(a) This is the first midterms, and parties usually get hammered in their first midterms (b) Biden is unpopular (if not quite Trump 2018 levels unpopular) (c) Gas prices are high, and interest rates have been rising, and everyone is feeling a bit poorer
Under those circumstances, you would expect the Dems to perform poorly, and a result not dissimilar to their performance in 2010 (down 6 in the Senate), or 1994 (down 8!) wouldn't be that unsurprising.
However... the Dems have been lucky. Firstly, abortion and Dobbs has undoubtedly motivated at least some voters. Secondly, the Republicans have picked some real crazies and charisma free candidates (see Masters, Blake; Vance, JD; Oz, Dr; and Walker, Herschel). Thirdly, the specter of Trump still hangs over the Republicans somewhat (even as some candidates seek to distance themselves.)
* Disclaimer, we don't actually know the extent of the bad time yet
Vance is the odd one - he should have been better than he has been.
They always have co-chairs, do they not? An MP in Cabinet, and a money man to shake down doners (and, coincidentally, usually get a knighthood at some point?)
Edit:
Wiki suggests not every single chair held the position jointly with someone else, but the last co-chair was certainly the money shaker.
(a) This is the first midterms, and parties usually get hammered in their first midterms (b) Biden is unpopular (if not quite Trump 2018 levels unpopular) (c) Gas prices are high, and interest rates have been rising, and everyone is feeling a bit poorer
Under those circumstances, you would expect the Dems to perform poorly, and a result not dissimilar to their performance in 2010 (down 6 in the Senate), or 1994 (down 8!) wouldn't be that unsurprising.
However... the Dems have been lucky. Firstly, abortion and Dobbs has undoubtedly motivated at least some voters. Secondly, the Republicans have picked some real crazies and charisma free candidates (see Masters, Blake; Vance, JD; Oz, Dr; and Walker, Herschel). Thirdly, the specter of Trump still hangs over the Republicans somewhat (even as some candidates seek to distance themselves.)
* Disclaimer, we don't actually know the extent of the bad time yet
Yes, but a lot of these 'real crazes' won there Primaries in part because of millions of spending by the DNC, to ensure the most extreme republican possible was the opponent.
If Dems hold on in these seats they can say it was worth it I suppose, but it was IMO highly irresponsible, and will look so if some/all of the extreme republicans win.
If "the economy stupid" still holds, that's a great incentive for Putin to keep the Ukraine war going and hope the financial consequences deliver America to his fanboy Trump.
Under the proposed new boundaries I am no longer in a Newcastle seat, despite living within the city limits. Not a fan.
Which seat are you in now IYDMMA?
A simple process of identifying the only Newcastle City ward not in a Newcastle seat. And the constituency that is in. A name change to Upper Tyne might make it more palatable.
At least they haven't brought back the abomination that was the Tynebridge constituency. Half in the Toon, half in the Heed. Ridiculous. I got to vote in the seat twice.
Over the weekend Fifa’s leadership sent out a letter asking the participating countries to refrain from any further discussion of Qatar’s human rights record and urging them to “focus on the football”.
The message does not appear to have reached Blatter, 86, who suggested this morning that the World Cup was being held in Qatar only because of political arm-twisting from Paris.
“Qatar is a mistake,” he told the Tages-Anzeiger, a newspaper in his native Switzerland. “The choice was bad.”
Blatter, who favoured holding the tournament in the US instead, alleged that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president at the time, had lobbied on Qatar’s behalf in return for a £12.7 billion order from Doha for French fighter jets.
FWIW...I genuinely think this will be one of those nights when the left have been underscored by the polls. Possible signs of "shy lefties"...or basically women who think they have a right to make decisions over their own bodies and vote likewise
Time for the polls where people say they're angry about everything
Gavin Esler published a book in 1996 (which I bought at the time) called "The United States of Anger". And that was supposed to be one of the more happy decades in recent American history.
(a) This is the first midterms, and parties usually get hammered in their first midterms (b) Biden is unpopular (if not quite Trump 2018 levels unpopular) (c) Gas prices are high, and interest rates have been rising, and everyone is feeling a bit poorer
Under those circumstances, you would expect the Dems to perform poorly, and a result not dissimilar to their performance in 2010 (down 6 in the Senate), or 1994 (down 8!) wouldn't be that unsurprising.
However... the Dems have been lucky. Firstly, abortion and Dobbs has undoubtedly motivated at least some voters. Secondly, the Republicans have picked some real crazies and charisma free candidates (see Masters, Blake; Vance, JD; Oz, Dr; and Walker, Herschel). Thirdly, the specter of Trump still hangs over the Republicans somewhat (even as some candidates seek to distance themselves.)
* Disclaimer, we don't actually know the extent of the bad time yet
Yes, but a lot of these 'real crazes' won there Primaries in part because of millions of spending by the DNC, to ensure the most extreme republican possible was the opponent.
If Dems hold on in these seats they can say it was worth it I suppose, but it was IMO highly irresponsible, and will look so if some/all of the extreme republicans win.
Was that a widespread tactic by the Dems? Thought it was just in a couple of races.
Under the proposed new boundaries I am no longer in a Newcastle seat, despite living within the city limits. Not a fan.
Which seat are you in now IYDMMA?
A simple process of identifying the only Newcastle City ward not in a Newcastle seat. And the constituency that is in. A name change to Upper Tyne might make it more palatable.
At least they haven't brought back the abomination that was the Tynebridge constituency. Half in the Toon, half in the Heed. Ridiculous. I got to vote in the seat twice.
Indeed. Toon being worth almost precisely 2.5 seats doesn't make it easy. Given the constraints they haven't done badly in this area imho.
Over the weekend Fifa’s leadership sent out a letter asking the participating countries to refrain from any further discussion of Qatar’s human rights record and urging them to “focus on the football”.
The message does not appear to have reached Blatter, 86, who suggested this morning that the World Cup was being held in Qatar only because of political arm-twisting from Paris.
“Qatar is a mistake,” he told the Tages-Anzeiger, a newspaper in his native Switzerland. “The choice was bad.”
Blatter, who favoured holding the tournament in the US instead, alleged that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president at the time, had lobbied on Qatar’s behalf in return for a £12.7 billion order from Doha for French fighter jets.
Not much point whinging about it now. The die was cast some time ago to have homophobic dictators as hosts. I went to the 2018 one and had a great time. Homosexuality was an imprisonment offence when we hosted it here in 1966. Argentina hosted it while a dictatorship, so did China.
If we restrict international tournaments to countries considered worthy then they won't be truly international. Just enjoy the footy.
I don't actually disagree, but that's an interesting attitude when in so many other things the spirit of the times, at least officially, is not to let things slide just because they were considered ok before.
That's why some people will feel the pressure to comment or make a protest much more than others.
I wouldn't go, I have ticked World Cup off my to do list.
But we have football teams owned by Qatar, Saudi, and other Gulf States, we have teams regularly in the Gulf for winter training. We sign players from countries where attitudes to women and homosexuality are worse than 50 years ago here. We start the World Cup campaign by playing a country whose government beats teenage girls to death for wearing improper headgear.
Let's not get too prissy about Qatars human rights record. If we are that bothered we should stop selling them weapons.
Over the weekend Fifa’s leadership sent out a letter asking the participating countries to refrain from any further discussion of Qatar’s human rights record and urging them to “focus on the football”.
The message does not appear to have reached Blatter, 86, who suggested this morning that the World Cup was being held in Qatar only because of political arm-twisting from Paris.
“Qatar is a mistake,” he told the Tages-Anzeiger, a newspaper in his native Switzerland. “The choice was bad.”
Blatter, who favoured holding the tournament in the US instead, alleged that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president at the time, had lobbied on Qatar’s behalf in return for a £12.7 billion order from Doha for French fighter jets.
Not much point whinging about it now. The die was cast some time ago to have homophobic dictators as hosts. I went to the 2018 one and had a great time. Homosexuality was an imprisonment offence when we hosted it here in 1966. Argentina hosted it while a dictatorship, so did China.
If we restrict international tournaments to countries considered worthy then they won't be truly international. Just enjoy the footy.
I don't actually disagree, but that's an interesting attitude when in so many other things the spirit of the times, at least officially, is not to let things slide just because they were considered ok before.
That's why some people will feel the pressure to comment or make a protest much more than others.
I wouldn't go, I have ticked World Cup off my to do list.
But we have football teams owned by Qatar, Saudi, and other Gulf States, we have teams regularly in the Gulf for winter training. We sign players from countries where attitudes to women and homosexuality are worse than 50 years ago here. We start the World Cup campaign by playing a country whose government beats teenage girls to death for wearing improper headgear.
Let's not get too prissy about Qatars human rights record. If we are that bothered we should stop selling them weapons.
I'm not saying we should be prissy. But a lot of people thesedays are pretty open that these matters should be raised, at all times. Our national government or businesses selling arms seems to be beside the point, since it wasn't about government action, but individuals and groups - they are also being urged to speak out after all, regardless of whether the government does.
I think that a lot to put on people, but I don't think it surprising that others are find to put that pressure on, even if arms are being sold to Qatar.
FWIW...I genuinely think this will be one of those nights when the left have been underscored by the polls. Possible signs of "shy lefties"...or basically women who think they have a right to make decisions over their own bodies and vote likewise
A female wave against the GOP would be an inspirational complement to what's happening in Iran. The early signs aren't great but here's hoping.
(a) This is the first midterms, and parties usually get hammered in their first midterms (b) Biden is unpopular (if not quite Trump 2018 levels unpopular) (c) Gas prices are high, and interest rates have been rising, and everyone is feeling a bit poorer
Under those circumstances, you would expect the Dems to perform poorly, and a result not dissimilar to their performance in 2010 (down 6 in the Senate), or 1994 (down 8!) wouldn't be that unsurprising.
However... the Dems have been lucky. Firstly, abortion and Dobbs has undoubtedly motivated at least some voters. Secondly, the Republicans have picked some real crazies and charisma free candidates (see Masters, Blake; Vance, JD; Oz, Dr; and Walker, Herschel). Thirdly, the specter of Trump still hangs over the Republicans somewhat (even as some candidates seek to distance themselves.)
* Disclaimer, we don't actually know the extent of the bad time yet
Yes, but a lot of these 'real crazes' won there Primaries in part because of millions of spending by the DNC, to ensure the most extreme republican possible was the opponent.
If Dems hold on in these seats they can say it was worth it I suppose, but it was IMO highly irresponsible, and will look so if some/all of the extreme republicans win.
Was that a widespread tactic by the Dems? Thought it was just in a couple of races.
I don't have ha full list, in NH they spent over $1,000,000 on the GOP Senet candidate, which was more than the 2 Republicans spent combined. and $250,000 on the 2 house seats.
Here is a link to an article from The Hill about 4 govern elections, (including Lake in Arizona) and the assertion that over $10,000,000 has been spent this way.
It might only be a few races, but then only a few races are really competitive.
FWIW...I genuinely think this will be one of those nights when the left have been underscored by the polls. Possible signs of "shy lefties"...or basically women who think they have a right to make decisions over their own bodies and vote likewise
A female wave against the GOP would be an inspirational complement to what's happening in Iran. The early signs aren't great but here's hoping.
CNN exit poll says 27% of voters are most exercised by abortion, just 2nd behind 31% worried about inflation
That seems encouraging for Dems. But as the anchor pointed out, a bunch of that 27% could be anti abortion…
FWIW...I genuinely think this will be one of those nights when the left have been underscored by the polls. Possible signs of "shy lefties"...or basically women who think they have a right to make decisions over their own bodies and vote likewise
A female wave against the GOP would be an inspirational complement to what's happening in Iran. The early signs aren't great but here's hoping.
CNN exit poll says 27% of voters are most exercised by abortion, just 2nd behind 31% worried about inflation
That seems encouraging for Dems. But as the anchor pointed out, a bunch of that 27% could be anti abortion…
Yes, those CNN meta teasers can confuse more than enlighten.
If he increases NI AGAIN, other than extending the scope if it to apply to all income, from all ages, both earned and unearned, then I'm voting for Keir Starmer's Labour. 🤬
FWIW...I genuinely think this will be one of those nights when the left have been underscored by the polls. Possible signs of "shy lefties"...or basically women who think they have a right to make decisions over their own bodies and vote likewise
A female wave against the GOP would be an inspirational complement to what's happening in Iran. The early signs aren't great but here's hoping.
CNN exit poll says 27% of voters are most exercised by abortion, just 2nd behind 31% worried about inflation
That seems encouraging for Dems. But as the anchor pointed out, a bunch of that 27% could be anti abortion…
DO NOT LISTEN TO THE CNN EXIT POLL ABOUT ISSUES.
They are a load of shit.
1) The polls haven't closed yet so how can they have an accurate sample 2) They don't have an accurate sample, exit polls have been massively off in the last 3 election cycles. They have to go through massive validated voted file reweighting to get anything useful from them. 3) They are a load of shit.
At this rate I expect they will be hoping for public support out of sheer surprise that not every single tax is raised, and that people will be able to keep more than 75p of their own cash.
FWIW...I genuinely think this will be one of those nights when the left have been underscored by the polls. Possible signs of "shy lefties"...or basically women who think they have a right to make decisions over their own bodies and vote likewise
A female wave against the GOP would be an inspirational complement to what's happening in Iran. The early signs aren't great but here's hoping.
CNN exit poll says 27% of voters are most exercised by abortion, just 2nd behind 31% worried about inflation
That seems encouraging for Dems. But as the anchor pointed out, a bunch of that 27% could be anti abortion…
Indeed, the anti-abortion crowd being more motivated has surely been a thing before, given how events played out.
Right off to bed. Confident that on-the-day ballot drops will win Nevada for the Dems and that late voting young first time female voters sweeps the board for the Dems across all 52 states.
FWIW...I genuinely think this will be one of those nights when the left have been underscored by the polls. Possible signs of "shy lefties"...or basically women who think they have a right to make decisions over their own bodies and vote likewise
A female wave against the GOP would be an inspirational complement to what's happening in Iran. The early signs aren't great but here's hoping.
CNN exit poll says 27% of voters are most exercised by abortion, just 2nd behind 31% worried about inflation
That seems encouraging for Dems. But as the anchor pointed out, a bunch of that 27% could be anti abortion…
DO NOT LISTEN TO THE CNN EXIT POLL ABOUT ISSUES.
They are a load of shit.
1) The polls haven't closed yet so how can they have an accurate sample 2) They don't have an accurate sample, exit polls have been massively off in the last 3 election cycles. They have to go through massive validated voted file reweighting to get anything useful from them. 3) They are a load of shit.
(a) This is the first midterms, and parties usually get hammered in their first midterms (b) Biden is unpopular (if not quite Trump 2018 levels unpopular) (c) Gas prices are high, and interest rates have been rising, and everyone is feeling a bit poorer
Under those circumstances, you would expect the Dems to perform poorly, and a result not dissimilar to their performance in 2010 (down 6 in the Senate), or 1994 (down 8!) wouldn't be that unsurprising.
However... the Dems have been lucky. Firstly, abortion and Dobbs has undoubtedly motivated at least some voters. Secondly, the Republicans have picked some real crazies and charisma free candidates (see Masters, Blake; Vance, JD; Oz, Dr; and Walker, Herschel). Thirdly, the specter of Trump still hangs over the Republicans somewhat (even as some candidates seek to distance themselves.)
* Disclaimer, we don't actually know the extent of the bad time yet
Yes, but a lot of these 'real crazes' won there Primaries in part because of millions of spending by the DNC, to ensure the most extreme republican possible was the opponent.
If Dems hold on in these seats they can say it was worth it I suppose, but it was IMO highly irresponsible, and will look so if some/all of the extreme republicans win.
Was that a widespread tactic by the Dems? Thought it was just in a couple of races.
I don't have ha full list, in NH they spent over $1,000,000 on the GOP Senet candidate, which was more than the 2 Republicans spent combined. and $250,000 on the 2 house seats.
Here is a link to an article from The Hill about 4 govern elections, (including Lake in Arizona) and the assertion that over $10,000,000 has been spent this way.
It might only be a few races, but then only a few races are really competitive.
Well that's both stupid and immoral imo. Shades of that "gain of function" research on the bats.
If he increases NI AGAIN, other than extending the scope if it to apply to all income, from all ages, both earned and unearned, then I'm voting for Keir Starmer's Labour. 🤬
Yesterday they briefed that manifesto commitments on income, NI and VAT would be kept to.
Have to say the Republicans on Fox (and there is not much else) are looking even smugger than usual. Ominous.
Well the Democrats probably never officially win a nationwide election ever again. Would tend to make someone smug if that was what they were aiming for.
I wonder if they would get more money by moving the threshold down rather than by increasing the rate at the current threshold.
They could reduce the threshold to £100,000 rather than £150,000 whilst leaving the rate at 45% and this would probably raise more money. However this would create a marginal rate of 65% between £100,000 and around £125,000 due to the personal allowance restriction which is unlikely to be scrapped.
If he increases NI AGAIN, other than extending the scope if it to apply to all income, from all ages, both earned and unearned, then I'm voting for Keir Starmer's Labour. 🤬
Over the weekend Fifa’s leadership sent out a letter asking the participating countries to refrain from any further discussion of Qatar’s human rights record and urging them to “focus on the football”.
The message does not appear to have reached Blatter, 86, who suggested this morning that the World Cup was being held in Qatar only because of political arm-twisting from Paris.
“Qatar is a mistake,” he told the Tages-Anzeiger, a newspaper in his native Switzerland. “The choice was bad.”
Blatter, who favoured holding the tournament in the US instead, alleged that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president at the time, had lobbied on Qatar’s behalf in return for a £12.7 billion order from Doha for French fighter jets.
Not much point whinging about it now. The die was cast some time ago to have homophobic dictators as hosts. I went to the 2018 one and had a great time. Homosexuality was an imprisonment offence when we hosted it here in 1966. Argentina hosted it while a dictatorship, so did China.
If we restrict international tournaments to countries considered worthy then they won't be truly international. Just enjoy the footy.
I don't actually disagree, but that's an interesting attitude when in so many other things the spirit of the times, at least officially, is not to let things slide just because they were considered ok before.
That's why some people will feel the pressure to comment or make a protest much more than others.
I wouldn't go, I have ticked World Cup off my to do list.
But we have football teams owned by Qatar, Saudi, and other Gulf States, we have teams regularly in the Gulf for winter training. We sign players from countries where attitudes to women and homosexuality are worse than 50 years ago here. We start the World Cup campaign by playing a country whose government beats teenage girls to death for wearing improper headgear.
Let's not get too prissy about Qatars human rights record. If we are that bothered we should stop selling them weapons.
I'm not saying we should be prissy. But a lot of people thesedays are pretty open that these matters should be raised, at all times. Our national government or businesses selling arms seems to be beside the point, since it wasn't about government action, but individuals and groups - they are also being urged to speak out after all, regardless of whether the government does.
I think that a lot to put on people, but I don't think it surprising that others are find to put that pressure on, even if arms are being sold to Qatar.
Indeed. Qatar has spent a lot of money trying to sportwash their reputation. If it backfires and makes lots of people change their attitude from indifference to Qatar, to positively hostile, that would be a great result. If it discourages other shitty countries from hosting world cups so much the better. Finding it hard to follow Foxy's argument here, seems to be the worst kind of cynical whataboutery in favour of apathy.
Trump on DeSantis: “If he did run, I will tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering. I know more about him than anybody other than perhaps his wife, who is really running his campaign.”
They always have co-chairs, do they not? An MP in Cabinet, and a money man to shake down doners (and, coincidentally, usually get a knighthood at some point?)
Edit:
Wiki suggests not every single chair held the position jointly with someone else, but the last co-chair was certainly the money shaker.
At this rate I expect they will be hoping for public support out of sheer surprise that not every single tax is raised, and that people will be able to keep more than 75p of their own cash.
When we encouraged our religious nutters to sail west across the ocean, I am starting to feel that maybe we didn’t fully think it through?
To be fair, the first few times we did it the locals dealt with them for us pretty effectively. Shame they weren't able to continue that admirable record.
(a) This is the first midterms, and parties usually get hammered in their first midterms (b) Biden is unpopular (if not quite Trump 2018 levels unpopular) (c) Gas prices are high, and interest rates have been rising, and everyone is feeling a bit poorer
Under those circumstances, you would expect the Dems to perform poorly, and a result not dissimilar to their performance in 2010 (down 6 in the Senate), or 1994 (down 8!) wouldn't be that unsurprising.
However... the Dems have been lucky. Firstly, abortion and Dobbs has undoubtedly motivated at least some voters. Secondly, the Republicans have picked some real crazies and charisma free candidates (see Masters, Blake; Vance, JD; Oz, Dr; and Walker, Herschel). Thirdly, the specter of Trump still hangs over the Republicans somewhat (even as some candidates seek to distance themselves.)
* Disclaimer, we don't actually know the extent of the bad time yet
Yes, but a lot of these 'real crazes' won there Primaries in part because of millions of spending by the DNC, to ensure the most extreme republican possible was the opponent.
If Dems hold on in these seats they can say it was worth it I suppose, but it was IMO highly irresponsible, and will look so if some/all of the extreme republicans win.
Was that a widespread tactic by the Dems? Thought it was just in a couple of races.
The couple of seats being the swing ones.
It was deeply irresponsible and reckless, and slightly at odds with the talk about wanting a less toxic form of politics.
Trump on DeSantis: “If he did run, I will tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering. I know more about him than anybody other than perhaps his wife, who is really running his campaign.”
over the last few weeks/months De Santis has been travailing the contrary's holding 'joint fundraisers with many republicans in tight races, he had made adds endorsing helping candidates, and otherwise been helpful to the GOP, trump mean while has sat on a big pile of cash that could have been used to help republicans.
Assuming tonight is successful for republicans and it looks that way right now, I think De Santis benefits.
I've bet on 51 seats but not particularly confident about it.
I think they will get PA, NV and GA. Have put in a saver bet for 54 in case they grab AZ too.
That would be 53, PA is a defence. They need NH, CO or Wash for 54
Surely AZ is more like than NH or CO
Yes: but they're starting on 50. AZ, NV and GA make 53... and then you need one of NH, CO and WA to make 54.
CO - 538 polling average has the Dems more than 8 points up, so it would need a monumental error to go R. Possible, sure, but that's a pretty big ask.
Washington is much more likely. The race has really narrowed, and a 10 point lead a month ago is now just 5 points. Still: that would be a pretty big polling error.
New Hampshire is closer yet. On 538, Hassan leads by just over two percentage points. It only needs the Republicans to outperform slightly to result in a gain.
It’s too late but I think they should have gone for:
5% increase in state / quasi state employee wages 5% increase in pensions and welfare payments 5% surcharge (for one year) on top rate of tax 1% increase in the basic rate & the higher rate
When we encouraged our religious nutters to sail west across the ocean, I am starting to feel that maybe we didn’t fully think it through?
To be fair, the first few times we did it the locals dealt with them for us pretty effectively. Shame they weren't able to continue that admirable record.
If they increase the upper earnings limit on Employees National Insurance then I think that creates a new higher marginal tax rate in the system.
The whole 20-40 system people always think of is bunk, the real rise above 50k or whatever is 10% currently not 20%.
Indeed a young graduate supposedly on the 20% tax rate can be essentially paying just about the same real marginal tax rate as a non-graduate earning £99k per annum.
It’s too late but I think they should have gone for:
5% increase in state / quasi state employee wages 5% increase in pensions and welfare payments 5% surcharge (for one year) on top rate of tax 1% increase in the basic rate & the higher rate
Been saying for months 5% across the board could have been agreed with little issue. But they've let it spiral. 2 changes of PM will do that.
It’s too late but I think they should have gone for:
5% increase in state / quasi state employee wages 5% increase in pensions and welfare payments 5% surcharge (for one year) on top rate of tax 1% increase in the basic rate & the higher rate
Been saying for months 5% across the board could have been agreed with little issue. But they've let it spiral. 2 changes of PM will do that.
Yep this is the best political solution.
Just figure out what is fiscally viable and impose it across the board. Heavily cloak it in Osbornite “we’re all in this together” language.
It’s too late but I think they should have gone for:
5% increase in state / quasi state employee wages 5% increase in pensions and welfare payments 5% surcharge (for one year) on top rate of tax 1% increase in the basic rate & the higher rate
Been saying for months 5% across the board could have been agreed with little issue. But they've let it spiral. 2 changes of PM will do that.
Nah, it doesn't matter what they did, there would have been an issue.
Those who feel hard done by will always find a reason to complain. And the opposition and media will always find a way to magnify that, as its kind of their job.
When we encouraged our religious nutters to sail west across the ocean, I am starting to feel that maybe we didn’t fully think it through?
Although let's remember Trump isn't very big on religion compared to others in the GOP.
He's big enough on it for the white christian nationalist whackos to vote for him despite his record as a philandering libertine whose only interest in Christ is to look at the size of the crowd who turn up for the Pope compared to his own outings.
Comments
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1590100933005889537
I thought Zahawi was party chair???
Edit:
Wiki suggests not every single chair held the position jointly with someone else, but the last co-chair was certainly the money shaker.
If Dems hold on in these seats they can say it was worth it I suppose, but it was IMO highly irresponsible, and will look so if some/all of the extreme republicans win.
http://www.freeintertv.com/view/id-200/1-1-0-2
FWIW...I genuinely think this will be one of those nights when the left have been underscored by the polls. Possible signs of "shy lefties"...or basically women who think they have a right to make decisions over their own bodies and vote likewise
Toon being worth almost precisely 2.5 seats doesn't make it easy.
Given the constraints they haven't done badly in this area imho.
WHERE ARE THE RUMOURS??
But we have football teams owned by Qatar, Saudi, and other Gulf States, we have teams regularly in the Gulf for winter training. We sign players from countries where attitudes to women and homosexuality are worse than 50 years ago here. We start the World Cup campaign by playing a country whose government beats teenage girls to death for wearing improper headgear.
Let's not get too prissy about Qatars human rights record. If we are that bothered we should stop selling them weapons.
Live free or die.
He may be right for once. Cos I certainly haven't noticed very much of it.
I think that a lot to put on people, but I don't think it surprising that others are find to put that pressure on, even if arms are being sold to Qatar.
Here is a link to an article from The Hill about 4 govern elections, (including Lake in Arizona) and the assertion that over $10,000,000 has been spent this way.
It might only be a few races, but then only a few races are really competitive.
That seems encouraging for Dems. But as the anchor pointed out, a bunch of that 27% could be anti abortion…
45p rate could rise or £150,000 threshold lower. National Insurance **employee** rise also being looked at. Part of scramble for more cash.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/08/rishi-sunak-could-raise-top-rate-income-tax-breaking-tories/
R4 World Service special starts at 11.
BUT… over weekend during talks it’s become clear how hard it is to keep that **and** protect pension triple lock + benefits price rise.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1590107503580545024
They are a load of shit.
1) The polls haven't closed yet so how can they have an accurate sample
2) They don't have an accurate sample, exit polls have been massively off in the last 3 election cycles. They have to go through massive validated voted file reweighting to get anything useful from them.
3) They are a load of shit.
Don't fall for it. Don't watch.
He’s not “refuting” the conduct, he has no evidence to do so, only how it’s been characterised. Only he has no evidence for that either.
So he’s not “refuting” anything.
Why won’t these people go away?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11405471/Prime-Minister-bring-levy-earners-bid-balance-countrys-finances.html
Today...
Not even light shall escape its pull.
All looked a bit sad when the fighter hit the canvas, never to rise....
Tim Callery
@TimCalWMUR
Some early results coming in. @GovChrisSununu, @SenatorHassan
and
@RepAnnieKuster
take the top spots in their races in Dixville.
https://twitter.com/TimCalWMUR/status/1590070562462003200
Qatar has spent a lot of money trying to sportwash their reputation. If it backfires and makes lots of people change their attitude from indifference to Qatar, to positively hostile, that would be a great result. If it discourages other shitty countries from hosting world cups so much the better. Finding it hard to follow Foxy's argument here, seems to be the worst kind of cynical whataboutery in favour of apathy.
@tripgabriel
Trump has a long history of insulting and humiliating others,
@maggieNYT writes.
"But now, advisers say, Trump is quicker to anger and frequently in a state of near-rage about not being president anymore."
Eugene Daniels
@EugeneDaniels2
Trump on DeSantis: “If he did run, I will tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering. I know more about him than anybody other than perhaps his wife, who is really running his campaign.”
It was deeply irresponsible and reckless, and slightly at odds with the talk about wanting a less toxic form of politics.
When something is wrong, it's wrong.
Sir David Butler dies at 98.
Assuming tonight is successful for republicans and it looks that way right now, I think De Santis benefits.
CO - 538 polling average has the Dems more than 8 points up, so it would need a monumental error to go R. Possible, sure, but that's a pretty big ask.
Washington is much more likely. The race has really narrowed, and a 10 point lead a month ago is now just 5 points. Still: that would be a pretty big polling error.
New Hampshire is closer yet. On 538, Hassan leads by just over two percentage points. It only needs the Republicans to outperform slightly to result in a gain.
5% increase in state / quasi state employee wages
5% increase in pensions and welfare payments
5% surcharge (for one year) on top rate of tax
1% increase in the basic rate & the higher rate
R4 US Election Special. Bring a bit of class to proceedings.
RIP.
Seems to have been a slew of well known person deaths today.
Even most of the election junkies on this site ain’t tuning in.
Must bore the ordinary R4 listener senseless.
But they've let it spiral.
2 changes of PM will do that.
Just figure out what is fiscally viable and impose it across the board. Heavily cloak it in Osbornite “we’re all in this together” language.
No arguments. The “fairness” issue goes away.
Well, for a bit.
Those who feel hard done by will always find a reason to complain. And the opposition and media will always find a way to magnify that, as its kind of their job.
So, back at the beginning of the year.
(And note that he was Independent before that, and a registered Republican before that.)