Now we know Salmond is going to be the main news story today - is it likely that the General Election is going to be on the front page of any paper before I receive my postal vote? Supposedly I will receive it on Monday.
All of the Sundays for the Tories? They tend not to go with news if they can be prebriefed and go to bed on time.
When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!
From the BBC
"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".
In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.
So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?
"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.
But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out
Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."
That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.
That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.
"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."
But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."
Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.
They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.
But Johnson DID say it was £500 per year each year
Johnson said the new starting point would be £12500 and that it was £500.
There will be a lot of people who expect both those items immediately and will be very unhappy when they discover no difference in pay next April
When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!
From the BBC
"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".
In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.
So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?
"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.
But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out
Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."
Charlie Kennedy was crucified for getting his sums wrong but we later learnt he had a drink problem. Johnson had no such excuse. he's just a bare-faced liar and everyone knows it. Is he worse han Trump? I wouldn't like to have to judge but the similarities don't end there.
So, in 2017 the Labour manifesto promised to end future tuition fees, and made a vague commitment to look at what could be done with existing debt. Labour PPCs and campaigners went straight off to start telling students and recent graduates that a Labour government would cancel all debt ab initio. Subsequent to the election, they admitted this wasn't achievable.
Is that better, worse, or about the same? What about if they try the same sort of trick this time round?
A ridiculous comparison. Is it worse to say you'll end tuition fees then lose the election so you're unable to impliment it or to say you'll give every worker £500 which is a completely erronious figure?
On the US race, this is still Biden's to lose. His biggest strength isn't momentum - it's that there is no one else in the "big 4" that is anywhere near on the black vote.
I'd have this as :.
Biden
Gap
Warren
Fresh air
Sanders Buttigieg
30 furlongs
Klobuchar/Harris
No chance
Yang/Bloomberg
right now.
I think the logic and ordering is right, but that the distances aren't as big - largely because all the Big 4 are so obviously flawed. I think Harris and Klobuchar are still in it, and still represent some value at 50-100/1.
Any views on whether the black vote will start to drift towards Buttigieg if he wins Iowa and NH convincingly? Last time Clinton had it sewn up from the get-go, and Obama likewise in 08. I think 2000 was barely a contest in the end, so that doesn't help either.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
If the allegations prove to be true, it seems hard to believe that Nicola would not have been aware of his behaviour.
I know it's an obvious statement but with 10 different accusers it's got to be highly unlikely that none of them are true.
I agree. But due process and all that.
I have no problem with due process and equally I understand why Salmond would plead innocent for all charges - I just think we can all see the end result here.
When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!
From the BBC
"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".
In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.
So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?
"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.
But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out
Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."
Charlie Kennedy was crucified for getting his sums wrong but we later learnt he had a drink problem. Johnson had no such excuse. he's just a bare-faced liar and everyone knows it. Is he worse han Trump? I wouldn't like to have to judge but the similarities don't end there.
So, in 2017 the Labour manifesto promised to end future tuition fees, and made a vague commitment to look at what could be done with existing debt. Labour PPCs and campaigners went straight off to start telling students and recent graduates that a Labour government would cancel all debt ab initio. Subsequent to the election, they admitted this wasn't achievable.
Is that better, worse, or about the same? What about if they try the same sort of trick this time round?
A ridiculous comparison. Is it worse to say you'll end tuition fees then lose the election so you're unable to impliment it or to say you'll give every worker £500 which is a completely erronious figure?
It was a lie. There's no other word for it - the manifesto did not commit to cancelling existing debt, but that's how it was presented to voters. You may choose to interpret that as unfortunate, but I have no doubt that it was deliberate and cynical.
Alex Salmond charged with offences against 10 different women.
14 sexual charges altogether
In sex cases prosecutors talk of the power of 3. If you have 3 complainers alleging similar conduct then even if one of them proves to be a bit suspect juries convict. 10 ? Jeez.
10 is also a lot of women to put through the ordeal of giving evidence against a powerful man with expensive lawyers. If Salmond knows he is guilty of at least some of these charges, pleading not guilty to them is a despicable thing to inflict.
Something which, if he were to be convicted, the judge would take into account when sentencing.
When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!
From the BBC
"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".
In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.
So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?
"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.
But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out
Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."
That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.
That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.
"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."
But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."
Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.
They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.
But Johnson DID say it was £500 per year each year
Which it would be approximately once the target of £12500 is hit.
Now we know Salmond is going to be the main news story today - is it likely that the General Election is going to be on the front page of any paper before I receive my postal vote? Supposedly I will receive it on Monday.
It is possible that Andrew/Salmond will command the news headlines over the next few days other than Sky who seem possessed with labour
And I should say, in response to your recent doubt I would ever vote labour, I twice voted for Blair and to some of my fellow conservatives I am not considered pure for those two elapses in my 76 years
Now we know Salmond is going to be the main news story today - is it likely that the General Election is going to be on the front page of any paper before I receive my postal vote? Supposedly I will receive it on Monday.
Sunday papers will be dominated with briefings on the Tory manifesto. Monday papers will be dominated with the reaction to the Tory manifesto.
Its getting a bit boring to hear teferences to compulsive lying. You should take it as read that any politician who moves their lips is being economical with the truth.
That's not true. Skillful politicians put the best possible spin on reality and marshall the facts in order to support their arguments. Only rubbish politicians and compulsive liars tell complete untruths. It represents a coarsening of our politics and will lead to worse policies. My guess is that Johnson is completely innumerate. He did classics at Uni and then worked as a hack where he made up numbers. He is always very careless with anything quantitative which is a clear sign of innumeracy. Do we know what he got in his maths A level?
Errr Tony Blair.. brilliant politician who lied whilst smiling
I don't think Blair lied that much about anything. Maybe the Ecclestone thing? I believe that he genuinely thought there were WMD in Iraq (even though personally I was sceptical at the time and opposed the Iraq war). I would actually say that in terms of confronting the electorate with uncomfortable facts Blair was more straightforward than a lot of politicians.
Well you would say that wouldn't you....
I'm saying it because I think it's true, I don't really care if you think I am being partisan. It's also true of most politicians from all parties. I don't think Thatcher or Major were liars either, or Cameron for that matter. Obviously Cameron was lying when he said he wouldn't resign if Brexit won, but it was ok in my view because (a) he had to say that and (b) everyone knew he was lying anyway. Similarly when politicians say they are going to win an election when their internal polling tells them otherwise. These are just little lies that are a necessary part of the normal process, like telling your wife you like her hair cut. Johnson is a new and dangerous phenomenon in my view as he is a compulsive liar, he lies about everything and seems to have no understanding of reality. Moreover, it is an indication of a narcissistic personality. All of which points to him being a dangerous man to run the country.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
"Following the hearing, Salmond told waiting reporters that he has pleaded not guilty to all charges and that he had explained "some of the circumstances in which they've come about"."
"The attempted rape charges alleges that, inside Bute House, Mr Salmond repeatedly kissed a woman on the face and neck, repeatedly blocked her path, pinned her head against a wall, removed her clothing and underwear, pushed her onto a bed, knelt over her, pinned her to the bed by the shoulder, lay naked on top of her and attempted to rape her.
"A sexual assault charge relating to December 2013 alleges that he caused a woman to sit on a bed, laid on top of her, made sexual remarks to her, touched her buttocks, thighs and breasts over her clothing with his hands, repeatedly kissed her face, struggled with her and pulled up her dress with intent to rape her."
They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.
But Johnson DID say it was £500 per year each year
Johnson said the new starting point would be £12500 and that it was £500.
There will be a lot of people who expect both those items immediately and will be very unhappy when they discover no difference in pay next April
Its typical to set out pledges with targets set for where we will be by the end of the next Parliament, not for the following April. And there would be a difference in pay next April since there's an immediate uplift in April.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
If you can't see sexual coercion by the First Minister of a country up to attempted rape isn't equivalent to promoting your current shag's business, then you have some weird morals, Roger.
BTW off topic, I watched the first 2 episodes of the Crown. A bit disappointing. Very good production values but Olivia Coleman was disappointing and the script was incredibly clunky and unsubtle in places, with a very poor rip off of Alan Bennett in the Queen/Blunt scenes.
It does pick up - and for those of us around at the time a useful reminder of Aberfan, the moon landing, miners strike & 3 day week. The cast is absolutely top drawer and as it broadens beyond Coleman (who seems to settle into the role as the series progresses) we see the lives of Charles & Margaret for example explored (two strong performances). I suspect considerable dramatic licence has been taken!
Minor gripes - the queen and DoE watching television at breakfast in the 1960s - I'm pretty sure it didn't start until the early '80s - and everywhere they go is on a BOAC VC10 - even short hops to France.....
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
For anyone who isn't a partisan rape is worse than that.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
Err, what? Are two alleged violent sexual assaults worse than promoting your alleged girlfriend's business? Yes, a thousand times yes.
South of the border we can only gawp open-mouthed at the allegations against Salmond, but how are they going to play in Scotland? Will it in any way impact on domestic Scottish politics in the election? What do our Scottish chums reckon? (Other than malcomg of course, who will probably fulminate that these women were all Tories/agents of the state..... )
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
For anyone who isn't a partisan rape is worse than that.
Even for those who are partisans, surely. I'm very much against Johnson and (before this case) pretty much neutral towards Salmond, but what Salmond has been accused of is clearly worse, to me, than anything Johnson has been accused of.
When £85 is not "exactly" £500 but "slightly lower". A leader and cabinet in touch with real life budgets of workers and an attention for detail!
From the BBC
"Sajid Javid is quizzed on Boris Johnson's comments yesterday that the initial benefit of raising the threshold at which people start paying National Insurance contributions would "put £500 into the pockets of everybody".
In fact, that's not the correct figure. The Conservatives' own press release says the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 in 2020-21 would be £100 per year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says it would be £85 per year.
So did Mr Johnson get his sums wrong or spin the figures?
"I don't think there's any spinning going on, he's just given a straight answer," replies Mr Javid.
But he gave the wrong answer, the presenter points out
Mr Javid says: "We're setting out the detail today. The £500 figure is not exactly £500, it's something slightly lower than £500."
That's ridiculous. The policy is to get it to £9,500 next year then to take it up to £12,500 as it becomes affordable - as was done with the Income Tax threshold rises. If it goes to £12,500 by the end of the next Parliament it will be close to £500 by the end of the next Parliament.
That is not what the PM said, he thinks (thought) the initial cut is £500 per year.
"In a separate interview with ITV News, Mr Johnson talked about the benefit from raising the threshold to £9,500 saying: "It's about £500 a year." The reporter challenged him saying: "That's not what you are guaranteeing. You are guaranteeing about £100 next year and there's an ambition for £500."
But Mr Johnson was adamant: "You are not right there. We are going to £9,500 threshold initially and then the ambition is to get to the £12,500 threshold. But the initial cut that we are making does offer a £500 cut for every working person."
Also someone pointed out it would be many many years before CPI took 9500-12500 unless we are going for hyperinflation post brexit.
They aren't proposing CPI takes it from 9500 - 12500. Javid was quite clear the ambition was to get it to 12500 then have CPI lift it from there.
But Johnson DID say it was £500 per year each year
Which it would be approximately once the target of £12500 is hit.
Which isn't the "initial cut".
You can correct Johnson's statement pretty easily, but he did get it wrong.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
Good luck with that particular line of whatabouterry, Roger! I'd say attempted rape would generally be seen as the worse offence, yes.
Now we know Salmond is going to be the main news story today - is it likely that the General Election is going to be on the front page of any paper before I receive my postal vote? Supposedly I will receive it on Monday.
BTW off topic, I watched the first 2 episodes of the Crown. A bit disappointing. Very good production values but Olivia Coleman was disappointing and the script was incredibly clunky and unsubtle in places, with a very poor rip off of Alan Bennett in the Queen/Blunt scenes.
It does pick up - and for those of us around at the time a useful reminder of Aberfan, the moon landing, miners strike & 3 day week. The cast is absolutely top drawer and as it broadens beyond Coleman (who seems to settle into the role as the series progresses) we see the lives of Charles & Margaret for example explored (two strong performances). I suspect considerable dramatic licence has been taken!
Minor gripes - the queen and DoE watching television at breakfast in the 1960s - I'm pretty sure it didn't start until the early '80s - and everywhere they go is on a BOAC VC10 - even short hops to France.....
The casting is phenomenal - Derek Jacobi as the Duke of Windsor, Charles Dance as Mountbatten, and Jason Watkins as Harold Wilson are particular highlights.
Michael Maloney does a good turn as Ted Heath, but I'm really looking forward to Thatch making an appearance in the next series.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
"‘Data scientists’ are gradually replacing those grand ‘pollsters’ who used to offer confident insights with a neat turn of phrase. These new number nerds are likely to be under 30 and might well know nothing about politics. Instead of simple surveys and uniform national swings, they are using complex statistical models. For people whose bread and butter relies on being seen as a savvy political ‘expert’, all this amounts to an existential threat.
The most powerful data modelling technique in politics at the moment, is something called MRP. It stands for “multilevel regression with post-stratification” — not exactly catchy — and the number of people who fully understand it in the UK can be counted on two hands."
I would say "supplementing" rather than "replacing", or at least that's how it should ideally work. The trick is to get maximise insight by having those with subject matter expertise and the modellers working together and learning from the other side to get the best results.
Also, single figures? I haven't looked into fully, but it seems pretty similar to the techniques that have been used to price personal lines insurance for a couple of decades now.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
On Topic - Mayor Pete cannot win the primary. He is too dependent on white voters, is mostly making inroads amongst college educated white voters, and he doesn't have a monopoly on those voters. He may (although I doubt it) win Iowa and do well in NH, but after that he has nowhere to go. He does act as a spoiler to Warren, who I had as favourite to win as I think she is the left and Dem establishment "compromise" candidate, but she has had a few slips recently that suggest neither would be happy with her as a compromise: too short for Richard, too long for Dick.
I still think Bernie has a chance of threading this needle. In the case of a contested convention, which new rules have made easier, it would look like Warren delegates would be more willing to go Bernie than Biden, and Bernie has surprising strong support amongst Hispanic voters, suggesting strong results in some southern states and California.
Biden could squeak it, but he is not getting the money he needs, and his base of African American voters and working class whites could easily go to their second preferences if it looks like he is faltering (which mostly benefits Bernie). Atm Iowa and NH are 4 horse races; if Biden is the last horse he could lose the air of inevitability that might be shoring up his support (note that Hillary led amongst African American voters against Obama until he showed he could win in white states, then they shifted to him. Something similar could happen amongst a segment of the African American vote should Warren or Bernie come out strong).
BTW off topic, I watched the first 2 episodes of the Crown. A bit disappointing. Very good production values but Olivia Coleman was disappointing and the script was incredibly clunky and unsubtle in places, with a very poor rip off of Alan Bennett in the Queen/Blunt scenes.
It does pick up - and for those of us around at the time a useful reminder of Aberfan, the moon landing, miners strike & 3 day week. The cast is absolutely top drawer and as it broadens beyond Coleman (who seems to settle into the role as the series progresses) we see the lives of Charles & Margaret for example explored (two strong performances). I suspect considerable dramatic licence has been taken!
Minor gripes - the queen and DoE watching television at breakfast in the 1960s - I'm pretty sure it didn't start until the early '80s - and everywhere they go is on a BOAC VC10 - even short hops to France.....
I suppose they could have been watching the 1961 solar eclipse:
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
Is it tough? Is it really?
Good grief.
Screwing the ratepayers in a City of 8,000,000 people is pretty disgusting as well.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
South of the border we can only gawp open-mouthed at the allegations against Salmond, but how are they going to play in Scotland? Will it in any way impact on domestic Scottish politics in the election? What do our Scottish chums reckon? (Other than malcomg of course, who will probably fulminate that these women were all Tories/agents of the state..... )
Hasn't Salmond been out of the party spotlight for a while? Sturgeon can probably say "I didn't know" (and I would probably believe her) and say the SNP is more than just one man. I doubt Labour could use this to their advantage, and whilst these accusations against Salmond are obviously degrees of magnitude worse than anything our PM has been accused of, Johnson is known as a womaniser and I can only assume the Tories wouldn't want to invite comparisons in case people do look at that issue closer.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
Is it tough? Is it really?
Good grief.
Roger probably ran it by his focus group of non political friends who were nonetheless glued to the debate.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
South of the border we can only gawp open-mouthed at the allegations against Salmond, but how are they going to play in Scotland? Will it in any way impact on domestic Scottish politics in the election? What do our Scottish chums reckon? (Other than malcomg of course, who will probably fulminate that these women were all Tories/agents of the state..... )
Hasn't Salmond been out of the party spotlight for a while? Sturgeon can probably say "I didn't know" (and I would probably believe her) and say the SNP is more than just one man. I doubt Labour could use this to their advantage, and whilst these accusations against Salmond are obviously degrees of magnitude worse than anything our PM has been accused of, Johnson is known as a womaniser and I can only assume the Tories wouldn't want to invite comparisons in case people do look at that issue closer.
Sturgeon may well have to provide evidence in the Court
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
I can get all the maths stuff (and loads of other things) from the character map, in windows accessories
eg 1×10⁹≠∞
I’m on an iPad.
I think you need to install a 3rd party keyboard, like the Chemistry Keyboard. With that one you hold down the numbers to get the super/sub script options for the number
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
If you can't see sexual coercion by the First Minister of a country up to attempted rape isn't equivalent to promoting your current shag's business, then you have some weird morals, Roger.
Both criminal offences if found guilty, but one will get big prison time whilst the other will be a slap on the wrist.
On the US race, this is still Biden's to lose. His biggest strength isn't momentum - it's that there is no one else in the "big 4" that is anywhere near on the black vote.
I'd have this as :.
Biden
Gap
Warren
Fresh air
Sanders Buttigieg
30 furlongs
Klobuchar/Harris
No chance
Yang/Bloomberg
right now.
I think the logic and ordering is right, but that the distances aren't as big - largely because all the Big 4 are so obviously flawed. I think Harris and Klobuchar are still in it, and still represent some value at 50-100/1.
Any views on whether the black vote will start to drift towards Buttigieg if he wins Iowa and NH convincingly? Last time Clinton had it sewn up from the get-go, and Obama likewise in 08. I think 2000 was barely a contest in the end, so that doesn't help either.
It's hard to say (one also ought not assume 'the black vote' is monolithic), since Buttigieg is the first credible gay candidate to run for the presidency, so we have no data to go on.
While the comparison is a far from direct one, it's worth noting these stats... ...go back to 2008, and look again at the poll numbers—in particular the ones about whether the country was ready to elect a black president. Back in 2000, it had been in the high 30s. In January of ‘08, at the beginning of primary voting, one poll put the number at 54 percent. But by that April, by the time Obama had won in Iowa and South Carolina and 13 states on Super Tuesday, another poll said the number of Americans ready to elect a black president was as high as 76 percent. One conclusion to draw from that: When public opinion shifts, it can shift quickly...
South of the border we can only gawp open-mouthed at the allegations against Salmond, but how are they going to play in Scotland? Will it in any way impact on domestic Scottish politics in the election? What do our Scottish chums reckon? (Other than malcomg of course, who will probably fulminate that these women were all Tories/agents of the state..... )
Hasn't Salmond been out of the party spotlight for a while? Sturgeon can probably say "I didn't know" (and I would probably believe her) and say the SNP is more than just one man. I doubt Labour could use this to their advantage, and whilst these accusations against Salmond are obviously degrees of magnitude worse than anything our PM has been accused of, Johnson is known as a womaniser and I can only assume the Tories wouldn't want to invite comparisons in case people do look at that issue closer.
Sturgeon may well have to provide evidence in the Court
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
.... these accusations against Salmond are obviously degrees of magnitude worse than anything our PM has been accused of, Johnson is known as a womaniser and I can only assume the Tories wouldn't want to invite comparisons in case people do look at that issue closer.
There is a very, very big difference between "womanising" and "sexual assault".
So, the suggestion that they "invite comparison" is seriously wide of the mark.
Will the manifestos be available to buy in bookshops and newsagents like they always used to be? I used to enjoy wasting a few pounds on them once every four years.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
Its getting a bit boring to hear teferences to compulsive lying. You should take it as read that any politician who moves their lips is being economical with the truth.
That's not true. Skillful politicians put the best possible spin on reality and marshall the facts in order to support their arguments. Only rubbish politicians and compulsive liars tell complete untruths. It represents a coarsening of our politics and will lead to worse policies. My guess is that Johnson is completely innumerate. He did classics at Uni and then worked as a hack where he made up numbers. He is always very careless with anything quantitative which is a clear sign of innumeracy. Do we know what he got in his maths A level?
Errr Tony Blair.. brilliant politician who lied whilst smiling
I don't think Blair lied that much about anything. Maybe the Ecclestone thing? I believe that he genuinely thought there were WMD in Iraq (even though personally I was sceptical at the time and opposed the Iraq war). I would actually say that in terms of confronting the electorate with uncomfortable facts Blair was more straightforward than a lot of politicians.
Well you would say that wouldn't you....
On the question of Blair lying, you have to go with the Hutton Report which is the most detailed and reliable account. It absolved him from lying but indicated that he did everything but. It also confirmed what I think most had figured anyway - his motivation was a sycophantic desire to oblige the White House.
The Ecclestone thing was a huge disappointment to his supporters, a severe reality check in those heady early days. Not sure I would call it a lie, but certainly dishonest and much less than was expected of him.
On Topic - Mayor Pete cannot win the primary. He is too dependent on white voters, is mostly making inroads amongst college educated white voters, and he doesn't have a monopoly on those voters. He may (although I doubt it) win Iowa and do well in NH, but after that he has nowhere to go...
I don't buy this argument. If he were to win Iowa, all sorts of things are possible.
Biden - assuming he stays in the race - will likely win S. Carolina, but perhaps not by the current massive margins.
If Buttigieg can continue with the assured performances he's managed up until now, he could win this (though I acknowledge he is an outside bet).
.... these accusations against Salmond are obviously degrees of magnitude worse than anything our PM has been accused of, Johnson is known as a womaniser and I can only assume the Tories wouldn't want to invite comparisons in case people do look at that issue closer.
There is a very, very big difference between "womanising" and "sexual assault".
So, the suggestion that they "invite comparison" is seriously wide of the mark.
The more accurate comparison is between sexual assault and misconduct in public office (which is the Boris offence for promoting his friends business on the sly). Both are criminal offences, but the former is clearly much more serious.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
Its getting a bit boring to hear teferences to compulsive lying. You should take it as read that any politician who moves their lips is being economical with the truth.
That's not true. Skillful politicians put the best possible spin on reality and marshall the facts in order to support their arguments. Only rubbish politicians and compulsive liars tell complete untruths. It represents a coarsening of our politics and will lead to worse policies. My guess is that Johnson is completely innumerate. He did classics at Uni and then worked as a hack where he made up numbers. He is always very careless with anything quantitative which is a clear sign of innumeracy. Do we know what he got in his maths A level?
Errr Tony Blair.. brilliant politician who lied whilst smiling
I don't think Blair lied that much about anything. Maybe the Ecclestone thing? I believe that he genuinely thought there were WMD in Iraq (even though personally I was sceptical at the time and opposed the Iraq war). I would actually say that in terms of confronting the electorate with uncomfortable facts Blair was more straightforward than a lot of politicians.
Well you would say that wouldn't you....
On the question of Blair lying, you have to go with the Hutton Report which is the most detailed and reliable account. It absolved him from lying but indicated that he did everything but. It also confirmed what I think most had figured anyway - his motivation was a sycophantic desire to oblige the White House.
The Ecclestone thing was a huge disappointment to his supporters, a severe reality check in those heady early days. Not sure I would call it a lie, but certainly dishonest and much less than was expected of him.
With the benefit of hindsight it is amazing he didn't fight harder to keep the Ecclestone money.
Is modelling replacing polling for what people look for to see who will win?
Polls are models, unless you literally just phone people at random and then release the raw data. These are just more sophisticated polls/models. Which are not necessarily an improvement.
South of the border we can only gawp open-mouthed at the allegations against Salmond, but how are they going to play in Scotland? Will it in any way impact on domestic Scottish politics in the election? What do our Scottish chums reckon? (Other than malcomg of course, who will probably fulminate that these women were all Tories/agents of the state..... )
Hasn't Salmond been out of the party spotlight for a while? Sturgeon can probably say "I didn't know" (and I would probably believe her) and say the SNP is more than just one man. I doubt Labour could use this to their advantage, and whilst these accusations against Salmond are obviously degrees of magnitude worse than anything our PM has been accused of, Johnson is known as a womaniser and I can only assume the Tories wouldn't want to invite comparisons in case people do look at that issue closer.
Sturgeon may well have to provide evidence in the Court
That's the danger for SNP - if it turns out that (a) the allegations are true and (b) that she, knew (or had a good idea or should have known) then it rightly hurts her politically. If only (a) then SNP just disown him and I don't see it doing much damage.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
I also find it depressing that I can show a number of different emojis on this, but not the sub and super scripts required for expressing scientific terms correctly.
.... these accusations against Salmond are obviously degrees of magnitude worse than anything our PM has been accused of, Johnson is known as a womaniser and I can only assume the Tories wouldn't want to invite comparisons in case people do look at that issue closer.
There is a very, very big difference between "womanising" and "sexual assault".
So, the suggestion that they "invite comparison" is seriously wide of the mark.
The more accurate comparison is between sexual assault and misconduct in public office (which is the Boris offence for promoting his friends business on the sly). Both are criminal offences, but the former is clearly much more serious.
There's a certain similarity in that both involve using power to obtain personal gratification. Rape involves the additional nastiness of violent assault however. Even Johnson's worst enemies wouldn't accuse him of that.
Its getting a bit boring to hear teferences to compulsive lying. You should take it as read that any politician who moves their lips is being economical with the truth.
That's not true. Skillful politicians put the best possible spin on reality and marshall the facts in order to support their arguments. Only rubbish politicians and compulsive liars tell complete untruths. It represents a coarsening of our politics and will lead to worse policies. My guess is that Johnson is completely innumerate. He did classics at Uni and then worked as a hack where he made up numbers. He is always very careless with anything quantitative which is a clear sign of innumeracy. Do we know what he got in his maths A level?
Errr Tony Blair.. brilliant politician who lied whilst smiling
I don't think Blair lied that much about anything. Maybe the Ecclestone thing? I believe that he genuinely thought there were WMD in Iraq (even though personally I was sceptical at the time and opposed the Iraq war). I would actually say that in terms of confronting the electorate with uncomfortable facts Blair was more straightforward than a lot of politicians.
Well you would say that wouldn't you....
On the question of Blair lying, you have to go with the Hutton Report which is the most detailed and reliable account. It absolved him from lying but indicated that he did everything but. It also confirmed what I think most had figured anyway - his motivation was a sycophantic desire to oblige the White House.
The Ecclestone thing was a huge disappointment to his supporters, a severe reality check in those heady early days. Not sure I would call it a lie, but certainly dishonest and much less than was expected of him.
With the benefit of hindsight it is amazing he didn't fight harder to keep the Ecclestone money.
According to Rawnesley (Servants Of The People) it was easily and readily replaced.
Labour manifesto: “We’ll ask those who earn more than £80,000 a year to pay a little more income tax, while freezing National Insurance and income tax rates for everyone else”.
Fiscal drag. There’s the attack line for the Tories.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
Good luck with that particular line of whatabouterry, Roger! I'd say attempted rape would generally be seen as the worse offence, yes.
I'm surprised that no one sees anything odd about choosing yet another self obsessed Old Etonian ex Bullingdon Boy to be our PM. Doessn't it tell you anything about this country? Maybe we can work our way through the whole lot of them......
On topic, Joe Biden seems to be like a supertanker whose engines have cut out. The momentum continues to carry him forward but sooner or later he's going to come to a standstill. The question is whether that is before or after the nomination process has been decided. Unlike others, it seems to me much more likely than not that the answer is "before" and well before.
Labour manifesto: “We’ll ask those who earn more than £80,000 a year to pay a little more income tax, while freezing National Insurance and income tax rates for everyone else”.
Fiscal drag. There’s the attack line for the Tories.
£80k a year will be round about the minimum wage, after five years of inflation under a Corbyn government.
At the risk of repeating myself, let’s get some evidence about the harm involved and then work out how best to minimise it in the most effective way. That may result in the policies you advocate but I marvel at the ability of people - and this is not aimed at you personally - to come up with such policies on the basis of relatively little or no scientific, medical, legal, criminal or other relevant knowledge in this area.
Not sure what your complaint is. If you are saying posters here are making it up as they go along - well, I certainly am, but we all have to get through life making decisions "on the basis of relatively little or no scientific, medical, legal, criminal or other relevant knowledge" because we can't all be experts at everything. This includes people like governments and MPs and judges. If you are saying there is insufficient research into cannabis out there, I am not sure what would satisfy you. There's tons. Governments are there to formulate and enact policies, not to set up Royal Commissions.
Exactly. It's quite clear many asking for more info will never have enough, it's a very common delaying tactic. Theres been research and some places have legalised, if that research is wrong or the legalisation bad people need to say why, not hypocritically accuse others of leaping forward with little to no reasoning. Oh we need more info, no not that info.
It goes both ways and theres a lot of gut feeling thinking on it, which is fine for us all as you note, but the hypocritical presentation is one side is about science of it and others are not. Thats bollocks.
Please point to the evidence about the effect (short and long-term) of the powerful skunk being sold now on the brains of young teenagers and young adults, in particular in relation to the possible links with serious mental illness. I am unaware of it. Maybe there is some. But don’t you think it should be obtained and understood when deciding on whether to allow the legal sale of such a product.
Such evidence usually takes time to obtain and understand. Saying it should be obtained is not a delaying tactic but, IMO, a necessary step any responsible government should take before making such a change.
It seems to me that there is a lot of cherry-picking of studies and claims which support people’s preconceived opinions but a reluctance to look at stuff which might suggest that the answers are not quite as simple as some want to make out.
Clearly our current drugs laws are not fit for purpose. So change is needed. What that change should be needs careful thought based on expert advice, facts and evidence, unfashionable as such a concept might be these days.
The descriptions of Salmonds offences are unbelievable including attempted rape in Bute house and offences in Stirling Castle, all when he was First Minister
Wow, wasn't expecting that. 10 different women.
Even worse than Johnson promoting his girlfriend's business in his capacity as Mayor of London? Tough one.
Good luck with that particular line of whatabouterry, Roger! I'd say attempted rape would generally be seen as the worse offence, yes.
I'm surprised that no one sees anything odd about choosing yet another self obsessed Old Etonian ex Bullingdon Boy to be our PM. Doessn't it tell you anything about this country? Maybe we can work our way through the whole lot of them......
South of the border we can only gawp open-mouthed at the allegations against Salmond, but how are they going to play in Scotland? Will it in any way impact on domestic Scottish politics in the election? What do our Scottish chums reckon? (Other than malcomg of course, who will probably fulminate that these women were all Tories/agents of the state..... )
Hasn't Salmond been out of the party spotlight for a while? Sturgeon can probably say "I didn't know" (and I would probably believe her) and say the SNP is more than just one man. I doubt Labour could use this to their advantage, and whilst these accusations against Salmond are obviously degrees of magnitude worse than anything our PM has been accused of, Johnson is known as a womaniser and I can only assume the Tories wouldn't want to invite comparisons in case people do look at that issue closer.
Salmond resigned from the SNP last year so he's been out of the party as well as the party spotlight for a while.
Sturgeon has played a pretty straight bat throughout in difficult circs. At the beginning of this imbroglio certain gleeful Unionists were trying to push the narrative that she'd betrayed her old friend & mentor and there was civil war in the SNP between her and Salmond's supporters; they're going to look a bit dumb if they now bellow complicity (won't stop them of course). I'd guess it being an ongoing case will prevent much use of it except by roasters on twitter.
Labour manifesto: “We’ll ask those who earn more than £80,000 a year to pay a little more income tax, while freezing National Insurance and income tax rates for everyone else”.
Fiscal drag. There’s the attack line for the Tories.
No, they just need to find a head teacher and/or a GP who's on >£80k.
South of the border we can only gawp open-mouthed at the allegations against Salmond, but how are they going to play in Scotland? Will it in any way impact on domestic Scottish politics in the election? What do our Scottish chums reckon? (Other than malcomg of course, who will probably fulminate that these women were all Tories/agents of the state..... )
Hasn't Salmond been out of the party spotlight for a while? Sturgeon can probably say "I didn't know" (and I would probably believe her) and say the SNP is more than just one man. I doubt Labour could use this to their advantage, and whilst these accusations against Salmond are obviously degrees of magnitude worse than anything our PM has been accused of, Johnson is known as a womaniser and I can only assume the Tories wouldn't want to invite comparisons in case people do look at that issue closer.
Sturgeon may well have to provide evidence in the Court
That's the danger for SNP - if it turns out that (a) the allegations are true and (b) that she, knew (or had a good idea or should have known) then it rightly hurts her politically. If only (a) then SNP just disown him and I don't see it doing much damage.
It is all about who knew what and when, who acted and didn't act. There's a scenario where NS will have to go, if it turns out she knew and failed to act.
As for this election, we all knew the pre-trial was coming up, it has been covered extensively in the Scottish media - he's no longer a member of the SNP, so people can make up their own minds.
Not to diminish these charges, they are horrific, but they will have no bearing on my vote. If he is guilty, he needs to face the full force of the law, and be sentenced accordingly.
Comments
There will be a lot of people who expect both those items immediately and will be very unhappy when they discover no difference in pay next April
Any views on whether the black vote will start to drift towards Buttigieg if he wins Iowa and NH convincingly? Last time Clinton had it sewn up from the get-go, and Obama likewise in 08. I think 2000 was barely a contest in the end, so that doesn't help either.
And I should say, in response to your recent doubt I would ever vote labour, I twice voted for Blair and to some of my fellow conservatives I am not considered pure for those two elapses in my 76 years
Monday papers will be dominated with the reaction to the Tory manifesto.
When are postal votes arriving again?
Johnson is a new and dangerous phenomenon in my view as he is a compulsive liar, he lies about everything and seems to have no understanding of reality. Moreover, it is an indication of a narcissistic personality. All of which points to him being a dangerous man to run the country.
That has got to be some explanation, Alex.
"The attempted rape charges alleges that, inside Bute House, Mr Salmond repeatedly kissed a woman on the face and neck, repeatedly blocked her path, pinned her head against a wall, removed her clothing and underwear, pushed her onto a bed, knelt over her, pinned her to the bed by the shoulder, lay naked on top of her and attempted to rape her.
"A sexual assault charge relating to December 2013 alleges that he caused a woman to sit on a bed, laid on top of her, made sexual remarks to her, touched her buttocks, thighs and breasts over her clothing with his hands, repeatedly kissed her face, struggled with her and pulled up her dress with intent to rape her."
Minor gripes - the queen and DoE watching television at breakfast in the 1960s - I'm pretty sure it didn't start until the early '80s - and everywhere they go is on a BOAC VC10 - even short hops to France.....
Yes, a thousand times yes.
Was Roger just being sarcastic?
You can correct Johnson's statement pretty easily, but he did get it wrong.
Michael Maloney does a good turn as Ted Heath, but I'm really looking forward to Thatch making an appearance in the next series.
I can get all the maths stuff (and loads of other things) from the character map, in windows accessories
eg 1×10⁹≠∞
Also, single figures? I haven't looked into fully, but it seems pretty similar to the techniques that have been used to price personal lines insurance for a couple of decades now.
Good grief.
I know of no quick keyboard shortcut to mathematical characters.
I still think Bernie has a chance of threading this needle. In the case of a contested convention, which new rules have made easier, it would look like Warren delegates would be more willing to go Bernie than Biden, and Bernie has surprising strong support amongst Hispanic voters, suggesting strong results in some southern states and California.
Biden could squeak it, but he is not getting the money he needs, and his base of African American voters and working class whites could easily go to their second preferences if it looks like he is faltering (which mostly benefits Bernie). Atm Iowa and NH are 4 horse races; if Biden is the last horse he could lose the air of inevitability that might be shoring up his support (note that Hillary led amongst African American voters against Obama until he showed he could win in white states, then they shifted to him. Something similar could happen amongst a segment of the African American vote should Warren or Bernie come out strong).
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/1961-february-15
It was an early triumph of Eurovision to track it across the continent and feed it live to BBC-TV. How the mighty have fallen.
Booo, melanie is cute as a button
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1197473139950796802
But they all seem very pleased with themselves.
This is a good article:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/20/buttigieg-gay-electability-071369
While the comparison is a far from direct one, it's worth noting these stats...
...go back to 2008, and look again at the poll numbers—in particular the ones about whether the country was ready to elect a black president. Back in 2000, it had been in the high 30s. In January of ‘08, at the beginning of primary voting, one poll put the number at 54 percent. But by that April, by the time Obama had won in Iowa and South Carolina and 13 states on Super Tuesday, another poll said the number of Americans ready to elect a black president was as high as 76 percent. One conclusion to draw from that: When public opinion shifts, it can shift quickly...
That would be - awkward.....
How many more Northern seats are like that?
So, the suggestion that they "invite comparison" is seriously wide of the mark.
I wonder what other Windows+ keyboard shortcuts there are that I didn't know about?
The Ecclestone thing was a huge disappointment to his supporters, a severe reality check in those heady early days. Not sure I would call it a lie, but certainly dishonest and much less than was expected of him.
If he were to win Iowa, all sorts of things are possible.
Biden - assuming he stays in the race - will likely win S. Carolina, but perhaps not by the current massive margins.
If Buttigieg can continue with the assured performances he's managed up until now, he could win this (though I acknowledge he is an outside bet).
Think I most often use windows and v for my clipboard history
https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/the-complete-list-of-windows-logo-keyboard-shortcuts/
Windows + L is the one we should all use the most (if on a work PC).
Its over
Policies include windfall levy on oil and gas groups that could raise more than £11bn"
https://www.ft.com/content/067c164a-0c43-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67
(Available via Google search to non-subscribers).
Fiscal drag. There’s the attack line for the Tories.
https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=bullingdon+photos&fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&imgurl=http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/10/2/1254521015825/The-Bullingdon-Club-001.jpg#id=2&iurl=http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2009/10/2/1254521015825/The-Bullingdon-Club-001.jpg&action=click
Cue tax bombshell adverts.
"Sexually assaulted a woman in a car in Edinburgh in February 2011 by touching her leg with his hand over her clothing"
If that is sexual assault, then Boris is accused of sexually assaulting two women at the same time (I presume it doesn't have to happen in a car)
But Grimsby is not atypical of Northern seats IMO. Labour more likely to struggle here IMO. But still...
Don't vote for Corbyn and McDonnell's manifesto and you'll get it - at the top of the Labour Party.
Such evidence usually takes time to obtain and understand. Saying it should be obtained is not a delaying tactic but, IMO, a necessary step any responsible government should take before making such a change.
It seems to me that there is a lot of cherry-picking of studies and claims which support people’s preconceived opinions but a reluctance to look at stuff which might suggest that the answers are not quite as simple as some want to make out.
Clearly our current drugs laws are not fit for purpose. So change is needed. What that change should be needs careful thought based on expert advice, facts and evidence, unfashionable as such a concept might be these days.
Sturgeon has played a pretty straight bat throughout in difficult circs. At the beginning of this imbroglio certain gleeful Unionists were trying to push the narrative that she'd betrayed her old friend & mentor and there was civil war in the SNP between her and Salmond's supporters; they're going to look a bit dumb if they now bellow complicity (won't stop them of course). I'd guess it being an ongoing case will prevent much use of it except by roasters on twitter.
As for this election, we all knew the pre-trial was coming up, it has been covered extensively in the Scottish media - he's no longer a member of the SNP, so people can make up their own minds.
Not to diminish these charges, they are horrific, but they will have no bearing on my vote. If he is guilty, he needs to face the full force of the law, and be sentenced accordingly.