Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
Looking like a 2 horse race, isn't it, and could be close. Wish you had a slightly stronger candidate from the progressive/left side of the party to vote for. Ah well.
Forbes now 11/10 with Hills. 4/1 only a few day ago. She is the one out of the three who looks like a winner.
As in the one with the most potential 'x factor' and electoral appeal? - I agree based on what I've seen (although that's not a great deal). Interesting if she does get the gig. I view the SNP as progressive left of centre (more so than Labour in many ways tbh) but when I analyse why, it's because of Sturgeon. If she's replaced by a leader with conservative values it's bound to change the party. Seems to create more space for SLAB, but whether this is good for them depends on what they do in the space. Hopefully it'll be a funky groove not dad dancing.
Labour are real shit , London sockpuppets with a lickspittle regional office pretendy leader, yet another Labour millionaire on the make.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
His own lawyer, in open court, gave a description of his relations to women which were not to Mr Salmond’s advantage.
NI deal announced in the next hour, BBC say. Then details tomorrow.
Well done Rishi. If he can now broaden tis out to a much freer, broader trade agreement with the EU some of the heat may finally come out of Brexit (for everyone except @Scott_xP, of course).
Third. Like the last book in a trilogy. A trilogy being where the quote “The Ring was made in the fires of Mount Doom; only there can it be unmade. It must be taken deep into Mordor and cast back into the fiery chasm from whence it came” appears.
Er, one wouldn't say 'to whither' (unless one was a bloody owl of course).
Likewise one wouldn't say 'from whence', unless it was necessary for euphony [edit] or stress.
Let them be whipp'd through every market town till they come to Berwick, from whence they came - Shakespeare, Henry VI, part 2, 1592
… Sittingbourne, from whence we had a famous pair of horses …— Jane Austen, letter, 24 Oct. 1798
…addressed to this place, from whence it will be forwarded to me …— Lord Byron, letter, 31 Aug. 1809
If it’s good enough for Shakespeare, Byron, Austen, Tolkien and The Book of Common Prayer, then it’s good enough for me.
The Book of Common Prayer is the definitive service book for Anglicans, if it is good enough for the King's church that is definitive
A remarkable criterion on [edit] which to decide English style and grammar. Because Henry VIII and Edward VI.
Tell me, do you write your s's like fs without the cross-bar, or use a goose feather for a pen? Come to think of it, how can you possibly enter your comments on PB using one?
Has anyone ever used an iPad peril for Pb or vanilla?
It not, they hare now and it doesn't like my hindwitz -
Translation - has anyone ever used an iPad pencil for PB or vanilla?
If not, they have now and it doesn't like my handwriting.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
At a party I was at last night Ash Regan was being described as Salmond's representative on earth. They seem genuinely close so this would be no surprise. Of course Regan winning would be.
Third. Like the last book in a trilogy. A trilogy being where the quote “The Ring was made in the fires of Mount Doom; only there can it be unmade. It must be taken deep into Mordor and cast back into the fiery chasm from whence it came” appears.
Er, one wouldn't say 'to whither' (unless one was a bloody owl of course).
Likewise one wouldn't say 'from whence', unless it was necessary for euphony [edit] or stress.
Let them be whipp'd through every market town till they come to Berwick, from whence they came - Shakespeare, Henry VI, part 2, 1592
… Sittingbourne, from whence we had a famous pair of horses …— Jane Austen, letter, 24 Oct. 1798
…addressed to this place, from whence it will be forwarded to me …— Lord Byron, letter, 31 Aug. 1809
If it’s good enough for Shakespeare, Byron, Austen, Tolkien and The Book of Common Prayer, then it’s good enough for me.
The Book of Common Prayer is the definitive service book for Anglicans, if it is good enough for the King's church that is definitive
A remarkable criterion on [edit] which to decide English style and grammar. Because Henry VIII and Edward VI.
Tell me, do you write your s's like fs without the cross-bar, or use a goose feather for a pen? Come to think of it, how can you possibly enter your comments on PB using one?
Has anyone ever used an iPad peril for Pb or vanilla?
It not, they hare now and it doesn't like my hindwitz -
Third. Like the last book in a trilogy. A trilogy being where the quote “The Ring was made in the fires of Mount Doom; only there can it be unmade. It must be taken deep into Mordor and cast back into the fiery chasm from whence it came” appears.
Er, one wouldn't say 'to whither' (unless one was a bloody owl of course).
Likewise one wouldn't say 'from whence', unless it was necessary for euphony [edit] or stress.
Let them be whipp'd through every market town till they come to Berwick, from whence they came - Shakespeare, Henry VI, part 2, 1592
… Sittingbourne, from whence we had a famous pair of horses …— Jane Austen, letter, 24 Oct. 1798
…addressed to this place, from whence it will be forwarded to me …— Lord Byron, letter, 31 Aug. 1809
If it’s good enough for Shakespeare, Byron, Austen, Tolkien and The Book of Common Prayer, then it’s good enough for me.
The Book of Common Prayer is the definitive service book for Anglicans, if it is good enough for the King's church that is definitive
A remarkable criterion on [edit] which to decide English style and grammar. Because Henry VIII and Edward VI.
Tell me, do you write your s's like fs without the cross-bar, or use a goose feather for a pen? Come to think of it, how can you possibly enter your comments on PB using one?
Has anyone ever used an iPad peril for Pb or vanilla?
It not, they hare now and it doesn't like my hindwitz -
Yebbit cheating. That's stylus PLUS Ipad.
I'm more intrigued by what a 'hindwitz' is. And why PB and Vanilla don't like it.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
His own lawyer, in open court, gave a description of his relations to women which were not to Mr Salmond’s advantage.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
His own lawyer, in open court, gave a description of his relations to women which were not to Mr Salmond’s advantage.
No he said it on a train , obviously given teh gravity of the stitch up he had to be contrite in court. As was proven clearly by a jury of women he was no sex pest and committed no crimes either. The post was shit which is expected from unionist losers who are so cowardly they will not have a vote.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
Looking like a 2 horse race, isn't it, and could be close. Wish you had a slightly stronger candidate from the progressive/left side of the party to vote for. Ah well.
Forbes now 11/10 with Hills. 4/1 only a few day ago. She is the one out of the three who looks like a winner.
As in the one with the most potential 'x factor' and electoral appeal? - I agree based on what I've seen (although that's not a great deal). Interesting if she does get the gig. I view the SNP as progressive left of centre (more so than Labour in many ways tbh) but when I analyse why, it's because of Sturgeon. If she's replaced by a leader with conservative values it's bound to change the party. Seems to create more space for SLAB, but whether this is good for them depends on what they do in the space. Hopefully it'll be a funky groove not dad dancing.
Category error. Slab are a mildly right wing party. Especially now with SKS yanking the chain. SNP would be squeezing them against the Tories and what's left of the LDs. The results are likely to be messy, especially with the Greens attacking from the left if Slab try to squeeze past the SNP.
You need to remember that Slab is 1st, 2nd and 3rd a Unionist party, and th social democracy bit comes in at about No. 5 after Adhering to Brexit.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
One sport where the traditional lines are changing is horse racing.
At the Saudi Cup in Riyadh yesterday, Japan had the first, third, fourth and fifth in the £8.4 million feature. The American COUNTRY GRAMMER split the Japanese entries though it was PANTHALASSA who made every yard from the one stall.
The Japanese also won two of the big turf races leaving just one for the British and the dirt sprint for the Americans.
Whoever wins this is ten times better than the turgid Wales England rubbish
Best described as two mediocre teams, both having an off day.
Farrell should retire.
I've never been able to quite work out why I dislike Farrell, but I do think he's the main factor behind England's rugby ills.
(Attempts at such: He always makes the hospital pass, he never makes a bold call, he doesn't help those around him... I think all these are true and yet I still don't understand why I don't like him.)
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
Looking like a 2 horse race, isn't it, and could be close. Wish you had a slightly stronger candidate from the progressive/left side of the party to vote for. Ah well.
Forbes now 11/10 with Hills. 4/1 only a few day ago. She is the one out of the three who looks like a winner.
As in the one with the most potential 'x factor' and electoral appeal? - I agree based on what I've seen (although that's not a great deal). Interesting if she does get the gig. I view the SNP as progressive left of centre (more so than Labour in many ways tbh) but when I analyse why, it's because of Sturgeon. If she's replaced by a leader with conservative values it's bound to change the party. Seems to create more space for SLAB, but whether this is good for them depends on what they do in the space. Hopefully it'll be a funky groove not dad dancing.
Category error. Slab are a mildly right wing party. Especially now with SKS yanking the chain. SNP would be squeezing them against the Tories and what's left of the LDs. The results are likely to be messy, especially with the Greens attacking from the left if Slab try to squeeze past the SNP.
You need to remember that Slab is 1st, 2nd and 3rd a Unionist party, and th social democracy bit comes in at about No. 5 after Adhering to Brexit.
In which case if the SNP also move right it'll get pretty crowded over there. That's a risk for them if Sindy loses heat as a voting driver. Yet Forbes is perhaps the most capable and effective candidate for leader. It's an interesting juncture we're at.
The Leon Singularity gets ever closer. The dread day that PB realizes, with a congealing sense of horror, that Leondamus was RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING
“The Energy Department has concludeFWId that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a lab leak, according to a classified intelligence report wsj.com/articles/covid… via @WSJ”
Two US government agencies think on balance Covid likely originated in a lab leak. This one (Department of Energy) with "low confidence". Five other agencies think it had natural causes.
FWIW I think with moderate confidence, but strictly on the evidence such as it is, think it had natural causes. I have more confidence in this than I had on a similar analysis that Saddam Hussein had no significant weapons of mass destruction.
And you believe that this extraordinary natural event, resulting in a deadly and transmissible coronavirus with 'a unique furin cleavage site' happened yards from a laboratory studying how to make Coronaviruses more deadly and more transmissible by altering the furin cleavage site. I don't think you do believe that. I don't think anyone capable of rational thought believes it. I think you're maintaining a polite if ludicrous pretense because you feel beholden to adopting a stance supportive to the USA.
Yes I don’t think anyone with a brain any longer believes “it came from the market”
Tho I wouldn’t ascribe @FF43’s opinion to “America-philia” - I’d say he’s not intellectually confident, not overly smart, and therefore scared of admitting error
In LuckyGuy's view, it is always the malevolent influence of America behind everything.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
Looking like a 2 horse race, isn't it, and could be close. Wish you had a slightly stronger candidate from the progressive/left side of the party to vote for. Ah well.
Forbes now 11/10 with Hills. 4/1 only a few day ago. She is the one out of the three who looks like a winner.
As in the one with the most potential 'x factor' and electoral appeal? - I agree based on what I've seen (although that's not a great deal). Interesting if she does get the gig. I view the SNP as progressive left of centre (more so than Labour in many ways tbh) but when I analyse why, it's because of Sturgeon. If she's replaced by a leader with conservative values it's bound to change the party. Seems to create more space for SLAB, but whether this is good for them depends on what they do in the space. Hopefully it'll be a funky groove not dad dancing.
Category error. Slab are a mildly right wing party. Especially now with SKS yanking the chain. SNP would be squeezing them against the Tories and what's left of the LDs. The results are likely to be messy, especially with the Greens attacking from the left if Slab try to squeeze past the SNP.
You need to remember that Slab is 1st, 2nd and 3rd a Unionist party, and th social democracy bit comes in at about No. 5 after Adhering to Brexit.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
The quote from the Guardian has no relevance to your claim.
A jury of nine women and six men heard the former First Minister’s defence against one charge of indecent assault and two of sexual assault was that he reasonably believed the women "to be consenting throughout".
The three charges involve alleged incidents with three different women at his official Bute House residence in Edinburgh between October 2010 and December 2013. Mr Salmond has also lodged a special defence of consent against an allegation he sexually assaulted one of the women with intent to rape at Bute House in December 2013.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
There was a poll the other day which had more Tory voters not knowing about ID than Labour. So yes it may well backfire.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
The Tories hoover up a lot of elderly votes in care homes etc via postal voting. Incidentally, postal voting is where the actual fraud happens. I'm not sure if these new rules help the Tories or not, but they threaten to create chaos and quite probably violence on election day, and further undermine faith in democracy. Well done, Tories, another spectacular fuck up.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
Looking like a 2 horse race, isn't it, and could be close. Wish you had a slightly stronger candidate from the progressive/left side of the party to vote for. Ah well.
Forbes now 11/10 with Hills. 4/1 only a few day ago. She is the one out of the three who looks like a winner.
As in the one with the most potential 'x factor' and electoral appeal? - I agree based on what I've seen (although that's not a great deal). Interesting if she does get the gig. I view the SNP as progressive left of centre (more so than Labour in many ways tbh) but when I analyse why, it's because of Sturgeon. If she's replaced by a leader with conservative values it's bound to change the party. Seems to create more space for SLAB, but whether this is good for them depends on what they do in the space. Hopefully it'll be a funky groove not dad dancing.
Category error. Slab are a mildly right wing party. Especially now with SKS yanking the chain. SNP would be squeezing them against the Tories and what's left of the LDs. The results are likely to be messy, especially with the Greens attacking from the left if Slab try to squeeze past the SNP.
You need to remember that Slab is 1st, 2nd and 3rd a Unionist party, and th social democracy bit comes in at about No. 5 after Adhering to Brexit.
And I thought BJO hated Starmer's Labour...
It's Slab which really, really hate the SNP for stealing their birthright.
Different Labour, also, from London, which is what makes it so interesting. In theory anyway, they are their own party but legally it's all one and the budget is controlled by London, as Ms Dugdale found when she tried to spend lots on a court case. SKS's changing statements on indyrefs and on Brexit are also problems, as is UK Labour's support for the Trident subs and their replacement.
The Leon Singularity gets ever closer. The dread day that PB realizes, with a congealing sense of horror, that Leondamus was RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING
“The Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a lab leak, according to a classified intelligence report wsj.com/articles/covid… via @WSJ”
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
That Kirsty Wark BBC documentary on the trial was really something else.
The Judicial system being used to target opponents.. The Glasgow Rangers wrongful prosecution being the worst example.
The Leon Singularity gets ever closer. The dread day that PB realizes, with a congealing sense of horror, that Leondamus was RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING
“The Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a lab leak, according to a classified intelligence report wsj.com/articles/covid… via @WSJ”
The Leon Singularity gets ever closer. The dread day that PB realizes, with a congealing sense of horror, that Leondamus was RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING
“The Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a lab leak, according to a classified intelligence report wsj.com/articles/covid… via @WSJ”
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
The Tories hoover up a lot of elderly votes in care homes etc via postal voting. Incidentally, postal voting is where the actual fraud happens. I'm not sure if these new rules help the Tories or not, but they threaten to create chaos and quite probably violence on election day, and further undermine faith in democracy. Well done, Tories, another spectacular fuck up.
That's funny because when the Right used to complain about postal voting and the potential (?) fraud happening within certain communities and their 'community leaders', it was told that was just a wildly exaggerated claim and of no substance. Good to see the Left now admitting postal votes do have issues with fraud.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
The quote from the Guardian has no relevance to your claim.
A jury of nine women and six men heard the former First Minister’s defence against one charge of indecent assault and two of sexual assault was that he reasonably believed the women "to be consenting throughout".
The three charges involve alleged incidents with three different women at his official Bute House residence in Edinburgh between October 2010 and December 2013. Mr Salmond has also lodged a special defence of consent against an allegation he sexually assaulted one of the women with intent to rape at Bute House in December 2013.
That does not say anything about him being a predator it in fact was consensual, and who it was is very interesting , but as I said you will continue to lie about it either from ignorance or pure malice.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
Looking like a 2 horse race, isn't it, and could be close. Wish you had a slightly stronger candidate from the progressive/left side of the party to vote for. Ah well.
Forbes now 11/10 with Hills. 4/1 only a few day ago. She is the one out of the three who looks like a winner.
As in the one with the most potential 'x factor' and electoral appeal? - I agree based on what I've seen (although that's not a great deal). Interesting if she does get the gig. I view the SNP as progressive left of centre (more so than Labour in many ways tbh) but when I analyse why, it's because of Sturgeon. If she's replaced by a leader with conservative values it's bound to change the party. Seems to create more space for SLAB, but whether this is good for them depends on what they do in the space. Hopefully it'll be a funky groove not dad dancing.
Category error. Slab are a mildly right wing party. Especially now with SKS yanking the chain. SNP would be squeezing them against the Tories and what's left of the LDs. The results are likely to be messy, especially with the Greens attacking from the left if Slab try to squeeze past the SNP.
You need to remember that Slab is 1st, 2nd and 3rd a Unionist party, and th social democracy bit comes in at about No. 5 after Adhering to Brexit.
And I thought BJO hated Starmer's Labour...
It's Slab which really, really hate the SNP for stealing their birthright.
Different Labour, also, from London, which is what makes it so interesting. In theory anyway, they are their own party but legally it's all one and the budget is controlled by London, as Ms Dugdale found when she tried to spend lots on a court case. SKS's changing statements on indyrefs and on Brexit are also problems, as is UK Labour's support for the Trident subs and their replacement.
If Slab is anything like Labour in the red wall they took the voters for granted for years. Did little to improve their areas and were then shocked when the voters hoofed them out blaming the voters for voting against their own interests rather than seeing it as a failure of theirs.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
The quote from the Guardian has no relevance to your claim.
A jury of nine women and six men heard the former First Minister’s defence against one charge of indecent assault and two of sexual assault was that he reasonably believed the women "to be consenting throughout".
The three charges involve alleged incidents with three different women at his official Bute House residence in Edinburgh between October 2010 and December 2013. Mr Salmond has also lodged a special defence of consent against an allegation he sexually assaulted one of the women with intent to rape at Bute House in December 2013.
That does not say anything about him being a predator it in fact was consensual, and who it was is very interesting , but as I said you will continue to lie about it either from ignorance or pure malice.
Given it was consensual why on Earth was it ever in court ?
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
Pretty much my thought. I would guess the sector most unlikely to have a current passport or driving licence is the elderly.
It would be funny if the Tories tried to rig the rules to favour themselves and ended up benefitting their opponents. God knows they are incompetent enough.
The Leon Singularity gets ever closer. The dread day that PB realizes, with a congealing sense of horror, that Leondamus was RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING
“The Energy Department has concludeFWId that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a lab leak, according to a classified intelligence report wsj.com/articles/covid… via @WSJ”
Two US government agencies think on balance Covid likely originated in a lab leak. This one (Department of Energy) with "low confidence". Five other agencies think it had natural causes.
FWIW I think with moderate confidence, but strictly on the evidence such as it is, think it had natural causes. I have more confidence in this than I had on a similar analysis that Saddam Hussein had no significant weapons of mass destruction.
And you believe that this extraordinary natural event, resulting in a deadly and transmissible coronavirus with 'a unique furin cleavage site' happened yards from a laboratory studying how to make Coronaviruses more deadly and more transmissible by altering the furin cleavage site. I don't think you do believe that. I don't think anyone capable of rational thought believes it. I think you're maintaining a polite if ludicrous pretense because you feel beholden to adopting a stance supportive to the USA.
Yes I don’t think anyone with a brain any longer believes “it came from the market”
Tho I wouldn’t ascribe @FF43’s opinion to “America-philia” - I’d say he’s not intellectually confident, not overly smart, and therefore scared of admitting error
And intellectually confident person would not have omitted The Energy Department made its judgment with “low confidence,” according to people who have read the classified report… from their “see, I was right” declaration.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
The quote from the Guardian has no relevance to your claim.
A jury of nine women and six men heard the former First Minister’s defence against one charge of indecent assault and two of sexual assault was that he reasonably believed the women "to be consenting throughout".
The three charges involve alleged incidents with three different women at his official Bute House residence in Edinburgh between October 2010 and December 2013. Mr Salmond has also lodged a special defence of consent against an allegation he sexually assaulted one of the women with intent to rape at Bute House in December 2013.
That does not say anything about him being a predator it in fact was consensual, and who it was is very interesting , but as I said you will continue to lie about it either from ignorance or pure malice.
Even if it was consensual doesn't mean it wasn't predatory. That is actually pretty basic in legal and safeguarding terms.
You have been wrong on every point. And I have proved you wrong on every point. You can't even find any evidence to support your claims, for the simple reason you were wrong. But there, it makes little difference and if you're happier blustering, go for it.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
The quote from the Guardian has no relevance to your claim.
A jury of nine women and six men heard the former First Minister’s defence against one charge of indecent assault and two of sexual assault was that he reasonably believed the women "to be consenting throughout".
The three charges involve alleged incidents with three different women at his official Bute House residence in Edinburgh between October 2010 and December 2013. Mr Salmond has also lodged a special defence of consent against an allegation he sexually assaulted one of the women with intent to rape at Bute House in December 2013.
That does not say anything about him being a predator it in fact was consensual, and who it was is very interesting , but as I said you will continue to lie about it either from ignorance or pure malice.
Given it was consensual why on Earth was it ever in court ?
That's what *Salmond* said. Not what *the women* said.
Most rapists say that actually, their victims were consenting.
Who is telling the truth? I have no idea. The jury decided it was Salmond and they were in a better position than I to decide, which is why I didn't call him a rapist.
But put it this way, whether they consented or not he came across as a sleazebag and I would be astonished if he were ever allowed back into the SNP.
The matter's further complicated by the the strong suggestion due process was interfered with by the government to try and get him convicted, which if it was their intention backfired spectacularly.
The Leon Singularity gets ever closer. The dread day that PB realizes, with a congealing sense of horror, that Leondamus was RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING
“The Energy Department has concluded that the Covid pandemic most likely arose from a lab leak, according to a classified intelligence report wsj.com/articles/covid… via @WSJ”
Now all we have to do is have is have it confirmed that Truss surprised o the upside and your reputation is sealed.
And that Kari Lake really did win in Arizona, although in fairness he did reverse quicker than an Italian tank with that prediction.
Hey, until her final legal case finishes she might yet be declared the winner! (She won't, apparentely she isn't even submitting evidence at the appeals, not sure how she even is allowed to file).
One sort of hopes she wins (I don't) because Leon reversed his prediction. That would be quite a record to predict both a win and a loss and get it wrong both times.
1. I never made any prediction 2. I was - by a vast distance - the first pb-er to say OOH look there’s a woman called Kari Lake and she’s interesting 3. The only betting call I made was “bet on her opponent Hobbs at 5/1” when it was clearly a close two horse race - and that came good
Otherwise, a brilliant point
I can confirm 3, but I would out that you rather creamed your pants in your effusive praise for Ms Lake's charisma.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
The Tories hoover up a lot of elderly votes in care homes etc via postal voting. Incidentally, postal voting is where the actual fraud happens. I'm not sure if these new rules help the Tories or not, but they threaten to create chaos and quite probably violence on election day, and further undermine faith in democracy. Well done, Tories, another spectacular fuck up.
That's funny because when the Right used to complain about postal voting and the potential (?) fraud happening within certain communities and their 'community leaders', it was told that was just a wildly exaggerated claim and of no substance. Good to see the Left now admitting postal votes do have issues with fraud.
Nobody has ever said fraud doesn't happen. What we've said is that it is such a small problem that does not in anyway justify the actions the Tories have taken.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
The quote from the Guardian has no relevance to your claim.
A jury of nine women and six men heard the former First Minister’s defence against one charge of indecent assault and two of sexual assault was that he reasonably believed the women "to be consenting throughout".
The three charges involve alleged incidents with three different women at his official Bute House residence in Edinburgh between October 2010 and December 2013. Mr Salmond has also lodged a special defence of consent against an allegation he sexually assaulted one of the women with intent to rape at Bute House in December 2013.
That does not say anything about him being a predator it in fact was consensual, and who it was is very interesting , but as I said you will continue to lie about it either from ignorance or pure malice.
Given it was consensual why on Earth was it ever in court ?
The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians, all very close to leadership.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
The quote from the Guardian has no relevance to your claim.
A jury of nine women and six men heard the former First Minister’s defence against one charge of indecent assault and two of sexual assault was that he reasonably believed the women "to be consenting throughout".
The three charges involve alleged incidents with three different women at his official Bute House residence in Edinburgh between October 2010 and December 2013. Mr Salmond has also lodged a special defence of consent against an allegation he sexually assaulted one of the women with intent to rape at Bute House in December 2013.
That does not say anything about him being a predator it in fact was consensual, and who it was is very interesting , but as I said you will continue to lie about it either from ignorance or pure malice.
Even if it was consensual doesn't mean it wasn't predatory. That is actually pretty basic in legal and safeguarding terms.
You have been wrong on every point. And I have proved you wrong on every point. You can't even find any evidence to support your claims, for the simple reason you were wrong. But there, it makes little difference and if you're happier blustering, go for it.
You are talking psh, you have proved nothing , just bandied about your imaginary predator crap. Even mor eridiculous to try and pretend a consensual relationship is predatory, you obviously have not had many if in fact any releationships to come out with that crap. Go get some experience of real life.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
The quote from the Guardian has no relevance to your claim.
A jury of nine women and six men heard the former First Minister’s defence against one charge of indecent assault and two of sexual assault was that he reasonably believed the women "to be consenting throughout".
The three charges involve alleged incidents with three different women at his official Bute House residence in Edinburgh between October 2010 and December 2013. Mr Salmond has also lodged a special defence of consent against an allegation he sexually assaulted one of the women with intent to rape at Bute House in December 2013.
That does not say anything about him being a predator it in fact was consensual, and who it was is very interesting , but as I said you will continue to lie about it either from ignorance or pure malice.
Even if it was consensual doesn't mean it wasn't predatory. That is actually pretty basic in legal and safeguarding terms.
You have been wrong on every point. And I have proved you wrong on every point. You can't even find any evidence to support your claims, for the simple reason you were wrong. But there, it makes little difference and if you're happier blustering, go for it.
You are talking psh, you have proved nothing , just bandied about your imaginary predator crap. Even mor eridiculous to try and pretend a consensual relationship is predatory, you obviously have not had many if in fact any releationships to come out with that crap. Go get some experience of real life.
You missed a trick there. You should have talked about flesh wounds.
Just on the broader politics of Rishi's "deal". 99% of voters won't care about the details of all this. But quite a few will be looking at the latest round of wrangling, and be saying to themselves "hang on, I thought the Tories told us they'd already got Brexit done".
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
Looking like a 2 horse race, isn't it, and could be close. Wish you had a slightly stronger candidate from the progressive/left side of the party to vote for. Ah well.
Forbes now 11/10 with Hills. 4/1 only a few day ago. She is the one out of the three who looks like a winner.
As in the one with the most potential 'x factor' and electoral appeal? - I agree based on what I've seen (although that's not a great deal). Interesting if she does get the gig. I view the SNP as progressive left of centre (more so than Labour in many ways tbh) but when I analyse why, it's because of Sturgeon. If she's replaced by a leader with conservative values it's bound to change the party. Seems to create more space for SLAB, but whether this is good for them depends on what they do in the space. Hopefully it'll be a funky groove not dad dancing.
Category error. Slab are a mildly right wing party. Especially now with SKS yanking the chain. SNP would be squeezing them against the Tories and what's left of the LDs. The results are likely to be messy, especially with the Greens attacking from the left if Slab try to squeeze past the SNP.
You need to remember that Slab is 1st, 2nd and 3rd a Unionist party, and th social democracy bit comes in at about No. 5 after Adhering to Brexit.
In which case if the SNP also move right it'll get pretty crowded over there. That's a risk for them if Sindy loses heat as a voting driver. Yet Forbes is perhaps the most capable and effective candidate for leader. It's an interesting juncture we're at.
You know full well that a win for Forbes would be a result for Labour at the next GE. The cynic in me wonders whether this is why you are boosting her.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
The Tories hoover up a lot of elderly votes in care homes etc via postal voting. Incidentally, postal voting is where the actual fraud happens. I'm not sure if these new rules help the Tories or not, but they threaten to create chaos and quite probably violence on election day, and further undermine faith in democracy. Well done, Tories, another spectacular fuck up.
That's funny because when the Right used to complain about postal voting and the potential (?) fraud happening within certain communities and their 'community leaders', it was told that was just a wildly exaggerated claim and of no substance. Good to see the Left now admitting postal votes do have issues with fraud.
Nobody has ever said fraud doesn't happen. What we've said is that it is such a small problem that does not in anyway justify the actions the Tories have taken.
Many moons ago, electoral fraud was being debated on PB. A number of people took the view that it “doesn’t happen here”
At that moment, news came in of the police catching a couple of councillors red handed, in Birmingham, running an fraudulent vote factory (literally - a lockup garage with printing, couple of people doing the work) with enough votes to swing the council election in that ward.
The tune changed to “it doesn’t happen here, for national elections”. Without missing a beat.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
The Tories hoover up a lot of elderly votes in care homes etc via postal voting. Incidentally, postal voting is where the actual fraud happens. I'm not sure if these new rules help the Tories or not, but they threaten to create chaos and quite probably violence on election day, and further undermine faith in democracy. Well done, Tories, another spectacular fuck up.
That's funny because when the Right used to complain about postal voting and the potential (?) fraud happening within certain communities and their 'community leaders', it was told that was just a wildly exaggerated claim and of no substance. Good to see the Left now admitting postal votes do have issues with fraud.
Nobody has ever said fraud doesn't happen. What we've said is that it is such a small problem that does not in anyway justify the actions the Tories have taken.
Many moons ago, electoral fraud was being debated on PB. A number of people took the view that it “doesn’t happen here”
At that moment, news came in of the police catching a couple of councillors red handed, in Birmingham, running an fraudulent vote factory (literally - a lockup garage with printing, couple of people doing the work) with enough votes to swing the council election in that ward.
The tune changed to “it doesn’t happen here, for national elections”. Without missing a beat.
I wasn't saying that, as I said above. It's not a big enough issue for the actions to have been taken, to be justified.
Let's be honest, if Labour had implemented this you would oppose it.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
The Tories hoover up a lot of elderly votes in care homes etc via postal voting. Incidentally, postal voting is where the actual fraud happens. I'm not sure if these new rules help the Tories or not, but they threaten to create chaos and quite probably violence on election day, and further undermine faith in democracy. Well done, Tories, another spectacular fuck up.
That's funny because when the Right used to complain about postal voting and the potential (?) fraud happening within certain communities and their 'community leaders', it was told that was just a wildly exaggerated claim and of no substance. Good to see the Left now admitting postal votes do have issues with fraud.
Voting fraud is a tiny issue in the grand scheme of things electoral and of that tiny issue most of it is postal. So let's crack down on in-person! This is what rankles. Leave it be. Do just postal. Do both. All of these are defensible. They're doing the one thing that isn't.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
That Kirsty Wark BBC documentary on the trial was really something else.
The Judicial system being used to target opponents.. The Glasgow Rangers wrongful prosecution being the worst example.
The Glasgow Rangers prosecution was an open an shut case. Of the government being upset with someone and wanting to do him over for something,
Has anyone explained why they launched that bizarre vendetta?
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
Ownership of a car is one of the most reliable indicators of voting Conservative out there. Car owners typically have driving licenses.
The young and the poor are the least like to have cars, and are also the least likely to vote Conservative.
There was polling evidence of this produced last year.
Personally, I am unbelievably cynical of this move in isolation. If it was part of a package to improve election security that involved tightening up postal voting, or if one of the various measures to allow those at the polls who didn't bring ID to post provisional votes (or equivalent) was implemented, then I'd feel differently. But the current measures feel awfully partisan.
You know full well that a win for Forbes would be a result for Labour at the next GE. The cynic in me wonders whether this is why you are boosting her.
Would it? I am hesitant to say she would definitely give Labour a big boost. I am confident she might well split their vote in two but I am not sure that won't happen anyway? She is a good communicator for sure.
I don't know, certainly not enough for me to back her in the attempt to boost Labour. Which I don't want to do anyway, Labour need good opposition.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
Looking like a 2 horse race, isn't it, and could be close. Wish you had a slightly stronger candidate from the progressive/left side of the party to vote for. Ah well.
Forbes now 11/10 with Hills. 4/1 only a few day ago. She is the one out of the three who looks like a winner.
As in the one with the most potential 'x factor' and electoral appeal? - I agree based on what I've seen (although that's not a great deal). Interesting if she does get the gig. I view the SNP as progressive left of centre (more so than Labour in many ways tbh) but when I analyse why, it's because of Sturgeon. If she's replaced by a leader with conservative values it's bound to change the party. Seems to create more space for SLAB, but whether this is good for them depends on what they do in the space. Hopefully it'll be a funky groove not dad dancing.
Labour are real shit , London sockpuppets with a lickspittle regional office pretendy leader, yet another Labour millionaire on the make.
If Forbes replaces Sturgeon you might get an SNP more to your taste, I think?
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
Ownership of a car is one of the most reliable indicators of voting Conservative out there. Car owners typically have driving licenses.
The young and the poor are the least like to have cars, and are also the least likely to vote Conservative.
There was polling evidence of this produced last year.
Personally, I am unbelievably cynical of this move in isolation. If it was part of a package to improve election security that involved tightening up postal voting, or if one of the various measures to allow those at the polls who didn't bring ID to post provisional votes (or equivalent) was implemented, then I'd feel differently. But the current measures feel awfully partisan.
As I said, if this was Labour introducing this, it would be opposed by the same people here supporting it.
It's clearly partisan and a bad idea. If Labour was introducing it I would be strongly opposed. As it happens, the poll last week said it would hurt the Tories more than Labour.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
The Tories hoover up a lot of elderly votes in care homes etc via postal voting. Incidentally, postal voting is where the actual fraud happens. I'm not sure if these new rules help the Tories or not, but they threaten to create chaos and quite probably violence on election day, and further undermine faith in democracy. Well done, Tories, another spectacular fuck up.
That's funny because when the Right used to complain about postal voting and the potential (?) fraud happening within certain communities and their 'community leaders', it was told that was just a wildly exaggerated claim and of no substance. Good to see the Left now admitting postal votes do have issues with fraud.
Nobody has ever said fraud doesn't happen. What we've said is that it is such a small problem that does not in anyway justify the actions the Tories have taken.
Many moons ago, electoral fraud was being debated on PB. A number of people took the view that it “doesn’t happen here”
At that moment, news came in of the police catching a couple of councillors red handed, in Birmingham, running an fraudulent vote factory (literally - a lockup garage with printing, couple of people doing the work) with enough votes to swing the council election in that ward.
The tune changed to “it doesn’t happen here, for national elections”. Without missing a beat.
I wasn't saying that, as I said above. It's not a big enough issue for the actions to have been taken, to be justified.
Let's be honest, if Labour had implemented this you would oppose it.
I’ve actually argued for improving U.K. election security to generally accepted standards for decades.
When people say that it isn’t a big problem, I recall the effort the police took to *not* record my flatmate having his vote stolen as a crime.
If you put that much effort into not seeing a problem….
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
Ownership of a car is one of the most reliable indicators of voting Conservative out there. Car owners typically have driving licenses.
The young and the poor are the least like to have cars, and are also the least likely to vote Conservative.
There was polling evidence of this produced last year.
Personally, I am unbelievably cynical of this move in isolation. If it was part of a package to improve election security that involved tightening up postal voting, or if one of the various measures to allow those at the polls who didn't bring ID to post provisional votes (or equivalent) was implemented, then I'd feel differently. But the current measures feel awfully partisan.
As I said, if this was Labour introducing this, it would be opposed by the same people here supporting it.
It's clearly partisan and a bad idea. If Labour was introducing it I would be strongly opposed. As it happens, the poll last week said it would hurt the Tories more than Labour.
Karma's a bitch.
For myself, I suspect it is a stealthy way to introduce compulsory ID cards. Which, without the criteria I've outlined before being implemented, I am strongly opposed to.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
The Tories hoover up a lot of elderly votes in care homes etc via postal voting. Incidentally, postal voting is where the actual fraud happens. I'm not sure if these new rules help the Tories or not, but they threaten to create chaos and quite probably violence on election day, and further undermine faith in democracy. Well done, Tories, another spectacular fuck up.
That's funny because when the Right used to complain about postal voting and the potential (?) fraud happening within certain communities and their 'community leaders', it was told that was just a wildly exaggerated claim and of no substance. Good to see the Left now admitting postal votes do have issues with fraud.
Nobody has ever said fraud doesn't happen. What we've said is that it is such a small problem that does not in anyway justify the actions the Tories have taken.
Many moons ago, electoral fraud was being debated on PB. A number of people took the view that it “doesn’t happen here”
At that moment, news came in of the police catching a couple of councillors red handed, in Birmingham, running an fraudulent vote factory (literally - a lockup garage with printing, couple of people doing the work) with enough votes to swing the council election in that ward.
The tune changed to “it doesn’t happen here, for national elections”. Without missing a beat.
I wasn't saying that, as I said above. It's not a big enough issue for the actions to have been taken, to be justified.
Let's be honest, if Labour had implemented this you would oppose it.
I’ve actually argued for improving U.K. election security to generally accepted standards for decades.
When people say that it isn’t a big problem, I recall the effort the police took to *not* record my flatmate having his vote stolen as a crime.
If you put that much effort into not seeing a problem….
There are much better things they could do than this. As I said, if this was Labour you would oppose it.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
Ownership of a car is one of the most reliable indicators of voting Conservative out there. Car owners typically have driving licenses.
The young and the poor are the least like to have cars, and are also the least likely to vote Conservative.
There was polling evidence of this produced last year.
Personally, I am unbelievably cynical of this move in isolation. If it was part of a package to improve election security that involved tightening up postal voting, or if one of the various measures to allow those at the polls who didn't bring ID to post provisional votes (or equivalent) was implemented, then I'd feel differently. But the current measures feel awfully partisan.
As I said, if this was Labour introducing this, it would be opposed by the same people here supporting it.
It's clearly partisan and a bad idea. If Labour was introducing it I would be strongly opposed. As it happens, the poll last week said it would hurt the Tories more than Labour.
Karma's a bitch.
For myself, I suspect it is a stealthy way to introduce compulsory ID cards. Which, without the criteria I've outlined before being implemented, I am strongly opposed to.
If they were bringing it together with a massive push into getting ID via a public information campaign I could accept it on those grounds. But they haven't, so I won't.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
The Tories hoover up a lot of elderly votes in care homes etc via postal voting. Incidentally, postal voting is where the actual fraud happens. I'm not sure if these new rules help the Tories or not, but they threaten to create chaos and quite probably violence on election day, and further undermine faith in democracy. Well done, Tories, another spectacular fuck up.
That's funny because when the Right used to complain about postal voting and the potential (?) fraud happening within certain communities and their 'community leaders', it was told that was just a wildly exaggerated claim and of no substance. Good to see the Left now admitting postal votes do have issues with fraud.
Nobody has ever said fraud doesn't happen. What we've said is that it is such a small problem that does not in anyway justify the actions the Tories have taken.
Many moons ago, electoral fraud was being debated on PB. A number of people took the view that it “doesn’t happen here”
At that moment, news came in of the police catching a couple of councillors red handed, in Birmingham, running an fraudulent vote factory (literally - a lockup garage with printing, couple of people doing the work) with enough votes to swing the council election in that ward.
The tune changed to “it doesn’t happen here, for national elections”. Without missing a beat.
I wasn't saying that, as I said above. It's not a big enough issue for the actions to have been taken, to be justified.
Let's be honest, if Labour had implemented this you would oppose it.
I’ve actually argued for improving U.K. election security to generally accepted standards for decades.
When people say that it isn’t a big problem, I recall the effort the police took to *not* record my flatmate having his vote stolen as a crime.
If you put that much effort into not seeing a problem….
There are much better things they could do than this. As I said, if this was Labour you would oppose it.
IIRC, It was going to be introduced at the same time as the equivalent Northern Ireland changes, but it got dropped. Which would have put it under New Labour.
Prime Minister @RishiSunak and I agreed to continue working in person towards shared, practical solutions under the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland.
I will therefore meet with the Prime Minister tomorrow in the UK.
I will be interested to see what comes out but fair play to Sunak. I just feel somehow that we will be back here shortly saying this was a bad deal and the Remainers sabotaged the Government.
I bet voters are bemused, they thought Brexit was already done.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
The Tories hoover up a lot of elderly votes in care homes etc via postal voting. Incidentally, postal voting is where the actual fraud happens. I'm not sure if these new rules help the Tories or not, but they threaten to create chaos and quite probably violence on election day, and further undermine faith in democracy. Well done, Tories, another spectacular fuck up.
That's funny because when the Right used to complain about postal voting and the potential (?) fraud happening within certain communities and their 'community leaders', it was told that was just a wildly exaggerated claim and of no substance. Good to see the Left now admitting postal votes do have issues with fraud.
Nobody has ever said fraud doesn't happen. What we've said is that it is such a small problem that does not in anyway justify the actions the Tories have taken.
Many moons ago, electoral fraud was being debated on PB. A number of people took the view that it “doesn’t happen here”
At that moment, news came in of the police catching a couple of councillors red handed, in Birmingham, running an fraudulent vote factory (literally - a lockup garage with printing, couple of people doing the work) with enough votes to swing the council election in that ward.
The tune changed to “it doesn’t happen here, for national elections”. Without missing a beat.
I wasn't saying that, as I said above. It's not a big enough issue for the actions to have been taken, to be justified.
Let's be honest, if Labour had implemented this you would oppose it.
I’ve actually argued for improving U.K. election security to generally accepted standards for decades.
When people say that it isn’t a big problem, I recall the effort the police took to *not* record my flatmate having his vote stolen as a crime.
If you put that much effort into not seeing a problem….
There are much better things they could do than this. As I said, if this was Labour you would oppose it.
IIRC, It was going to be introduced at the same time as the equivalent Northern Ireland changes, but it got dropped. Which would have put it under New Labour.
You know full well that a win for Forbes would be a result for Labour at the next GE. The cynic in me wonders whether this is why you are boosting her.
Would it? I am hesitant to say she would definitely give Labour a big boost. I am confident she might well split their vote in two but I am not sure that won't happen anyway? She is a good communicator for sure.
I don't know, certainly not enough for me to back her in the attempt to boost Labour. Which I don't want to do anyway, Labour need good opposition.
Believe me that Tories are preying for Yousaf.
Forbes will take some Conservative votes. And - more importantly - some SNP voters with switch to Labour (and the Greens).
You know full well that a win for Forbes would be a result for Labour at the next GE. The cynic in me wonders whether this is why you are boosting her.
Would it? I am hesitant to say she would definitely give Labour a big boost. I am confident she might well split their vote in two but I am not sure that won't happen anyway? She is a good communicator for sure.
I don't know, certainly not enough for me to back her in the attempt to boost Labour. Which I don't want to do anyway, Labour need good opposition.
Believe me that Tories are preying for Yousaf.
Forbes will take some Conservative votes. And - more importantly - some SNP voters with switch to Labour (and the Greens).
Bu then don't you want Forbes? Best chance of preventing a big Labour win?
Interesting things happening in the North Atlantic at the moment which could have outsized implications for inflation, tomato/turnip stocks and the war. After a sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) in the Arctic last week we’re seeing a new weather regime from the end of next week but it could either be very cold for a long time, or pretty warm. The models keep flipping.
Here’s a model showing a warmer outlook (the European model from this morning)
And here’s a cold one (the US model this afternoon)
Gas storage levels in Europe were at 71% at the start of this month (they’ll be lower now) and the rundown goes on typically until end of March before they start refilling for next winter. It isn’t going to be easy even with a mild spring. If March is very cold then we’ll start at a lower level. If the cold plunge happens expect to see tightening and price rises. Bad for inflation, good for Russia’s solvency. And the cold plunge is also bad for the poly tunnels of Southern Europe.
Prime Minister @RishiSunak and I agreed to continue working in person towards shared, practical solutions under the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland.
I will therefore meet with the Prime Minister tomorrow in the UK.
I will be interested to see what comes out but fair play to Sunak. I just feel somehow that we will be back here shortly saying this was a bad deal and the Remainers sabotaged the Government.
I bet voters are bemused, they thought Brexit was already done.
I'm certainly happy to give Sunak credit for standing up to the ERG/DUP if that is what he has done. Let's see tomorrow shall we.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
That Kirsty Wark BBC documentary on the trial was really something else.
The Judicial system being used to target opponents.. The Glasgow Rangers wrongful prosecution being the worst example.
For sure a real vipers nest and lots of collusion at the top, how they got away with it is unbelievable.
You know full well that a win for Forbes would be a result for Labour at the next GE. The cynic in me wonders whether this is why you are boosting her.
Would it? I am hesitant to say she would definitely give Labour a big boost. I am confident she might well split their vote in two but I am not sure that won't happen anyway? She is a good communicator for sure.
I don't know, certainly not enough for me to back her in the attempt to boost Labour. Which I don't want to do anyway, Labour need good opposition.
Believe me that Tories are preying for Yousaf.
Forbes will take some Conservative votes. And - more importantly - some SNP voters with switch to Labour (and the Greens).
As long as it is not Useless, either of the other two will dump the weirdo bent greens, get the money grubbers back where they belong.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
Ownership of a car is one of the most reliable indicators of voting Conservative out there.
I wonder exactly what you mean by that, considering that a quick search online brings up a figure of 32.9m cars registered in the UK and only 14m Tory voters at the last election.
I wouldn't really describe an indicator as reliable if it had a less than even chance of giving the right answer.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
The Tories hoover up a lot of elderly votes in care homes etc via postal voting. Incidentally, postal voting is where the actual fraud happens. I'm not sure if these new rules help the Tories or not, but they threaten to create chaos and quite probably violence on election day, and further undermine faith in democracy. Well done, Tories, another spectacular fuck up.
That's funny because when the Right used to complain about postal voting and the potential (?) fraud happening within certain communities and their 'community leaders', it was told that was just a wildly exaggerated claim and of no substance. Good to see the Left now admitting postal votes do have issues with fraud.
The Tories have had 12 years to fix postal voting, but they haven't because more of their voters vote by post. I think there are shenanigans on all sides around postal voting TBH. Personation, on the other hand, is an almost non existent problem. It's going to be chaos on general election day. A lot of very angry people will feel utterly disenfranchised.
You know full well that a win for Forbes would be a result for Labour at the next GE. The cynic in me wonders whether this is why you are boosting her.
Would it? I am hesitant to say she would definitely give Labour a big boost. I am confident she might well split their vote in two but I am not sure that won't happen anyway? She is a good communicator for sure.
I don't know, certainly not enough for me to back her in the attempt to boost Labour. Which I don't want to do anyway, Labour need good opposition.
Believe me that Tories are preying for Yousaf.
Forbes will take some Conservative votes. And - more importantly - some SNP voters with switch to Labour (and the Greens).
Bu then don't you want Forbes? Best chance of preventing a big Labour win?
Do you mean from a betting perspective? On that basis I want anyone but Yousaf because I've laid him.
Otherwise what I want is beside the point. As it happens I'm conflicted. In a way I want Yousaf to win because that will keep SNP strongish and limit Labour gains. On the other hand he supports the GRR stuff and restricting freedoms (Covid/free speech). So in this respect I dislike him (though not as much Sturgeon) so I want Forbes (or Regan). Conflicted.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
Looking like a 2 horse race, isn't it, and could be close. Wish you had a slightly stronger candidate from the progressive/left side of the party to vote for. Ah well.
Forbes now 11/10 with Hills. 4/1 only a few day ago. She is the one out of the three who looks like a winner.
As in the one with the most potential 'x factor' and electoral appeal? - I agree based on what I've seen (although that's not a great deal). Interesting if she does get the gig. I view the SNP as progressive left of centre (more so than Labour in many ways tbh) but when I analyse why, it's because of Sturgeon. If she's replaced by a leader with conservative values it's bound to change the party. Seems to create more space for SLAB, but whether this is good for them depends on what they do in the space. Hopefully it'll be a funky groove not dad dancing.
Labour are real shit , London sockpuppets with a lickspittle regional office pretendy leader, yet another Labour millionaire on the make.
If Forbes replaces Sturgeon you might get an SNP more to your taste, I think?
Yes either of the women candidates will be a vast improvement.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
How would she square resigning over the GRA 'negatively affecting the dignity and safety of women and girls' with letting a self-confessed sexual predator into the SNP? She must have been misquoted, surely?
LOL the bigoted liars are out yet again, jealous that Alex could charm women , dear dear.
If he'd charmed them there wouldn't have been a problem.
There was no problem , it was a concerted lie as was proven in court, done by Sturgeon and close allies due to them being blasted in the courts for original stitch up attempt. All were proven to be liars and the main one to not even have been where they claimed they were.
As I recall, his defence was in most cases that he'd done what he was accused of but the women concerned had consented.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
You don't recall very well, they were proven to be false entirely but he did admit to a previous liason with the one who was not even present when she claimed a crime took place. A jury of nearly all women found each and every claim was false and lies. That will not stop you continuing to lie about it I suspect. Coutesy of the Guardian.................. The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
That Kirsty Wark BBC documentary on the trial was really something else.
The Judicial system being used to target opponents.. The Glasgow Rangers wrongful prosecution being the worst example.
The Glasgow Rangers prosecution was an open an shut case. Of the government being upset with someone and wanting to do him over for something,
Has anyone explained why they launched that bizarre vendetta?
Same as Salmond , trying to cover up the disaster of the first stitch, raging that he had bettered them.
How reliable is the assumption that it will be the tories who benefit from voter ID rules? It seems to me that the people most likely to not pick up on the change in the rules, ie the old, senile etc are also most likely to vote conservative. I think that Labours base is increasingly the educated middle class who will not find this too difficult to follow.
Ownership of a car is one of the most reliable indicators of voting Conservative out there.
I wonder exactly what you mean by that, considering that a quick search online brings up a figure of 32.9m cars registered in the UK and only 14m Tory voters at the last election.
I wouldn't really describe an indicator as reliable if it had a less than even chance of giving the right answer.
Getting a driving license is a right of passage things for many, many teenagers.
I’ve not met a 17 year old who would vote conservative in a fair number of years.
Not quite what she said needless to say but she should have shut that down at the outset.
Looking like a 2 horse race, isn't it, and could be close. Wish you had a slightly stronger candidate from the progressive/left side of the party to vote for. Ah well.
Forbes now 11/10 with Hills. 4/1 only a few day ago. She is the one out of the three who looks like a winner.
As in the one with the most potential 'x factor' and electoral appeal? - I agree based on what I've seen (although that's not a great deal). Interesting if she does get the gig. I view the SNP as progressive left of centre (more so than Labour in many ways tbh) but when I analyse why, it's because of Sturgeon. If she's replaced by a leader with conservative values it's bound to change the party. Seems to create more space for SLAB, but whether this is good for them depends on what they do in the space. Hopefully it'll be a funky groove not dad dancing.
Category error. Slab are a mildly right wing party. Especially now with SKS yanking the chain. SNP would be squeezing them against the Tories and what's left of the LDs. The results are likely to be messy, especially with the Greens attacking from the left if Slab try to squeeze past the SNP.
You need to remember that Slab is 1st, 2nd and 3rd a Unionist party, and th social democracy bit comes in at about No. 5 after Adhering to Brexit.
In which case if the SNP also move right it'll get pretty crowded over there. That's a risk for them if Sindy loses heat as a voting driver. Yet Forbes is perhaps the most capable and effective candidate for leader. It's an interesting juncture we're at.
You know full well that a win for Forbes would be a result for Labour at the next GE. The cynic in me wonders whether this is why you are boosting her.
I suspect so - but who knows?- and I do want to see a Labour win at GE24, but I'm not that fussed who the SNP replace Sturgeon with. No financial interest either - I did a small bet on Yousaf when Forbes came out with her religious stuff and closed it out when he went 1.6. The main thing I feel is sorry that Sturgeon has gone. I liked and rated her.
Comments
It not, they hare now and it doesn't like my hindwitz -
Translation - has anyone ever used an iPad pencil for PB or vanilla?
If not, they have now and it doesn't like my handwriting.
You need to remember that Slab is 1st, 2nd and 3rd a Unionist party, and th social democracy bit comes in at about No. 5 after Adhering to Brexit.
Farrell should retire.
Which may, of course, be true, given it's one person's word against another, but didn't exactly let him off the non-criminal charge of being a sexual predator.
One sport where the traditional lines are changing is horse racing.
At the Saudi Cup in Riyadh yesterday, Japan had the first, third, fourth and fifth in the £8.4 million feature. The American COUNTRY GRAMMER split the Japanese entries though it was PANTHALASSA who made every yard from the one stall.
The Japanese also won two of the big turf races leaving just one for the British and the dirt sprint for the Americans.
(Attempts at such: He always makes the hospital pass, he never makes a bold call, he doesn't help those around him... I think all these are true and yet I still don't understand why I don't like him.)
Coutesy of the Guardian..................
The nine women involved in the charges were all current or former Scottish government officials, or SNP politicians. Nicola Sturgeon’s government has already lost a judicial review started by Salmond into its handling of an internal review of two misconduct complaints against him in 2018.
Martin Johnson is particularly bad for these inane remarks. “Scoring is good”. “Whoever gets a try has an advantage”. Etc
However, this from the Herald is more pertinent:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18291966.alex-salmond-lodges-special-defences-consent-alibi/
A jury of nine women and six men heard the former First Minister’s defence against one charge of indecent assault and two of sexual assault was that he reasonably believed the women "to be consenting throughout".
The three charges involve alleged incidents with three different women at his official Bute House residence in Edinburgh between October 2010 and December 2013. Mr Salmond has also lodged a special defence of consent against an allegation he sexually assaulted one of the women with intent to rape at Bute House in December 2013.
Different Labour, also, from London, which is what makes it so interesting. In theory anyway, they are their own party but legally it's all one and the budget is controlled by London, as Ms Dugdale found when she tried to spend lots on a court case. SKS's changing statements on indyrefs and on Brexit are also problems, as is UK Labour's support for the Trident subs and their replacement.
The Judicial system being used to target opponents.. The Glasgow Rangers wrongful prosecution being the worst example.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/26/chatgpt-generated-crochet-pattern-results
You can get 34/1 against Scotland winning the Rugby World Cup
Possibly generous. Finn Russell is world class. The whole team has a real verve
It would be funny if the Tories tried to rig the rules to favour themselves and ended up benefitting their opponents. God knows they are incompetent enough.
You have been wrong on every point. And I have proved you wrong on every point. You can't even find any evidence to support your claims, for the simple reason you were wrong. But there, it makes little difference and if you're happier blustering, go for it.
We've tried low corporation tax and society and the country is in the pits, time for a change.
Most rapists say that actually, their victims were consenting.
Who is telling the truth? I have no idea. The jury decided it was Salmond and they were in a better position than I to decide, which is why I didn't call him a rapist.
But put it this way, whether they consented or not he came across as a sleazebag and I would be astonished if he were ever allowed back into the SNP.
The matter's further complicated by the the strong suggestion due process was interfered with by the government to try and get him convicted, which if it was their intention backfired spectacularly.
⏤ Lowest total in the history of men's T20s
⏤ Spain win with 118 balls spare
https://twitter.com/thecricketermag/status/1629853739791048717?s=46&t=jkvRY6JsvE1I-2t12-QBqQ
Then, first ball, their bowler bowled a no-ball so the game was lost without a single run scored off the bat.
The government has not confirmed if MPs would get a vote on any deal, but said they would be able to "express" their view.
Sounds like they are going to avoid a vote and thereby the political optics around relying on Labour?
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1629777448811241473
Dan Hodges spoke some sense, staggering
At that moment, news came in of the police catching a couple of councillors red handed, in Birmingham, running an fraudulent vote factory (literally - a lockup garage with printing, couple of people doing the work) with enough votes to swing the council election in that ward.
The tune changed to “it doesn’t happen here, for national elections”. Without missing a beat.
Let's be honest, if Labour had implemented this you would oppose it.
Should be ahead
Has anyone explained why they launched that bizarre vendetta?
The young and the poor are the least like to have cars, and are also the least likely to vote Conservative.
There was polling evidence of this produced last year.
Personally, I am unbelievably cynical of this move in isolation. If it was part of a package to improve election security that involved tightening up postal voting, or if one of the various measures to allow those at the polls who didn't bring ID to post provisional votes (or equivalent) was implemented, then I'd feel differently. But the current measures feel awfully partisan.
I don't know, certainly not enough for me to back her in the attempt to boost Labour. Which I don't want to do anyway, Labour need good opposition.
It's clearly partisan and a bad idea. If Labour was introducing it I would be strongly opposed. As it happens, the poll last week said it would hurt the Tories more than Labour.
When people say that it isn’t a big problem, I recall the effort the police took to *not* record my flatmate having his vote stolen as a crime.
If you put that much effort into not seeing a problem….
For myself, I suspect it is a stealthy way to introduce compulsory ID cards. Which, without the criteria I've outlined before being implemented, I am strongly opposed to.
Moral victory for Scotland
I will therefore meet with the Prime Minister tomorrow in the UK.
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1629885734172622851
I will be interested to see what comes out but fair play to Sunak. I just feel somehow that we will be back here shortly saying this was a bad deal and the Remainers sabotaged the Government.
I bet voters are bemused, they thought Brexit was already done.
I hope she will be back on the front bench soon.
Forbes will take some Conservative votes. And - more importantly - some SNP voters with switch to Labour (and the Greens).
Here’s a model showing a warmer outlook (the European model from this morning)
And here’s a cold one (the US model this afternoon)
Gas storage levels in Europe were at 71% at the start of this month (they’ll be lower now) and the rundown goes on typically until end of March before they start refilling for next winter. It isn’t going to be easy even with a mild spring. If March is very cold then we’ll start at a lower level. If the cold plunge happens expect to see tightening and price rises. Bad for inflation, good for Russia’s solvency. And the cold plunge is also bad for the poly tunnels of Southern Europe.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/healthy-gas-storage-warms-europe-not-enough-2023-02-23/
I quite fancy doing a header on weather and politics because there’s a lot of it around currently. How does one go about doing that?
I wouldn't really describe an indicator as reliable if it had a less than even chance of giving the right answer.
Otherwise what I want is beside the point. As it happens I'm conflicted. In a way I want Yousaf to win because that will keep SNP strongish and limit Labour gains. On the other hand he supports the GRR stuff and restricting freedoms (Covid/free speech). So in this respect I dislike him (though not as much Sturgeon) so I want Forbes (or Regan). Conflicted.
I’ve not met a 17 year old who would vote conservative in a fair number of years.
At least 59 migrants dead, including 12 children, after boat sinks off southern coast of Italy
For more on this and other news visit trib.al/Rx0iR33
Human beings, the Tories would like to pretend they aren't.