Say Biden resigns and Harris becomes President. The Vice Presidency is vacant. Harris is allowed to nominate her replacement, but Congress blocks it (the GOP playing silly b*gets in the House).
Who presides over the electoral vote count in January if no Vice President is seated at that time?
The Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, I think.
It was in an article about the January 6th insurrection and what would have happened if the Trumpers had executed Mike Pence.
Isn't it the President pro tempore of the Senate ?
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he would preside over the U.S. Senate debate surrounding disputes of the 2020 election results if Vice President Mike Pence does not show up.
He suggested Pence was not expected to attend but Grassley’s staff later said that was a “misinterpretation” and that Pence was expected to be there.
On Wednesday, Congress will meet to formally count the Electoral College votes after they were certified by states last month. At least 12 GOP senators and dozens of House Republicans say they intend to object to the Electoral College results as those votes are read, state by state, in a joint session that begins at noon CT Wednesday.
During an exchange with reporters on Tuesday, Grassley was asked how he plans to vote.
“Well, first of all, I will be — if the Vice President isn’t there and we don’t expect him to be there, I will be presiding over the Senate,” according to a transcript of his remarks sent by a spokesperson.
Grassley serves as the president pro tempore of the Senate and will preside over any portion of the debate that Pence does not attend. But Grassley expects Pence to be present on Wednesday, according to his spokesperson.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
I don't want Reform to make any headway but you are wrong here. They are a very, very long way from being anything like NF.
They look like them.
Only if you never had the 'pleasure' of experiencing the NF first hand.
I was chased by a group of them with a friend of mine. He is black. We were walking threw Bristol city centre in the late seventies. We had a 300 yard start on them. They started screaming at us after we walked past them. Luckily for us they started to run after they shouted abuse. We legged it. We could do the 1500 metres in 5.00 minutes in those days so we lost them.
In which case you should know not to make comparisons with Reform. And you were luckier than I was. I ended up in hospital after my run ins with them. And once in the cells as well.
A horrid experience for you. I have met a few Reform type people. I am not a fan of them. I find them depressing, negative and ignorant. I admit I do not want to meet loads of them and analyse why they are the way they are. Just give them a wide birth and try and avoid them as much as possible. It take all sorts to make a world. Fair enough.
Not as easy for some as for others.
Richard has previously outlined his unavoidable run ins with one particular NF grandee. His understanding and commentary is to be respected.
Why didn’t the BBC highlight this. Bruce mentioned other comments from different candidates but these were jaw dropping .
Because the BBC want Reform to do well. Conflict means more people watch BBC News. It’s why they also support Trump, Putin and Le Pen, as much as they can get away with.
Paxman on Newnight was the best the beeb offered.
I wonder what his honest opinion of Kuenssberg, Peston, et. al. Is?
A married accountant is being sued for £1.1 million by his former bosses for allegedly spending tens of thousands of pounds of company money on escorts.
Father-of-two Mohammed Asif Khan, 45, is accused of “stealing” about £1.1 million of company money while working for North of England Coachworks, the North East’s biggest vehicle bodyshop.
The company says “self-styled director of finance” Mr Khan splashed out about £160,000 on payments to escorts – including £56,000 to £1,000-an-hour call girl and porn star Gemma Massey.
But while the married father admitted his “shame” after using company money to pay prostitutes, he insisted he did nothing wrong as his bosses knew how he was spending the money and were happy with the arrangement.
”I was ashamed of the things that happened – for my wife,” he told the High Court, but added: “The company didn’t care what I spent that money on.”
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
I am voting Tory and always will as long as it exists as an independent party, if it merged with Reform though I suppose I would follow suit and vote for Farage. I could never vote Labour and the choice for PM would end up being Farage or the Labour leader then
Why didn’t the BBC highlight this. Bruce mentioned other comments from different candidates but these were jaw dropping .
Because the BBC want Reform to do well. Conflict means more people watch BBC News. It’s why they also support Trump, Putin and Le Pen, as much as they can get away with.
Paxman on Newnight was the best the beeb offered.
I wonder what his honest opinion of Kuenssberg, Peston, et. al. Is?
Regarding Vice President of the United States, there is NO order of succession to the office EXCEPT that the President Pro Tempore ("Pro Tem" of US Senate assumes duties as presiding officer of the that body IF there is no VP. Period.
In case of vacancy ONLY way that new VP is selected, is either by nomination by POTUS as confirmed by Congress OR by regular POTUS/VP election. Which was the only way VPs got selected before Amendment XXV.
THUS in cases when Presidency become vacant, and the Vice President assumes that office, the Speaker of the US House becomes next in line for POTUS - but NOT for VP, which would (if it happened) would make them presiding officer of BOTH branches of Congress simultaneously.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
I don't want Reform to make any headway but you are wrong here. They are a very, very long way from being anything like NF.
They look like them.
Only if you never had the 'pleasure' of experiencing the NF first hand.
I was chased by a group of them with a friend of mine. He is black. We were walking threw Bristol city centre in the late seventies. We had a 300 yard start on them. They started screaming at us after we walked past them. Luckily for us they started to run after they shouted abuse. We legged it. We could do the 1500 metres in 5.00 minutes in those days so we lost them.
In which case you should know not to make comparisons with Reform. And you were luckier than I was. I ended up in hospital after my run ins with them. And once in the cells as well.
A horrid experience for you. I have met a few Reform type people. I am not a fan of them. I find them depressing, negative and ignorant. I admit I do not want to meet loads of them and analyse why they are the way they are. Just give them a wide birth and try and avoid them as much as possible. It take all sorts to make a world. Fair enough.
Not as easy for some as for others.
Richard has previously outlined his unavoidable run ins with one particular NF grandee. His understanding and commentary is to be respected.
A married accountant is being sued for £1.1 million by his former bosses for allegedly spending tens of thousands of pounds of company money on escorts.
Father-of-two Mohammed Asif Khan, 45, is accused of “stealing” about £1.1 million of company money while working for North of England Coachworks, the North East’s biggest vehicle bodyshop.
The company says “self-styled director of finance” Mr Khan splashed out about £160,000 on payments to escorts – including £56,000 to £1,000-an-hour call girl and porn star Gemma Massey.
But while the married father admitted his “shame” after using company money to pay prostitutes, he insisted he did nothing wrong as his bosses knew how he was spending the money and were happy with the arrangement.
”I was ashamed of the things that happened – for my wife,” he told the High Court, but added: “The company didn’t care what I spent that money on.”
Bad debate nights happen. Trust me, I know. But this election is still a choice between someone who has fought for ordinary folks his entire life and someone who only cares about himself. Between someone who tells the truth; who knows right from wrong and will give it to the American people straight — and someone who lies through his teeth for his own benefit. Last night didn’t change that, and it’s why so much is at stake in November.
I don’t know what will happen, but I know that, if you’re on the campaign, you have to pretend you’re sticking with Biden until the announcement that he’s going, so Obama saying this isn’t really evidence of anything. What Obama is saying behind closed doors is more important, and we don’t know what that is. But I’m sure Biden and Harris will both listen to him.
If there is a move it won't be Obama that makes it first.
It will start, as it has done already, with the media commentariat and grassroots. Then it will start to filter through to minor elected representatives. Then a couple of more important figures in the party will start to prevaricate/sound non-committal in public. Finally you'll get the big guns - the cabinet, the Clintons, the Obamas, weighing in - but likely behind the scenes.
No-one will want to be seen to be the one who dealt the fatal blow. If it happens, it will be incredibly similar to Thatcher's downfall. Of course we'll back you to the ends of the Earth Joe, you've been terrific and you're such a good friend, but as a good friend I need to tell you you will lose. Isn't it time to think about the Party? Haven't you earned that retirement?
A married accountant is being sued for £1.1 million by his former bosses for allegedly spending tens of thousands of pounds of company money on escorts.
Father-of-two Mohammed Asif Khan, 45, is accused of “stealing” about £1.1 million of company money while working for North of England Coachworks, the North East’s biggest vehicle bodyshop.
The company says “self-styled director of finance” Mr Khan splashed out about £160,000 on payments to escorts – including £56,000 to £1,000-an-hour call girl and porn star Gemma Massey.
But while the married father admitted his “shame” after using company money to pay prostitutes, he insisted he did nothing wrong as his bosses knew how he was spending the money and were happy with the arrangement.
”I was ashamed of the things that happened – for my wife,” he told the High Court, but added: “The company didn’t care what I spent that money on.”
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
Yes of course, plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage, and credit to them.
But my contention is that quite a few erstwhile Tory voters will vote for Farage. Sadly.
Anybody who claims the a tide of political opinion in the medium or distant future going inevitably this way or that is talking out of their arse. There are no tides, there is no whig history or a bastard cousin thereof.
Anybody who wishcasts their own views as inevitable under the flimsy disguise of regret is trying to demoralise political opponents into inaction or anticipatory obedience: fight back against that shit.
Anybody who has to claim they are "extreme good at this" is trying to convince themselves as much as anyone else.
Of course, such news is unwelcome to those who spend their lives writing stories, but real life isn't a story. It's not an arc you plot out and tell. It's a bunch of stuff that happens. You can think you spot a trend and then it all goes to shit because events, dear boy.
The future isn't written. If you believe it is, you have to undo the whole of not just philosophy but physics too.
And even if it was, only someone who literally thought himself a god could possibly predict it.
Once more, when people talk about something years off in politics being "inevitable", they are lying to you.
I can't see what you are responding to, but don't be silly. There's whole schools of philosophy called things like determinism and predeterminism and actualism which precisely claim that the future is written. As for physics the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics says pretty much that the futures are all written. Don't exaggerate.
I suspect @Farooq is more referring to the historic determinism derided by Popper in The Poverty of Historicism.
My reaction to Popper is always Crazy name, crazy guy.
I always thought he and Hari Seldon would have an interesting conversation.
"What do you think of the new series?" "It's shit" "Yup"
Say Biden resigns and Harris becomes President. The Vice Presidency is vacant. Harris is allowed to nominate her replacement, but Congress blocks it (the GOP playing silly b*gets in the House).
Who presides over the electoral vote count in January if no Vice President is seated at that time?
The Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, I think.
It was in an article about the January 6th insurrection and what would have happened if the Trumpers had executed Mike Pence.
Isn't it the President pro tempore of the Senate ?
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he would preside over the U.S. Senate debate surrounding disputes of the 2020 election results if Vice President Mike Pence does not show up.
He suggested Pence was not expected to attend but Grassley’s staff later said that was a “misinterpretation” and that Pence was expected to be there.
On Wednesday, Congress will meet to formally count the Electoral College votes after they were certified by states last month. At least 12 GOP senators and dozens of House Republicans say they intend to object to the Electoral College results as those votes are read, state by state, in a joint session that begins at noon CT Wednesday.
During an exchange with reporters on Tuesday, Grassley was asked how he plans to vote.
“Well, first of all, I will be — if the Vice President isn’t there and we don’t expect him to be there, I will be presiding over the Senate,” according to a transcript of his remarks sent by a spokesperson.
Grassley serves as the president pro tempore of the Senate and will preside over any portion of the debate that Pence does not attend. But Grassley expects Pence to be present on Wednesday, according to his spokesperson.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
JohnO is voting Tory.
Nigel_Foremain too
If we had PR, they could cast their second votes for Plaid Cymru.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
I don't want Reform to make any headway but you are wrong here. They are a very, very long way from being anything like NF.
They look like them.
Only if you never had the 'pleasure' of experiencing the NF first hand.
I was chased by a group of them with a friend of mine. He is black. We were walking threw Bristol city centre in the late seventies. We had a 300 yard start on them. They started screaming at us after we walked past them. Luckily for us they started to run after they shouted abuse. We legged it. We could do the 1500 metres in 5.00 minutes in those days so we lost them.
In which case you should know not to make comparisons with Reform. And you were luckier than I was. I ended up in hospital after my run ins with them. And once in the cells as well.
If you're saying you once lamped a fascist, may I offer you my heartiest thanks and congratulations.
I know there’s a lot else going on, but meanwhile in the Excited States the wheels are coming off the gender abattoir, as inevitably they ended up in the courts. Discovery is a wonderful thing…
Thread: (WPATH = World Professional Association for Transgender Health)
This summarizes the Alabama Attorney General's assessment of @WPATH, based on a trove of subpoenaed internal communications that have been unsealed this week, plus more yet to be unsealed: "In short, neither the Court nor Alabama need treat WPATH as anything other than the activist interest group it has shown itself to be. The Constitution allows States to reject WPATH’s model of “care” and protect vulnerable minors from life-altering transitioning “treatments.” The Court should grant Defendants summary judgment."
I really wish you could actually meet a trans person.
What has that got to do with a “Professional” (sic) association suppressing evidence and ignoring financial conflicts of interest in their advice on children?
Read the thread - the evidence is from their own files…
Absolutely nothing.
What you're talking about is some kind of clever gotcha, what I'm talking about is actually knowing and being friends with trans people in real life, who are kind, and sweet, and just want to be left alone.
FWIW, most trans people consider WPATH to be actually *hostile* to them by medicalising their condition, much as homosexuality has been medicalised in the past. But you wouldn't know that. Because you've never sat down and had a cup of coffee with a trans person - mtf or ftm - and just chatted to them about life.
If you could actually do that, you'd realise they're much the same as you and I, and just as autonomous, and just as capable of making up their own minds about how they want to live their lives.
I could spend the next x hours arguing this with you, or sending you links to stuff that shows how trans teen suicides rose after availability of healthcare services were cut. But I'm not here to debate that.
Trans people are lovely and kind. They are also assholes, and ignorant. They are happy and sad, they are artists and designers, they are economists and business owners - they are just human beings like the rest of us. I know this, because I count several as my friends.
If you want to keep on banging the drum you want to keep banging, that's your choice. But I highly suggest you just sit down and talk with a couple of the people whose lives you're actually talking about, before you judge them.
My criticism has been directed at WPATH and Trans activists not Trans people - they are who they are and good luck to them.
The treatment of confused children has been a scandal and is now being exposed.
Sounds like we agree on WPATH?
I don't personally have a take on WPATH. The trans people I know think it's nonsense, and actively harmful to them, because it restricts them from the care they need.
As far as confused children go, if you're ever in London I could ask a couple of people to talk to you, say, a trans friend who's mtf who knew at age 12 who is my age and transitioned in their teens. Or a ftm who transitioned in their 30s but wishes the tools and resources had been available to them to come out when they were a teenager.
Gentleness is a virtue, and the trans people I know tend to say "I knew from much younger, I wish I could have done it sooner, but I was afraid to come out because of all the hatred I'd get".
Be kind. That's all I can say. That's all there is worth saying in this world, at the end of the day.
The issue, as Cass identified, is that clinicians simply don’t know which children will persist in their gender distress, and which will not - with ~80% turning out to be same sex attracted or bi. With the recent significant growth in transition medication I suspect we will see growing numbers of now young adults regretting their choices. This is not about trans rights - this is about medical malpractice on vulnerable children.
On this narrow subject, I don't disagree with you.
There's good evidence to suggest that some children do suffer gender distress but go on to identify differently as they grow older. But then again, there's plenty of people who identify as gay or bi in their youth who consider themselves straight as they grow older. Sexuality isn't static, nor is gender identity - or at least that's my take.
I would argue that if your'e old enough to have sex - say 16 - you're old enough to decide your gender identity. If you have issues or distress before that, then puberty blockers are a possible answer before you become old enough to decide.
I am neither an absolutist nor an activist, just a liberal metropolitan type with a live and let live attitude. If someone says they are trans, I believe them. If they're underage, then I'm not averse to them being given a drug that delays physical puberty in order for them to make up their mind, and maybe grow out of their identity and discover their adult self.
The evidence, however, suggests that most don't. What's fascinating is that far more ftms decide they don't want to be men than mtfs decide they don't want to be women...
"Sam Freedman @Samfr Correct. And remember they are seeing initial batches of postal votes. Quote (((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges One thing to remember about the analysis as we move forward. Both sides are starting to see evidence of actual voting from postal vote returns."
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 37m Postal votes are opened in advance and parties are allowed to be present. They're not allowed to record a tally but usually can get a decent sense of whether they're on track.
BBC News (Essex): Party broke Farage's promise to repay expenses – ex-Reform candidate
Nigel Farage offered Reform UK's former candidate in Clacton a "very big role" in his campaign team, a salaried job in the constituency and repayment of thousands of pounds of expenses in return for his endorsement, the BBC has been told.
But Tony Mack, who was asked to step aside for Mr Farage, said none of what was promised has been delivered. He said he had spent £6,000 on his campaign and had not yet seen "a penny" reimbursed.
Reform UK's spokesperson said the situation was "very sad" and the party "operated in good faith". . . .
SSI - At his announcement in Clacton, Farage made a point of thanking "Tony McIntyre".
Anybody who claims the a tide of political opinion in the medium or distant future going inevitably this way or that is talking out of their arse. There are no tides, there is no whig history or a bastard cousin thereof.
Anybody who wishcasts their own views as inevitable under the flimsy disguise of regret is trying to demoralise political opponents into inaction or anticipatory obedience: fight back against that shit.
Anybody who has to claim they are "extreme good at this" is trying to convince themselves as much as anyone else.
Of course, such news is unwelcome to those who spend their lives writing stories, but real life isn't a story. It's not an arc you plot out and tell. It's a bunch of stuff that happens. You can think you spot a trend and then it all goes to shit because events, dear boy.
The future isn't written. If you believe it is, you have to undo the whole of not just philosophy but physics too.
And even if it was, only someone who literally thought himself a god could possibly predict it.
Once more, when people talk about something years off in politics being "inevitable", they are lying to you.
I can't see what you are responding to, but don't be silly. There's whole schools of philosophy called things like determinism and predeterminism and actualism which precisely claim that the future is written. As for physics the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics says pretty much that the futures are all written. Don't exaggerate.
I suspect @Farooq is more referring to the historic determinism derided by Popper in The Poverty of Historicism.
My reaction to Popper is always Crazy name, crazy guy.
I always thought he and Hari Seldon would have an interesting conversation.
"What do you think of the new series?" "It's shit" "Yup"
I've only seen a little of it but from what I have seen I would concur.
"Sam Freedman @Samfr Correct. And remember they are seeing initial batches of postal votes. Quote (((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges One thing to remember about the analysis as we move forward. Both sides are starting to see evidence of actual voting from postal vote returns."
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 37m Postal votes are opened in advance and parties are allowed to be present. They're not allowed to record a tally but usually can get a decent sense of whether they're on track.
The fact that the Tory majority price has slid out to 280 - two hundred and bloody eighty for crying out loud! - might be related to the postal vote returns.
My son has received a letter from the Vale of Glamorgan Council to say that he will get his postal vote pack on Monday. His response is what was the point of the letter? He is working away in Wrexham from Sunday but is back Thursday. Is it the procedure that he can hand the completed postal vote pack into the polling station on Thursday?
Probably cock up rather than conspiracy, but doesn't it sum up this shambolic administration?
"Sam Freedman @Samfr Correct. And remember they are seeing initial batches of postal votes. Quote (((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges One thing to remember about the analysis as we move forward. Both sides are starting to see evidence of actual voting from postal vote returns."
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 37m Postal votes are opened in advance and parties are allowed to be present. They're not allowed to record a tally but usually can get a decent sense of whether they're on track.
Sam Freedman @Samfr This is how it works: Tim (totally unremarkable) @forwardnotback
PSA: Agents/others know how many PVs have been issued They have a good idea how many PVs their candidate has been promised They get daily tallies of PVs returned Then they can do the maths They do not see which way individual PVs have been cast
BBC News (Essex): Party broke Farage's promise to repay expenses – ex-Reform candidate
Nigel Farage offered Reform UK's former candidate in Clacton a "very big role" in his campaign team, a salaried job in the constituency and repayment of thousands of pounds of expenses in return for his endorsement, the BBC has been told.
But Tony Mack, who was asked to step aside for Mr Farage, said none of what was promised has been delivered. He said he had spent £6,000 on his campaign and had not yet seen "a penny" reimbursed.
Reform UK's spokesperson said the situation was "very sad" and the party "operated in good faith". . . .
SSI - At his announcement in Clacton, Farage made a point of thanking "Tony McIntyre".
Farage has learned his lessons well at the feet of his guru Trump.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
Yes of course, plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage, and credit to them.
But my contention is that quite a few erstwhile Tory voters will vote for Farage. Sadly.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
Yes of course, plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage, and credit to them.
But my contention is that quite a few erstwhile Tory voters will vote for Farage. Sadly.
Not enough for him to ever win. Thankfully!
If it ended up a merged Tory and Reform Party were the main Opposition to a Labour government, I can assure you under FPTP swing of the pendulum would ensure eventually the former beat the latter.
As has been pointed out now on the other side even Corbyn would probably win this election for Labour now, again on swing of the pendulum with FPTP
Say Biden resigns and Harris becomes President. The Vice Presidency is vacant. Harris is allowed to nominate her replacement, but Congress blocks it (the GOP playing silly b*gets in the House).
Who presides over the electoral vote count in January if no Vice President is seated at that time?
The Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, I think.
It was in an article about the January 6th insurrection and what would have happened if the Trumpers had executed Mike Pence.
Isn't it the President pro tempore of the Senate ?
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said he would preside over the U.S. Senate debate surrounding disputes of the 2020 election results if Vice President Mike Pence does not show up.
He suggested Pence was not expected to attend but Grassley’s staff later said that was a “misinterpretation” and that Pence was expected to be there.
On Wednesday, Congress will meet to formally count the Electoral College votes after they were certified by states last month. At least 12 GOP senators and dozens of House Republicans say they intend to object to the Electoral College results as those votes are read, state by state, in a joint session that begins at noon CT Wednesday.
During an exchange with reporters on Tuesday, Grassley was asked how he plans to vote.
“Well, first of all, I will be — if the Vice President isn’t there and we don’t expect him to be there, I will be presiding over the Senate,” according to a transcript of his remarks sent by a spokesperson.
Grassley serves as the president pro tempore of the Senate and will preside over any portion of the debate that Pence does not attend. But Grassley expects Pence to be present on Wednesday, according to his spokesperson.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
I am voting Tory and always will as long as it exists as an independent party, if it merged with Reform though I suppose I would follow suit and vote for Farage. I could never vote Labour and the choice for PM would end up being Farage or the Labour leader then
Yes, I knew that.
There's a reason you weren't included in this list of loyal and decent Tories who will still vote Tory even this year but would never vote Farage.
So we have TSE, Mark, BigG, JohnO and NigelForemaine too I should add.
If it weren't for Tory housing policy costing my vote this year I'd be on that list too.
Farage is toxic. Not to you, but to others. I suspect there's more loyal Tories on this site who would NOT vote for him than who would.
"Sam Freedman @Samfr Correct. And remember they are seeing initial batches of postal votes. Quote (((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 4(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges One thing to remember about the analysis as we move forward. Both sides are starting to see evidence of actual voting from postal vote returns."
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 37m Postal votes are opened in advance and parties are allowed to be present. They're not allowed to record a tally but usually can get a decent sense of whether they're on track.
Sam Freedman @Samfr This is how it works: Tim (totally unremarkable) @forwardnotback
PSA: Agents/others know how many PVs have been issued They have a good idea how many PVs their candidate has been promised They get daily tallies of PVs returned Then they can do the maths They do not see which way individual PVs have been cast
I've finally listened to Rishi Sunak's comments in reply to the RefUK slurs.
TBH I think it's the most straightforward and genuine thing I have seen from him all campaign.
Pity he chose to do it about the words of a paid actor doing 'secret filming work'. One wonders if he'll have to apologise.
If he was a "paid actor" playing the part of a rough racist in order to discredit Reform and Farage then why was he using his own name?
Surely if he was playing a part then he would assume a name that fit his character rather than use his own name.
How could he possibly have done that? A fake identity would have been rumbled in seconds!
Yes, RefUK's vetting procedures are famously watertiii... wait
Not before the event - he was allowed to go out canvassing without even being a party member. I mean after it. The papers know your identity, social media, Onlyfans account etc. as soon as you do so much as throw a milkshake. He could never have used "Racey McRacistface" - to do this he was always going to have to be him. He just didn't cover his tracks as a jobbing actor nearly well enough.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
I am voting Tory and always will as long as it exists as an independent party, if it merged with Reform though I suppose I would follow suit and vote for Farage. I could never vote Labour and the choice for PM would end up being Farage or the Labour leader then
Yes, I knew that.
There's a reason you weren't included in this list of loyal and decent Tories who will still vote Tory even this year but would never vote Farage.
So we have TSE, Mark, BigG, JohnO and NigelForemaine too I should add.
If it weren't for Tory housing policy costing my vote this year I'd be on that list too.
Farage is toxic. Not to you, but to others. I suspect there's more loyal Tories on this site who would NOT vote for him than who would.
Not now and not while the Tories are still main opposition to Labour no.
If Farage's party was the main opposition to Labour though and you lived in a seat where Labour and Farage's party were the main 2 contenders with the LDs a poor 3rd many would. As if you didn't vote for Farage you get a Labour government and Labour MP
I love this internal Tory notion that the real issue was/is the timing of the election. I can't really see why it'd have gone much different had it been a, say, Sept/Oct election.
It wouldn't, but it would have kept the wolves from the door for a bit longer.
Sunak should have cockblocked for as long as he could.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
I am voting Tory and always will as long as it exists as an independent party, if it merged with Reform though I suppose I would follow suit and vote for Farage. I could never vote Labour and the choice for PM would end up being Farage or the Labour leader then
Yes, I knew that.
There's a reason you weren't included in this list of loyal and decent Tories who will still vote Tory even this year but would never vote Farage.
So we have TSE, Mark, BigG, JohnO and NigelForemaine too I should add.
If it weren't for Tory housing policy costing my vote this year I'd be on that list too.
Farage is toxic. Not to you, but to others. I suspect there's more loyal Tories on this site who would NOT vote for him than who would.
Ahem. I think I have made it be clear that I will never vote for a party that has Farage as a member, let alone leader. No doubt there are many more.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
Me.
For now, if the Tories merged with Reform though and Farage was Leader of the Opposition to a Labour government?
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
I am voting Tory and always will as long as it exists as an independent party, if it merged with Reform though I suppose I would follow suit and vote for Farage. I could never vote Labour and the choice for PM would end up being Farage or the Labour leader then
Yes, I knew that.
There's a reason you weren't included in this list of loyal and decent Tories who will still vote Tory even this year but would never vote Farage.
So we have TSE, Mark, BigG, JohnO and NigelForemaine too I should add.
If it weren't for Tory housing policy costing my vote this year I'd be on that list too.
Farage is toxic. Not to you, but to others. I suspect there's more loyal Tories on this site who would NOT vote for him than who would.
Not now and not while the Tories are still main opposition to Labour no.
If Farage's party was the main opposition to Labour though and you lived in a seat where Labour and Farage's party were the main 2 contenders with the LDs a poor 3rd many would. As if you didn't vote for Farage you get a Labour government and Labour MP
... both of which would surely be preferable to a RefUK government and a RefUK MP.
Yup. I think in time it'll settle back to a 2-3 point deficit. But the damage is done.
We’re always told debates don’t really decide elections. This one might
If it was in October maybe but this is July. Trump would have needed to have got to 55-60% for the debate to have decided it, 50% still refusing to vote for Trump even now? Biden can work on that at the convention and beyond and especially in targeted ads in swing states he won in 2020
I love this internal Tory notion that the real issue was/is the timing of the election. I can't really see why it'd have gone much different had it been a, say, Sept/Oct election.
It wouldn't, but it would have kept the wolves from the door for a bit longer.
Sunak should have cockblocked for as long as he could.
Did we ever ascertain why Rishi chose 4 July? To me that remains the greatest mystery of this campaign.
I've finally listened to Rishi Sunak's comments in reply to the RefUK slurs.
TBH I think it's the most straightforward and genuine thing I have seen from him all campaign.
I spoke to a colleague at work today who's an ex-policy analyst and modeller at HM Treasury. I didn't prompt him but we got onto the election and he volunteered that he worked with him a few years back and said that he's a really sharp and smart guy, and a really nice guy too.
He doesn't recognise how he's being portrayed in the media.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
I am voting Tory and always will as long as it exists as an independent party, if it merged with Reform though I suppose I would follow suit and vote for Farage. I could never vote Labour and the choice for PM would end up being Farage or the Labour leader then
Yes, I knew that.
There's a reason you weren't included in this list of loyal and decent Tories who will still vote Tory even this year but would never vote Farage.
So we have TSE, Mark, BigG, JohnO and NigelForemaine too I should add.
If it weren't for Tory housing policy costing my vote this year I'd be on that list too.
Farage is toxic. Not to you, but to others. I suspect there's more loyal Tories on this site who would NOT vote for him than who would.
Not now and not while the Tories are still main opposition to Labour no.
If Farage's party was the main opposition to Labour though and you lived in a seat where Labour and Farage's party were the main 2 contenders with the LDs a poor 3rd many would. As if you didn't vote for Farage you get a Labour government and Labour MP
... both of which would surely be preferable to a RefUK government and a RefUK MP.
Yup. I think in time it'll settle back to a 2-3 point deficit. But the damage is done.
We’re always told debates don’t really decide elections. This one might
If it was in October maybe but this is July. Trump would have needed to have got to 55-60% for the debate to have decided it, 50% still refusing to vote for Trump even now? Biden can work on that at the convention and beyond and especially in targeted ads in swing states he won in 2020
If the debate produces several polls like this then Biden may be forced to step aside. And at that point the debate will have decided the election in - at least - eliminating a sitting president
I've finally listened to Rishi Sunak's comments in reply to the RefUK slurs.
TBH I think it's the most straightforward and genuine thing I have seen from him all campaign.
Pity he chose to do it about the words of a paid actor doing 'secret filming work'. One wonders if he'll have to apologise.
If he was a "paid actor" playing the part of a rough racist in order to discredit Reform and Farage then why was he using his own name?
Surely if he was playing a part then he would assume a name that fit his character rather than use his own name.
How could he possibly have done that? A fake identity would have been rumbled in seconds!
Yes, RefUK's vetting procedures are famously watertiii... wait
Not before the event - he was allowed to go out canvassing without even being a party member. I mean after it. The papers know your identity, social media, Onlyfans account etc. as soon as you do so much as throw a milkshake. He could never have used "Racey McRacistface" - to do this he was always going to have to be him. He just didn't cover his tracks as a jobbing actor nearly well enough.
I am really struggling to get to grips with your version of this conspiracy theory.
Are you suggesting that he used his own name deliberately as he was certain to be exposed as an actor?
I love this internal Tory notion that the real issue was/is the timing of the election. I can't really see why it'd have gone much different had it been a, say, Sept/Oct election.
It wouldn't, but it would have kept the wolves from the door for a bit longer.
Sunak should have cockblocked for as long as he could.
Did we ever ascertain why Rishi chose 4 July? To me that remains the greatest mystery of this campaign.
I thought the rumours that he was trying to avoid Mr Brady's mail round were a bit fanciful, but now I am starting to wonder.
Yup. I think in time it'll settle back to a 2-3 point deficit. But the damage is done.
We’re always told debates don’t really decide elections. This one might
If it was in October maybe but this is July. Trump would have needed to have got to 55-60% for the debate to have decided it, 50% still refusing to vote for Trump even now? Biden can work on that at the convention and beyond and especially in targeted ads in swing states he won in 2020
No he can't.
I have stuck with Biden, hoped and wished and crossed fingers for months like most of the NY Times writers.
But it is time to accept reality. He lost 2024 last night and nothing will get that back.
This is turning into a fucking Shakespearean tragedy.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
I am voting Tory and always will as long as it exists as an independent party, if it merged with Reform though I suppose I would follow suit and vote for Farage. I could never vote Labour and the choice for PM would end up being Farage or the Labour leader then
Yes, I knew that.
There's a reason you weren't included in this list of loyal and decent Tories who will still vote Tory even this year but would never vote Farage.
So we have TSE, Mark, BigG, JohnO and NigelForemaine too I should add.
If it weren't for Tory housing policy costing my vote this year I'd be on that list too.
Farage is toxic. Not to you, but to others. I suspect there's more loyal Tories on this site who would NOT vote for him than who would.
Not now and not while the Tories are still main opposition to Labour no.
If Farage's party was the main opposition to Labour though and you lived in a seat where Labour and Farage's party were the main 2 contenders with the LDs a poor 3rd many would. As if you didn't vote for Farage you get a Labour government and Labour MP
You prefer fascists to democratic socialists. Fair enough.
Your previous cheerleading for the Falange was a big clue.
I've finally listened to Rishi Sunak's comments in reply to the RefUK slurs.
TBH I think it's the most straightforward and genuine thing I have seen from him all campaign.
I spoke to a colleague at work today who's an ex-policy analyst and modeller at HM Treasury. I didn't prompt him but we got onto the election and he volunteered that he worked with him a few years back and said that he's a really sharp and smart guy, and a really nice guy too.
He doesn't recognise how he's being portrayed in the media.
He does get a lot if stick. He seems all right to me.
Yup. I think in time it'll settle back to a 2-3 point deficit. But the damage is done.
We’re always told debates don’t really decide elections. This one might
If it was in October maybe but this is July. Trump would have needed to have got to 55-60% for the debate to have decided it, 50% still refusing to vote for Trump even now? Biden can work on that at the convention and beyond and especially in targeted ads in swing states he won in 2020
If the debate produces several polls like this then Biden may be forced to step aside. And at that point the debate will have decided the election in - at least - eliminating a sitting president
Likely the first US presidential debate of real consequence since Ford/Carter.
I love this internal Tory notion that the real issue was/is the timing of the election. I can't really see why it'd have gone much different had it been a, say, Sept/Oct election.
It wouldn't, but it would have kept the wolves from the door for a bit longer.
Sunak should have cockblocked for as long as he could.
Did we ever ascertain why Rishi chose 4 July? To me that remains the greatest mystery of this campaign.
PB consensus is that Reform will underperfom on the night.
And... I tend to agree. I suspect that they will end up on roughly the same vote share as the LibDems (i.e. 13%) on the night. I suspect that they'll win Ashfield and Clacton, and a couple of other seats, but that they will suffer from being -effectively- the official opposition to Labour in the North, and to the Conservatives in the East.
My view is that Reform draws principally from the same pool as UKIP 2015 and from people who voted Leave, but don't normally vote. I think there is going to be some negative impact from the lack of Councillors, voting records, posters, leaflets, tellers, knocker-uppers, etc. Now, sure, these things aren't essential. But if you're in the mid-teens, they can make the difference between an efficiently and an inefficiently distributed vote. I would point out that the LibDems (and their predecessors) only broke through at the national level after they'd built up enough local strength to convince people that they aren't likely to be a wasted voted.
Now, I could be wrong. It is possible that you see the Conservative vote collapse towards Reform, as happened in Canada in 1993. But I think Farage is a pretty divisive figure, and that puts a ceiling on his support.
I'd like to point out too that although Farage named his new Party after the Canadian precedent in an attempt to get this sort of comparison, the two could not be further apart.
Reform (CA) was founded due to extremely legitimate concerns from the Western provinces that had been overlooked, taken for granted and treated badly compared to Ottawa which was looking after itself with the Western provinces money and Quebec which was getting treated much better due to it's threatening independence.
Reform (NF) is the National Front.
Redfield has Reform on 18% in their latest poll, Reform Canada got 18% in 1993, polling wise Reform is closer to their Canadian cousins now than NF got anywhere near ever
Redfield are wrong.
And even if they do get 18% (they won't) the difference is Canada's Conservatives and and Canada's Reform could address by resolving the policy divide of the issues the Western Provinces rightly objected to.
Reform (CA) were more like Cameroon Conservatives than Nigel Farage, with the whole in Salmond's pocket etc being what Reform were objecting to.
Tories won't vote for the National Front whatever NF call themselves.
Depends on your definition of 'Tories', surely?
People voting Tory this time? Well of course you're right by definition but it's a meaningless assertion. People who voted Tory in 2019? I think all the evidence suggest about 1/3/ have switched to Reform. Tory members? Hard to tell but many seem to prefer Reform-style populist policies.
How many Tories here are still voting for the party but would never vote for Farage?
TSE? MarqueeMark? BigG? Probably more I've forgot.
Plenty of Tories will never vote for Farage.
I am voting Tory and always will as long as it exists as an independent party, if it merged with Reform though I suppose I would follow suit and vote for Farage. I could never vote Labour and the choice for PM would end up being Farage or the Labour leader then
Yes, I knew that.
There's a reason you weren't included in this list of loyal and decent Tories who will still vote Tory even this year but would never vote Farage.
So we have TSE, Mark, BigG, JohnO and NigelForemaine too I should add.
If it weren't for Tory housing policy costing my vote this year I'd be on that list too.
Farage is toxic. Not to you, but to others. I suspect there's more loyal Tories on this site who would NOT vote for him than who would.
Not now and not while the Tories are still main opposition to Labour no.
If Farage's party was the main opposition to Labour though and you lived in a seat where Labour and Farage's party were the main 2 contenders with the LDs a poor 3rd many would. As if you didn't vote for Farage you get a Labour government and Labour MP
You prefer fascists to democratic socialists. Fair enough.
Your previous cheerleading for the Falange was a big clue.
Farage is a hard right nationalist conservative, not a Fascist, leftwingers like you calling him a Fascist will just make even more rightwingers vote for him
I love this internal Tory notion that the real issue was/is the timing of the election. I can't really see why it'd have gone much different had it been a, say, Sept/Oct election.
It wouldn't, but it would have kept the wolves from the door for a bit longer.
Sunak should have cockblocked for as long as he could.
Did we ever ascertain why Rishi chose 4 July? To me that remains the greatest mystery of this campaign.
Yup. I think in time it'll settle back to a 2-3 point deficit. But the damage is done.
We’re always told debates don’t really decide elections. This one might
If it was in October maybe but this is July. Trump would have needed to have got to 55-60% for the debate to have decided it, 50% still refusing to vote for Trump even now? Biden can work on that at the convention and beyond and especially in targeted ads in swing states he won in 2020
No he can't.
I have stuck with Biden, hoped and wished and crossed fingers for months like most of the NY Times writers.
But it is time to accept reality. He lost 2024 last night and nothing will get that back.
This is turning into a fucking Shakespearean tragedy.
It is time for him to leave the bloody stage.
For who? Show me the polls where another Democrat does better v Trump
I've finally listened to Rishi Sunak's comments in reply to the RefUK slurs.
TBH I think it's the most straightforward and genuine thing I have seen from him all campaign.
Pity he chose to do it about the words of a paid actor doing 'secret filming work'. One wonders if he'll have to apologise.
If he was a "paid actor" playing the part of a rough racist in order to discredit Reform and Farage then why was he using his own name?
Surely if he was playing a part then he would assume a name that fit his character rather than use his own name.
How could he possibly have done that? A fake identity would have been rumbled in seconds!
Yes, RefUK's vetting procedures are famously watertiii... wait
Not before the event - he was allowed to go out canvassing without even being a party member. I mean after it. The papers know your identity, social media, Onlyfans account etc. as soon as you do so much as throw a milkshake. He could never have used "Racey McRacistface" - to do this he was always going to have to be him. He just didn't cover his tracks as a jobbing actor nearly well enough.
I am really struggling to get to grips with your version of this conspiracy theory.
Are you suggesting that he used his own name deliberately as he was certain to be exposed as an actor?
What was the point of doing that?
You really are being quite terrifyingly dense. If this was set up as a hit piece to discredit Reform, deliberately conceived as a media scandal, HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY HAVE USED A FALSE NAME?
I've finally listened to Rishi Sunak's comments in reply to the RefUK slurs.
TBH I think it's the most straightforward and genuine thing I have seen from him all campaign.
Pity he chose to do it about the words of a paid actor doing 'secret filming work'. One wonders if he'll have to apologise.
If he was a "paid actor" playing the part of a rough racist in order to discredit Reform and Farage then why was he using his own name?
Surely if he was playing a part then he would assume a name that fit his character rather than use his own name.
How could he possibly have done that? A fake identity would have been rumbled in seconds!
Yes, RefUK's vetting procedures are famously watertiii... wait
Not before the event - he was allowed to go out canvassing without even being a party member. I mean after it. The papers know your identity, social media, Onlyfans account etc. as soon as you do so much as throw a milkshake. He could never have used "Racey McRacistface" - to do this he was always going to have to be him. He just didn't cover his tracks as a jobbing actor nearly well enough.
I am really struggling to get to grips with your version of this conspiracy theory.
Are you suggesting that he used his own name deliberately as he was certain to be exposed as an actor?
What was the point of doing that?
Also, LG's hypothesis has the clear corollary that about half a dozen other actors are involved. Maybe he could find their websites as well.
Comments
Richard has previously outlined his unavoidable run ins with one particular NF grandee. His understanding and commentary is to be respected.
In case of vacancy ONLY way that new VP is selected, is either by nomination by POTUS as confirmed by Congress OR by regular POTUS/VP election. Which was the only way VPs got selected before Amendment XXV.
THUS in cases when Presidency become vacant, and the Vice President assumes that office, the Speaker of the US House becomes next in line for POTUS - but NOT for VP, which would (if it happened) would make them presiding officer of BOTH branches of Congress simultaneously.
End of the civics lesson.
I'm sure that Channel 5 did some documentaries.
It will start, as it has done already, with the media commentariat and grassroots. Then it will start to filter through to minor elected representatives. Then a couple of more important figures in the party will start to prevaricate/sound non-committal in public. Finally you'll get the big guns - the cabinet, the Clintons, the Obamas, weighing in - but likely behind the scenes.
No-one will want to be seen to be the one who dealt the fatal blow. If it happens, it will be incredibly similar to Thatcher's downfall. Of course we'll back you to the ends of the Earth Joe, you've been terrific and you're such a good friend, but as a good friend I need to tell you you will lose. Isn't it time to think about the Party? Haven't you earned that retirement?
Anyway, if she charges by the minute, fifty quid's worth would be enough for most blokes.
But my contention is that quite a few erstwhile Tory voters will vote for Farage. Sadly.
"It's shit"
"Yup"
Let's call the whole thing off.
There's good evidence to suggest that some children do suffer gender distress but go on to identify differently as they grow older. But then again, there's plenty of people who identify as gay or bi in their youth who consider themselves straight as they grow older. Sexuality isn't static, nor is gender identity - or at least that's my take.
I would argue that if your'e old enough to have sex - say 16 - you're old enough to decide your gender identity. If you have issues or distress before that, then puberty blockers are a possible answer before you become old enough to decide.
I am neither an absolutist nor an activist, just a liberal metropolitan type with a live and let live attitude. If someone says they are trans, I believe them. If they're underage, then I'm not averse to them being given a drug that delays physical puberty in order for them to make up their mind, and maybe grow out of their identity and discover their adult self.
The evidence, however, suggests that most don't. What's fascinating is that far more ftms decide they don't want to be men than mtfs decide they don't want to be women...
"Sam Freedman
@Samfr
Correct. And remember they are seeing initial batches of postal votes.
Quote
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
4(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
One thing to remember about the analysis as we move forward. Both sides are starting to see evidence of actual voting from postal vote returns."
Sam Freedman
@Samfr
·
37m
Postal votes are opened in advance and parties are allowed to be present. They're not allowed to record a tally but usually can get a decent sense of whether they're on track.
https://x.com/Samfr/status/1806785772042809684
Nigel Farage offered Reform UK's former candidate in Clacton a "very big role" in his campaign team, a salaried job in the constituency and repayment of thousands of pounds of expenses in return for his endorsement, the BBC has been told.
But Tony Mack, who was asked to step aside for Mr Farage, said none of what was promised has been delivered. He said he had spent £6,000 on his campaign and had not yet seen "a penny" reimbursed.
Reform UK's spokesperson said the situation was "very sad" and the party "operated in good faith". . . .
SSI - At his announcement in Clacton, Farage made a point of thanking "Tony McIntyre".
https://x.com/hendopolis/status/1806091462947348530
Surely if he was playing a part then he would assume a name that fit his character rather than use his own name.
Probably cock up rather than conspiracy, but doesn't it sum up this shambolic administration?
Pre-debate 6/22-6/24
🟦 Biden 43%
🟥 Trump 41%
Post-debate
🟥 Trump 50%
🟦 Biden 42%
https://x.com/umichvoter/status/1806786996704043009?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
@Samfr
This is how it works:
Tim (totally unremarkable)
@forwardnotback
PSA: Agents/others know how many PVs have been issued
They have a good idea how many PVs their candidate has been promised
They get daily tallies of PVs returned
Then they can do the maths
They do not see which way individual PVs have been cast
No one is actually counting votes
https://x.com/Samfr/status/1806788618306076945
Who's the gent between Mr Hancock and Lady Thatcher?
As has been pointed out now on the other side even Corbyn would probably win this election for Labour now, again on swing of the pendulum with FPTP
When he became VP, no one predicted that Dan Quayle would become a New Founding Father.
There's a reason you weren't included in this list of loyal and decent Tories who will still vote Tory even this year but would never vote Farage.
So we have TSE, Mark, BigG, JohnO and NigelForemaine too I should add.
If it weren't for Tory housing policy costing my vote this year I'd be on that list too.
Farage is toxic. Not to you, but to others. I suspect there's more loyal Tories on this site who would NOT vote for him than who would.
If Farage's party was the main opposition to Labour though and you lived in a seat where Labour and Farage's party were the main 2 contenders with the LDs a poor 3rd many would. As if you didn't vote for Farage you get a Labour government and Labour MP
Sunak should have cockblocked for as long as he could.
The excitement of another election to entertain us over the summer.
mystery of this campaign.
He doesn't recognise how he's being portrayed in the media.
Are you suggesting that he used his own name deliberately as he was certain to be exposed as an actor?
What was the point of doing that?
I have stuck with Biden, hoped and wished and crossed fingers for months like most of the NY Times writers.
But it is time to accept reality. He lost 2024 last night and nothing will get that back.
This is turning into a fucking Shakespearean tragedy.
It is time for him to leave the bloody stage.
Your previous cheerleading for the Falange was a big clue.
And nothing I’ve read really fits
https://x.com/jamesks92/status/1806635327605400052
There's a lot of chat about trying to delay leadership vote for a few months so that everyone can calm down and take stock etc etc.
I am on Fox at 160/1
But, I've never seen anyone ever buy one.