Are the Lib Dems actively trying to drive Tory Remainers in the South back to Johnson?
I have to say, the cannabis policy makes perfect sense for Labour, who want to get as many of the yuff down the polling station.
But Lib Dems less so. They are trying to pitch to middle class parents, many of which are obviously very concerned about drugs messing up their kids futures.
It's only weed. Normal people haven't been bothered about it since the boomer generation was young, and "ok boomer" is now a joke about old people.
74% of Leavers thought Boris won the debate, 72% of Remainers thought Corbyn won
That isn't great for the Tories....because the Tories ideally need Corbyn to tank and Remain vote to split between Labour and Lib Dems. If Labour start to squeeze Lib Dem further and become the Remain party vote, get to 35% that is terrible news for Tories / majority / Brexit.
Time for a change of trousers at Urquhart towers ?
Some PB Tories really do need to man up, if they want to be of help do some canvassing or leafleting rather than bedwetting on here
That is very unpleasant and hardly going to win you friends
Most middle class voters have tried cannabis , much of the Lib Dem voter base is likely to have gone to university and many people would be quite happy for it to be legalized .
All this faux outrage from some in here is laughable.
Well here is my 2p worth. Tobacco smoke stinks, but the smell from various types of weed is an utter stench. Absolutely minging!
74% of Leavers thought Boris won the debate, 72% of Remainers thought Corbyn won
That isn't great for the Tories....because the Tories ideally need Corbyn to tank and Remain vote to split between Labour and Lib Dems. If Labour start to squeeze Lib Dem further and become the Remain party vote, get to 35% that is terrible news for Tories / majority / Brexit.
Time for a change of trousers at Urquhart towers ?
Some PB Tories really do need to man up, if they want to be of help do some canvassing or leafleting rather than bedwetting on here
That is very unpleasant and hardly going to win you friends
I don't come here to win friends and it was the truth
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
Philip Thompson talking nonsense. There is no reason whatsoever why the same rules that apply to traditional media cannot be applied in principle to online advertising and PR. Greater penalties need to be applied to the propagation of misleading material.
Most middle class voters have tried cannabis , much of the Lib Dem voter base is likely to have gone to university and many people would be quite happy for it to be legalized .
All this faux outrage from some in here is laughable.
This could see the LDs take some student votes from Labour
74% of Leavers thought Boris won the debate, 72% of Remainers thought Corbyn won
That isn't great for the Tories....because the Tories ideally need Corbyn to tank and Remain vote to split between Labour and Lib Dems. If Labour start to squeeze Lib Dem further and become the Remain party vote, get to 35% that is terrible news for Tories / majority / Brexit.
Not really.
It will see the Tories hold more seats from the LDs.
Swinson is in the next debate so the LD vote will then go to her after not Corbyn
I think you are being over confident. Last night was a shambles and did neither leader any favours.
I am far from convinced Boris will achieve a working majority but of course I hope he does as to me defenestrating Corbyn is the most important issue, not brexit
You are stuck in a town on the N Wales coast with only the sea in front of you. HY, on the other hand, should have a splendid view from the top of his very lofty ivory tower......
Sea to the front and the mountains to the rear. A beautiful part of the UK
Re: Future debates. I can’t believe all the ones on wiki have actually been confirmed or Johnson and Corbyn will do nothing else. To avoid being called “scared” the PM has to do, what, three?
Most middle class voters have tried cannabis , much of the Lib Dem voter base is likely to have gone to university and many people would be quite happy for it to be legalized .
All this faux outrage from some in here is laughable.
This could see the LDs take some student votes from Labour
74% of Leavers thought Boris won the debate, 72% of Remainers thought Corbyn won
That isn't great for the Tories....because the Tories ideally need Corbyn to tank and Remain vote to split between Labour and Lib Dems. If Labour start to squeeze Lib Dem further and become the Remain party vote, get to 35% that is terrible news for Tories / majority / Brexit.
Time for a change of trousers at Urquhart towers ?
Some PB Tories really do need to man up, if they want to be of help do some canvassing or leafleting rather than bedwetting on here
That is very unpleasant and hardly going to win you friends
I don't come here to win friends and it was the truth
At last a field in which you are succeeding admirably.
Those undecided voters were I think the 326 who were still undecided AFTER the debate, compared to 1120 who were decided AFTER the debate.
How relevant is a focus on post debate still undecideds? You can look at it several ways and reach different conclusions. Potential late swing voters or those less likely to vote? And it doesn't tell us how the debate itself changed views, nor how much that will translate to VI.
74% of Leavers thought Boris won the debate, 72% of Remainers thought Corbyn won
That isn't great for the Tories....because the Tories ideally need Corbyn to tank and Remain vote to split between Labour and Lib Dems. If Labour start to squeeze Lib Dem further and become the Remain party vote, get to 35% that is terrible news for Tories / majority / Brexit.
Not really.
It will see the Tories hold more seats from the LDs.
Swinson is in the next debate so the LD vote will then go to her after not Corbyn
I think you are being over confident. Last night was a shambles and did neither leader any favours.
I am far from convinced Boris will achieve a working majority but of course I hope he does as to me defenestrating Corbyn is the most important issue, not brexit
You are stuck in a town on the N Wales coast with only the sea in front of you. HY, on the other hand, should have a splendid view from the top of his very lofty ivory tower......
Sea to the front and the mountains to the rear. A beautiful part of the UK
I know it well
The same can be said of Workington.
[The sea and mountain bit, not the beautiful bit. Obviously.]
I am far from convinced Boris will achieve a working majority but of course I hope he does as to me defenestrating Corbyn is the most important issue, not brexit
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Which is a civil offence against a person. Boris Johnson could sue, and could claim his lost earnings. (PB lawyers, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
How do you sue an anonymous individual who uploaded to YouTube? You would have to sue YouTube. YouTube is based in the US (servers all over the world) and would claim a free-speech exception and that it was the medium not the messenger. By the time you sorted it out, it would be far too late.
I am far from convinced Boris will achieve a working majority but of course I hope he does as to me defenestrating Corbyn is the most important issue, not brexit
Is beating him not enough then?
I really want to see a labour party regaining its centre left position and see the end of Corbynism
Hands up who among PB Tories thinks that Bozo will actually show any interest in Stoke once he has his majority?
The smaller towns challenge: what is the point of them? This is exactly the sort of issue that should be at the centre of this campaign, and manifestly is not. Nobody is offering very much, but to imagine that Johnson would is utterly insane.
Fascism will be happy to fill the gap though, with some identity-based bollocks. Johnson can certainly facilitate that (not suggesting that he will actively push it, although he's happy to align himself with such forces, merely that he will do less than nothing to stop it).
Are the Lib Dems actively trying to drive Tory Remainers in the South back to Johnson?
I have to say, the cannabis policy makes perfect sense for Labour, who want to get as many of the yuff down the polling station.
But Lib Dems less so. They are trying to pitch to middle class parents, many of which are obviously very concerned about drugs messing up their kids futures.
It's only weed. Normal people haven't been bothered about it since the boomer generation was young, and "ok boomer" is now a joke about old people.
Personally, I don't really care one way or another. The US fudge of medical exemption seems fine.
But I don't have kids. I am always very surprised how really worried my friends are about their kids and drugs, even cannabis, despite saying they tried it.
And remember Lib Dems are trying to peel off upper middle class Remain type voters in places like Guildford.
Most middle class voters have tried cannabis , much of the Lib Dem voter base is likely to have gone to university and many people would be quite happy for it to be legalized .
All this faux outrage from some in here is laughable.
This could see the LDs take some student votes from Labour
I can't imagine there are a significant number of students who would really base their vote on whether cannabis is legalised or not. For one its easy to access anyway for those that do partake, and the full on stoners are the ones most likely to be "they're all the same, man" lazy non voters anyway, bluntly.
Are the Lib Dems actively trying to drive Tory Remainers in the South back to Johnson?
I have to say, the cannabis policy makes perfect sense for Labour, who want to get as many of the yuff down the polling station.
But Lib Dems less so. They are trying to pitch to middle class parents, many of which are obviously very concerned about drugs messing up their kids futures.
It's only weed. Normal people haven't been bothered about it since the boomer generation was young, and "ok boomer" is now a joke about old people.
Personally, I don't really care one way or another. The US fudge of medical exemption seems fine.
But I don't have kids. I am always very surprised how really worried my friends are about their kids and drugs, even cannabis, despite saying they tried it.
And remember Lib Dems are trying to peel off upper middle class Remain type voters in places like Guildford.
Cannabis is legal in California and Colorado and it doesn't seem to have caused many problems. (Other than increasing the cost of outdoor advertising.)
Are the Lib Dems actively trying to drive Tory Remainers in the South back to Johnson?
I have to say, the cannabis policy makes perfect sense for Labour, who want to get as many of the yuff down the polling station.
But Lib Dems less so. They are trying to pitch to middle class parents, many of which are obviously very concerned about drugs messing up their kids futures.
It's only weed. Normal people haven't been bothered about it since the boomer generation was young, and "ok boomer" is now a joke about old people.
Personally, I don't really care one way or another. The US fudge of medical exemption seems fine.
But I don't have kids. I am always very surprised how really worried my friends are about their kids and drugs, even cannabis, despite saying they tried it.
And remember Lib Dems are trying to peel off upper middle class Remain type voters in places like Guildford.
Cannabis is legal in California and Colorado and it doesn't seem to have caused many problems. (Other than increasing the cost of outdoor advertising.)
My understanding is the biggest problem has come with the edibles.
I am far from convinced Boris will achieve a working majority but of course I hope he does as to me defenestrating Corbyn is the most important issue, not brexit
Is beating him not enough then?
No, he needs to lose badly enough that he is removed as Labour leader and replaced with someone credible. That means in turn the Tories will have to focus on real issues when selecting Johnson's replacement. The lack of a proper Opposition is killing our politics.
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
What's the alternative?
I'm not OK with censors telling us what politicians can and can't say. That is the preserve of dictators not a free society.
And yet you're happy for them to be prosecuted for libel?
Yes.
Censorship is saying you can't say this, we won't let you and will prevent you from doing so. Libel is saying you can say this, but you need to be prepared to defend what you say after the fact.
I think that the markets have pretty much got this right. It was a no scoring draw that didn't do much good but little harm to either of the candidates. From Boris's point of view that is fine. It's another hurdle overcome and election day just that little bit closer.
Boris Johnson confirms Tories will raise National Insurance threshold to £12k+. Big policy announcement. Came in response to engineering worker in Teesside who asked him: 'Are these tax cuts for people like you or people like me?'
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
Philip Thompson talking nonsense. There is no reason whatsoever why the same rules that apply to traditional media cannot be applied in principle to online advertising and PR. Greater penalties need to be applied to the propagation of misleading material.
What 'traditional media' rules apply to Focus leaflets etc that didn't apply to these Tweets?
Do 'traditional media' rules censor dodgy bar charts on Focus leaflets and are there great penalties with regards to those?
Boris Johnson confirms Tories will raise National Insurance threshold to £12k+. Big policy announcement. Came in response to engineering worker in Teesside who asked him: 'Are these tax cuts for people like you or people like me?'
An announcement with unintended consequences - what happens to your pension if the threshold moves from £8,000 to £12,000 and your part time work currently pays £10,000?
Currently you will get a stamp for the year but in the future?
Boris Johnson confirms Tories will raise National Insurance threshold to £12k+. Big policy announcement. Came in response to engineering worker in Teesside who asked him: 'Are these tax cuts for people like you or people like me?'
Boris Johnson confirms Tories will raise National Insurance threshold to £12k+. Big policy announcement. Came in response to engineering worker in Teesside who asked him: 'Are these tax cuts for people like you or people like me?'
An announcement with unintended consequences - what happens to your pension if the threshold moves from £8,000 to £12,000 and your part time work currently pays £10,000?
Currently you will get a stamp for the year but in the future?
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
What's the alternative?
I'm not OK with censors telling us what politicians can and can't say. That is the preserve of dictators not a free society.
And yet you're happy for them to be prosecuted for libel?
Yes.
Censorship is saying you can't say this, we won't let you and will prevent you from doing so. Libel is saying you can say this, but you need to be prepared to defend what you say after the fact.
Boris Johnson confirms Tories will raise National Insurance threshold to £12k+. Big policy announcement. Came in response to engineering worker in Teesside who asked him: 'Are these tax cuts for people like you or people like me?'
An announcement with unintended consequences - what happens to your pension if the threshold moves from £8,000 to £12,000 and your part time work currently pays £10,000?
Currently you will get a stamp for the year but in the future?
There's various thresholds where you're over for the 'stamp' but you don't pay any NI.
Of course the best policy on IC / NI for those working is just to combine those two taxes and have standardized bands. But Osborne dithered and eventually kicked it into the long grass.
No, he needs to lose badly enough that he is removed as Labour leader and replaced with someone credible. That means in turn the Tories will have to focus on real issues when selecting Johnson's replacement. The lack of a proper Opposition is killing our politics.
He's gone, I'm sure, if it's PM Johnson with a majority after the GE, regardless of margin. And yes, I too want a credible replacement and to see the end of some of the baggage. However, I do NOT want to see reversion to a soggy 'soft left' that aspires to nothing more than timid tinkering to the Thatcher/Blair consensus. I want the radical edge to remain.
Most middle class voters have tried cannabis , much of the Lib Dem voter base is likely to have gone to university and many people would be quite happy for it to be legalized .
All this faux outrage from some in here is laughable.
This could see the LDs take some student votes from Labour
Is Swinson proposing more funding for mental health to offset this?
The advice that I received from a leading psychiatrist that we consulted in relation to a case (a lad had self medicated cannabis to deal with PTSD and become psychotic) was that the link between cannabis and schizophrenia was weak. There had been a massive increase in cannabis consumption in a variety of countries but no equivalent increase in schizophrenia.
What he did suggest was that in the case of young men under 25 if you already had a pre-disposition towards schizophrenia then there was some evidence that cannabis could both accelerate and possibly deepen the onset of the condition but only those with the pre-disposition were likely to be affected.
I am far from convinced Boris will achieve a working majority but of course I hope he does as to me defenestrating Corbyn is the most important issue, not brexit
Is beating him not enough then?
No. He needs to be beaten so severely that Labour pull back from the precipice and deal with their unelectability and antisemitism issues.
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
Philip Thompson talking nonsense. There is no reason whatsoever why the same rules that apply to traditional media cannot be applied in principle to online advertising and PR. Greater penalties need to be applied to the propagation of misleading material.
What 'traditional media' rules apply to Focus leaflets etc that didn't apply to these Tweets?
Do 'traditional media' rules censor dodgy bar charts on Focus leaflets and are there great penalties with regards to those?
I don't think Focus leaflets try to hoodwink the reader into thinking they are from another party. There are these things called regulations. Fines for those people that infringe them, and possibly money for lawyers who advise those that wish to play to the edge of the rules. Governments are just running scarred of the tech companies, and some in power rather liked some of the dodgy outcomes I would wager.
Boris Johnson confirms Tories will raise National Insurance threshold to £12k+. Big policy announcement. Came in response to engineering worker in Teesside who asked him: 'Are these tax cuts for people like you or people like me?'
An announcement with unintended consequences - what happens to your pension if the threshold moves from £8,000 to £12,000 and your part time work currently pays £10,000?
Currently you will get a stamp for the year but in the future?
Weren't pensions reformed under the coalition so that after date X it’s going to be a flat £Y a week for everyone, irrespective of contributions?
Those undecided voters were I think the 326 who were still undecided AFTER the debate, compared to 1120 who were decided AFTER the debate.
How relevant is a focus on post debate still undecideds? You can look at it several ways and reach different conclusions. Potential late swing voters or those less likely to vote? And it doesn't tell us how the debate itself changed views, nor how much that will translate to VI.
polls don't tell us anything, no one knows if the methodology is correct, least of all the pollsters.
Boris Johnson confirms Tories will raise National Insurance threshold to £12k+. Big policy announcement. Came in response to engineering worker in Teesside who asked him: 'Are these tax cuts for people like you or people like me?'
An announcement with unintended consequences - what happens to your pension if the threshold moves from £8,000 to £12,000 and your part time work currently pays £10,000?
Currently you will get a stamp for the year but in the future?
The 'stamp' figure is already different to the actually paying the tax figure.
Is Swinson proposing more funding for mental health to offset this?
One argument for legalising cannabis use is to have some quality control over it and ensure the risk of psychosis is reduced.
A family friend has a nightmare time with her brother due to the effects of his cannabis use 20+ years ago.
That's a big plus point for me. I spent a lot of time at uni in a 'relaxed' state, but the stuff we bought was fairly mild and mellow. Only once did I have some skunk which a friend brought back from Amsterdam, and found it a really unpleasant experience.
Then again we used to smoke most often during late nights playing bridge, so perhaps I'm not a typical user
I really want to see a labour party regaining its centre left position and see the end of Corbynism
Will a centre left Labour party under, say, Yvette Cooper have a big big chance of getting your vote at the GE after this one?
I cannot say at this stage but Corbyn would have no chance at anytime, ever
Mr Eek, if Yvette Cooper were in charge of Labour, I would be most likely voting Labour for the first time ever at this election. Jeremy Corbyn is very likely ensuring a very right wing CINO government gets a majority. If no-deal goes through it is his incompetence as LoTO that is largely to blame.
Is Swinson proposing more funding for mental health to offset this?
One argument for legalising cannabis use is to have some quality control over it and ensure the risk of psychosis is reduced.
A family friend has a nightmare time with her brother due to the effects of his cannabis use 20+ years ago.
That's a big plus point for me. I spent a lot of time at uni in a 'relaxed' state, but the stuff we bought was fairly mild and mellow. Only once did I have some skunk which a friend brought back from Amsterdam, and found it a really unpleasant experience.
Then again we used to smoke most often during late nights playing bridge, so perhaps I'm not a typical user
Nevertheless it got you to three no trumps a whole lot faster.
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
What's the alternative?
I'm not OK with censors telling us what politicians can and can't say. That is the preserve of dictators not a free society.
And yet you're happy for them to be prosecuted for libel?
Yes.
Censorship is saying you can't say this, we won't let you and will prevent you from doing so. Libel is saying you can say this, but you need to be prepared to defend what you say after the fact.
Trouble is, they've been elected by then.
That's the voters choice. I have more faith in free speech and voters than I do in censorship. Having Big Brother tell the Opposition what they can and can't say is not democratic - and if this gets abused it will be the Opposition feeling the brunt of it.
Putting aside our politics and look overseas. Would you trust someone like Trump with the power to appoint people to ban what they consider to be 'fake news'? I would not.
“They tell me that I’m in the cultural quarter of The Potteries. The bloody cultural quarter. Where do they think we are, bloody France? If I want to put tables outside and be continental, I have to pay bloody council £500 a year or summat. £500 a year? Might be worth it if we had summer all year but in Hanley it lasts only three weeks at most…”
genuine chuckle at that
great read cheers
I have good memories of Stoke, went to Uni at Keele, lived in 'castle, spent many nights out in Hanley. But it is v depressing, and many of the locals disliked the student presence; the fact that we weren't local, but also that they needed our money. I worked in a housing association up there for just under a year, and I knocked a lot of doors for Greens. These sorts of places are what the GND is aimed at, we just don't talk the same language...
Top diplomat to tell impeachment inquiry Ukraine was politically pressured at "express direction" of President Trump
At the heart of the impeachment hearings has been a latin phrase "quid pro quo", meaning an exchange of favours.
It is the alleged smoking gun that congressional Democrats have been trying to adduce during their investigation of President Trump.
Sondland has a lot to say about this in his opening statement, which we have a copy of.
According to his prepared remarks, he will say: "I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?'
"As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."
Is Swinson proposing more funding for mental health to offset this?
One argument for legalising cannabis use is to have some quality control over it and ensure the risk of psychosis is reduced.
A family friend has a nightmare time with her brother due to the effects of his cannabis use 20+ years ago.
That's a big plus point for me. I spent a lot of time at uni in a 'relaxed' state, but the stuff we bought was fairly mild and mellow. Only once did I have some skunk which a friend brought back from Amsterdam, and found it a really unpleasant experience.
Then again we used to smoke most often during late nights playing bridge, so perhaps I'm not a typical user
On the other hand if you make only the 'mild' stuff legal, then people will just want the harder stuff if thats what they want.
I'll be like making 3-4% beer the only beer, when people want wine and whiskey.
Is Swinson proposing more funding for mental health to offset this?
One argument for legalising cannabis use is to have some quality control over it and ensure the risk of psychosis is reduced.
A family friend has a nightmare time with her brother due to the effects of his cannabis use 20+ years ago.
That's a big plus point for me. I spent a lot of time at uni in a 'relaxed' state, but the stuff we bought was fairly mild and mellow. Only once did I have some skunk which a friend brought back from Amsterdam, and found it a really unpleasant experience.
Then again we used to smoke most often during late nights playing bridge, so perhaps I'm not a typical user
Nevertheless it got you to three no trumps a whole lot faster.
The pauses between looking at the hand and playing a card were sometimes veeeeeeeeery long, but no-one really cared as long as the Frazzles hadn't run out.
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
What's the alternative?
I'm not OK with censors telling us what politicians can and can't say. That is the preserve of dictators not a free society.
And yet you're happy for them to be prosecuted for libel?
Yes.
Censorship is saying you can't say this, we won't let you and will prevent you from doing so. Libel is saying you can say this, but you need to be prepared to defend what you say after the fact.
Trouble is, they've been elected by then.
That's the voters choice. I have more faith in free speech and voters than I do in censorship. Having Big Brother tell the Opposition what they can and can't say is not democratic - and if this gets abused it will be the Opposition feeling the brunt of it.
Putting aside our politics and look overseas. Would you trust someone like Trump with the power to appoint people to ban what they consider to be 'fake news'? I would not.
In spite of Trump the American system is far more democratic than our ridiculous fake democracy.
I really want to see a labour party regaining its centre left position and see the end of Corbynism
Will a centre left Labour party under, say, Yvette Cooper have a big big chance of getting your vote at the GE after this one?
I cannot say at this stage but Corbyn would have no chance at anytime, ever
Mr Eek, if Yvette Cooper were in charge of Labour, I would be most likely voting Labour for the first time ever at this election. Jeremy Corbyn is very likely ensuring a very right wing CINO government gets a majority. If no-deal goes through it is his incompetence as LoTO that is largely to blame.
Labour’s historic irony is that, having promised to deliver PR and then broken that promise, the party has gone on to behave as if we had it already.
Is Swinson proposing more funding for mental health to offset this?
One argument for legalising cannabis use is to have some quality control over it and ensure the risk of psychosis is reduced.
A family friend has a nightmare time with her brother due to the effects of his cannabis use 20+ years ago.
Completely agree - I watched two friends at University ruin their health through cannabis, both bright young guys. It must be even worse now, as the stuff available is much stronger.
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
Philip Thompson talking nonsense. There is no reason whatsoever why the same rules that apply to traditional media cannot be applied in principle to online advertising and PR. Greater penalties need to be applied to the propagation of misleading material.
What 'traditional media' rules apply to Focus leaflets etc that didn't apply to these Tweets?
Do 'traditional media' rules censor dodgy bar charts on Focus leaflets and are there great penalties with regards to those?
I don't think Focus leaflets try to hoodwink the reader into thinking they are from another party. There are these things called regulations. Fines for those people that infringe them, and possibly money for lawyers who advise those that wish to play to the edge of the rules. Governments are just running scarred of the tech companies, and some in power rather liked some of the dodgy outcomes I would wager.
Focus style leaflets do indeed try to hoodwink the reader into thinking that it could be a local newspaper and only on the small print does it say who produced it. The Twitter account getting uproar had who was behind it on far more than just small print.
Dodgy bar charts do indeed try to hoodwink people too. There are no fines for dodgy bar charts etc because we have a right to free speech.
So the alleged dead cat by no 10 and its dodgy twitter site could have been viewed as trying to deflect in case Bozo had a debate problem.
The problem with this though is that when there are issues of trust trying to deceive the public isn’t a good look which has been backed up by the current YouGov poll.
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
What's the alternative?
I'm not OK with censors telling us what politicians can and can't say. That is the preserve of dictators not a free society.
And yet you're happy for them to be prosecuted for libel?
Yes.
Censorship is saying you can't say this, we won't let you and will prevent you from doing so. Libel is saying you can say this, but you need to be prepared to defend what you say after the fact.
Trouble is, they've been elected by then.
That's the voters choice. I have more faith in free speech and voters than I do in censorship. Having Big Brother tell the Opposition what they can and can't say is not democratic - and if this gets abused it will be the Opposition feeling the brunt of it.
Putting aside our politics and look overseas. Would you trust someone like Trump with the power to appoint people to ban what they consider to be 'fake news'? I would not.
In spite of Trump the American system is far more democratic than our ridiculous fake democracy.
I'm curious where you're going with that, considering they have the same voting system as us.
I agree their First Amendment which is relevant to the discussion is far more democratic than ours.
The NI policy is pretty clever. 'No income tax of any kind on the first grand a month you earn' Very simple and clear message that appeals to low and average earners/families
The NI policy is pretty clever. 'No income tax of any kind on the first grand a month you earn' Very simple and clear message that appeals to low and average earners/families
If only the LibDems had been as good at marketing the ideas they first put forward that were initially opposed by both Tory and Labour.
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
What's the alternative?
I'm not OK with censors telling us what politicians can and can't say. That is the preserve of dictators not a free society.
And yet you're happy for them to be prosecuted for libel?
Yes.
Censorship is saying you can't say this, we won't let you and will prevent you from doing so. Libel is saying you can say this, but you need to be prepared to defend what you say after the fact.
Trouble is, they've been elected by then.
That's the voters choice. I have more faith in free speech and voters than I do in censorship. Having Big Brother tell the Opposition what they can and can't say is not democratic - and if this gets abused it will be the Opposition feeling the brunt of it.
Putting aside our politics and look overseas. Would you trust someone like Trump with the power to appoint people to ban what they consider to be 'fake news'? I would not.
In spite of Trump the American system is far more democratic than our ridiculous fake democracy.
Turnout of c55% at presidential elections doesn't strike me as especially democratic (or indicating engagement with democracy).
The NI policy is pretty clever. 'No income tax of any kind on the first grand a month you earn' Very simple and clear message that appeals to low and average earners/families
The NI policy is pretty clever. 'No income tax of any kind on the first grand a month you earn' Very simple and clear message that appeals to low and average earners/families
The NI policy is pretty clever. 'No income tax of any kind on the first grand a month you earn' Very simple and clear message that appeals to low and average earners/families
Who is going to pay for it?
Quite a lot of bills appeared to have been sent to some fellow called 'Laffer'
The NI policy is pretty clever. 'No income tax of any kind on the first grand a month you earn' Very simple and clear message that appeals to low and average earners/families
Who is going to pay for it?
I have no idea, I didn't write the policy.
No but someone is.. there is no magic money tree.. its the same principle as the ludicrous Lib Dem bonanza 50 billion. it doesn't exist and is more magic money tree lunacy.
Two interesting comments from Nicola Sturgeon (from the Guardian live blog):
Sturgeon says it was not inevitable that Brexit had to be this chaotic.
She says, if Scotland were to vote for independence, the process of separating from England would not have to be like Brexit.
On the first: No, darling, it didn't, and if your MPs had voted for the orderly version available under Theresa May then it wouldn't have been.
On the second: She's not stupid, she can see the risk of Scottish voters realising that Scottish independence would be even messier than Brexit.
No it would be worse as Scotland sends more exports to England than the UK does to the EU
On the other hand, as more of Scotland's physical exports (by value) go to the EU than the rest of the UK, staying in the EU CU/SM would be making the best of a bad situation.
60% of Scottish exports to to rUK, just 18% to the EU and it would have to negotiate to join the SM and Customs Union anyway after the UK has left them
I'm specifically referring to physical goods (mainly those subject to customs and phytosanitary checks and requirements) -£15.7 billion out of £29.6 billion is to the EU.
The only exception is wood and wood products, and as far as I know, a sheet of plywood won't need a veterinary inspection, and a roof truss wont deteriorate if it waits an extra 12 hours at a customs check.
If you know that services trading (especially financial services) are going to be significantly impeded by Brexit, you should tell the City of London that - they seem to be assuming otherwise.
Mr Thompson, might I suggest you try taking legal action against "Focus"then. Or possibly suggest tighter regulation.
I am slightly more concerned at the ability of anyone, political parties or otherwise to use social media as a method of mass disinformation. I would also like to know why the government has suppressed the report of Russian interference. Possibly because they think it might cast doubt on the legitimacy of their Holy Cow 2016 referendum result, and connect those that have advocated it as being useful idiots for the Kremlin
The NI policy is pretty clever. 'No income tax of any kind on the first grand a month you earn' Very simple and clear message that appeals to low and average earners/families
Who is going to pay for it?
I have no idea, I didn't write the policy.
No but someone is.. there is no magic money tree.. its the same principle as the ludicrous Lib Dem bonanza 50 billion. it doesn't exist and is more magic money tree lunacy.
That doesn't mean it's not a clever move electorally.
Is Swinson proposing more funding for mental health to offset this?
One argument for legalising cannabis use is to have some quality control over it and ensure the risk of psychosis is reduced.
A family friend has a nightmare time with her brother due to the effects of his cannabis use 20+ years ago.
That's a big plus point for me. I spent a lot of time at uni in a 'relaxed' state, but the stuff we bought was fairly mild and mellow. Only once did I have some skunk which a friend brought back from Amsterdam, and found it a really unpleasant experience.
Then again we used to smoke most often during late nights playing bridge, so perhaps I'm not a typical user
Nevertheless it got you to three no trumps a whole lot faster.
The pauses between looking at the hand and playing a card were sometimes veeeeeeeeery long, but no-one really cared as long as the Frazzles hadn't run out.
Is Swinson proposing more funding for mental health to offset this?
One argument for legalising cannabis use is to have some quality control over it and ensure the risk of psychosis is reduced.
A family friend has a nightmare time with her brother due to the effects of his cannabis use 20+ years ago.
That's a big plus point for me. I spent a lot of time at uni in a 'relaxed' state, but the stuff we bought was fairly mild and mellow. Only once did I have some skunk which a friend brought back from Amsterdam, and found it a really unpleasant experience.
Then again we used to smoke most often during late nights playing bridge, so perhaps I'm not a typical user
Nevertheless it got you to three no trumps a whole lot faster.
The pauses between looking at the hand and playing a card were sometimes veeeeeeeeery long, but no-one really cared as long as the Frazzles hadn't run out.
Nobody should ever have the role regulating election material and we must have absolute free speech. Regulating election material is the preserve of dictators not free societies. Imagine the squealing there'd be if a government-appointed body was censoring material the Opposition was pointing out. Imagine if a government-appointed censor was telling Jeremy Corbyn he can't say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
What's the alternative?
I'm not OK with censors telling us what politicians can and can't say. That is the preserve of dictators not a free society.
And yet you're happy for them to be prosecuted for libel?
Yes.
Censorship is saying you can't say this, we won't let you and will prevent you from doing so. Libel is saying you can say this, but you need to be prepared to defend what you say after the fact.
Trouble is, they've been elected by then.
That's the voters choice. I have more faith in free speech and voters than I do in censorship. Having Big Brother tell the Opposition what they can and can't say is not democratic - and if this gets abused it will be the Opposition feeling the brunt of it.
Putting aside our politics and look overseas. Would you trust someone like Trump with the power to appoint people to ban what they consider to be 'fake news'? I would not.
In spite of Trump the American system is far more democratic than our ridiculous fake democracy.
Turnout of c55% at presidential elections doesn't strike me as especially democratic (or indicating engagement with democracy).
Maybe, but the system of being able to elect the head of your executive directly is far superior to our ridiculous system.
The NI policy is pretty clever. 'No income tax of any kind on the first grand a month you earn' Very simple and clear message that appeals to low and average earners/families
Who is going to pay for it?
Quite a lot of bills appeared to have been sent to some fellow called 'Laffer'
One of the most risible - if unnoticed - events of this week was Leadsom’s R4 interview in which she claimed that because the corporation tax cut had (apparently) been self funding through expanding the tax take, the same could and would be done for her “reform” of business rates. Entirely misunderstanding the basis on which rates are levied which (aside from the proportion of vacant premises, at the margin) isn’t, unlike corporation tax, particularly sensitive to business activity or profits.
say the Tories are putting the NHS up for sale . . . because they're not.
What about if a political party used a deep fake in an advert to show Boris Johnson advocating killing Muslims for fun?
Surely then they can and should be done for libel afterwards.
Oh well that's okay then.
What's the alternative?
I'm not OK with censors telling us what politicians can and can't say. That is the preserve of dictators not a free society.
And yet you're happy for them to be prosecuted for libel?
Yes.
Censorship is saying you can't say this, we won't let you and will prevent you from doing so. Libel is saying you can say this, but you need to be prepared to defend what you say after the fact.
Trouble is, they've been elected by then.
That's the voters choice. I have more faith in free speech and voters than I do in censorship. Having Big Brother tell the Opposition what they can and can't say is not democratic - and if this gets abused it will be the Opposition feeling the brunt of it.
Putting aside our politics and look overseas. Would you trust someone like Trump with the power to appoint people to ban what they consider to be 'fake news'? I would not.
In spite of Trump the American system is far more democratic than our ridiculous fake democracy.
Turnout of c55% at presidential elections doesn't strike me as especially democratic (or indicating engagement with democracy).
Maybe, but the system of being able to elect the head of your executive directly is far superior to our ridiculous system.
They don't elect the President directly. They elect the electoral college, who then chooses the president. That is why Trump won.
I actually think Trump has shown why presidential systems work terribly. They couldn't get rid of him for four years despite being completely unfit for office.
Accident or not, it's a useful diversion, and possible regaining of the agenda, on a day when the latest polling results for the tories re the debate didn't look great.
The NI policy is pretty clever. 'No income tax of any kind on the first grand a month you earn' Very simple and clear message that appeals to low and average earners/families
Who is going to pay for it?
Quite a lot of bills appeared to have been sent to some fellow called 'Laffer'
One of the most risible - if unnoticed - events of this week was Leadsom’s R4 interview in which she claimed that because the corporation tax cut had (apparently) been self funding through expanding the tax take, the same could and would be done for her “reform” of business rates. Entirely misunderstanding the basis on which rates are levied which (aside from the proportion of vacant premises, at the margin) isn’t, unlike corporation tax, particularly sensitive to business activity or profits.
Nah, its Dawn Butler reminding everyone that the last time there was the double headed Hell of labour in charge at Westminster and London Mayor 3000 people were sleeping rough in Brent
Mr Thompson, might I suggest you try taking legal action against "Focus"then. Or possibly suggest tighter regulation.
I am slightly more concerned at the ability of anyone, political parties or otherwise to use social media as a method of mass disinformation. I would also like to know why the government has suppressed the report of Russian interference. Possibly because they think it might cast doubt on the legitimacy of their Holy Cow 2016 referendum result, and connect those that have advocated it as being useful idiots for the Kremlin
No I don't advocate either legal action or regulation against Focus. I'm quite content with the Lib Dems - and everyone else - have a right to free speech.
And I'm equally content with everyone else having a right to say "that's total bullshit" or any other reply.
Censorship and totalitarian big brother vetting of politics is not the solution.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DannyShawBBC/status/1197139002756870145?s=20
How relevant is a focus on post debate still undecideds? You can look at it several ways and reach different conclusions. Potential late swing voters or those less likely to vote? And it doesn't tell us how the debate itself changed views, nor how much that will translate to VI.
[The sea and mountain bit, not the beautiful bit. Obviously.]
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/this-isnt-the-election-politicians-think-it-is-3gwc6cgfw
Fascism will be happy to fill the gap though, with some identity-based bollocks. Johnson can certainly facilitate that (not suggesting that he will actively push it, although he's happy to align himself with such forces, merely that he will do less than nothing to stop it).
But I don't have kids. I am always very surprised how really worried my friends are about their kids and drugs, even cannabis, despite saying they tried it.
And remember Lib Dems are trying to peel off upper middle class Remain type voters in places like Guildford.
Well it is a talent of sorts, that sort of thing.
"She offered me protection" -
Now there's a line to build on.
Censorship is saying you can't say this, we won't let you and will prevent you from doing so.
Libel is saying you can say this, but you need to be prepared to defend what you say after the fact.
Boris Johnson confirms Tories will raise National Insurance threshold to £12k+. Big policy announcement. Came in response to engineering worker in Teesside who asked him: 'Are these tax cuts for people like you or people like me?'
Do 'traditional media' rules censor dodgy bar charts on Focus leaflets and are there great penalties with regards to those?
Currently you will get a stamp for the year but in the future?
https://www.nhs.uk/news/mental-health/daily-use-high-strength-cannabis-increases-risk-psychosis/
Is Swinson proposing more funding for mental health to offset this?
A family friend has a nightmare time with her brother due to the effects of his cannabis use 20+ years ago.
Maaaaaaaammmyyyyyyyy, my maaaaaaaaammmyyyyyyyyyyy.
Quite an uncomfortable thing to watch on Youtube, mind.
A fixation on trivia isn't what the average voter is looking for.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/nov/08/millennium.uk1
What he did suggest was that in the case of young men under 25 if you already had a pre-disposition towards schizophrenia then there was some evidence that cannabis could both accelerate and possibly deepen the onset of the condition but only those with the pre-disposition were likely to be affected.
Given the way you’ve been flopping around, you might be advised to wait a while.
Gosh - landslide!
Then again we used to smoke most often during late nights playing bridge, so perhaps I'm not a typical user
Putting aside our politics and look overseas. Would you trust someone like Trump with the power to appoint people to ban what they consider to be 'fake news'? I would not.
It is the alleged smoking gun that congressional Democrats have been trying to adduce during their investigation of President Trump.
Sondland has a lot to say about this in his opening statement, which we have a copy of.
According to his prepared remarks, he will say: "I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?'
"As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-50476322
I'll be like making 3-4% beer the only beer, when people want wine and whiskey.
Dodgy bar charts do indeed try to hoodwink people too. There are no fines for dodgy bar charts etc because we have a right to free speech.
The problem with this though is that when there are issues of trust trying to deceive the public isn’t a good look which has been backed up by the current YouGov poll.
I agree their First Amendment which is relevant to the discussion is far more democratic than ours.
Very simple and clear message that appeals to low and average earners/families
The only exception is wood and wood products, and as far as I know, a sheet of plywood won't need a veterinary inspection, and a roof truss wont deteriorate if it waits an extra 12 hours at a customs check.
If you know that services trading (especially financial services) are going to be significantly impeded by Brexit, you should tell the City of London that - they seem to be assuming otherwise.
May continue into Labours relaese tomorrow. So job done....
I am slightly more concerned at the ability of anyone, political parties or otherwise to use social media as a method of mass disinformation. I would also like to know why the government has suppressed the report of Russian interference. Possibly because they think it might cast doubt on the legitimacy of their Holy Cow 2016 referendum result, and connect those that have advocated it as being useful idiots for the Kremlin
I actually think Trump has shown why presidential systems work terribly. They couldn't get rid of him for four years despite being completely unfit for office.
And I'm equally content with everyone else having a right to say "that's total bullshit" or any other reply.
Censorship and totalitarian big brother vetting of politics is not the solution.