn't altered.
Harder to prove that impacting the result in such a direct way though. Masi did. And F1 has precedent for changing outcome to what should have happened. In Brasil they took the result after a red flag incorrectly and corrected it.
It's not like an election where if you announce the wrong result you have to go to court to get it sorted even if its acknowledged it was wrong. Or rather it shouldn't be.
I’m not sure how the FIA can sack Masi and still justify that farce of a last lap and the resultant outcome.
For the same reason that Graham Poll was dropped from the World Cup after the "three yellow cards" fiasco, but the game result wasn't altered.
The missed red after two yellows didn't change the outcome (Australia went through, Croatia went out). Had Croatia won, I think the game would have been replayed.
Russia has said the following: "In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees of our security from the U.S. and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including by implementing measures of a military-technical nature."
I’m not sure how the FIA can sack Masi and still justify that farce of a last lap and the resultant outcome.
It's a bit like that wanker Thierry Henry, he blatantly cheated and won the match for his side and there was no real punishment.
Maradona. When I first started to realise the world was unfair. I honestly expected the game to be annulled or replayed. By Lampard in 2010 I knew better...
It was inevitable - for a guy who apparently deputised for Whiting for a long time he seemed baffled and overwhelmed by the gig.
Its hard to imagine Whiting allowing the farce at Abu Dhabi to have happened in the way it did.
I still want my refund for that farce.
Could be worse, as much as it was a farce you were there in person for what will no doubt be one of the most notorious and talked about races for many years to come. Like Melbourne 1994 it's likely a race spoken about decades to come and you can say "I was there".
Much worse is that farce of the two laps behind a safety car that fans didn't get a refund for.
Well, all parties have members who do them more harm than good. Dornan is a repeat offender and "Nippy" would be well advised to ensure he gracefully retires at the next election.
There is a more serious reason too. The "fear and loathing" that seems to be ever more a part of Scottish politics, ultimately, is unhelpful to the SNP as it turns most voters off the idea of going through another referendum. Fortunately for Unionists the denser Nats don't seem to understand this.
It was inevitable - for a guy who apparently deputised for Whiting for a long time he seemed baffled and overwhelmed by the gig.
Its hard to imagine Whiting allowing the farce at Abu Dhabi to have happened in the way it did.
I still want my refund for that farce.
Could be worse, as much as it was a farce you were there in person for what will no doubt be one of the most notorious and talked about races for many years to come. Like Melbourne 1994 it's likely a race spoken about decades to come and you can say "I was there".
Much worse is that farce of the two laps behind a safety car that fans didn't get a refund for.
Adelaide, 1994.
I was at Silverstone when that bloke ran down the Hanger Straight. I was just round the corner at Vale.
Well, all parties have members who do them more harm than good. Dornan is a repeat offender and "Nippy" would be well advised to ensure he gracefully retires at the next election.
There is a more serious reason too. The "fear and loathing" that seems to be ever more a part of Scottish politics, ultimately, is unhelpful to the SNP as it turns most voters off the idea of going through another referendum. Fortunately for Unionists the denser Nats don't seem to understand this.
Ah, now I know why Unionists shat (literally in some cases) all over the centre of Glasgow twice in the space of 2 months, it was to turn most voters off the idea of going through another referendum. Cunning chaps they are..
Russia has said the following: "In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees of our security from the U.S. and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including by implementing measures of a military-technical nature."
I'm sure two people alternating will work wonderfully.
They clearly need to clone Charlie Whiting.
Next best thing to cloning Charlie Whiting.
Masi removed as race director. Role to be shared by Eduardo Freitas and Niels Wittich assisted by Herbie Blash, formerly Charlie Whiting's deputy. As expected, no direct communication with race director for teams, and a virtual race control acting as a kind of F1 VAR
This is basically an admission that what happened in the final race of the season was a massive mistake and shouldn't have been allowed to happen. For Verstappen his first Championship (I'm sure there will be more, unfortunately) will always be remembered as being tainted.
I still don't understand why Poll got so much stick for such a simple administrative oversight. Embarrassing, sure, but if he'd gone for a final warning instead of 2nd yellow (entirely within his discretion) noone would even have noticed. Plus none of the many assistants and technicians thought to mention it at the time.
I still don't understand why Poll got so much stick for such a simple administrative oversight. Embarrassing, sure, but if he'd gone for a final warning instead of 2nd yellow (entirely within his discretion) noone would even have noticed. Plus none of the many assistants and technicians thought to mention it at the time.
Whilst I agree that his assistants offered him no help, that might have been his own fault. I know some refs tell their assistants to "stick to throw-ins and offsides" and Poll was a bit of an idiot.
What about Tory pacts with other parties to maintain power? They need to lose lot more than 47?
The only viable coalition partner for the Conservatives is the DUP. The DUP are highly unlikely to win more than 10 seats, so the Conservatives can't fall below 312.
I seriously doubt any other party would consider a coalition with the Conservatives, certainly none would consider it under a Johnson-led Conservative party.
The Lib Dems clearly have history, but I can't see them picking the Conservatives. In 2010, the momentum was behind the Conservatives consigning Labour to the dustbin. If the situation is such that the Conservatives lose enough seats to be unable to form a majority even with the DUP, the momentum will be against them and I think the LDs will support Labour. Of course, this could, depending on the seats total and vote total, result in the Conservatives being the largest party both in terms of seats and votes, but losing power.
But that's the system.
Incidently, depending on the results, if Labour + LD aren't enough either, I can't see a Lab/LD/SNP alliance lasting long. We'd have to have another election within a couple of years (hurrah!).
I agree with all the replies to me. I am playing a bit of devil’s advocate 😈 Truth is though, there are plenty ifs and buts to kick around on this thread. Here’s a good one. Support can come in different ways, at its basic level support defeating LOTO vonc and support to pass budget in return to for certain bit of legislation put to Parliament? So the Scot Nats give that basic support in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
Puts on tin hat and expects plenty NEVER NEVER NEVER in Scottish, and Swedish, tone 🙂
Far too quiet… did I need to insert the word Torys? Okay -
So the Scot Nats give that basic support TO THE TORIES in return for an independence referendum they are not going to get from alternative government. Even that promise can come with sweeteners, like choose your own wording?
🤔 not much of a rush to deny a soul equates to 40 pieces of silver and legislation for a referendum.
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
It is sad to see so many essentially cheering on Russian games and misogyny because they don't like the Tories. You can dislike Truss without parroting the Kremlin.
I've encountered Tankies who believe that since the West backed the non-Serbian sides in the Yugoslav Wars, that this meant the Serbs were justified in what they did.
By justified, they use the "only x died at" excuse for this -
Once you have done full genocide denial, a bit of Putin snuggling must come easy.
Ermm, quite a few of those genocide deniers are right wingers now. Aided by the LM/Spiked crew. New members of the Lords. Close (recently-resigned) advisers of Johnson. They are true vermin.
But right wingers have been remarkably silent about them for a long time.
Well, all parties have members who do them more harm than good. Dornan is a repeat offender and "Nippy" would be well advised to ensure he gracefully retires at the next election.
There is a more serious reason too. The "fear and loathing" that seems to be ever more a part of Scottish politics, ultimately, is unhelpful to the SNP as it turns most voters off the idea of going through another referendum. Fortunately for Unionists the denser Nats don't seem to understand this.
Being a sexist today I see. Highly misogynist language.
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
It is sad to see so many essentially cheering on Russian games and misogyny because they don't like the Tories. You can dislike Truss without parroting the Kremlin.
I've encountered Tankies who believe that since the West backed the non-Serbian sides in the Yugoslav Wars, that this meant the Serbs were justified in what they did.
By justified, they use the "only x died at" excuse for this -
Once you have done full genocide denial, a bit of Putin snuggling must come easy.
D'you mean RTR veterans? Not familiar with any other use of the term ...
Edit: please ignore, just realised from Mango's post and found the alternative.
"My understanding is that both parties will still be fielding candidates in all the GB seats but will just run token campaigns in seats where the other party is the obvious contender."
As that's pretty much what they both do anyway, I assume the only difference is that they are publicising the fact in order to encourage tactical voting?
If you want to see 'token' campaigning in action, come to Bootle. Got one LD and one Lab leaflet in 2019. Nothing otherwise. I think the only reason I got a LD leaflet is because I know the candidate and they felt obliged to drop one round!
Liz Truss put up a serious post about Russia and Ukraine, and the replies are nothing but jibes attack and stupid jokes...
It is sad to see so many essentially cheering on Russian games and misogyny because they don't like the Tories. You can dislike Truss without parroting the Kremlin.
I've encountered Tankies who believe that since the West backed the non-Serbian sides in the Yugoslav Wars, that this meant the Serbs were justified in what they did.
By justified, they use the "only x died at" excuse for this -
Once you have done full genocide denial, a bit of Putin snuggling must come easy.
Ermm, quite a few of those genocide deniers are right wingers now. Aided by the LM/Spiked crew. New members of the Lords. Close (recently-resigned) advisers of Johnson. They are true vermin.
But right wingers have been remarkably silent about them for a long time.
True - but listen to the narrative that the Stop The War type are selling
- Ukrainians are all fascists - Massacres in 1943 justify Russia invading today - etc etc
Its the same arguments as were used to justify the Serbs....
Russia has said the following: "In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees of our security from the U.S. and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including by implementing measures of a military-technical nature."
"Following the unprovoced attack on Gleiwitz radio station by German prisoners dressed as Polish soldiers, we've been forced to respond by immediately launching a full scale invasion of Poland, intent on annexing the country and carving it up with the Soviet Union." Proportionate response and all........
Russia has said the following: "In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees of our security from the U.S. and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including by implementing measures of a military-technical nature."
"Following the unprovoced attack on Gleiwitz radio station by German prisoners dressed as Polish soldiers, we've been forced to respond by immediately launching a full scale invasion of Poland, intent on annexing the country and carving it up with the Soviet Union." Proportionate response and all........
You can almost hear them...
"It would have been completely impossible to fake dead German soldiers with prisoners because....."
I’m not sure how the FIA can sack Masi and still justify that farce of a last lap and the resultant outcome.
It's a bit like that wanker Thierry Henry, he blatantly cheated and won the match for his side and there was no real punishment.
Maradona. When I first started to realise the world was unfair. I honestly expected the game to be annulled or replayed. By Lampard in 2010 I knew better...
The Maradona thing was really about poor refereeing.
The ref has spoken about it quite a bit and is in fact quite chippy about it. He felt the assistant to his right should have flagged. The assistant however reckons FIFA had given all assistants instructions not to overrule refs. This kind of implies he had his doubts about the decision but chose not to intervene.
The error stemmed from the ref being poorly positioned. I know it was a hot day but the move developed slowly and a good ref would have been up by the corner of the penalty area on the opposite side to the assistant. It would then have been virtually impossible to miss the offence from there. Instead he was about twenty yards behind the play with a poor angle. I'm sure he didn't see it and it was only when Shilton protested that he glanced at the assistant, who was taking his lead from the ref and already running back to the half-way line, as he would when a goal is scored.
Personally I wouldn't attach much blame to Maradona. I've seen plenty of strikers do exactly what he did. It's not a difficult one for a ref to spot and this was the only time I ever saw one miss it. I'm sure Maradona fully expected it to be ruled out but when it wasn't you can hardly blame him for not fessing up. At least he admitted it later. As far as I'm aware, FIFA never apologised. Their instructions to assistants played a part in the mistake, but not as big a part as the ref, who was simply not up to the job.
Comments
https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1494297699159617539
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1494284644384190465
https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/population-with-tertiary-education.htm
I fucking hate the House of Lords.
The willingness of opposition voters to vote for their second choice to kick the government out has a massive effect at national level. Compare '83 and '92, or '17 and '19.
*my politics changed somewhere between 1997 and going to university three years later. I didn't even mind Hague all that much, but IDS and Howard really put me off the Tories. My first GE was 2001 and I think I went LD, but can't really remember.
Edit: Also, I was a Portillo fan and thought he'd be the person to lead the Tories back to government if they lost in 1997, so was a bit of a shock when he got kicked out. Strange to look back now and remember those opinions - I still don't mind the man, but his politics at the time were very different to mine now. Still, we're all supposed to drift leftwards as we age, aren't we?
Conversely, in 2019, I met numerous people, including party members, who said they really liked Labour (yes, even in 2019), but on this occasion they were voting LibDem because they'd had so many leaflets from them, it was obvious they were the main chance of beating the Tories.
To be fair, this is a constituency with a very high level of local identity and education, social media groups for each town and village, and a relatively small population turnover - the public generally know the starting position. When I lived in Islington North there was none of that - people knew Jeremy and they were aware that the other parties put out a leaflet now and then, but I doubt if more than 10% could have told you who the main challengers were.
The difference in the latter is that in 2017, a lot of people were prepared to vote Labour. The Lib Dems still got 11 seats for their 8% of the vote.
I think there's an argument for a public-sector guarantee on free-to-air or free-to-read media, and if Truss says anything interesting (unlikely, but it's theoretically possible) then other outlets are of course free to report it. As long as the public get the gist of what she's got to say I think that's fine.
To take a slightly parallel example, if a serving politician writes a book, should the publisher be made to distribute copies to all who want one for free? I think most of us would be taken aback by such a development.
Radio 4 More or Less seem to think so:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0014rmb
(not about partygate, but repeatedly saying more people are in work when the opposite is true, and repeatedly saying crime has gone down when it has gone up).
Johnson has a pretty full history of repeatedly telling straightforward lies (it's hard to avoid the impression that he enjoys it, rather like Trump), it's kind of perverse to get twisted up in trying to give him the benefit of the doubt about whether he might have believed himself to be telling the truth about breaking social distancing rules. Of course he was lying. He's always got away with it, and benefited from it, even when everyone knows he's lying. So he'll carry on lying until the end.
He never learns his lesson, and nor do those who still support him.
They will be selected from the 100 closest illegitimate descendants of Charles II, as determined by genetic science.
Michael Masi has been removed as F1 race director as part of a restructure at governing body the FIA in the wake of last year's Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.
FIA president Mohammed ben Sulayem announced a series of changes as a result of the inquiry into the controversial end to last year's World Championship.
Masi failed to correctly apply the rules in a late safety car period and had a direct impact on the outcome of the title race.
Two people will now alternate in the role, while extra help will be provided to officials
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/60418716
It's a problem that the signal-to-noise ratio is so low.
Masi is visible, the stewards less so.
I'm sure two people alternating will work wonderfully.
They clearly need to clone Charlie Whiting.
Masi removed as race director. Role to be shared by Eduardo Freitas and Niels Wittich assisted by Herbie Blash, formerly Charlie Whiting's deputy. As expected, no direct communication with race director for teams, and a virtual race control acting as a kind of F1 VAR
https://twitter.com/andrewbensonf1/status/1494300504767307776
I'm a big fan of learning from other people's mistakes. I'm sad so few others are.
1. Wait
2. Keep waiting
3. Go to 2.
The 'one that emerged' that Stratton had to resign over was allegedly a Christmas Party.
The thing that emerged was Boris having drinks in June. June is not Christmas, its an entirely different event. Another picture has emerged around Christmas time of people on Zoom - which I think anyone would reasonably think is not a party either.
If Boris honestly thought that what he was at in June was a work gathering and not a [Christmas or otherwise] Party then there was no lie. Even if the work gathering turned out to be illegal.
From the picture that emerged, if those were "parties", they're the most boring parties imaginable. What it does look like is potentially illegal gatherings even if they're not parties and that should be sufficient even if Parliament hasn't been misled for him to have to resign.
Props to the @itvpeston director, for cutting to the Tory MP during that, looking like he wanted the ground to swallow him. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1494309168098189314/video/1
AN SNP politician was criticised for mocking the BBC’s ex Scotland editor for hitting out at the “bile, hatred and misogyny” of Scottish politics.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/politics/8445427/snp-james-dornan-bbc-sarah-smith/
https://electionresults.parliament.uk/election/2019-12-12/Results/Location/Constituency/Portsmouth South/
It was LD in 2010, the Tories took it easily in 2015 with LD and Lab close, Lab won in 2017, and in 2019 did even better agaibst the national trend. The LDs in 2019 were still putting out "only we can beat the Tories" leaflets in 2019 even with a Labour MP, which I really thought was disreputable (but would have been entirely credible in 2017), but had its history in the seat being LD 9 years earlier. I met a lot of tactical voters, who figured it out in the end and swung over to Labour.
I think that the parties have to agree that where it's genuinely close as in 2015 there, both parties are going to try to play the tactical card.
Three police officers who worked with Sarah Everard’s killer, Wayne Couzens, have been charged over allegations they shared racist and misogynistic messages.
Two serving Metropolitan police officers and one former officer have been charged with sending grossly offensive messages on WhatsApp, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said.
“Each of the three defendants has been charged with sending grossly offensive messages on a public communications network. The alleged offences took place on a WhatsApp group chat,” she said.
Presumably this will be decided in the Mags. Would a jury convict unless someone in the group had made a complaint?
1. No one may be appointed as a Lord within 10 years of having been an MP - this to prevent it being used as a way of rewarding losers or convincing old duffers to retire. Encourages them to seek to do good works after being an MP to earn a spot.
2. Minimum attendance requirements eg present for X percentage of votes over a 2 year period or you lose your place unless absence authorised due to ill health etc. Not required for MPs but they are elected. Prevents peerage being provided as a bauble - yes we want non politician experts etc, but it's a job not a gong, and though not full time they should put in effort.
3. No donor to a political party may be appointed within 5 years of having made a donation, nor may make a political donation within 5 years of being appointed. Possibly more unreasonable but might wean out the most egregious purchasing of peerages, by making sure no one could reasonably claim connection between past generosity, or have them fork up once appointed.
Russia's defence ministry said on Wednesday its forces were pulling back after exercises near Ukraine, but the United States and NATO accused Moscow of increasing its military presence near the border, not withdrawing its troops.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-ready-attack-ukraine-at-any-moment-lithuania-says-2022-02-17/
As will be the title "The Honourable, Most Noble And Complete Bastard"
It's not like an election where if you announce the wrong result you have to go to court to get it sorted even if its acknowledged it was wrong. Or rather it shouldn't be.
https://twitter.com/global_mil_info/status/1494304112942407683?s=21
https://twitter.com/squires_david/status/1331767637861306368
Much worse is that farce of the two laps behind a safety car that fans didn't get a refund for.
There is a more serious reason too. The "fear and loathing" that seems to be ever more a part of Scottish politics, ultimately, is unhelpful to the SNP as it turns most voters off the idea of going through another referendum. Fortunately for Unionists the denser Nats don't seem to understand this.
I was at Silverstone when that bloke ran down the Hanger Straight. I was just round the corner at Vale.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/dec/11/nottingham-forest-anderlecht-match-fixing-scandal-1984
*Technically this isn't war, we are just sending in 2000 tanks and 30,000 soldiers to occupy your country, kthxbye*
GB men achieve more than a semi.
But right wingers have been remarkably silent about them for a long time.
Edit: please ignore, just realised from Mango's post and found the alternative.
Got one LD and one Lab leaflet in 2019. Nothing otherwise. I think the only reason I got a LD leaflet is because I know the candidate and they felt obliged to drop one round!
- Ukrainians are all fascists
- Massacres in 1943 justify Russia invading today
- etc etc
Its the same arguments as were used to justify the Serbs....
it's like mould. Keeps growing back.
#VoidLap58
Proportionate response and all........
"It would have been completely impossible to fake dead German soldiers with prisoners because....."
Presidential election
Macron (LREM-RE): 24.5% (+0.5)
Le Pen (RN-ID): 18% (+1)
Zemmour (REC-NI): 14% (+2)
Pécresse (LR-EPP): 12% (-7)
Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 10% (+1)
…
+/- vs. 7-9 Dec.
Fieldwork: 15-16 Feb. 2022
Sample size: 1,357
Shocker for Pécresse
Looks like Macron is probably home and dry with Le Pen getting into the 2nd round.
The ref has spoken about it quite a bit and is in fact quite chippy about it. He felt the assistant to his right should have flagged. The assistant however reckons FIFA had given all assistants instructions not to overrule refs. This kind of implies he had his doubts about the decision but chose not to intervene.
The error stemmed from the ref being poorly positioned. I know it was a hot day but the move developed slowly and a good ref would have been up by the corner of the penalty area on the opposite side to the assistant. It would then have been virtually impossible to miss the offence from there. Instead he was about twenty yards behind the play with a poor angle. I'm sure he didn't see it and it was only when Shilton protested that he glanced at the assistant, who was taking his lead from the ref and already running back to the half-way line, as he would when a goal is scored.
Personally I wouldn't attach much blame to Maradona. I've seen plenty of strikers do exactly what he did. It's not a difficult one for a ref to spot and this was the only time I ever saw one miss it. I'm sure Maradona fully expected it to be ruled out but when it wasn't you can hardly blame him for not fessing up. At least he admitted it later. As far as I'm aware, FIFA never apologised. Their instructions to assistants played a part in the mistake, but not as big a part as the ref, who was simply not up to the job.