“ROA criminalises the disclosure of spent convictions in some circumstances, but it does not create a general criminal or civil liability. A person wanting to bring a claim against a newspaper may make a claim by turning to defamation or privacy law.
“Fortunately, section 8(3) of ROA enables a publisher to defend a defamation claim by using the “truth” and “honest opinion” defences that are provided by the 2013 Defamation Act. Truth is an obvious defence, where it is demonstrably true that the claimant was convicted of the offence reported. However, a publisher cannot rely on the defence of ‘truth’ if the claimant is able to prove that the publication has been made with malice. Unfortunately for publishers, the word ‘malice’ is not defined within the ROA, leaving it up to the courts to decide where to draw the line.
“Case law (Herbage v Pressdram) tells us that for the purposes of the ROA, malice means that the publication was made “with some irrelevant, spiteful or improper motive”, for example trying to cause financial harm to the claimant – rather than reporting the conviction in a story which is clearly in the public interest.
“This was reinforced in a later case by Mr Justice Eady (Silkman v Heard), who underlined that the claimant must prove that the dominant motive for publishing the article was to injure the claimant and that given the gravity of an allegation of malice in any context, the standard of proof on the claimant would be correspondingly high.”
London seemed to be Rishi's best region outside Scotland. Below national average swing and a key hold in Harrow East with a high Hindu vote and a hold against the odds for IDS in Chingford
This would be the Scotland where the Conservatives get a record low of 12.7% ?
No party should allow a candidate to stand for a seat if they’ve had a criminal conviction for a violent offense.
Do you think there should be a ban, written into law?
If a criminal conviction for a violent offense comes to light after you’ve been elected then you should be forced to stand down and a by election held.
This is all a bit ad hoc is it not? I would have thought crimes of dishonesty were a much bigger deal in the context, and in both cases democracy is better served by saying it's up to opponents to dig the dirt. People can always vote the guy out in 5 years.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
No party should allow a candidate to stand for a seat if they’ve had a criminal conviction for a violent offense.
Do you think there should be a ban, written into law?
If a criminal conviction for a violent offense comes to light after you’ve been elected then you should be forced to stand down and a by election held.
A spent conviction from two decades ago when he was a teenager?
Given he only won by 96 votes it’s pretty clear that the Reform candidate wouldn’t have won Basildon if his conviction had been known before the vote .
No party should allow a candidate to stand for a seat if they’ve had a criminal conviction for a violent offense.
Why? I agree the electorate should know, but I am not happy for Govts deciding who can and can not stand. Currently the only reasons we currently have are being too young, in prison and in the Lord's and I'm not too happy about the last two (I'm assuming you can't stand if you can't vote, but I don't know that).
You don’t have to be registered to vote to stand. You do have to be a citizen of the UK or Ireland or the Commonwealth. You don’t have to be resident in the UK.
You can be in prison, if the sentence is for less than a year.
You can’t be bankrupt.
As well as the Lords, you can’t be an MP and a member of the Welsh, Northern Irish or Irish Parliaments.
Certain jobs ban you from being an MP: civil servants, police, armed forces, some judges.
“ROA criminalises the disclosure of spent convictions in some circumstances, but it does not create a general criminal or civil liability. A person wanting to bring a claim against a newspaper may make a claim by turning to defamation or privacy law.
“Fortunately, section 8(3) of ROA enables a publisher to defend a defamation claim by using the “truth” and “honest opinion” defences that are provided by the 2013 Defamation Act. Truth is an obvious defence, where it is demonstrably true that the claimant was convicted of the offence reported. However, a publisher cannot rely on the defence of ‘truth’ if the claimant is able to prove that the publication has been made with malice. Unfortunately for publishers, the word ‘malice’ is not defined within the ROA, leaving it up to the courts to decide where to draw the line.
“Case law (Herbage v Pressdram) tells us that for the purposes of the ROA, malice means that the publication was made “with some irrelevant, spiteful or improper motive”, for example trying to cause financial harm to the claimant – rather than reporting the conviction in a story which is clearly in the public interest.
“This was reinforced in a later case by Mr Justice Eady (Silkman v Heard), who underlined that the claimant must prove that the dominant motive for publishing the article was to injure the claimant and that given the gravity of an allegation of malice in any context, the standard of proof on the claimant would be correspondingly high.”
How much media law features Pressdram as the defendant?
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
A combination of Leon's hatred of Southgate and the National's front page is leading me to uncomfortable position of supporting England in the final.
I also love Saka's ability to withstand being hacked for 90 minutes and still ping it in from 30 yards. And Pickford has appropriate level of lunacy for a goalkeeper. G'luck.
"we also know that, right now, Trump is almost certain to win an Electoral College landslide in November, for the simple reason that he doesn’t have a credible or capable opponent."
"Two weeks ago, I wrote that the Biden campaign is over. It still is. The attempt these last two weeks to insist that the parrot is not, in fact, dead is Monty Python material."
"Two weeks ago, I assumed it would be done by now. It truly is the only option available if the Democrats really do want to stop a Trump landslide. The question reverberating in my mind right now is therefore a simple one: Do they?"
I don't think the data shows this? He's polling at basically a tie after weeks of nothing but "how senile is Biden and will he be replaced" in the news.
Swing voters who have seen a term of Trump and a term of Biden and can't figure out which of the two they prefer are quite weird people, I'd be suspicious of anybody who claims they can confidently tell what they'll end up doing.
Also it's not up to "the Democrats", it's up to Joe Biden. If he doesn't want to go they can't force him to.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
Given he only won by 96 votes it’s pretty clear that the Reform candidate wouldn’t have won Basildon if his conviction had been known before the vote .
No party should allow a candidate to stand for a seat if they’ve had a criminal conviction for a violent offense.
Why? I agree the electorate should know, but I am not happy for Govts deciding who can and can not stand. Currently the only reasons we currently have are being too young, in prison and in the Lord's and I'm not too happy about the last two (I'm assuming you can't stand if you can't vote, but I don't know that).
You don’t have to be registered to vote to stand. You do have to be a citizen of the UK or Ireland or the Commonwealth. You don’t have to be resident in the UK.
You can be in prison, if the sentence is for less than a year.
You can’t be bankrupt.
As well as the Lords, you can’t be an MP and a member of the Welsh, Northern Irish or Irish Parliaments.
Certain jobs ban you from being an MP: civil servants, police, armed forces, some judges.
Therefore, as I understand it, you could be a Rwandan citizen in a Rwandan prison and stand to be an MP.
"we also know that, right now, Trump is almost certain to win an Electoral College landslide in November, for the simple reason that he doesn’t have a credible or capable opponent."
"Two weeks ago, I wrote that the Biden campaign is over. It still is. The attempt these last two weeks to insist that the parrot is not, in fact, dead is Monty Python material."
"Two weeks ago, I assumed it would be done by now. It truly is the only option available if the Democrats really do want to stop a Trump landslide. The question reverberating in my mind right now is therefore a simple one: Do they?"
I don't think the data shows this? He's polling at basically a tie after weeks of nothing but "how senile is Biden and will he be replaced" in the news.
Swing voters who have seen a term of Trump and a term of Biden and can't figure out which of the two they prefer are quite weird people, I'd be suspicious of anybody who claims they can confidently tell what they'll end up doing.
Also it's not up to "the Democrats", it's up to Joe Biden. If he doesn't want to go they can't force him to.
A narrow loss to Trump in November and the entire Biden write off pundit brigade will never ever ever acknowledge how wrong they were at this point in time.
Of course it's far more inconvenient for them if Biden actually wins
I think, unless Europe really steps up its efforts, Ukraine will fall and Putin will become more dangerous on the back of that success.
The Trump/Biden result matters less than it did thought because it now looks unlikely that the Dems will flip the house so Ukraine won't be getting another $60bn any time soon no matter who is President. The EU/UK can step up to fill that hole if they want.
What will be sorely missed and what can't be replaced by the EU is the SIGINT/ELINT for targeting.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
No party should allow a candidate to stand for a seat if they’ve had a criminal conviction for a violent offense.
Do you think there should be a ban, written into law?
If a criminal conviction for a violent offense comes to light after you’ve been elected then you should be forced to stand down and a by election held.
This is all a bit ad hoc is it not? I would have thought crimes of dishonesty were a much bigger deal in the context, and in both cases democracy is better served by saying it's up to opponents to dig the dirt. People can always vote the guy out in 5 years.
I generally with Mr Tweedledee on this.
We do have regulatory criteria for who be an MP, when they get defenestrated etc - if we want change then it is through politics to adjust those criteria. We have also readjusted it recently with recall elections and so on. Those must be clear, for a practical process.
Asking awkward questions of an MP who is pursuing policies which *look* like they are in conflict with his own experience is politics, and Mr M for Murdock has the opportunity to explain themselves and win the argument. That's politics, which can be a little muddier.
"we also know that, right now, Trump is almost certain to win an Electoral College landslide in November, for the simple reason that he doesn’t have a credible or capable opponent."
"Two weeks ago, I wrote that the Biden campaign is over. It still is. The attempt these last two weeks to insist that the parrot is not, in fact, dead is Monty Python material."
"Two weeks ago, I assumed it would be done by now. It truly is the only option available if the Democrats really do want to stop a Trump landslide. The question reverberating in my mind right now is therefore a simple one: Do they?"
I don't think the data shows this? He's polling at basically a tie after weeks of nothing but "how senile is Biden and will he be replaced" in the news.
Swing voters who have seen a term of Trump and a term of Biden and can't figure out which of the two they prefer are quite weird people, I'd be suspicious of anybody who claims they can confidently tell what they'll end up doing.
Also it's not up to "the Democrats", it's up to Joe Biden. If he doesn't want to go they can't force him to.
A narrow loss to Trump in November and the entire Biden write off pundit brigade will never ever ever acknowledge how wrong they were at this point in time.
Of course it's far more inconvenient for them if Biden actually wins
So if Biden loses that will be exactly as they predicted so it's important to emphasize how wrong they are?
"we also know that, right now, Trump is almost certain to win an Electoral College landslide in November, for the simple reason that he doesn’t have a credible or capable opponent."
"Two weeks ago, I wrote that the Biden campaign is over. It still is. The attempt these last two weeks to insist that the parrot is not, in fact, dead is Monty Python material."
"Two weeks ago, I assumed it would be done by now. It truly is the only option available if the Democrats really do want to stop a Trump landslide. The question reverberating in my mind right now is therefore a simple one: Do they?"
I don't think the data shows this? He's polling at basically a tie after weeks of nothing but "how senile is Biden and will he be replaced" in the news.
Swing voters who have seen a term of Trump and a term of Biden and can't figure out which of the two they prefer are quite weird people, I'd be suspicious of anybody who claims they can confidently tell what they'll end up doing.
Also it's not up to "the Democrats", it's up to Joe Biden. If he doesn't want to go they can't force him to.
I guess Sullivan believes the polls don't tell us what is actually going to happen at this point. Same iirc for Luntz, another landslide predictor.
A quick look at comparisons of Southgate with prior England managers with regards to his record.
From 1950 (start of England entering major tournaments) up until 2016 (Southgate takes over), England won 9 knock-out matches in major tournaments. Looking at these because they're the sharp end of tournaments; you have to win 4 in a row to pick up silverware (3 in a row in earlier times). These were 3 in WC 1966, 1 in WC 1986, 2 in WC 1990, 1 in Euros 1996, 1 in WC 2002, 1 in WC 2006. This was the aggregate total of Winterbottom (0), Ramsey (3), Revie (0), Greenwood (0), Robson (3), Taylor (0), Venables (1), Keegan (0), Eriksson (2), McLaren (0), Capello (0), Hodgson (0).
Since Southgate took over, England have won a further 9 k/o matches (2 in WC 2018, 3 in Euros 2020/1, 1 in WC 2022, 3 so far in Euros 2024). He's also the first manager to see us win 3 in a row in major tournaments since Ramsey, and the first to do it twice, including on foreign soil.
We've had discussions about what "par" should be for England. I'd suggest qualifying plus getting out of the Group stage should be our basic expectation. Yes, we're usually ranked 8 or higher so should be aiming for QFs, but that logic should have the top 4 all expecting SFs and us always being knocked out at QFs (not a 50-50 chance of getting through).
Southgate exceeded expectations (for me), qualifying and making it out of the group stage each time, yes, but always winning a k/o game and making a minimum of QFs. Qualifying and making it out of the group was achieved every time only by Venables (who only managed one tournament), Eriksson, Capello, and Southgate - only these ALWAYS managed at least a par result (Ramsey is excused due to, you know, winning the World Cup). Only Southgate and Venables have always won a k/o game as well, and Southgate did it in 4 tournaments.
Yes, he has a great deal of talent. But the "golden generation" were available for over a decade before. Robson, Taylor, and Venables also had a lot of talent available.
"we also know that, right now, Trump is almost certain to win an Electoral College landslide in November, for the simple reason that he doesn’t have a credible or capable opponent."
"Two weeks ago, I wrote that the Biden campaign is over. It still is. The attempt these last two weeks to insist that the parrot is not, in fact, dead is Monty Python material."
"Two weeks ago, I assumed it would be done by now. It truly is the only option available if the Democrats really do want to stop a Trump landslide. The question reverberating in my mind right now is therefore a simple one: Do they?"
I don't think the data shows this? He's polling at basically a tie after weeks of nothing but "how senile is Biden and will he be replaced" in the news.
Swing voters who have seen a term of Trump and a term of Biden and can't figure out which of the two they prefer are quite weird people, I'd be suspicious of anybody who claims they can confidently tell what they'll end up doing.
Also it's not up to "the Democrats", it's up to Joe Biden. If he doesn't want to go they can't force him to.
I guess Sullivan believes the polls don't tell us what is actually going to happen at this point. Same iirc for Luntz, another landslide predictor.
Life is hard for the moderate conservative pundits because policy-wise the right has moved so far away from them that they're almost indistinguishable from partisan Democrats, but their brands are based on being bold independent thinkers who will tell hard truths about Both Sides. When they get an opportunity like this they milk it for all it's worth.
Nobody cares if their confident predictions turn out to be garbage, as you can tell from the fact that people are still asking what Frank Luntz thinks.
The stakes in their election are simply extraordinary for all of us.
Worse than you think. Donald Trump is not the real danger, but the Supreme Court and its rulings will continue, and Project 2025 (which is partly what this video is about) has captured a large part of the GOP but is so extreme even Trump is wary of it.
"we also know that, right now, Trump is almost certain to win an Electoral College landslide in November, for the simple reason that he doesn’t have a credible or capable opponent."
"Two weeks ago, I wrote that the Biden campaign is over. It still is. The attempt these last two weeks to insist that the parrot is not, in fact, dead is Monty Python material."
"Two weeks ago, I assumed it would be done by now. It truly is the only option available if the Democrats really do want to stop a Trump landslide. The question reverberating in my mind right now is therefore a simple one: Do they?"
I don't think the data shows this? He's polling at basically a tie after weeks of nothing but "how senile is Biden and will he be replaced" in the news.
Swing voters who have seen a term of Trump and a term of Biden and can't figure out which of the two they prefer are quite weird people, I'd be suspicious of anybody who claims they can confidently tell what they'll end up doing.
Also it's not up to "the Democrats", it's up to Joe Biden. If he doesn't want to go they can't force him to.
I guess Sullivan believes the polls don't tell us what is actually going to happen at this point. Same iirc for Luntz, another landslide predictor.
I think that like many in the media he needs seriously to engage with Trump.
The stakes in their election are simply extraordinary for all of us.
Worse than you think. Donald Trump is not the real danger, but the Supreme Court and its rulings will continue, and Project 2025 (which is partly what this video is about) has captured a large part of the GOP but is so extreme even Trump is wary of it.
Trump is at least party responsible for the state of the Supreme Court. It may well be that he's ignorant of the damage he's done there, or it may be that he's belatedly coming to realise that damage. If he does get four more years the US will, as we're most of us agreed, be a very, very different place.
“ROA criminalises the disclosure of spent convictions in some circumstances, but it does not create a general criminal or civil liability. A person wanting to bring a claim against a newspaper may make a claim by turning to defamation or privacy law.
“Fortunately, section 8(3) of ROA enables a publisher to defend a defamation claim by using the “truth” and “honest opinion” defences that are provided by the 2013 Defamation Act. Truth is an obvious defence, where it is demonstrably true that the claimant was convicted of the offence reported. However, a publisher cannot rely on the defence of ‘truth’ if the claimant is able to prove that the publication has been made with malice. Unfortunately for publishers, the word ‘malice’ is not defined within the ROA, leaving it up to the courts to decide where to draw the line.
“Case law (Herbage v Pressdram) tells us that for the purposes of the ROA, malice means that the publication was made “with some irrelevant, spiteful or improper motive”, for example trying to cause financial harm to the claimant – rather than reporting the conviction in a story which is clearly in the public interest.
“This was reinforced in a later case by Mr Justice Eady (Silkman v Heard), who underlined that the claimant must prove that the dominant motive for publishing the article was to injure the claimant and that given the gravity of an allegation of malice in any context, the standard of proof on the claimant would be correspondingly high.”
How much media law features Pressdram as the defendant?
Probably quite a lot- after all, one of the things Private Eye does is probe the limits of what unpublishable things can be published.
As for this case, the general principe seems clear enough. Voters can use whatever information they like to form a judgement about an election candidate. When push comes to shove, that information doesn't even need to be true. In this case, that judgement gets to be delivered in 4-5 years time.
In the meantime, it's Big Boy Rules for Nigel and Lee. Do they wish to have this gentleman as a member of their parliamentary group? Oh, and what did they know about this when? or was it another case of incompetent vetting?
FWIW, I suspect that the revelation that he is a former merchant banker may be more of an issue with his voters than his youthful conviction.
The stakes in their election are simply extraordinary for all of us.
Worse than you think. Donald Trump is not the real danger, but the Supreme Court and its rulings will continue, and Project 2025 (which is partly what this video is about) has captured a large part of the GOP but is so extreme even Trump is wary of it.
Trump is at least party responsible for the state of the Supreme Court. It may well be that he's ignorant of the damage he's done there, or it may be that he's belatedly coming to realise that damage. If he does get four more years the US will, as we're most of us agreed, be a very, very different place.
Trump, and the GOP in general, is very much proud of the Supreme Court. It was a decades-long project, which finally came together thanks to Trump and the “Notorious RBG”.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
What's your complaint? The football coverage has been far better than political coverage. Unlike in past tournaments, any criticism is technical, not personal. Pundits ask if Southgate should make substitutions ten minutes earlier, not call him a turnip or the wally with the brolly as they did previous managers. Now it is prime ministers who are compared to salad vegetables, or splashed over the front pages for partying and shagging around.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
Come on Ingerland.
Not sure about all the people in that picture, but bringing it home for Barry (RIP) and Paul Chuckle is definitely worth it.
The stakes in their election are simply extraordinary for all of us.
Worse than you think. Donald Trump is not the real danger, but the Supreme Court and its rulings will continue, and Project 2025 (which is partly what this video is about) has captured a large part of the GOP but is so extreme even Trump is wary of it.
Trump is at least party responsible for the state of the Supreme Court. It may well be that he's ignorant of the damage he's done there, or it may be that he's belatedly coming to realise that damage. If he does get four more years the US will, as we're most of us agreed, be a very, very different place.
Yes but if Trump falls under a bus tomorrow, any Republican president will inherit Project 2025 and the Supreme Court's rulings, and unlike Trump, might even believe in them. For Trump everything is transactional.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
Is skin colour a good criteria?
According to British Future, which is Sunder Katwalla's group:
A record number of 90 ethnic minority MPs have been elected to sit in the UK’s most diverse parliament ever, an increase of 24, according to British Future’s analysis of the 2024 general election results.
The historic advance in representation means the new parliament comes closer than ever before to reflecting the diversity of the electorate, with 13.8% of MPs coming from an ethnic minority background. Analysis of census data by Matt Singh of Number Cruncher Politics estimates that 14% of the UK electorate is from an ethnic minority background.
By far the largest number of ethnic minority MPs will sit on the Labour government benches. The 2024 parliament will include 66 Labour MPs from an ethnic minority background, 16% of the new Parliamentary Labour Party. Some 15 ethnic minority Conservatives were elected, alongside 5 Lib Dems and 4 new independent MPs from a minority background. https://www.britishfuture.org/milestone-for-representation-as-diversity-of-parliament-matches-electorate/
5 form 72 is still lowish, bit not one. 15 from 121 is better than I expected from the remaining Tories.
"we also know that, right now, Trump is almost certain to win an Electoral College landslide in November, for the simple reason that he doesn’t have a credible or capable opponent."
"Two weeks ago, I wrote that the Biden campaign is over. It still is. The attempt these last two weeks to insist that the parrot is not, in fact, dead is Monty Python material."
"Two weeks ago, I assumed it would be done by now. It truly is the only option available if the Democrats really do want to stop a Trump landslide. The question reverberating in my mind right now is therefore a simple one: Do they?"
I don't think the data shows this? He's polling at basically a tie after weeks of nothing but "how senile is Biden and will he be replaced" in the news.
Swing voters who have seen a term of Trump and a term of Biden and can't figure out which of the two they prefer are quite weird people, I'd be suspicious of anybody who claims they can confidently tell what they'll end up doing.
Also it's not up to "the Democrats", it's up to Joe Biden. If he doesn't want to go they can't force him to.
A narrow loss to Trump in November and the entire Biden write off pundit brigade will never ever ever acknowledge how wrong they were at this point in time.
Of course it's far more inconvenient for them if Biden actually wins
Biden or no Biden, I remain confident that Donald Trump is not heading back to the WH. When the time comes, and actual votes replace punditry and polls and blowing smoke around, enough of the American people, knowing what they know about this essentially monstrous individual, will say No.
Call this naive if you like, or talking my book, I don't care. That's my view, hope and belief all rolled into one, and I'm going to be right.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
We should definitely have more left-handed MPs because everyone knows left-handed people are cleverer, nicer and generally better in every way.
"we also know that, right now, Trump is almost certain to win an Electoral College landslide in November, for the simple reason that he doesn’t have a credible or capable opponent."
"Two weeks ago, I wrote that the Biden campaign is over. It still is. The attempt these last two weeks to insist that the parrot is not, in fact, dead is Monty Python material."
"Two weeks ago, I assumed it would be done by now. It truly is the only option available if the Democrats really do want to stop a Trump landslide. The question reverberating in my mind right now is therefore a simple one: Do they?"
I don't think the data shows this? He's polling at basically a tie after weeks of nothing but "how senile is Biden and will he be replaced" in the news.
Swing voters who have seen a term of Trump and a term of Biden and can't figure out which of the two they prefer are quite weird people, I'd be suspicious of anybody who claims they can confidently tell what they'll end up doing.
Also it's not up to "the Democrats", it's up to Joe Biden. If he doesn't want to go they can't force him to.
A narrow loss to Trump in November and the entire Biden write off pundit brigade will never ever ever acknowledge how wrong they were at this point in time.
Of course it's far more inconvenient for them if Biden actually wins
Biden or no Biden, I remain confident that Donald Trump is not heading back to the WH. When the time comes, and actual votes replace punditry and polls and blowing smoke around, enough of the American people, knowing what they know about this essentially monstrous individual, will say No.
Call this naive if you like, or talking my book, I don't care. That's my view, hope and belief all rolled into one, and I'm going to be right.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
To you or I, no it doesn’t matter. But to those on the left who obsess about these things, it matters an awful lot.
That the LDs are the party of white, upper-middle-class Britain, is hardly news.
A quick look at comparisons of Southgate with prior England managers with regards to his record.
From 1950 (start of England entering major tournaments) up until 2016 (Southgate takes over), England won 9 knock-out matches in major tournaments. Looking at these because they're the sharp end of tournaments; you have to win 4 in a row to pick up silverware (3 in a row in earlier times). These were 3 in WC 1966, 1 in WC 1986, 2 in WC 1990, 1 in Euros 1996, 1 in WC 2002, 1 in WC 2006. This was the aggregate total of Winterbottom (0), Ramsey (3), Revie (0), Greenwood (0), Robson (3), Taylor (0), Venables (1), Keegan (0), Eriksson (2), McLaren (0), Capello (0), Hodgson (0).
Since Southgate took over, England have won a further 9 k/o matches (2 in WC 2018, 3 in Euros 2020/1, 1 in WC 2022, 3 so far in Euros 2024). He's also the first manager to see us win 3 in a row in major tournaments since Ramsey, and the first to do it twice, including on foreign soil.
We've had discussions about what "par" should be for England. I'd suggest qualifying plus getting out of the Group stage should be our basic expectation. Yes, we're usually ranked 8 or higher so should be aiming for QFs, but that logic should have the top 4 all expecting SFs and us always being knocked out at QFs (not a 50-50 chance of getting through).
Southgate exceeded expectations (for me), qualifying and making it out of the group stage each time, yes, but always winning a k/o game and making a minimum of QFs. Qualifying and making it out of the group was achieved every time only by Venables (who only managed one tournament), Eriksson, Capello, and Southgate - only these ALWAYS managed at least a par result (Ramsey is excused due to, you know, winning the World Cup). Only Southgate and Venables have always won a k/o game as well, and Southgate did it in 4 tournaments.
Yes, he has a great deal of talent. But the "golden generation" were available for over a decade before. Robson, Taylor, and Venables also had a lot of talent available.
All good points and I think progression through knockout stages is indeed a good measure of progress, given international success is basically measure in knockout competitions (which is incidentally why the rankings - which are fine as a tool for seeding - really shouldn’t be taken as seriously as they are).
Couple of points of order, that I’m not sure progressing via penalties is technically a win. Secondly - the ‘golden generation’ was a name the media gave to that cohort of English footballers, only to then call them the ‘so-called ‘golden generation’’ as if the players themselves had applied the name.
England have had - and generally will always have - a decent set of players; as you rightly point out Robson and Venables had a strong group to select from.
Ramsay is the only winner, albeit with significant tailwinds, so he and the 66 team have to be credited as the best.
After that, there is no question that the Southgate era is the most successful, and more consistently successful at a time when the global field is stronger too.
The stakes in their election are simply extraordinary for all of us.
Worse than you think. Donald Trump is not the real danger, but the Supreme Court and its rulings will continue, and Project 2025 (which is partly what this video is about) has captured a large part of the GOP but is so extreme even Trump is wary of it.
Agreed.
The ruling is the worst thing for American democracy ever, which I can only assume the members of the Supreme court who formed it should also be in a nursing home for those with dementia like Biden.
Forget Trump. What they've said is an American president can do anything he likes in his 'official' capacity (without defining what is official) and its not illegal. Murder his political opponents - not illegal. Kill EVERYONE in the whole country - not illegal.
Nothing the US President does is illegal, therefore they can do anything they like. Even if it isn't Trump, someone, one day, will take full advantage of that fact.
It's the Enabling Act 1933.
I'm surprised the Supreme Court didn't just call the ruling that.
The stakes in their election are simply extraordinary for all of us.
Worse than you think. Donald Trump is not the real danger, but the Supreme Court and its rulings will continue, and Project 2025 (which is partly what this video is about) has captured a large part of the GOP but is so extreme even Trump is wary of it.
Agreed.
The ruling is the worst thing for American democracy ever, which I can only assume the members of the Supreme court who formed it should also be in a nursing home for those with dementia like Biden.
Forget Trump. What they've said is an American president can do anything he likes in his 'official' capacity (without defining what is official) and its not illegal. Murder his political opponents - not illegal. Kill EVERYONE in the whole country - not illegal.
Nothing the US President does is illegal, therefore they can do anything they like. Even if it isn't Trump, someone, one day, will take full advantage of that fact.
It's the Enabling Act 1933.
I'm surprised the Supreme Court didn't just call the ruling that.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
Violent criminals also shamefully under represented.
Not sure if you mean "Liberal Democrats" or "classical liberals" or "liberal liberals" .
I'd say you've triggered the people who like accurate data, and don't think making judgements on ethnicity by the colour of people's skin really works .
The stakes in their election are simply extraordinary for all of us.
In all honesty, what is he going to do that affects you personally? I heartily dislike him and hope he loses, but his effects on Europeans will be limited to withdrawal of Ukrainian support and the usual legislative overreach, the latter of which happens whoever is President.
I think that NATO will not survive a further Trump Presidency unscathed. This organisation has been the keystone of our defence and defence requirements for the last 75 years.
I think, unless Europe really steps up its efforts, Ukraine will fall and Putin will become more dangerous on the back of that success.
I think that the withdrawal of the US from international structures and law will seriously weaken and possibly destroy an already weakened international order.
I fear that the hyper aggressive trade policies will trigger a repeat of the damage to international trade that we saw in the 1930s.
The truth is we have relied on the US to maintain world order (in the main) since WW2. A lot of the assumptions and things we take for granted would be at risk.
This feels like quite an incurious and lazy set of assumptions and cliches. The continuing adventures in the Middle East and elsewhere have not guaranteed our security - they have threatened our security. America has (and I acknowledge this is its right) always looked after number 1 - Donald Trump just doesn't gussy up his intentions in the language of 'the rules based international order'. Personally I find it refreshing to know where one stands.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
Come on Ingerland.
Nice to see Shipman in there. My Grandma worked with him at Pontefract hospital - lovely bloke she said. Did his bit to reduce the pressure on our beloved NHS.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
Violent criminals also shamefully under represented.
Obese: I'd say would be representative of age group, sex, and economic circumstances - without installing a mini weigh-bridge by the Speaker's Chair I can't get more data.
Gay: tend to be the most overrepresented group, apart from possibly lawyers (until the revolution comes, then that problem goes away).
Left-handed: no idea and no idea how to get the data.
Ethnic minority: seem to be exactly in line now - 13.8% vs 14% in population. Questions remain about groups within "ethnic minority" and distribution amongst parties.
Sex: I think we are now at 40% female.
Disability: likely to be underrepresented, but difficult to count. Campaigners will be telling fairy stores undercounting by perhaps 80-90%; tend to say "6" or "7"; the number may well be swallowed without touching the sides by our loboto-media. The last time I tried counting from published or self-disclosing sources, I reached 40-50 within an hour.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
Come on Ingerland.
Not sure about all the people in that picture, but bringing it home for Barry (RIP) and Paul Chuckle is definitely worth it.
Play for the Chuckle brothers lads!
To me, to you (etc).......
I'm not sure on middle right, top left, and couldn't be sure on the military man underneath our Liz. Looks like an RAF uniform? *ready to be flamed
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
Come on Ingerland.
Not sure about all the people in that picture, but bringing it home for Barry (RIP) and Paul Chuckle is definitely worth it.
Play for the Chuckle brothers lads!
To me, to you (etc).......
I'm not sure on middle right, top left, and couldn't be sure on the military man underneath our Liz. Looks like an RAF uniform? *ready to be flamed
Butcher Harris, as his Bomber Command crews called him. Sure, he'd be called a Zimbabwean today and anachronistically, but he was a Cheltonian by birth.
PS: top left looks like Dr Rose Dugdale but I'm not certain.
The stakes in their election are simply extraordinary for all of us.
In all honesty, what is he going to do that affects you personally? I heartily dislike him and hope he loses, but his effects on Europeans will be limited to withdrawal of Ukrainian support and the usual legislative overreach, the latter of which happens whoever is President.
I think that NATO will not survive a further Trump Presidency unscathed. This organisation has been the keystone of our defence and defence requirements for the last 75 years.
I think, unless Europe really steps up its efforts, Ukraine will fall and Putin will become more dangerous on the back of that success.
I think that the withdrawal of the US from international structures and law will seriously weaken and possibly destroy an already weakened international order.
I fear that the hyper aggressive trade policies will trigger a repeat of the damage to international trade that we saw in the 1930s.
The truth is we have relied on the US to maintain world order (in the main) since WW2. A lot of the assumptions and things we take for granted would be at risk.
Nato as currently Constituted, a largely US funded military alliance will not last much longer whoever wins.
US is now spending more on national debt interest than the military, is adding to it at a rate of 3-4 $trillion a year and has a vast amount of covid debt, funded by short term low interest bonds that is rolling over and will need to be financed at much higher interest rate.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
Come on Ingerland.
Nice to see Shipman in there. My Grandma worked with him at Pontefract hospital - lovely bloke she said. Did his bit to reduce the pressure on our beloved NHS.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
Come on Ingerland.
Nice to see Shipman in there. My Grandma worked with him at Pontefract hospital - lovely bloke she said. Did his bit to reduce the pressure on our beloved NHS.
Merton is certainly one to watch for the LDs in the next locals
Not a chance. Sure they stand a good chance of winning seats off the tories in parts of Wimbledon, but Mitcham and big chunks of Merton and Morden are as solid labour as a welsh coal mining town.
On what basis do you say that? Have you looked at the previous results ward by ward? LDs have a number of split wards with both the Tories and Labour so the LDs can pick all these up with just an increase of a few tens of votes for their least favoured candidate in each ward. They amount to 5 seats in total. They should all be a slam dunk. Wimbledon wards are all LD already so your comment of winning these off the Tories is not correct. They are winning outside of these areas. If they win these 5, which they should, they will only just be trailing Lab in total and Lab lose control (just). One competitive 3 member ward with Lab and they are on Labs heels. Anymore and they take control.
And it's 2026, by which time the government might not be so popular as it is now, having just stormed a third of the national vote.
Actually I am going to back off my bullish response a bit in fairness to @MisterBedfordshire. Looking a bit further in wards where Labour won all seats they are a long way ahead of the LDs, so finding that extra ward or two may be a challenge to take control.. Also Village looks like a very good prospect from the Tories. So @MisterBedfordshire really wasn't that wrong, but there are easily 8 gains there for the taking, 2 from Labour which would make it 29 Lab, 25 LD I think. LDs up from 17. That is based upon split wards and one marginal ward. Haven't looked at other Tory wards which might be vulnerable.
Libs are fourth in 29 out of 58 of the seats. 27 of them are held by Labour and two Tory.
The best you could hope for would be a Tory - Libdem - Merton Park Independents coalition with 30 seats to Labours 27.
But what is wrong in what I said (as amended in my 2nd post). Ian only pointed out it is one to look at. There are potential 8 easy gains for the LDs (5 in split wards and one marginal of 3) taking them to 25, making it neck and neck but with the LDs behind by a few seats. I agree, as I said, after the split ward it is hard to see any other gains from Labour, but you only need one to go pearshaped for whatever reason (corruption, popular local campaigner, local issue, etc) and you are on a knife edge.
You still have to get from fourth to first place in the split Labour - Con ward. was going from first post.
Yes Libdem up to 25 is not unthinkable, but you are in the main just hoovering up the ex tory seats rather than breaking into the virtually impregnable Labour Mitcham bastion.
You have to win the remaining seats in Abbey and Wandie and either go from fouth to first in the split Lab/Tory ward and fifth to first in Merton Park to get a majority.
In reality the only feasible path is coalition with the remaining Tories and the Merton Path Independents.
Left-handed: no idea and no idea how to get the data.
YouTube has videos of MPs being sworn in, and you can see which hand they use to sign whatever it is they are signing just afterwards. Probably expense claims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFf8D0c3Nb8
If there are any left-handed pressure groups, they might already have done the work for you.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
Casino has always struck me as posting from the fifteenth bedroom of his castle while wearing a smoking jacket and observing his peasants tilling his fields through a jewel-encrusted monacle
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
I think comments like this show that it does matter.
The counter-arguments aren't very attractive. It's ridiculous to say that ethnic minorities should be represented because representation would imply more people of below-average intelligence, or - courtesy of another poster - violent criminals?
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
Casino has always struck me as posting from the fifteenth bedroom of his castle while wearing a smoking jacket and observing his peasants tilling his fields through a jewel-encrusted monacle
Nah. He's new money. And far too sensible to purchase a castle.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
Come on Ingerland.
Not sure about all the people in that picture, but bringing it home for Barry (RIP) and Paul Chuckle is definitely worth it.
Play for the Chuckle brothers lads!
To me, to you (etc).......
I'm not sure on middle right, top left, and couldn't be sure on the military man underneath our Liz. Looks like an RAF uniform? *ready to be flamed
Butcher Harris, as his Bomber Command crews called him. Sure, he'd be called a Zimbabwean today and anachronistically, but he was a Cheltonian by birth.
PS: top left looks like Dr Rose Dugdale but I'm not certain.
Unleash Operation Tannenberg II if the chorizo eaters prevail.
Top left is the mother of the unfortunate child (Shannon Matthews) hidden under a bed in a kidnapping scam.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
I think it does matter, as it does for other groups. It is about hearing the true voice, rather than assumptions made by others.
But not to the extent that it becomes an obsessive dot and tittle rule.
The thing called "lived experience" matters very much, but even that can be used to exclude things from the other side by advocates trying to make sure that their particular voice dominates.
What happens without that is that eg "disabled" become people who can be seen to have sticks, Guide Dogs, wheel chairs or other obvious signs, and representation is reduced to "what other people think about a group". Then it comes down to "we did this for you - how dare you not be grateful?". The same is very much true for ethnic minorities, with varying and different needs.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
Casino has always struck me as posting from the fifteenth bedroom of his castle while wearing a smoking jacket and observing his peasants tilling his fields through a jewel-encrusted monacle
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
Casino has always struck me as posting from the fifteenth bedroom of his castle while wearing a smoking jacket and observing his peasants tilling his fields through a jewel-encrusted monacle
Nah. He's new money. And far too sensible to purchase a castle.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
I think it does matter, as it does for other groups. It is about hearing the true voice, rather than assumption made about a group by others.
But not to the extent that it becomes an obsessive dot and tittle rule.
The thing called "lived experience" matters very much, but even that can be used to exclude things from the other side by advocates trying to make sure that their particular voice dominates.
What happens without that is that eg "disabled" become people who can be seen to have sticks, Guide Dogs, wheel chairs or other obvious signs, and representation is reduced to "what other people think about a group". Then it comes down to "we did this for you - how dare you not be grateful?". The same is very much true for ethnic minorities, with varying and different needs.
The academic literature is also fairly clear that diverse boards do better running companies. It won't be any different for running countries.
Totally off topic. I absolutely love football, but I'll be glad when this tournament is over. Why? Because of the wall-to-wall coverage of England on every bit of radio and TV. It's boring and repetitive - there's only so much one can say about the match tomorrow, but the constant inane commentary on Southgate etc. is doing my head in a bit. It's inescapable. Roll on 10pm tomorrow, win or lose.
Come on Ingerland.
Not sure about all the people in that picture, but bringing it home for Barry (RIP) and Paul Chuckle is definitely worth it.
Play for the Chuckle brothers lads!
To me, to you (etc).......
I'm not sure on middle right, top left, and couldn't be sure on the military man underneath our Liz. Looks like an RAF uniform? *ready to be flamed
Butcher Harris, as his Bomber Command crews called him. Sure, he'd be called a Zimbabwean today and anachronistically, but he was a Cheltonian by birth.
PS: top left looks like Dr Rose Dugdale but I'm not certain.
Unleash Operation Tannenberg II if the chorizo eaters prevail.
Top left is the mother of the unfortunate child (Shannon Matthews) hidden under a bed in a kidnapping scam.
The child was renamed and adopted, wasn't she? Wonder if she'll be on Long Lost Family in thirty years time!
The stakes in their election are simply extraordinary for all of us.
Worse than you think. Donald Trump is not the real danger, but the Supreme Court and its rulings will continue, and Project 2025 (which is partly what this video is about) has captured a large part of the GOP but is so extreme even Trump is wary of it.
Agreed.
The ruling is the worst thing for American democracy ever, which I can only assume the members of the Supreme court who formed it should also be in a nursing home for those with dementia like Biden.
Forget Trump. What they've said is an American president can do anything he likes in his 'official' capacity (without defining what is official) and its not illegal. Murder his political opponents - not illegal. Kill EVERYONE in the whole country - not illegal.
Nothing the US President does is illegal, therefore they can do anything they like. Even if it isn't Trump, someone, one day, will take full advantage of that fact.
It's the Enabling Act 1933.
I'm surprised the Supreme Court didn't just call the ruling that.
Very true. Sadly, it feels like a case of when, not if, the American government embraces a more autocratic direction. The Supreme Court has provided the tools. Now it just needs someone with the will to use them, and that’s it.
The only thing that probably prevents a full blown coup at this point is that separation between the states and the federal government and that separate power bases exist across the country. That doesn’t give much comfort though, because there are building blocks there for secession and civil war, which is arguably an even worse outcome.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
I think it does matter, as it does for other groups. It is about hearing the true voice, rather than assumptions made by others.
But not to the extent that it becomes an obsessive dot and tittle rule.
The thing called "lived experience" matters very much, but even that can be used to exclude things from the other side by advocates trying to make sure that their particular voice dominates.
What happens without that is that eg "disabled" become people who can be seen to have sticks, Guide Dogs, wheel chairs or other obvious signs, and representation is reduced to "what other people think about a group". Then it comes down to "we did this for you - how dare you not be grateful?". The same is very much true for ethnic minorities, with varying and different needs.
I know of someone who is prepared, just about, to use a walking stick, but draws the line at a Zimmer frame, although he has been strongly advised to avoid falling (making his bone condition worse/damaging his skull). Apparently considers it 'degrafding'. I've been told the same and I use a walking aid. Or, see previous correspondence, an electric scooter. I don't like a wheelchair though; people talk over one.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
I'm serious. It's all class.
Labour? God, no. Too working class, blue collar, maybe a bit shopfloorly or street violent and sweary. Oiks. Plus, they might be serious about this red flag and socialism stuff and come right after you. Scary.
Tories? Erugh, no. Far too suburban and Daily Mail. Lower middle class to middle middle class people who are uppity, lack any sort of taste, won't stay in their place, react, and lack sophistication. Bourgeois. Erugh erugh erugh.
So, they look down on both. They vote Lib Dem. Or Green. Not really serious but vaguely soft-lefty, unthreatening and socially acceptable to their peer group. Says the right things about them.
Some will vote Tory in the privacy of the voting booth if they're really worried about their assets and wealth. But they'll do it quietly and won't tell a soul.
Mr. Chris, I never said ethnic minorities shouldn't be represented. I said competency is what should matter.
"If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?"
If a Formula 1 team has an opening for an aerodynamicist and the best candidate is a one-legged, black lesbian, she should get the job. If they have an opening for a personal trainer and the best candidate also happens to be a one-legged black lesbian, she should also get the job even though it would dramatically overrepresent that particular niche demographic because merit trumps ticking boxes on a Dulux colour chart. And the same goes for if the best candidate happened to be a straight white man in both instances.
Equality of opportunity will, overall, lead to diversity, though this might be more or less in particular professions. A fixation on skin colour is the way of tokenism. It judges people by race not ability. It's deeply unhealthy.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
I think it does matter, as it does for other groups. It is about hearing the true voice, rather than assumptions made by others.
But not to the extent that it becomes an obsessive dot and tittle rule.
The thing called "lived experience" matters very much, but even that can be used to exclude things from the other side by advocates trying to make sure that their particular voice dominates.
What happens without that is that eg "disabled" become people who can be seen to have sticks, Guide Dogs, wheel chairs or other obvious signs, and representation is reduced to "what other people think about a group". Then it comes down to "we did this for you - how dare you not be grateful?". The same is very much true for ethnic minorities, with varying and different needs.
I know of someone who is prepared, just about, to use a walking stick, but draws the line at a Zimmer frame, although he has been strongly advised to avoid falling (making his bone condition worse/damaging his skull). Apparently considers it 'degrafding'. I've been told the same and I use a walking aid. Or, see previous correspondence, an electric scooter. I don't like a wheelchair though; people talk over one.
What happens with mobility aids like wheelchairs and Guide Dogs is that unthinking people treat you as sub-human, and take away your agency.
In a wheel-chair they will talk to your helper, or move you around without your consent.
With a Guide or Assistance Dog they will stroke the dog, or pet it, ignoring the big "I am working; do not touch me" decal on the dog's uniform.
Two really impressive people who challenge this are Stephen Anderson, who campaigns against taxis (nearly 100 convictions iirc) and other businesses refusing him service because of his Guide Dog, and Flick Williams, who had an incident straight out of Laurel and Hardy, and is one of the small number of people who is on the front foot with Equality Act Letters Before Action - which fix Council-type discrimination in 80-90% of circumstances, because Councils rely on people doing nothing and shutting up; they are like the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz.
But they are unusual, and Flick had a career as an equality advocate.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
I'm serious. It's all class.
Labour? God, no. Too working class, blue collar, maybe a bit shopfloorly or street violent and sweary. Oiks. Plus, they might be serious about this red flag and socialism stuff and come right after you. Scary.
Tories? Erugh, no. Far too suburban and Daily Mail. Lower middle class to middle middle class people who are uppity, lack any sort of taste, won't stay in their place, react, and lack sophistication. Bourgeois. Erugh erugh erugh.
So, they look down on both. They vote Lib Dem. Or Green. Not really serious but vaguely soft-lefty, unthreatening and socially acceptable to their peer group. Says the right things about them.
Some will vote Tory in the privacy of the voting booth if they're really worried about their assets and wealth. But they'll do it quietly and won't tell a soul.
Well, don't know what I was doing working for 'old' Liberals years ago. Or voting LibDem at least sometimes now.
Don't fit that stereotype at all. Nor do the people I know who voted Liberal once upon a time, or LibDem now.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
All the Greens are, aren't they. Must admit I hadn't noticed.
I have. Greeny and Libdemmery is what very posh English white people do when they're well-off and want to show they have a conscience.
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
I'm not 'posh'! Educated.maybe, light Essex accent, but not posh!
I'm serious. It's all class.
Labour? God, no. Too working class, blue collar, maybe a bit shopfloorly or street violent and sweary. Oiks. Plus, they might be serious about this red flag and socialism stuff and come right after you. Scary.
Tories? Erugh, no. Far too suburban and Daily Mail. Lower middle class to middle middle class people who are uppity, lack any sort of taste, won't stay in their place, react, and lack sophistication. Bourgeois. Erugh erugh erugh.
So, they look down on both. They vote Lib Dem. Or Green. Not really serious but vaguely soft-lefty, unthreatening and socially acceptable to their peer group. Says the right things about them.
Some will vote Tory in the privacy of the voting booth if they're really worried about their assets and wealth. But they'll do it quietly and won't tell a soul.
They're not the really really posh of the old school though. Those people are usually red in tooth and claw Tories and fiercely patriotic - the sort whose cartridge bags and plus fours are proudly made in England. Posh lib dems are an arriviste Heseltine 'buys their own furniture' type of posh. Perhaps their discomfort within the class system is at the root of their desire to swap the old establishment for something more French.
Merton is certainly one to watch for the LDs in the next locals
Not a chance. Sure they stand a good chance of winning seats off the tories in parts of Wimbledon, but Mitcham and big chunks of Merton and Morden are as solid labour as a welsh coal mining town.
On what basis do you say that? Have you looked at the previous results ward by ward? LDs have a number of split wards with both the Tories and Labour so the LDs can pick all these up with just an increase of a few tens of votes for their least favoured candidate in each ward. They amount to 5 seats in total. They should all be a slam dunk. Wimbledon wards are all LD already so your comment of winning these off the Tories is not correct. They are winning outside of these areas. If they win these 5, which they should, they will only just be trailing Lab in total and Lab lose control (just). One competitive 3 member ward with Lab and they are on Labs heels. Anymore and they take control.
And it's 2026, by which time the government might not be so popular as it is now, having just stormed a third of the national vote.
Actually I am going to back off my bullish response a bit in fairness to @MisterBedfordshire. Looking a bit further in wards where Labour won all seats they are a long way ahead of the LDs, so finding that extra ward or two may be a challenge to take control.. Also Village looks like a very good prospect from the Tories. So @MisterBedfordshire really wasn't that wrong, but there are easily 8 gains there for the taking, 2 from Labour which would make it 29 Lab, 25 LD I think. LDs up from 17. That is based upon split wards and one marginal ward. Haven't looked at other Tory wards which might be vulnerable.
Libs are fourth in 29 out of 58 of the seats. 27 of them are held by Labour and two Tory.
The best you could hope for would be a Tory - Libdem - Merton Park Independents coalition with 30 seats to Labours 27.
But what is wrong in what I said (as amended in my 2nd post). Ian only pointed out it is one to look at. There are potential 8 easy gains for the LDs (5 in split wards and one marginal of 3) taking them to 25, making it neck and neck but with the LDs behind by a few seats. I agree, as I said, after the split ward it is hard to see any other gains from Labour, but you only need one to go pearshaped for whatever reason (corruption, popular local campaigner, local issue, etc) and you are on a knife edge.
You still have to get from fourth to first place in the split Labour - Con ward. was going from first post.
Yes Libdem up to 25 is not unthinkable, but you are in the main just hoovering up the ex tory seats rather than breaking into the virtually impregnable Labour Mitcham bastion.
You have to win the remaining seats in Abbey and Wandie and either go from fouth to first in the split Lab/Tory ward and fifth to first in Merton Park to get a majority.
In reality the only feasible path is coalition with the remaining Tories and the Merton Path Independents.
Neither Ian or I were talking about a majority, but one to watch. 17 to 25 is easy. It is just a handful of votes in the LD/Tory, LD/Lab split wards and the LD/Tory marginal.
None of this is relevant unless the LDs are still on a high and the Tories in the doldrums and the shine taken off Labour. We are talking about what might happen if they are on a roll.
That itself is newsworthy. That would make in 25 LDs and 29 Lab, but all would have to come home to achieve that. That is newsworthy though. Of course the Tories might lose their seats in the Lab/Tory split ward putting Lab back up to 30, but that might go the other way and then Lab lose 2.:That would result in Lab down to 27.
That would be big news and loss of control. I think the media would portrary that as bad news for Labour and good news for the LDs.
Huge number of what ifs there and everything going the LDs way but not inconceivable ignoring all the big majority wards where the LDs are currently 4th as the rest are all margins of tens of votes. And then you only have to have an issue arising in one of those safe Lab seats over the next few years and ....
Mr. Chris, I never said ethnic minorities shouldn't be represented. I said competency is what should matter.
"If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?"
If a Formula 1 team has an opening for an aerodynamicist and the best candidate is a one-legged, black lesbian, she should get the job. If they have an opening for a personal trainer and the best candidate also happens to be a one-legged black lesbian, she should also get the job even though it would dramatically overrepresent that particular niche demographic because merit trumps ticking boxes on a Dulux colour chart. And the same goes for if the best candidate happened to be a straight white man in both instances.
Equality of opportunity will, overall, lead to diversity, though this might be more or less in particular professions. A fixation on skin colour is the way of tokenism. It judges people by race not ability. It's deeply unhealthy.
Sport is the ultimate egalitarianism. The team boss will pick the best person for the job, irrespective of what they look like or who they sleep with.
Hence why racist football fans persisted long after teams were full of ethnic minority players. It doesn’t matter if the best player is white, black, Asian, or some alien species, the team are still picking him.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
I think it does matter, as it does for other groups. It is about hearing the true voice, rather than assumptions made by others.
But not to the extent that it becomes an obsessive dot and tittle rule.
The thing called "lived experience" matters very much, but even that can be used to exclude things from the other side by advocates trying to make sure that their particular voice dominates.
What happens without that is that eg "disabled" become people who can be seen to have sticks, Guide Dogs, wheel chairs or other obvious signs, and representation is reduced to "what other people think about a group". Then it comes down to "we did this for you - how dare you not be grateful?". The same is very much true for ethnic minorities, with varying and different needs.
I know of someone who is prepared, just about, to use a walking stick, but draws the line at a Zimmer frame, although he has been strongly advised to avoid falling (making his bone condition worse/damaging his skull). Apparently considers it 'degrafding'. I've been told the same and I use a walking aid. Or, see previous correspondence, an electric scooter. I don't like a wheelchair though; people talk over one.
What happens with mobility aids like wheelchairs and Guide Dogs is that unthinking people treat you as sub-human, and take away your agency.
In a wheel-chair they will talk to your helper, or move you around without your consent.
With a Guide or Assistance Dog they will stroke the dog, or pet it, ignoring the big "I am working; do not touch me" decal on the dog's uniform.
Two really impressive people who challenge this are Stephen Anderson, who campaigns against taxis (nearly 100 convictions iirc) and other businesses refusing him service because of his Guide Dog, and Flick Williams, who had an incident straight out of Laurel and Hardy, and is one of the small number of people who is on the front foot with Equality Act Letters Before Action - which fix Council-type discrimination in 80-90% of circumstances, because Councils rely on people doing nothing and shutting up; they are like the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz.
But they are unusual, and Flick had a career as an equality advocate.
Does the race of MPs matter? If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
I think it does matter, as it does for other groups. It is about hearing the true voice, rather than assumptions made by others.
But not to the extent that it becomes an obsessive dot and tittle rule.
The thing called "lived experience" matters very much, but even that can be used to exclude things from the other side by advocates trying to make sure that their particular voice dominates.
What happens without that is that eg "disabled" become people who can be seen to have sticks, Guide Dogs, wheel chairs or other obvious signs, and representation is reduced to "what other people think about a group". Then it comes down to "we did this for you - how dare you not be grateful?". The same is very much true for ethnic minorities, with varying and different needs.
I know of someone who is prepared, just about, to use a walking stick, but draws the line at a Zimmer frame, although he has been strongly advised to avoid falling (making his bone condition worse/damaging his skull). Apparently considers it 'degrafding'. I've been told the same and I use a walking aid. Or, see previous correspondence, an electric scooter. I don't like a wheelchair though; people talk over one.
What happens with mobility aids like wheelchairs and Guide Dogs is that unthinking people treat you as sub-human, and take away your agency.
In a wheel-chair they will talk to your helper, or move you around without your consent.
With a Guide or Assistance Dog they will stroke the dog, or pet it, ignoring the big "I am working; do not touch me" decal on the dog's uniform.
Two really impressive people who challenge this are Stephen Anderson, who campaigns against taxis (nearly 100 convictions iirc) and other businesses refusing him service because of his Guide Dog, and Flick Williams, who had an incident straight out of Laurel and Hardy, and is one of the small number of people who is on the front foot with Equality Act Letters Before Action - which fix Council-type discrimination in 80-90% of circumstances, because Councils rely on people doing nothing and shutting up; they are like the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz.
But they are unusual, and Flick had a career as an equality advocate.
Comments
“ROA criminalises the disclosure of spent convictions in some circumstances, but it does not create a general criminal or civil liability. A person wanting to bring a claim against a newspaper may make a claim by turning to defamation or privacy law.
“Fortunately, section 8(3) of ROA enables a publisher to defend a defamation claim by using the “truth” and “honest opinion” defences that are provided by the 2013 Defamation Act. Truth is an obvious defence, where it is demonstrably true that the claimant was convicted of the offence reported. However, a publisher cannot rely on the defence of ‘truth’ if the claimant is able to prove that the publication has been made with malice. Unfortunately for publishers, the word ‘malice’ is not defined within the ROA, leaving it up to the courts to decide where to draw the line.
“Case law (Herbage v Pressdram) tells us that for the purposes of the ROA, malice means that the publication was made “with some irrelevant, spiteful or improper motive”, for example trying to cause financial harm to the claimant – rather than reporting the conviction in a story which is clearly in the public interest.
“This was reinforced in a later case by Mr Justice Eady (Silkman v Heard), who underlined that the claimant must prove that the dominant motive for publishing the article was to injure the claimant and that given the gravity of an allegation of malice in any context, the standard of proof on the claimant would be correspondingly high.”
You can be in prison, if the sentence is for less than a year.
You can’t be bankrupt.
As well as the Lords, you can’t be an MP and a member of the Welsh, Northern Irish or Irish Parliaments.
Certain jobs ban you from being an MP: civil servants, police, armed forces, some judges.
I also love Saka's ability to withstand being hacked for 90 minutes and still ping it in from 30 yards. And Pickford has appropriate level of lunacy for a goalkeeper. G'luck.
Swing voters who have seen a term of Trump and a term of Biden and can't figure out which of the two they prefer are quite weird people, I'd be suspicious of anybody who claims they can confidently tell what they'll end up doing.
Also it's not up to "the Democrats", it's up to Joe Biden. If he doesn't want to go they can't force him to.
Of course it's far more inconvenient for them if Biden actually wins
What will be sorely missed and what can't be replaced by the EU is the SIGINT/ELINT for targeting.
We do have regulatory criteria for who be an MP, when they get defenestrated etc - if we want change then it is through politics to adjust those criteria. We have also readjusted it recently with recall elections and so on. Those must be clear, for a practical process.
Asking awkward questions of an MP who is pursuing policies which *look* like they are in conflict with his own experience is politics, and Mr M for Murdock has the opportunity to explain themselves and win the argument. That's politics, which can be a little muddier.
From 1950 (start of England entering major tournaments) up until 2016 (Southgate takes over), England won 9 knock-out matches in major tournaments. Looking at these because they're the sharp end of tournaments; you have to win 4 in a row to pick up silverware (3 in a row in earlier times).
These were 3 in WC 1966, 1 in WC 1986, 2 in WC 1990, 1 in Euros 1996, 1 in WC 2002, 1 in WC 2006.
This was the aggregate total of Winterbottom (0), Ramsey (3), Revie (0), Greenwood (0), Robson (3), Taylor (0), Venables (1), Keegan (0), Eriksson (2), McLaren (0), Capello (0), Hodgson (0).
Since Southgate took over, England have won a further 9 k/o matches (2 in WC 2018, 3 in Euros 2020/1, 1 in WC 2022, 3 so far in Euros 2024). He's also the first manager to see us win 3 in a row in major tournaments since Ramsey, and the first to do it twice, including on foreign soil.
We've had discussions about what "par" should be for England. I'd suggest qualifying plus getting out of the Group stage should be our basic expectation. Yes, we're usually ranked 8 or higher so should be aiming for QFs, but that logic should have the top 4 all expecting SFs and us always being knocked out at QFs (not a 50-50 chance of getting through).
Southgate exceeded expectations (for me), qualifying and making it out of the group stage each time, yes, but always winning a k/o game and making a minimum of QFs. Qualifying and making it out of the group was achieved every time only by Venables (who only managed one tournament), Eriksson, Capello, and Southgate - only these ALWAYS managed at least a par result (Ramsey is excused due to, you know, winning the World Cup). Only Southgate and Venables have always won a k/o game as well, and Southgate did it in 4 tournaments.
Yes, he has a great deal of talent. But the "golden generation" were available for over a decade before. Robson, Taylor, and Venables also had a lot of talent available.
Nobody cares if their confident predictions turn out to be garbage, as you can tell from the fact that people are still asking what Frank Luntz thinks.
All their MP’s, bar one, are white.
Which is a bit embarrassing for the socks&sandals brigade.
If he does get four more years the US will, as we're most of us agreed, be a very, very different place.
As for this case, the general principe seems clear enough. Voters can use whatever information they like to form a judgement about an election candidate. When push comes to shove, that information doesn't even need to be true. In this case, that judgement gets to be delivered in 4-5 years time.
In the meantime, it's Big Boy Rules for Nigel and Lee. Do they wish to have this gentleman as a member of their parliamentary group? Oh, and what did they know about this when? or was it another case of incompetent vetting?
FWIW, I suspect that the revelation that he is a former merchant banker may be more of an issue with his voters than his youthful conviction.
Do we have 'sufficient' obese MPs, or gay MPs, or lefthanded MPs?
Representation of the general population is ridiculous. By that definition half of MPs should be below average intelligence. What matters is whether or not they can do the job.
Play for the Chuckle brothers lads!
To me, to you (etc).......
According to British Future, which is Sunder Katwalla's group:
A record number of 90 ethnic minority MPs have been elected to sit in the UK’s most diverse parliament ever, an increase of 24, according to British Future’s analysis of the 2024 general election results.
The historic advance in representation means the new parliament comes closer than ever before to reflecting the diversity of the electorate, with 13.8% of MPs coming from an ethnic minority background. Analysis of census data by Matt Singh of Number Cruncher Politics estimates that 14% of the UK electorate is from an ethnic minority background.
By far the largest number of ethnic minority MPs will sit on the Labour government benches. The 2024 parliament will include 66 Labour MPs from an ethnic minority background, 16% of the new Parliamentary Labour Party. Some 15 ethnic minority Conservatives were elected, alongside 5 Lib Dems and 4 new independent MPs from a minority background.
https://www.britishfuture.org/milestone-for-representation-as-diversity-of-parliament-matches-electorate/
5 form 72 is still lowish, bit not one. 15 from 121 is better than I expected from the remaining Tories.
Call this naive if you like, or talking my book, I don't care. That's my view, hope and belief all rolled into one, and I'm going to be right.
That the LDs are the party of white, upper-middle-class Britain, is hardly news.
Couple of points of order, that I’m not sure progressing via penalties is technically a win. Secondly - the ‘golden generation’ was a name the media gave to that cohort of English footballers, only to then call them the ‘so-called ‘golden generation’’ as if the players themselves had applied the name.
England have had - and generally will always have - a decent set of players; as you rightly point out Robson and Venables had a strong group to select from.
Ramsay is the only winner, albeit with significant tailwinds, so he and the 66 team have to be credited as the best.
After that, there is no question that the Southgate era is the most successful, and more consistently successful at a time when the global field is stronger too.
The ruling is the worst thing for American democracy ever, which I can only assume the members of the Supreme court who formed it should also be in a nursing home for those with dementia like Biden.
Forget Trump. What they've said is an American president can do anything he likes in his 'official' capacity (without defining what is official) and its not illegal.
Murder his political opponents - not illegal.
Kill EVERYONE in the whole country - not illegal.
Nothing the US President does is illegal, therefore they can do anything they like.
Even if it isn't Trump, someone, one day, will take full advantage of that fact.
It's the Enabling Act 1933.
I'm surprised the Supreme Court didn't just call the ruling that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
I'd say you've triggered the people who like accurate data, and don't think making judgements on ethnicity by the colour of people's skin really works
Edit: that post written about a minute before the Welsh scored a try!
Gay: tend to be the most overrepresented group, apart from possibly lawyers (until the revolution comes, then that problem goes away).
Left-handed: no idea and no idea how to get the data.
Ethnic minority: seem to be exactly in line now - 13.8% vs 14% in population. Questions remain about groups within "ethnic minority" and distribution amongst parties.
Sex: I think we are now at 40% female.
Disability: likely to be underrepresented, but difficult to count. Campaigners will be telling fairy stores undercounting by perhaps 80-90%; tend to say "6" or "7"; the number may well be swallowed without touching the sides by our loboto-media. The last time I tried counting from published or self-disclosing sources, I reached 40-50 within an hour.
PS: top left looks like Dr Rose Dugdale but I'm not certain.
Don't know how that got duplicated. Unless there's a gremlin somewhere emphasising the point!
US is now spending more on national debt interest than the military, is adding to it at a rate of 3-4 $trillion a year and has a vast amount of covid debt, funded by short term low interest bonds that is rolling over and will need to be financed at much higher interest rate.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XtF7E41ejuU
Just look at XR or JSO. Totally 100% that type.
Yes Libdem up to 25 is not unthinkable, but you are in the main just hoovering up the ex tory seats rather than breaking into the virtually impregnable Labour Mitcham bastion.
You have to win the remaining seats in Abbey and Wandie and either go from fouth to first in the split Lab/Tory ward and fifth to first in Merton Park to get a majority.
In reality the only feasible path is coalition with the remaining Tories and the Merton Path Independents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFf8D0c3Nb8
If there are any left-handed pressure groups, they might already have done the work for you.
Tricky.
The counter-arguments aren't very attractive. It's ridiculous to say that ethnic minorities should be represented because representation would imply more people of below-average intelligence, or - courtesy of another poster - violent criminals?
53 defendants convicted and sentenced, 43 of them to life imprisonment, while one was acquitted and 24 had charges dropped, for plotting terrorist acts in the UAE on behalf of Muslim Brotherhood. Six companies were also seized by authorities.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/uae/2024/07/10/uae-issues-43-life-sentences-for-terrorism-offences/
Islamic terrorism hasn’t gone away.
Top left is the mother of the unfortunate child (Shannon Matthews) hidden under a bed in a kidnapping scam.
But not to the extent that it becomes an obsessive dot and tittle rule.
The thing called "lived experience" matters very much, but even that can be used to exclude things from the other side by advocates trying to make sure that their particular voice dominates.
What happens without that is that eg "disabled" become people who can be seen to have sticks, Guide Dogs, wheel chairs or other obvious signs, and representation is reduced to "what other people think about a group". Then it comes down to "we did this for you - how dare you not be grateful?". The same is very much true for ethnic minorities, with varying and different needs.
Some might say they already are.
Nothing has changed, as per normal. Might pop into Farnham this afternoon (crossing the border).
The only thing that probably prevents a full blown coup at this point is that separation between the states and the federal government and that separate power bases exist across the country. That doesn’t give much comfort though, because there are building blocks there for secession and civil war, which is arguably an even worse outcome.
I've been told the same and I use a walking aid. Or, see previous correspondence, an electric scooter.
I don't like a wheelchair though; people talk over one.
Yes Trump left Biden a letter when he left the White House and according to Biden it was very generous.
Odd I know.
Labour? God, no. Too working class, blue collar, maybe a bit shopfloorly or street violent and sweary. Oiks. Plus, they might be serious about this red flag and socialism stuff and come right after you. Scary.
Tories? Erugh, no. Far too suburban and Daily Mail. Lower middle class to middle middle class people who are uppity, lack any sort of taste, won't stay in their place, react, and lack sophistication. Bourgeois. Erugh erugh erugh.
So, they look down on both. They vote Lib Dem. Or Green. Not really serious but vaguely soft-lefty, unthreatening and socially acceptable to their peer group. Says the right things about them.
Some will vote Tory in the privacy of the voting booth if they're really worried about their assets and wealth. But they'll do it quietly and won't tell a soul.
"If a party has a disproportionately low number of white MPs will they have that disapprovingly pointed out?"
If a Formula 1 team has an opening for an aerodynamicist and the best candidate is a one-legged, black lesbian, she should get the job. If they have an opening for a personal trainer and the best candidate also happens to be a one-legged black lesbian, she should also get the job even though it would dramatically overrepresent that particular niche demographic because merit trumps ticking boxes on a Dulux colour chart. And the same goes for if the best candidate happened to be a straight white man in both instances.
Equality of opportunity will, overall, lead to diversity, though this might be more or less in particular professions. A fixation on skin colour is the way of tokenism. It judges people by race not ability. It's deeply unhealthy.
In a wheel-chair they will talk to your helper, or move you around without your consent.
With a Guide or Assistance Dog they will stroke the dog, or pet it, ignoring the big "I am working; do not touch me" decal on the dog's uniform.
Two really impressive people who challenge this are Stephen Anderson, who campaigns against taxis (nearly 100 convictions iirc) and other businesses refusing him service because of his Guide Dog, and Flick Williams, who had an incident straight out of Laurel and Hardy, and is one of the small number of people who is on the front foot with Equality Act Letters Before Action - which fix Council-type discrimination in 80-90% of circumstances, because Councils rely on people doing nothing and shutting up; they are like the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz.
But they are unusual, and Flick had a career as an equality advocate.
https://x.com/saj_anderson
https://x.com/flickhwilliams
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxexkxey1n2o
Don't fit that stereotype at all. Nor do the people I know who voted Liberal once upon a time, or LibDem now.
None of this is relevant unless the LDs are still on a high and the Tories in the doldrums and the shine taken off Labour. We are talking about what might happen if they are on a roll.
That itself is newsworthy. That would make in 25 LDs and 29 Lab, but all would have to come home to achieve that. That is newsworthy though. Of course the Tories might lose their seats in the Lab/Tory split ward putting Lab back up to 30, but that might go the other way and then Lab lose 2.:That would result in Lab down to 27.
That would be big news and loss of control. I think the media would portrary that as bad news for Labour and good news for the LDs.
Huge number of what ifs there and everything going the LDs way but not inconceivable ignoring all the big majority wards where the LDs are currently 4th as the rest are all margins of tens of votes. And then you only have to have an issue arising in one of those safe Lab seats over the next few years and ....
Hence why racist football fans persisted long after teams were full of ethnic minority players. It doesn’t matter if the best player is white, black, Asian, or some alien species, the team are still picking him.
I did not realise that the National Anthem had a Descant.
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1811804454498488589
I'm not honestly sure whether other countries are better; but we Brits love saying how bad we are.