Categories
History lessons – politicalbetting.com
History lessons – politicalbetting.com
Assuming the election is due in May, we're less than 120 days out. Labour are doing more than what's needed to win big. But there are nonetheless some weak spots. https://t.co/SUevXTPAMT pic.twitter.com/weQQtwP8eF
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/04/business/bill-ackman-wife-plagiarism/index.html
And here is the reply
"For each of the four paragraphs in question, I properly credited the original source's author(s) with references at the end of each of the subject paragraphs, and in the detailed bibliography end pages of the dissertation. "
https://x.com/NeriOxman/status/1742993073078947843?s=20
Not only is it not in the same ball park as Gay, she isn't the head or trying to be the head of a prestigious institution. Her only connection to any of this is she is the wife of a large scale donor, who was involved in the campaign to expose Gay's wrong doings.
It is really interesting how much certain people are running defence for Gay and that it is a right wing hit job...when Penn president had to resign for less, Stanford president went for similar, even her predecessor went pretty trivial stuff.
[...]
Well, you know and I know, but that way Slab got the headlines they wanted along the lines of '"SNP fraudulently misquoting", say Slab'.
https://x.com/rkylesmith/status/1742928662742331450
It's hard to believe that Gay thought writing this would help: "...at a congressional hearing last month, I fell into a well-laid trap. I neglected to clearly articulate that calls for the genocide of Jewish people are abhorrent and unacceptable..."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/opinion/claudine-gay-harvard-president.html
They frankly look ridiculously trying to redefine plagiarism, claim that the limited academic record wasn't dodgy as hell and way below what is required historically for senior academic positions....and despite resigning, hasn't actually been fired, just reassigned and still on nearly $1 million a year.
My main observation is why has he got a large box of eggs from Lidl in front of him?
Or is it the wooden block he stands on for Christmas card photos with the wife?
Or is it a random object he has purchased on e bay from the EDL cast offs seller?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmer-returns-to-old-favourites-in-new-years-speech/
It's remarkable how engrained swingback, certainly to the Tories, is within British electoral psychology. Nobody in their right mind expects anything other than a tightening of the lead between now and the election. With good reason to be fair, given history.
I wonder if there's the same built-in reflex in poll watchers in other countries. I know the stats seem to bear out a similar pattern with US presidential elections, but it's harder to compare like for like because they don't actually have a shadow president in mid-term. Likewise France.
Didn't realise he was a naturalised Brit.
As they also show while 50%+ of voters had positive views of Blair and Cameron pre 1997 and 2010, the last Leaders of the Opposition to win a general election and take their party into power, barely more than a third of voters have a positive view of Starmer.
If the Tories elect a half decent Leader of the Opposition and taxes rise, inflation goes back up, strikes increase and the economy is poor under a PM Starmer then the poll swingback to the Conservatives could be swift
Edit - Its called MessageSpace.
What I do believe in is that the post-GFC time is much more volatile - Clegg 2010, May/Corbyn 2017, being the clearest examples - but I don't believe in a specific direction.
As Corbyn was so toxic
SKS will easily beat the 12,877,918 votes cast for him in 2017 and the 40.0% vote share.
Mainly because SKS isn't at all toxic to Labour voters who naturally love privatising more of the NHS, leaders ripping up every pledge they ever make (usually within weeks) and their leader being an unequivocal supporter of genocide.
It was all about the alignment of the opposing parties.
In which case Sunak's only equivalent hope/cope is to hoover up RefUK votes.
DES MOINES — Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley held back-to-back CNN town halls in Iowa on Thursday as they fight to emerge as the primary GOP presidential challenger to polling leader Donald Trump. With the Iowa caucuses set to kick off the Republican nominating process on Jan. 15, the town halls are among the candidates’ final chances to make an impression and upend a race that has been remarkably stagnant — with the former president consistently ahead of the pack.
DeSantis, the governor of Florida, and Haley, a former U.N. ambassador, are now fighting for second place in Iowa and are set to debate next Wednesday. Trump has skipped debates throughout the primary, denying his lower-polling rivals the chance to attack him face-to-face.
Here are the biggest takeaways:
1. Haley still cleaning up Civil War comments
Haley was doing damage control Thursday for remarks she made at a New Hampshire event a week ago, when she omitted slavery as a cause of the Civil War and faced intense backlash. (She later said she should have acknowledged slavery’s central role.)
“If you grow up in South Carolina, literally in second and third grade, you learn about slavery,” Haley said at the CNN town hall Thursday. “You grow up and you have, you know, I had Black friends growing up. It is a very talked-about thing. We have a big history in South Carolina, when it comes to, you know, slavery, when it comes to all the things that happened with the Civil War, all of that.
“I was thinking past slavery, and talking about the lesson that we would learn going forward. I shouldn’t have done that,” she said.
She pointed to her childhood growing up in the only Indian family in a small, rural, racially divided town, and she said racism was discussed more than slavery. . . .
Haley continued on to elaborate on her “share of dealing with — with race issues” as governor, including the shooting of an unarmed Black man by a police officer and her role in bringing down the Confederate flag at the state Capitol following the murder of nine Black men and women at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston by a White man.
2. DeSantis and Haley mostly went after Trump
Yes, they took some jabs at each other. . . . But both DeSantis and Haley focused most of their attacks on Trump, the overwhelming polling leader — a departure from the overall dynamic of the race in Iowa, in which Trump’s rivals have largely been assailing each other in town halls and TV ads.
DeSantis’s strategy has always hinged on peeling away Trump voters, even as he defends him on many fronts. He took sharp aim at Trump’s record — saying the former president didn’t stop an “invasion” at the U.S.-Mexico border and hadn’t dismantled “the bureaucracy.” . . .
Haley, meanwhile, was asked how she planned to overtake Trump. She reiterated her usual criticism that “rightly or wrongly, chaos follows” him, and the moderator followed up: “Is it rightly or wrongly? Is he the one who causes that chaos or is he just the unwitting victim?”
“It’s both,” Haley replied. She said some of the charges against him are “political,” but she also called Trump his “own worst enemy” and criticized his praise for certain dictators. “I think it’s completely wrong,” she said, going on to note Trump’s warm words for China’s Xi Jinping and his feuding with Israel’s prime minister.
3. Groans over Haley saying N.H. will ‘correct’ Iowa
DeSantis had spent much of Thursday knocking Haley for her recent comments — at an event in New Hampshire — that Iowans start the GOP nominating process and then Granite State voters “correct it.” It was an allusion to the fact that New Hampshire, which votes shortly after Iowa, often backs a different presidential candidate. . . .
The audience groaned when the moderator for Haley’s segment, Erin Burnett, brought it up.
“Oh my God,” Haley said.
“I’m just looking around at people’s faces,” Burnett said a few beats later.
Haley argued it was a lighthearted comment. “You gotta have some fun, too,” she said. . . .
SSI - Certainly appears that Nikki Haley has contracted a serious case of dreaded "Foot-in-Mouth" disease.
4. DeSantis pressed on Jan. 6, same-sex marriage
DeSantis was pressed on some topics he doesn’t normally bring up.
With the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol approaching, one voter asked DeSantis for his “definition of patriotism” and if the Jan. 6 “insurrectionists” displayed it, as some of them claimed.
“No, of course not,” DeSantis said, adding “that was not a good day for the country.” But he also reiterated his frequent argument that Democrats and the media have overblown the events of that day, when a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol and briefly halted the certification of the 2020 election, seeking to overturn the former president’s loss.
Collins also brought up same-sex marriage, another thorny issue for Republicans. She noted that DeSantis has previously said marriage is between a man and a woman and asked if he still feels that way.
“That’s just what marriage is with the church,” DeSantis said, “and I respect the Supreme Court’s decision, so we’ve abided by that in Florida.” The Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015. DeSantis went on to warn against people who “try to wield power against our religious institutions” and said he would protect them.
5. School shooting hangs over evening
Both candidates were asked about gun violence in the wake of a deadly school shooting that unfolded Thursday in Iowa, with one voter asking DeSantis how he would address the issue “without taking away any gun rights.” Collins pressed DeSantis on whether he supports an effort to eliminate a three-day waiting period to buy rifles and shotguns in Florida. DeSantis said he supported “instant” checks on buyers.
“You don’t support the three-day waiting period?” Collins asked.
“I think it should be instant,” DeSantis reiterated.
Haley focused on mental health as a driver of such shootings.
“Just to be clear on gun restrictions themselves — do you favor any additional gun restrictions or not?” she was asked.
“We could go and take away a certain kind of gun today, and that would make you feel better today,” Haley said, “but a week from now, there’d be another shooting.”
SSI - Re: #5 just same old shameless garbage the GOP's been spouting for a generation plus.
Remember the system was skewed against the Tories. Labour had. 3% lead in 2005 which gave them a majority of 66. In 2010 the Tories had a 7% lead and finished just short of a majority.
1) Did Davey know?
2) Was Davey the only minister responsible?
We know the answer to 2 is no. I have seen a couple of things on TwiX suggesting the answer to 1 is no.. Ignorance is no excuse, but in the (relatively) early days of a generational systemic scandal it seems a tad unfair to finger an individual and place systemic cultural blame on them and only them.
Here's the thing. Now that the whole thing is out in the open, Tory ministers are sandbagging excusing and delaying. So no excuses on point 1 for them. The notion that we should go down on Davey - and thus keep Tories in their seats - seems rather twisted...
This all looks like rather bizarre displacement from my vantage point.
The Greens who will at least double their number of MPs by gaining Bristol Central and hopefully a couple of others
Hopefully a few more Independents will also gain sufficient votes to deny some of the prominent Genocide lovers like Streeting the opportunity to ape Tory polices on the NHS by flipping their seats.
Leicester could well kick Zionist Labour in the teeth too IMO
If we look at the total Greens + Corbyn count, I think the likely total is 0-1.
The PO scandal early days imo were maybe 1999-2005.
The right of centre tends to be united. This gets them more votes in one pile, generally more seats, but they have fewer allies if they fall short.
The right of centre tends to be split. So their leading party have fewer votes and seats, but usually more potential partners.
But mostly the final result is OK vibes wise. And now, that vibe seems to be we hate the Conservatives and Starmer seems safe so he'll have to do. But there are still 650 seats to fill.
Since 1970 was mentioned, what was the story there, apart from really volatile polling? It was the "What if Gordon Banks had played?" Point of Departure, wasn't it?
So could he have been an negligent slacker before that? Sure - everything is possible. But how many ministers before and after would also need to be attacked? Or is it just him? Including the decade before and decade after he was a minister?
The idea that Davey should resign and not Badenoch (as one example - many more to choose from) seems rather unfair.
It may have saved years of pain and trouble for thousands of people.
Instead, he might as well have sad "f*** off."
Bates met with Davey a few months later so clearly did persist and a meeting was held.
So we know for sure that all the issues in Bates' letter had occurred under the previous government as 20th May was Davey's first day in government, the previous government being the Blair and Brown government.
We also know the issues did continue well after the Coalition finished, and that the Post Office officials kept denying the issue until 2018, with a policy of stonewalling investigation.
So yes Davey did have a small part to play in failing to recognise the size and nature of the problem, but far from the only one being hoodwinked by the Post Office and Fujitsu.
Notably Ms Badenoch is uncharacteristically quiet on the topic, despite it being her department that is still holding up compensation.
And am personally willing to attack ANY politico who had an opportunity to do something about PO scandal, yet did not.
And WTF does Bad Enoch have to do with it? Sounds like a blue herring . . . or is it yellow?
Defending the indefensible is NOT a good look for him OR his party. Best move on to Plan B . . . quickly.
Speaking of history, it seems strange to think that the time of the Red Rag etc was now 15 years ago, in some ways it feels recent, in other ways it feels like a completely different era.
But what feels more strange is discussing on the previous thread that Covid was 3-4 years ago.
At work recently a new recruit straight from university was talking about how her A-Level exams were cancelled due to Covid. It feels bizarre that A-Level students affected by Covid could have gone through University and started work already.
Then what really makes me feel old is as a group the other day were having a conversation a few weeks ago about where everyone was on 9/11 (I was at work in McDonalds at the time, home for the summer from university), and she said she wasn't born yet.
My wife always says that if you say "thirty years ago" to a Millennial and we think 1970s, and I still do, seems somehow wrong that 1994 was thirty years ago now.
“We have got to deal with the cancer that is mental health … What we see is 80 percent of mass shooters are in some sort of crisis at the time that they do that.”
During COVID, I was told there was alarm at the prospect that Ministers would not accept responsibility for *all* actions of their departments. Apparently some Ministers said that if they had directly requested A and the department had done B, they wouldn't take responsibility for B.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67873197
HUGE PROBLEM in Seattle, and from sea to shining sea.
Do agree that Nikki Haley needs to rein in her errant tongue . . . quickly.
So instead of a red faced bloke, we get Cressida Dick in the Met. A "team player". A "safe pair of hands". A "Proper candidate for high office".
Jo Swinson 2014 to 2015
Jenny Willott 2013 to 2014
Jo Swinson 2012 to 2013
Norman Lamb 2012 to 2012
Edward Davey 2010 to 2012
But that role didn't exist in that form before or after. We currently have a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business), Kevin Hollinrake, who has this brief. Before him, in slightly different roles, were:
Jane Hunt 2022-3?
Paul Scully 2020-2
I can't work out who had responsibility 2015-22 or before 2015.
Fairly or not, people expect slightly more of the LibDems.
The issue for the Conservatives is that the people voting Reform are often doing it because they are cross with the Conservatives. While those voting Green or LD might well be enticed to vote tactically.
Her comments on genocide of the Jews, by contrast, absolutely beggared belief. I'm glad she's out.
But IMHO that ain't a defense for Davey and other deplorable-culpables.
Living in London, around immigrants (and in a couple of immigrant communities), I can make an educated guess.
Tons of people from the Middle East are entirely up for wiping Israel off the map. It's been preached by the State(s) there, for decades.
It is entirely unsurprising, when immigrants carry on believing the things they believed at home. When I worked for an oil company, the bit when such people came to the UK office and found actual Jews was always good for some fun....
So Gay undoubtedly met people speaking these views.
The problem comes with the fact that these people will be from, in her mind, "victim" and "protected groups". To say they are wrong, is punching down.
So if she condemned such comments, she would be punching down.
Lesson : trying to use rules you can write on the back of playing card to build a moral world view doesn't work.
Walk the plank . . . ASAP. And do NOT worry about the splash.
Was that not to some extent the number of Lib Dem MPs in what till 90s had been Conservative seats, and at same time willingness of centerist votes to side with Labour to keep Tories out?
African migrants can’t get into Europe, so they are FLYING to Central America so they can hopefully sneak into the USA
At some point they are just taking us for mugs
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/05/us/africa-migrants-us-border.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
And he did actually meet with Bates a few months later, the first government minister to do so.
https://www.betfred.com/sports/event/15764615.2
A few points on this:-
1. The scandal started in 2000. It was known then by Ministers and senior Royal Mail/PO management that Horizon had very real problems and was unreliable. All those Ministers and CEO's and other senior staff - such as the GC's - bear responsibility for the prosecutions, the utterly crap internal investigation team, the disclosure failings to the courts and the failure to correct Horizon's problems. These people should be held responsible and their names known in the same way as is the case for Paula Vennells.I have no sympathy for her but this scandal did not start on her watch and had been going for a decade before she even joined the Post Office.The others who were equally responsible must not be allowed to get away with their sloping shoulders strategy.
2. The Lib Dems were in charge of the Business Department for a crucial 5 years. Vince Cable claims not have known anything about this issue even though letters were written to him and MPs were agitating about it. Davey is getting it in the neck because he is leader. The issues with him are less that first letter which was very early on but that he now claims (a) to have asked a lot of searching questions, though not enough; and (b) to have been misled by civil servants. He has provided no detail about (a) or, indeed, (b). He should do so if he doesn't want people to think that this looks like a convenient excuse for a lack of action, though he was not notably worse than any of the other Ministers who also did fuck all.
When the legal-eagle approach is the WORST way to deal with a panel of pissed-off congress-people. A basic fact of politics, well-known to people who make their living advising clients in exactly that situation.
1) Many sub-post offices are, nowadays, in the hands of businesses. Our local one is, for example, in a branch of McColls. Others are in branches of such companies as WH Smith. Have there been ‘Horizon problems’ in any of them, and if so what happened?
2) Some hundreds of sub-postmasters have, as we know had such problems. Some at least of their branches have been reopened under new management. Were there any problems there, or were the terminals and/or the ‘pin-pad’ replaced?
4. Finally, it also shows that no-one in government or Ministers understood that the concerns being raised were in effect whistleblowing concerns and should have been properly and independently investigated. This was not a question of being on the side of the subpostmasters. But of taking their concerns seriously. Whistleblowing is my current expertise and has been for some time. There was a failure within government to see this for what it was. This is a failing I see in a lot of public sector organisations and it surprises me depresses me that the understanding of what whistleblowing is, why it matters & how to handle it is so poor. The failure was also in the Post Office but it was precisely because the PO had not taken it seriously that the government needed to - see my point 3.
That may be the case, but these people are getting in by claiming asylum even though they are obviously economic migrants. And a whole lot of Americans are not happy - especially working class Americans who jumped through hoops to get into the USA legally
Judging by the comments under that NYT article, this could lose Biden the election, by itself
Note that boopahs taking advice of corporate lawyers rather than political publicists, when being grilled by politicos, is VERY common.
And NOT just in USA?
Blue wall safe for another 5 years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/us/politics/migrant-crisis-border-asylum.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
If you're going to migrate and slip with ease into the grey or unregulated economy then you're best off choosing somewhere with loose labour laws and no nationwide form of government ID.
The weird bit is that it costs an absolute fortune, because you need to get to South America, by plane. And there are virtually no direct flights, and virtually no South American countries you can enter from - say - Guinea Bissau without a visa.
So, you need to (a) get to South America, which usually involves changing planes in the US or in Europe. And (b) you need to have gotten yourself a Colombian visa. Which is a non-trivial exercise.
These migrants are a little different from South Americans, though, in that they are absolutely planning on claiming asylum in the US and hope to eventually get citizenship.
South Americans, by contrast, want to simply to cross (without being caught) and to get into the large "informal" US economy.