BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
The irony is "the youth" don't watch it anyway - they just stream content from other providers direct - so the BBC is just alienating its core audience whilst gaining no-one.
They might *think* it's popular - I know their Woke articles get lots of hits - but that's because people like me click on them to see what nonsense they are pumping out today, not because I agree with it.
Viewership of the BBC is collapsing in under 30s, and basically non existent in teens. It is a network with no future
"audiences aged 55 and over are BBC television's most loyal consumers - with a staggering 92% reach in that age group, who watch nearly 13 minutes of BBC TV a week, compared with the two and a half minutes watched by 16-34 year olds."
2 and a half minutes. No one will pay hundreds of quid for that. The BBC is committing suicide
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
They'd have been States for years if that were the case.
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
Well that's how you spot the true believers from the hacks, as with voting reform. Who wanted it as a good idea, prior to being converted by seeing the short term benefits?
It is also one of those things where because they may have been an issue for a long time, both sides could have done something about it if they wanted, so it should (though doesn't I'd guess) tone done the outrage at those opposed to it, since you cannot declaim 'how dare someone think X?' if most people on one's own side think x, or thought x recently, or never gave a shit about it before. The same thing happens with rather maufactured outrage over terminology which has changed rapidly, or fast changing social views.
"The laboratories have been under huge pressure to increase throughput whilst also increasing turnaround times. Any pathologist would predict a rise in errors in such a scenario, despite the best efforts of the technicians acting in complete good faith. The type of testing carried out for Covid can quite easily produce false positive results without exceptionally high levels of cleanliness to prevent cross contamination with frequent replacement of protective clothing and frequent cleaning of every area of the laboratory from bench to fridge handles. Any rise in errors causing increased false positives would inevitably lead to the mistaken belief that cases were on the rise."
It's true that a rise in false positives would lead to a belief that cases were rising. It does not follow that a belief that cases are rising is due to a rise in false positives, a speculation with no evidence to back it up. Despite desperate spinning from some.
FPT: "The only explanation for the significant divergence between the lack of severe cases and a rising death count is that the official statistics are relying on erroneous data."
BBC News highlighting the death from covid figures and repeating warnings that could hit 500 a day.
In the small print at bottom of screen it says "death from any cause with a + test within 28 days"
It's garbage.
The ONS figures include only cases where Covid 19 on the death certificate if you are that worried.
Do you really believe the massive spike in deaths of covid positive patients in recent weeks is misatribution? I missed the news of massive car pile ups on the way back from covid 19 drive thoughs, or terrorist attacks on student halls of residence...
I think if we are going to destroy our economy for a generation, fuckup millions of people's mental health and leave old people to die alone with no family then we should be doing it based on absolutely gold standard data and not garbage like this.
What makes you think decisions are being made based only on the 28 day measure? The 28 day measure is fine right now as an approximation that gives the lay of the land to viewers. The other figures that are available aren't being kept from you, they just don't dump a thousand graphs on the evening news every night.
Is there any reason why they shouldn’t publish all their data, for those who understand it to delve into? I must say, i’m suspicious if they really have much more advanced data than they are publicly giving us. There seem to be far to many decisions explicitly linked to the published numbers (remember when decisions on quarantine were clearly linked to the 20 per 100k figure in other countries, and there has been a clear link between 100 per 100k and going into tier 2...
There's a lot more data than just the 28 day version publicly available, but there's a trade-off between speed and precision. The 28 day data is faster, the ONS data is more accurate. Both are useful. But policymakers will probably have access to much finer-grained data if they really need it. The only thing to watch out for is making too much data public in a way that makes individuals identifiable. It's perhaps legally ok if we're talking about people who have died recently, but insensitive.
In any case, that granularity of data is only going to be of niche interest outside research and governance. The question is, what do you want from the data? Most people want a rough idea of how much worse/better this is getting, and how bad it currently is in their home town. The time-series and cloropleth visualisations, along with the data tables, that are all over the media are good enough for most casual consumers.
Of course, what some people want from the data is confirmation that their political ideology is right or to find reasons to complain about someone in some party they already don't like.
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
Have you tried watching other news programmes?
I've tried Russia Today. It is, in all honesty, these days, no worse than the BBC in its obvious bias. And it has more diverse reportage, it is not so stupidly, tediously obsessed with America.
What really saddens me is that I know some of these BBC news hacks. They are generally clever and sensitive people. They genuinely believe they are doing important, neutral journalism. But they are not. Their whole worldview is dictated by a narrow subset of liberal-left identitarian voices on social media - media on which the journalists crave "public approval" (from a similarly tiny group of people)
It has warped them and it is destroying the Beeb.
This PC fungus infected BBC drama first, now the rot has got into the news. I am fairly sure it is fatal. No one I know under 25 gives a fuck about the BBC, they barely ever consume it. The Corp as we know it is doomed and one of the reasons will be this grisly and unconscious bias, injected from Facebook, Twitter, etc.
What will happen is that we'll get new TV news channels and programmes (outwith the purview of traditional terrestrial TV) which cater politically to different audiences - the oft derided Gammon TV being one, and Novara media perhaps another.
It's inevitable if the BBC can't respond to those who want to watch it, which it can't as it understands the young so badly (who criticised it heavily over Corbyn, for example) that it takes its cue on news stories from Twitter storms - which are irrelevant and add no value - but also really piss off its traditional core audience at the same time.
It then thinks it's got the balance right as it's criticised equally by both sides.
BBC News highlighting the death from covid figures and repeating warnings that could hit 500 a day.
In the small print at bottom of screen it says "death from any cause with a + test within 28 days"
It's garbage.
This isn't new. It's an agreed measure after a lot of work by statisticians. On the available evidence, it's about right. If anything, it slightly undercounts total Covid deaths.
The number of people dying of Covid but without a confirmed test, or after more than 28 days, marginally outweighs the number of people who test positive, recover, but then die within the month when their mobile phone explodes or they get eaten by their pet snake.
But my point is, on the face of it, a patient who in hospital dies of say sepsis but who has tested + 20 days ago (and is asymptomatic) is classed as dying from covid.
At least the ONS looks at the death certificate as @Foxy says.
And the ONS figures have been doubling every 2 weeks and have just accelerated.
These migrants in Dunkirk. What exactly is so terrible about staying in safe, democratic France??
understanding and speaking English rather than French?
It does not seem a sufficient reason to risk your life in the English Channel.
They don't seem to have been put off by the structural racism that will apparently blight their lives when they arrive.
These people were Kurdish Iranians. Most readers will know that that entails living a life entirely defined by structural racism to the extent that trying to migrate to a country with people like you in it might counterintuitively be the lesser of two evils. Your incuriosity about ROW is impressive.
They were coming from France.
Bastion of tolerance and colour blind harmony. Your incuriosity about ROW is impressive.
If Trump manages to win, the 1992 UK GE might be the best parallel. Trump out on his soapbox as the underdog, and a lot of voters who said they would vote for Neil Kinnock's most famous plagiarist somehow fail to do so.
Except Biden will likely win the popular vote unlike Kinnock however I get the comparison, Trump like Major is campaigning to the end, in Arizona today, Michigan and Wisconsin and Nebraska yesterday, Pennsylvania on Monday, New Hampshire on Sunday.
As far as I understand it the only event Biden has done this week was in Georgia yesterday
Do you really think holding super spreader rallies attended by those who have always been going to be voting for him makes a difference? As I recall one of the great things about Major's soapbox stumping was that he was facing up to not just Tory voters but those who hadnt planned to vote for him, he took a lot of heckling and gained a lot of respect for campaigning as he did and that swung some voters over I'm sure. Trump's rallies are the faithful already baked in, so the two are not really similar at all.
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
The irony is "the youth" don't watch it anyway - they just stream content from other providers direct - so the BBC is just alienating its core audience whilst gaining no-one.
They might *think* it's popular - I know their Woke articles get lots of hits - but that's because people like me click on them to see what nonsense they are pumping out today, not because I agree with it.
Viewership of the BBC is collapsing in under 30s, and basically non existent in teens. It is a network with no future
"audiences aged 55 and over are BBC television's most loyal consumers - with a staggering 92% reach in that age group, who watch nearly 13 minutes of BBC TV a week, compared with the two and a half minutes watched by 16-34 year olds."
2 and a half minutes. No one will pay hundreds of quid for that. The BBC is committing suicide
I get most of my news from the BBC. The website at any rate (I don't tend to watch live TV at all except for some sport). And I think much of the grief it gets is overblown, particularly when it attempts a neutral position even if it is not perfect, and I think we'd be a lot poorer for not having its news operation, or a much more cut down version.
But I tend to agree it's days are numbered in its current form. Anecdotally people on left and right increasingly object to it, people are so used to getting news for free or purchase the kind of news slant they want to hear, and it just feels like they are losing the battle for the principle of funding it in the way it is now.
Notice that IF she'd voted, would NOT have changed the ruling regardless of which way she went.
SO her moment of truth is yet to come . . . if it does.
Hang about - does this mean that Kavanaugh has actually discovered a sense of shame/embarrassment after been widely ridiculed/criticised for his embarrassingly sloppy opinion on the Wisconsin case? I wonder if he might have actually been given a dressing down by Roberts...
You may well be right. Esp re: Roberts
Speaking of him, seems to me that - like a good Chief Justice - he has a knack for forging coalitions on the bench AND is not exactly straightforward about it.
But then again, great lawyers - such as our own TSE? - are NOT noted for making straightforwardness a professional virtue.
There is also the probability that Roberts recognises how important it is to the court’s reputation that it is not seen as a partisan rubber stamp, particularly on politically sensitive issues. This wasn’t a problem when he could assume the balance of power as the court’s swing vote himself, but now he has lost that control he realises he needs someone else to pick up the mantle. And sees Kavanaugh as the best best for that from a bad bunch. Gorsuch clearly has an independent streak, but it probably far too dogmatic to act as a genuine swing vote. Whereas Kavanaugh is probably the weakest intellectually and therefore the most influenceable by himself. He’s probably called him in and told him to knuckle down and learn the law whilst he’s still got the chance!
BBC News highlighting the death from covid figures and repeating warnings that could hit 500 a day.
In the small print at bottom of screen it says "death from any cause with a + test within 28 days"
It's garbage.
The ONS figures include only cases where Covid 19 on the death certificate if you are that worried.
Do you really believe the massive spike in deaths of covid positive patients in recent weeks is misatribution? I missed the news of massive car pile ups on the way back from covid 19 drive thoughs, or terrorist attacks on student halls of residence...
I think if we are going to destroy our economy for a generation, fuckup millions of people's mental health and leave old people to die alone with no family then we should be doing it based on absolutely gold standard data and not garbage like this.
Look at the ONS figures based on death certificates then 🙄 You only need to wait 2 weeks.
I can understand arguing against restrictions on economic grounds, on libertarian grounds, even mental health grounds*; but simply denying the pandemic is crap.
*having close family members die isn't great for mental health either.
Once again, who exactly is ‘denying’ the pandemic? Who?
I don’t think anyone on PB is doing this. Different posters do, however, offer different approaches to it.
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
The irony is "the youth" don't watch it anyway - they just stream content from other providers direct - so the BBC is just alienating its core audience whilst gaining no-one.
They might *think* it's popular - I know their Woke articles get lots of hits - but that's because people like me click on them to see what nonsense they are pumping out today, not because I agree with it.
Viewership of the BBC is collapsing in under 30s, and basically non existent in teens. It is a network with no future
"audiences aged 55 and over are BBC television's most loyal consumers - with a staggering 92% reach in that age group, who watch nearly 13 minutes of BBC TV a week, compared with the two and a half minutes watched by 16-34 year olds."
2 and a half minutes. No one will pay hundreds of quid for that. The BBC is committing suicide
Adults spent 6.5 hours a day watching TV and online video during lockdown of which only 1 hour 11 minutes was watching streaming services so those figures look ridiculously low
I stopped paying my licence fee months ago. My sister has done the same. No one cares any more. Non fee paying is about to be decriminalised.
I predict BBC income is going to collapse in the next few years, without any politician doing anything much. And then it will be finished as we know it.
I find this deeply sad. I am a patriotic Brit and the Beeb used to be something British to be proud of: a unifying force in the UK. But it is self-immolating.
Its only hope is to massively downsize, concentrate on good neutral news (like the World Service but on TV), forget the Woke shit, have maybe two TV channels - one populist for Masterchef etc, one quality and Netflix drama-ish, and keep the best of the radio. Then charge subscriptions. It might then survive, albeit very much smaller.
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
Which argument? If that was the case there wouldn't be an argument it would have already been done.
Incidentally both parties have been saying for decades that Puerto Rico is eligible for statehood if they vote for it. Both the GOP and the Democrats have until recently said that consistently.
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
Have you tried watching other news programmes?
I've tried Russia Today. It is, in all honesty, these days, no worse than the BBC in its obvious bias. And it has more diverse reportage, it is not so stupidly, tediously obsessed with America.
What really saddens me is that I know some of these BBC news hacks. They are generally clever and sensitive people. They genuinely believe they are doing important, neutral journalism. But they are not. Their whole worldview is dictated by a narrow subset of liberal-left identitarian voices on social media - media on which the journalists crave "public approval" (from a similarly tiny group of people)
It has warped them and it is destroying the Beeb.
This PC fungus infected BBC drama first, now the rot has got into the news. I am fairly sure it is fatal. No one I know under 25 gives a fuck about the BBC, they barely ever consume it. The Corp as we know it is doomed and one of the reasons will be this grisly and unconscious bias, injected from Facebook, Twitter, etc.
The thing is, this pandemic has shown, they can't even get the facts right. They consistently get the scientific stuff wrong. That is their core purpose, is to educate and inform the public on this. Instead it far more time screaming too confusing and trying to find absolute edge cases to every rule, while their own output is consistently flawed.
They will point to the fact their numbers are up as people tune in to find out what Tier we are in or what Boris is going to bumble about at his press conference, but their coverage of the COVID pandemic has been utter wank.
Puerto Rico is, of course, having a referendum on November 3rd on this very subject. It's sixth. Maybe we should wait to see whether they actually want Statehood or not first. They haven't until now. Well they did last time but with only 23% turnout.
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
Well that's how you spot the true believers from the hacks, as with voting reform. Who wanted it as a good idea, prior to being converted by seeing the short term benefits?
It is also one of those things where because they may have been an issue for a long time, both sides could have done something about it if they wanted, so it should (though doesn't I'd guess) tone done the outrage at those opposed to it, since you cannot declaim 'how dare someone think X?' if most people on one's own side think x, or thought x recently, or never gave a shit about it before. The same thing happens with rather maufactured outrage over terminology which has changed rapidly, or fast changing social views.
Re: "both sides could have done something about it" note that precondition for any US action re: PR statehood is clearly-expressed desire by majority of Puertorriqueños requesting admission to the Union - something that has NOT happened.
As for DC statehood, that (probably) requires a constitutional amendment, which requires 2/2 majority of both houses of Congress AND ratification by super-majority of states. So do NOT think it's something that Democrats could have achieved UNLESS plenty of GOPers went along - unlikely at best.
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
Have you tried watching other news programmes?
I've tried Russia Today. It is, in all honesty, these days, no worse than the BBC in its obvious bias. And it has more diverse reportage, it is not so stupidly, tediously obsessed with America.
What really saddens me is that I know some of these BBC news hacks. They are generally clever and sensitive people. They genuinely believe they are doing important, neutral journalism. But they are not. Their whole worldview is dictated by a narrow subset of liberal-left identitarian voices on social media - media on which the journalists crave "public approval" (from a similarly tiny group of people)
It has warped them and it is destroying the Beeb.
This PC fungus infected BBC drama first, now the rot has got into the news. I am fairly sure it is fatal. No one I know under 25 gives a fuck about the BBC, they barely ever consume it. The Corp as we know it is doomed and one of the reasons will be this grisly and unconscious bias, injected from Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I wasn't expecting THAT. I only asked as a gentle ribbing, to suggest that if you found it so outrageous and intolerable, just switch over. Drop your TV license if you must; I did! The BBC is crap and I don't miss it. But.
RT supports literal fascists. Whatever you think of the BBC, Putin is an actual fascist and RT is his mouthpiece.
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
The irony is "the youth" don't watch it anyway - they just stream content from other providers direct - so the BBC is just alienating its core audience whilst gaining no-one.
They might *think* it's popular - I know their Woke articles get lots of hits - but that's because people like me click on them to see what nonsense they are pumping out today, not because I agree with it.
"audiences aged 55 and over are BBC television's most loyal consumers - with a staggering 92% reach in that age group, who watch nearly 13 minutes of BBC TV a week, compared with the two and a half minutes watched by 16-34 year olds."
The core BBC audience and the Tory core vote is very congruent, which is why the Tories sacking the BBC would be unwise. It passes off their own and won't win any votes with the youngsters.
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
The irony is "the youth" don't watch it anyway - they just stream content from other providers direct - so the BBC is just alienating its core audience whilst gaining no-one.
They might *think* it's popular - I know their Woke articles get lots of hits - but that's because people like me click on them to see what nonsense they are pumping out today, not because I agree with it.
Viewership of the BBC is collapsing in under 30s, and basically non existent in teens. It is a network with no future
"audiences aged 55 and over are BBC television's most loyal consumers - with a staggering 92% reach in that age group, who watch nearly 13 minutes of BBC TV a week, compared with the two and a half minutes watched by 16-34 year olds."
2 and a half minutes. No one will pay hundreds of quid for that. The BBC is committing suicide
Adults spent 6.5 hours a day watching TV and online video during lockdown of which only 1 hour 11 minutes was watching streaming services so those figures look ridiculously low
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
Have you tried watching other news programmes?
I've tried Russia Today. It is, in all honesty, these days, no worse than the BBC in its obvious bias. And it has more diverse reportage, it is not so stupidly, tediously obsessed with America.
What really saddens me is that I know some of these BBC news hacks. They are generally clever and sensitive people. They genuinely believe they are doing important, neutral journalism. But they are not. Their whole worldview is dictated by a narrow subset of liberal-left identitarian voices on social media - media on which the journalists crave "public approval" (from a similarly tiny group of people)
It has warped them and it is destroying the Beeb.
This PC fungus infected BBC drama first, now the rot has got into the news. I am fairly sure it is fatal. No one I know under 25 gives a fuck about the BBC, they barely ever consume it. The Corp as we know it is doomed and one of the reasons will be this grisly and unconscious bias, injected from Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I wasn't expecting THAT. I only asked as a gentle ribbing, to suggest that if you found it so outrageous and intolerable, just switch over. Drop your TV license if you must; I did! The BBC is crap and I don't miss it. But.
RT supports literal fascists. Whatever you think of the BBC, Putin is an actual fascist and RT is his mouthpiece.
Putin is an actual fascist? More devaluation of the word.
If Trump manages to win, the 1992 UK GE might be the best parallel. Trump out on his soapbox as the underdog, and a lot of voters who said they would vote for Neil Kinnock's most famous plagiarist somehow fail to do so.
Except Biden will likely win the popular vote unlike Kinnock however I get the comparison, Trump like Major is campaigning to the end, in Arizona today, Michigan and Wisconsin and Nebraska yesterday, Pennsylvania on Monday, New Hampshire on Sunday.
As far as I understand it the only event Biden has done this week was in Georgia yesterday
Do you really think holding super spreader rallies attended by those who have always been going to be voting for him makes a difference? As I recall one of the great things about Major's soapbox stumping was that he was facing up to not just Tory voters but those who hadnt planned to vote for him, he took a lot of heckling and gained a lot of respect for campaigning as he did and that swung some voters over I'm sure. Trump's rallies are the faithful already baked in, so the two are not really similar at all.
Not necessarily, Major's audiences were mainly Tory and he ensured they turned out in the marginals he visited, 1992 was also the biggest example we have had of the shy Tory voter, this year may see a lot of shy Trumps
I stopped paying my licence fee months ago. My sister has done the same. No one cares any more. Non fee paying is about to be decriminalised.
I predict BBC income is going to collapse in the next few years, without any politician doing anything much. And then it will be finished as we know it.
I find this deeply sad. I am a patriotic Brit and the Beeb used to be something British to be proud of: a unifying force in the UK. But it is self-immolating.
Its only hope is to massively downsize, concentrate on good neutral news (like the World Service but on TV), forget the Woke shit, have maybe two TV channels - one populist for Masterchef etc, one quality and Netflix drama-ish, and keep the best of the radio. Then charge subscriptions. It might then survive, albeit very much smaller.
The thing is the licence fee is now totally unenforceable. Everybody can watch all sorts via the internet, which they have no ability to track. And Capita who enforce this, basically has zero rights, you have to actually confess or let them in. Furthermore, it is extreme rare any sort of warrant is awarded to let them home in and look. And even after that the average fine is just a bit more than a years fee.
My criticism of the licence fee, and the BBC attitude we just can't get rid of it, is that technology has evolved so much now, that it isn't even that you can get 900 channels on Sky, it is that there so many different ways you can watch content and they have no ability to work out which are in compliance and which aren't.
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
Which argument? If that was the case there wouldn't be an argument it would have already been done.
Incidentally both parties have been saying for decades that Puerto Rico is eligible for statehood if they vote for it. Both the GOP and the Democrats have until recently said that consistently.
Except the same party rarely controls all branches of the federal Government and, when they do, they often have bigger fish to fry. Obama had it from 2008-2010 for example but prioritised healthcare, and Trump had it from 2016-2018.
It's not a simply Republicans charlatans and Democrats saints thing, this. It's silly for anyone to suggest it is.
I stopped paying my licence fee months ago. My sister has done the same. No one cares any more. Non fee paying is about to be decriminalised.
I predict BBC income is going to collapse in the next few years, without any politician doing anything much. And then it will be finished as we know it.
I find this deeply sad. I am a patriotic Brit and the Beeb used to be something British to be proud of: a unifying force in the UK. But it is self-immolating.
Its only hope is to massively downsize, concentrate on good neutral news (like the World Service but on TV), forget the Woke shit, have maybe two TV channels - one populist for Masterchef etc, one quality and Netflix drama-ish, and keep the best of the radio. Then charge subscriptions. It might then survive, albeit very much smaller.
Puerto Rico is, of course, having a referendum on November 3rd on this very subject. It's sixth. Maybe we should wait to see whether they actually want Statehood or not first. They haven't until now. Well they did last time but with only 23% turnout.
Six!? Seems rather excessive, but I suppose once you catch the referendum bug it is hard to stop.
Wiki says a boycott by the non-statehood side last time, which would explain that low turnout I guess.
In fairness, a bit like people getting overexcited about changing their constitution, revised status for a place probably won't solve as many problems as some think it will, though for others it will be about principle anyway.
Puerto Rico is, of course, having a referendum on November 3rd on this very subject. It's sixth. Maybe we should wait to see whether they actually want Statehood or not first. They haven't until now. Well they did last time but with only 23% turnout.
Apparently statehood means paying more federal taxes.
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
Which argument? If that was the case there wouldn't be an argument it would have already been done.
Incidentally both parties have been saying for decades that Puerto Rico is eligible for statehood if they vote for it. Both the GOP and the Democrats have until recently said that consistently.
Except the same party rarely controls all branches of the federal Government and, when they do, they often have bigger fish to fry. Obama had it from 2008-2010 for example but prioritised healthcare, and Trump had it from 2016-2018.
It's not a simply Republicans charlatans and Democrats saints thing, this. It's silly for anyone to suggest it is.
Normally I'd agree with you: Mitt Romney and John McCain for example have (and had) high moral standards. Remember when McCain tackled a heckler and told them that Obama was a patriot?
But the Republican Party right now seems infected with the cancer of Trump, and it's caused them to lose their moral compass. I can only hope a good kicking changes that.
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
Have you tried watching other news programmes?
I've tried Russia Today. It is, in all honesty, these days, no worse than the BBC in its obvious bias. And it has more diverse reportage, it is not so stupidly, tediously obsessed with America.
What really saddens me is that I know some of these BBC news hacks. They are generally clever and sensitive people. They genuinely believe they are doing important, neutral journalism. But they are not. Their whole worldview is dictated by a narrow subset of liberal-left identitarian voices on social media - media on which the journalists crave "public approval" (from a similarly tiny group of people)
It has warped them and it is destroying the Beeb.
This PC fungus infected BBC drama first, now the rot has got into the news. I am fairly sure it is fatal. No one I know under 25 gives a fuck about the BBC, they barely ever consume it. The Corp as we know it is doomed and one of the reasons will be this grisly and unconscious bias, injected from Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I wasn't expecting THAT. I only asked as a gentle ribbing, to suggest that if you found it so outrageous and intolerable, just switch over. Drop your TV license if you must; I did! The BBC is crap and I don't miss it. But.
RT supports literal fascists. Whatever you think of the BBC, Putin is an actual fascist and RT is his mouthpiece.
Putin is an actual fascist? More devaluation of the word.
I think that is a pretty fair description of Putin. His militarism, annexations, personality cult, extrajudicial killings, persecution of minorities, and identification of the leader and the state are all very much fascist principles
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
Have you tried watching other news programmes?
I've tried Russia Today. It is, in all honesty, these days, no worse than the BBC in its obvious bias. And it has more diverse reportage, it is not so stupidly, tediously obsessed with America.
What really saddens me is that I know some of these BBC news hacks. They are generally clever and sensitive people. They genuinely believe they are doing important, neutral journalism. But they are not. Their whole worldview is dictated by a narrow subset of liberal-left identitarian voices on social media - media on which the journalists crave "public approval" (from a similarly tiny group of people)
It has warped them and it is destroying the Beeb.
This PC fungus infected BBC drama first, now the rot has got into the news. I am fairly sure it is fatal. No one I know under 25 gives a fuck about the BBC, they barely ever consume it. The Corp as we know it is doomed and one of the reasons will be this grisly and unconscious bias, injected from Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I wasn't expecting THAT. I only asked as a gentle ribbing, to suggest that if you found it so outrageous and intolerable, just switch over. Drop your TV license if you must; I did! The BBC is crap and I don't miss it. But.
RT supports literal fascists. Whatever you think of the BBC, Putin is an actual fascist and RT is his mouthpiece.
Putin is an actual fascist? More devaluation of the word.
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
Well that's how you spot the true believers from the hacks, as with voting reform. Who wanted it as a good idea, prior to being converted by seeing the short term benefits?
It is also one of those things where because they may have been an issue for a long time, both sides could have done something about it if they wanted, so it should (though doesn't I'd guess) tone done the outrage at those opposed to it, since you cannot declaim 'how dare someone think X?' if most people on one's own side think x, or thought x recently, or never gave a shit about it before. The same thing happens with rather maufactured outrage over terminology which has changed rapidly, or fast changing social views.
Re: "both sides could have done something about it" note that precondition for any US action re: PR statehood is clearly-expressed desire by majority of Puertorriqueños requesting admission to the Union - something that has NOT happened.
As for DC statehood, that (probably) requires a constitutional amendment, which requires 2/2 majority of both houses of Congress AND ratification by super-majority of states. So do NOT think it's something that Democrats could have achieved UNLESS plenty of GOPers went along - unlikely at best.
I wouldn't have thought it was something either could have done by themselves, just that if a side thought it a moral imperative to address the situation, there could have been greater efforts toward achieving it (including persuasion of the places themselves to want it, which as you note is a rather important element), including making common cause where possible with others. Defending the status quo is always easier.
I stopped paying my licence fee months ago. My sister has done the same. No one cares any more. Non fee paying is about to be decriminalised.
I predict BBC income is going to collapse in the next few years, without any politician doing anything much. And then it will be finished as we know it.
I find this deeply sad. I am a patriotic Brit and the Beeb used to be something British to be proud of: a unifying force in the UK. But it is self-immolating.
Its only hope is to massively downsize, concentrate on good neutral news (like the World Service but on TV), forget the Woke shit, have maybe two TV channels - one populist for Masterchef etc, one quality and Netflix drama-ish, and keep the best of the radio. Then charge subscriptions. It might then survive, albeit very much smaller.
Yes I know several people who have cancelled their licence fee.
It's not just the news and entertainment programs where BBC-think has taken over, it's all of them. The last time I listened to radio 4 they started slagging off Trump on the religious issues program on a Sunday. They really can't help themselves.
I think their income will shrink for the next few years and then they'll get their funding from general taxation when Labour get back in.
Puerto Rico is, of course, having a referendum on November 3rd on this very subject. It's sixth. Maybe we should wait to see whether they actually want Statehood or not first. They haven't until now. Well they did last time but with only 23% turnout.
Thanks! - had totally forgetten.
BTW, did you see Saskatchewan provincial results?
As you (I'm sure) already know, NDP got royally thrashed. In the province that CCF back in 1944 and which was a Dipper stronghold for decades afterward.\
Wonder IF the ghosts of Tommy Douglas and Seymour Lipset are having a good moan about this? OR have achieved such a philosophical state of mind they really don't give a hoot? Somehow I doubt that!
"I am hurt, but I am not slain. I shall lay me down and bleed a while, then rise and fight again."
Puerto Rico is, of course, having a referendum on November 3rd on this very subject. It's sixth. Maybe we should wait to see whether they actually want Statehood or not first. They haven't until now. Well they did last time but with only 23% turnout.
Although there have been five prior referenda this is the first unambiguous referendum that is a binary yes/no on clear terms being competitively fought.
Until now both the GOP and Democrats have said that if PR votes for Statehood they'd support that.
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
Which argument? If that was the case there wouldn't be an argument it would have already been done.
Incidentally both parties have been saying for decades that Puerto Rico is eligible for statehood if they vote for it. Both the GOP and the Democrats have until recently said that consistently.
Except the same party rarely controls all branches of the federal Government and, when they do, they often have bigger fish to fry. Obama had it from 2008-2010 for example but prioritised healthcare, and Trump had it from 2016-2018.
It's not a simply Republicans charlatans and Democrats saints thing, this. It's silly for anyone to suggest it is.
Normally I'd agree with you: Mitt Romney and John McCain for example have (and had) high moral standards. Remember when McCain tackled a heckler and told them that Obama was a patriot?
But the Republican Party right now seems infected with the cancer of Trump, and it's caused them to lose their moral compass. I can only hope a good kicking changes that.
The most saintly President or even Presidential candidate ever was probably Jimmy Carter, he won in 1976 but that did not stop Reagan trouncing him in 1980
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
The irony is "the youth" don't watch it anyway - they just stream content from other providers direct - so the BBC is just alienating its core audience whilst gaining no-one.
They might *think* it's popular - I know their Woke articles get lots of hits - but that's because people like me click on them to see what nonsense they are pumping out today, not because I agree with it.
Viewership of the BBC is collapsing in under 30s, and basically non existent in teens. It is a network with no future
"audiences aged 55 and over are BBC television's most loyal consumers - with a staggering 92% reach in that age group, who watch nearly 13 minutes of BBC TV a week, compared with the two and a half minutes watched by 16-34 year olds."
2 and a half minutes. No one will pay hundreds of quid for that. The BBC is committing suicide
The young people who I know don't watch any news programmes as a rule - it's not that they're deserting the BBC for Sky or whatever. When they do, because something major is happening, they nearly always choose the BBC.
I do think that the lack of interest in everyday news is a problem, but a separate one from BBC news coverage, which IMO should simply be funded from taxation with an independent Board retained to ensure that it's not in hock to the Government of the day. I'm not really bothered how Strictly is funded.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
Which argument? If that was the case there wouldn't be an argument it would have already been done.
Incidentally both parties have been saying for decades that Puerto Rico is eligible for statehood if they vote for it. Both the GOP and the Democrats have until recently said that consistently.
Except the same party rarely controls all branches of the federal Government and, when they do, they often have bigger fish to fry. Obama had it from 2008-2010 for example but prioritised healthcare, and Trump had it from 2016-2018.
It's not a simply Republicans charlatans and Democrats saints thing, this. It's silly for anyone to suggest it is.
Normally I'd agree with you: Mitt Romney and John McCain for example have (and had) high moral standards. Remember when McCain tackled a heckler and told them that Obama was a patriot?
But the Republican Party right now seems infected with the cancer of Trump, and it's caused them to lose their moral compass. I can only hope a good kicking changes that.
The most saintly President or even Presidential candidate ever was probably Jimmy Carter, he won in 1976 but that did not stop Reagan trouncing him in 1980
Well you probably need to be a bit of a bastard to be President, it's a tough gig. But that doesn't mean you have to be a total bastard.
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
Well that's how you spot the true believers from the hacks, as with voting reform. Who wanted it as a good idea, prior to being converted by seeing the short term benefits?
It is also one of those things where because they may have been an issue for a long time, both sides could have done something about it if they wanted, so it should (though doesn't I'd guess) tone done the outrage at those opposed to it, since you cannot declaim 'how dare someone think X?' if most people on one's own side think x, or thought x recently, or never gave a shit about it before. The same thing happens with rather maufactured outrage over terminology which has changed rapidly, or fast changing social views.
Re: "both sides could have done something about it" note that precondition for any US action re: PR statehood is clearly-expressed desire by majority of Puertorriqueños requesting admission to the Union - something that has NOT happened.
As for DC statehood, that (probably) requires a constitutional amendment, which requires 2/2 majority of both houses of Congress AND ratification by super-majority of states. So do NOT think it's something that Democrats could have achieved UNLESS plenty of GOPers went along - unlikely at best.
I wouldn't have thought it was something either could have done by themselves, just that if a side thought it a moral imperative to address the situation, there could have been greater efforts toward achieving it (including persuasion of the places themselves to want it, which as you note is a rather important element), including making common cause where possible with others. Defending the status quo is always easier.
Democrats are mostly in favor of DC statehood, but are rarely inclined to make it a top priority, esp. during election season as - outside Our Nation's Capital - there are VERY few votes to be gained on this issue.
You spoke of incrementalism. In my own (perhaps less-than-) humble opinion, fact that DC was granted electoral votes in the 1960s may have HURT the cause of statehood, by taking off some of the pressure.
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
Have you tried watching other news programmes?
I've tried Russia Today. It is, in all honesty, these days, no worse than the BBC in its obvious bias. And it has more diverse reportage, it is not so stupidly, tediously obsessed with America.
What really saddens me is that I know some of these BBC news hacks. They are generally clever and sensitive people. They genuinely believe they are doing important, neutral journalism. But they are not. Their whole worldview is dictated by a narrow subset of liberal-left identitarian voices on social media - media on which the journalists crave "public approval" (from a similarly tiny group of people)
It has warped them and it is destroying the Beeb.
This PC fungus infected BBC drama first, now the rot has got into the news. I am fairly sure it is fatal. No one I know under 25 gives a fuck about the BBC, they barely ever consume it. The Corp as we know it is doomed and one of the reasons will be this grisly and unconscious bias, injected from Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I wasn't expecting THAT. I only asked as a gentle ribbing, to suggest that if you found it so outrageous and intolerable, just switch over. Drop your TV license if you must; I did! The BBC is crap and I don't miss it. But.
RT supports literal fascists. Whatever you think of the BBC, Putin is an actual fascist and RT is his mouthpiece.
Putin is an actual fascist? More devaluation of the word.
I think that is a pretty fair description of Putin. His militarism, annexations, personality cult, extrajudicial killings, persecution of minorities, and identification of the leader and the state are all very much fascist principles
It's actually really disturbing, the more you look into it. He has this whole Greater-Eurasia strategy, not unlike those of the Nazi Party's desire for a European empire. It's replete with these bonkers ideas of Russian purity, and Putin tries to portray himself as the reincarnation of Vladimir the Great, reborn to reunite ancient Rus and drive out the infidels, blah blah blah. He's a total maniac.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
Have you tried watching other news programmes?
I've tried Russia Today. It is, in all honesty, these days, no worse than the BBC in its obvious bias. And it has more diverse reportage, it is not so stupidly, tediously obsessed with America.
What really saddens me is that I know some of these BBC news hacks. They are generally clever and sensitive people. They genuinely believe they are doing important, neutral journalism. But they are not. Their whole worldview is dictated by a narrow subset of liberal-left identitarian voices on social media - media on which the journalists crave "public approval" (from a similarly tiny group of people)
It has warped them and it is destroying the Beeb.
This PC fungus infected BBC drama first, now the rot has got into the news. I am fairly sure it is fatal. No one I know under 25 gives a fuck about the BBC, they barely ever consume it. The Corp as we know it is doomed and one of the reasons will be this grisly and unconscious bias, injected from Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I wasn't expecting THAT. I only asked as a gentle ribbing, to suggest that if you found it so outrageous and intolerable, just switch over. Drop your TV license if you must; I did! The BBC is crap and I don't miss it. But.
RT supports literal fascists. Whatever you think of the BBC, Putin is an actual fascist and RT is his mouthpiece.
I was kinda joking about RT (tho it is not all bad). I was just saying it is biased but, for me, it is no worse than the Woke bias in BBC news (i.e. any story about race. migration, racism, etc, is deemed far more important than anything else). I stand by that.
In truth I now get my news from many sources. I watch some American news, CNN or Fox, some Al Jazeera (which can be very good when it is not covering stories with a Muslim angle - when it is hideously biased). I might watch the Beeb occasionally, or ITV, on big UK events, very infrequently I watch Newsnight (which is also going Woke)
Otherwise I sieve stories from social media, I have a balanced Twitter stream which feeds me diverse voices from left right, north south, up and down, atheist and Mormon. I also read the FT, Guardian, Times, Economist, Spectator. And I sauce it up with Prison Planet or the Canary, you need a mix.
Time was I would have relied in BBC news for 70-80% of my info. That era has gone for ever and will never return. The same fate awaits the BBC in toto.
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
Which argument? If that was the case there wouldn't be an argument it would have already been done.
Incidentally both parties have been saying for decades that Puerto Rico is eligible for statehood if they vote for it. Both the GOP and the Democrats have until recently said that consistently.
Except the same party rarely controls all branches of the federal Government and, when they do, they often have bigger fish to fry. Obama had it from 2008-2010 for example but prioritised healthcare, and Trump had it from 2016-2018.
It's not a simply Republicans charlatans and Democrats saints thing, this. It's silly for anyone to suggest it is.
I don't think anyone is saying charlatans and saints - the GOP in recent years certainly have been charlatans but the Democrats aren't saints.
PR and DC only voted for Statehood in recent years - and PR's proper referendum only happens on Tuesday. If both vote for Statehood then there's no good reason to deny it to them.
It wasn't on Obama's agenda in 2008 as it wouldn't be foisted upon the States without them voting for it.
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
The irony is "the youth" don't watch it anyway - they just stream content from other providers direct - so the BBC is just alienating its core audience whilst gaining no-one.
They might *think* it's popular - I know their Woke articles get lots of hits - but that's because people like me click on them to see what nonsense they are pumping out today, not because I agree with it.
Viewership of the BBC is collapsing in under 30s, and basically non existent in teens. It is a network with no future
"audiences aged 55 and over are BBC television's most loyal consumers - with a staggering 92% reach in that age group, who watch nearly 13 minutes of BBC TV a week, compared with the two and a half minutes watched by 16-34 year olds."
2 and a half minutes. No one will pay hundreds of quid for that. The BBC is committing suicide
The young people who I know don't watch any news programmes as a rule - it's not that they're deserting the BBC for Sky or whatever. When they do, because something major is happening, they nearly always choose the BBC.
I do think that the lack of interest in everyday news is a problem, but a separate one from BBC news coverage, which IMO should simply be funded from taxation with an independent Board retained to ensure that it's not in hock to the Government of the day. I'm not really bothered how Strictly is funded.
YouTube and podcasts is where a lot of younger people go for entertainment and information. The problem is the BBC don't seem to really get YouTube, they think putting their clipped content on there is what people will watch or they produce they attempts at youth shows, but people already have their favourite creators and one of the reasons they like them is that they aren't a corporate news outlet and so more independent (even though many don't realize the majority of the big creators incomes come from brand deals etc).
The other thing that doesn't really fly now is watered down versions of specialist shows e.g. Click. Nobody watches Click. If you are into tech there are loads of great YouTube channels, ranging from really specialist to more light hearted reviews, builds, etc. And crucial they put out way more content, usually daily.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
The crowd probably thought NF was Benny Hill's love child, or perhaps Richard Dawson's cousin. Just another geek at the geek show. They neither know or care that he's a joke back home.
IF he REALLY wants to impress the crowd, should tell him that he knows Tony Blair. Because most right-wing GOPers LOVE Tony because of his stalwart support for W. Whereas Democrats USED to like Blair but now (to the extent they can remember him at all) dislike if not despise him for the same reason.
As for Farange's motivation, if Trumpsky's re-elected he's got prospect of all kinds of kudos (including financial). And if The Donald fails in his valiant battle against sinister forces of sanity, welll NF will still be on good terms with some of the top land pirates in American, with future opportunities for fun AND profit.
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Puerto Rico is, of course, having a referendum on November 3rd on this very subject. It's sixth. Maybe we should wait to see whether they actually want Statehood or not first. They haven't until now. Well they did last time but with only 23% turnout.
Apparently statehood means paying more federal taxes.
It would. It would also mean more federal support though - the delay of which following Hurricane Maria a few years ago has helped spur the pro-Statehood movement.
A state with electoral college votes would have got federal disaster relief much quicker following a hurricane like that.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
The same white working class voters who voted for Brexit and Boris in the ex industrial and rural parts of the UK voted for Trump in the USA too, demographically the parallels are striking it was a white working class and lower middle class revolt against the liberal establishment that was what Trump saw in Farage and Brexit and that helped further energise his campaign.
Most of the polls in 2016 were wrong in both the EU referendum and the US presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
Have you tried watching other news programmes?
I've tried Russia Today. It is, in all honesty, these days, no worse than the BBC in its obvious bias. And it has more diverse reportage, it is not so stupidly, tediously obsessed with America.
What really saddens me is that I know some of these BBC news hacks. They are generally clever and sensitive people. They genuinely believe they are doing important, neutral journalism. But they are not. Their whole worldview is dictated by a narrow subset of liberal-left identitarian voices on social media - media on which the journalists crave "public approval" (from a similarly tiny group of people)
It has warped them and it is destroying the Beeb.
This PC fungus infected BBC drama first, now the rot has got into the news. I am fairly sure it is fatal. No one I know under 25 gives a fuck about the BBC, they barely ever consume it. The Corp as we know it is doomed and one of the reasons will be this grisly and unconscious bias, injected from Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I wasn't expecting THAT. I only asked as a gentle ribbing, to suggest that if you found it so outrageous and intolerable, just switch over. Drop your TV license if you must; I did! The BBC is crap and I don't miss it. But.
RT supports literal fascists. Whatever you think of the BBC, Putin is an actual fascist and RT is his mouthpiece.
I was kinda joking about RT (tho it is not all bad). I was just saying it is biased but, for me, it is no worse than the Woke bias in BBC news (i.e. any story about race. migration, racism, etc, is deemed far more important than anything else). I stand by that.
In truth I now get my news from many sources. I watch some American news, CNN or Fox, some Al Jazeera (which can be very good when it is not covering stories with a Muslim angle - when it is hideously biased). I might watch the Beeb occasionally, or ITV, on big UK events, very infrequently I watch Newsnight (which is also going Woke)
Otherwise I sieve stories from social media, I have a balanced Twitter stream which feeds me diverse voices from left right, north south, up and down, atheist and Mormon. I also read the FT, Guardian, Times, Economist, Spectator. And I sauce it up with Prison Planet or the Canary, you need a mix.
Time was I would have relied in BBC news for 70-80% of my info. That era has gone for ever and will never return. The same fate awaits the BBC in toto.
Putting aside things like Westminster infighting, we all now have access to the internet and it is easy to get really detailed information on any subject and also loads of creators over the past 10 years have taken the opportunity to build YouTube channels, podcasts etc to bridge the gap between the really detailed info and the viewer. And the volume and quality of that content just gets better and better all the time.
e.g. If I want to know about football, I read the Athletic, I watch Tifo Football, listen to Stats Bomb. All these sources are a million times better than the crap on the BBC Sport Football section or Gary and his mates prattling on MOTD (they only just discovered XG recently). I have no reason to watch MOTD now, all the goals are up legally within 30 mins on YouTube, then I can read / watch all the analysis from the likes of the sources above.
If Puerto Rico was heavily Republican, as well as DC, and a Republican President, Senate and House were all planning to make moves to grant them swift statehood I rather fancy we'd hear slightly less of this argument.
Which argument? If that was the case there wouldn't be an argument it would have already been done.
Incidentally both parties have been saying for decades that Puerto Rico is eligible for statehood if they vote for it. Both the GOP and the Democrats have until recently said that consistently.
Except the same party rarely controls all branches of the federal Government and, when they do, they often have bigger fish to fry. Obama had it from 2008-2010 for example but prioritised healthcare, and Trump had it from 2016-2018.
It's not a simply Republicans charlatans and Democrats saints thing, this. It's silly for anyone to suggest it is.
Normally I'd agree with you: Mitt Romney and John McCain for example have (and had) high moral standards. Remember when McCain tackled a heckler and told them that Obama was a patriot?
But the Republican Party right now seems infected with the cancer of Trump, and it's caused them to lose their moral compass. I can only hope a good kicking changes that.
The most saintly President or even Presidential candidate ever was probably Jimmy Carter, he won in 1976 but that did not stop Reagan trouncing him in 1980
Well you probably need to be a bit of a bastard to be President, it's a tough gig. But that doesn't mean you have to be a total bastard.
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Trump introduced Farage as "one of the most powerful men in Europe".
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
The same white working class voters who voted for Brexit and Boris in the UK in the ex industrial and rural parts of the UK voted for Trump in the USA too, demographically the parallels are striking it was a white working class and lower middle class revolt against the liberal establishment that was what Trump saw in Farage and Brexit and that helped further energise his campaign.
The polls in 2016 were wrong in both the referendum and the presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
Sure, but do Trump voters know who Farage is really? And is there any evidence Farage knows how to appeal better than American equivalents to that audience? There are big cultural differences between white working class voters in the US/UK, as is very evident from polling on Trump among British voters of all demographic groups.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
The same white working class voters who voted for Brexit and Boris in the UK in the ex industrial and rural parts of the UK voted for Trump in the USA too, demographically the parallels are striking it was a white working class and lower middle class revolt against the liberal establishment that was what Trump saw in Farage and Brexit and that helped further energise his campaign.
The polls in 2016 were wrong in both the referendum and the presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
Clinton won a plurality of voters earning <$50,000 Trump won a plurality of voters earning >$50,000 EDIT: I think, actually, I can use the word majority in both cases, but I haven't checked
BBC News is just relentlessly Woke. From Iranian migrants to BLM to racially biased Met Police
It is unwatchable madness. This is a corporation determined to destroy itself. The BBC will not exist, as we know it, by 2030.
The irony is "the youth" don't watch it anyway - they just stream content from other providers direct - so the BBC is just alienating its core audience whilst gaining no-one.
They might *think* it's popular - I know their Woke articles get lots of hits - but that's because people like me click on them to see what nonsense they are pumping out today, not because I agree with it.
Viewership of the BBC is collapsing in under 30s, and basically non existent in teens. It is a network with no future
"audiences aged 55 and over are BBC television's most loyal consumers - with a staggering 92% reach in that age group, who watch nearly 13 minutes of BBC TV a week, compared with the two and a half minutes watched by 16-34 year olds."
2 and a half minutes. No one will pay hundreds of quid for that. The BBC is committing suicide
The young people who I know don't watch any news programmes as a rule - it's not that they're deserting the BBC for Sky or whatever. When they do, because something major is happening, they nearly always choose the BBC.
I do think that the lack of interest in everyday news is a problem, but a separate one from BBC news coverage, which IMO should simply be funded from taxation with an independent Board retained to ensure that it's not in hock to the Government of the day. I'm not really bothered how Strictly is funded.
BBC News is pretty bloody awful these days. Laura K simply parrots the parties’ stock lines, and there is very little insight or analysis generally. I gave up on it a while ago.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Trump introduced Farage as "one of the most powerful men in Europe".
While I wouldn't deny his significant impact on Brexit and therefore Europe as a whole, it's fair to say his best days are likely behind him!
It sounds like Farage is presented mostly as a way to show how much other countries will respect and like Trump.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
The same white working class voters who voted for Brexit and Boris in the UK in the ex industrial and rural parts of the UK voted for Trump in the USA too, demographically the parallels are striking it was a white working class and lower middle class revolt against the liberal establishment that was what Trump saw in Farage and Brexit and that helped further energise his campaign.
The polls in 2016 were wrong in both the referendum and the presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
Clinton won a plurality of voters earning <$50,000 Trump won a plurality of voters earning >$50,000 EDIT: I think, actually, I can use the word majority in both cases, but I haven't checked
Trump won 50% of voters earning $50 000 - 99 999 but only 48% of voters earning over $250 000 a year.
Hillary won 48% of voters earning $200 000 - 249 999 but only 46% of voters earning $50 000 - 99 999.
Trump's largest vote came from the lower middle class and skilled working class, much as Boris got his largest vote with C1s and C2s last year, it was a revolt of middle income, largely non graduate voters who voted for Trump and Boris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Are you asking me, or my idea of how Pelosi thinks? The answer to the latter question is that Pelosi is a careful incrementalist and PR statehood is a risky gamechanger move. It's not in her nature. I'm not saying she can't be persuaded, but I think her and Biden are sizeable impediments. Likewise, especially with Biden, to ending the filibuster.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
The same white working class voters who voted for Brexit and Boris in the ex industrial and rural parts of the UK voted for Trump in the USA too, demographically the parallels are striking it was a white working class and lower middle class revolt against the liberal establishment that was what Trump saw in Farage and Brexit and that helped further energise his campaign.
Most of the polls in 2016 were wrong in both the EU referendum and the US presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
The same white working class voters who voted for Brexit and Boris in the ex industrial and rural parts of the UK voted for Trump in the USA too, demographically the parallels are striking it was a white working class and lower middle class revolt against the liberal establishment that was what Trump saw in Farage and Brexit and that helped further energise his campaign.
Most of the polls in 2016 were wrong in both the EU referendum and the US presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
I stopped paying my licence fee months ago. My sister has done the same. No one cares any more. Non fee paying is about to be decriminalised.
I predict BBC income is going to collapse in the next few years, without any politician doing anything much. And then it will be finished as we know it.
I find this deeply sad. I am a patriotic Brit and the Beeb used to be something British to be proud of: a unifying force in the UK. But it is self-immolating.
Its only hope is to massively downsize, concentrate on good neutral news (like the World Service but on TV), forget the Woke shit, have maybe two TV channels - one populist for Masterchef etc, one quality and Netflix drama-ish, and keep the best of the radio. Then charge subscriptions. It might then survive, albeit very much smaller.
Yes I know several people who have cancelled their licence fee.
It's not just the news and entertainment programs where BBC-think has taken over, it's all of them. The last time I listened to radio 4 they started slagging off Trump on the religious issues program on a Sunday. They really can't help themselves.
I think their income will shrink for the next few years and then they'll get their funding from general taxation when Labour get back in.
They don't know how to be neutral anymore when presenting the news, although it's not just the BBC, it's also Sky News and ITN.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
The same white working class voters who voted for Brexit and Boris in the UK in the ex industrial and rural parts of the UK voted for Trump in the USA too, demographically the parallels are striking it was a white working class and lower middle class revolt against the liberal establishment that was what Trump saw in Farage and Brexit and that helped further energise his campaign.
The polls in 2016 were wrong in both the referendum and the presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
Clinton won a plurality of voters earning <$50,000 Trump won a plurality of voters earning >$50,000 EDIT: I think, actually, I can use the word majority in both cases, but I haven't checked
Trump won 50% of voters earning $50 000 - 99 999 but only 48% of voters earning over $250 000 a year.
Hillary won 48% of voters earning $200 000 - 249 999 but only 46% of voters earning $50 000 - 99 999.
Trump's largest vote came from the lower middle class and skilled working class, much as Boris got his largest vote with C1s and C2s last year, it was a revolt of middle income, largely non graduate voters who voted for Trump and Boris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
Sophistry. Each of those high income groups had more Trump than Clinton voters. The two lower ones had more Clinton than Trump voters. You're picking one candidate's figure from the table and trying to weave it into implying the opposite of the truth. That's pretty dishonest.
Puerto Rico is, of course, having a referendum on November 3rd on this very subject. It's sixth. Maybe we should wait to see whether they actually want Statehood or not first. They haven't until now. Well they did last time but with only 23% turnout.
Thanks! - had totally forgetten.
BTW, did you see Saskatchewan provincial results?
As you (I'm sure) already know, NDP got royally thrashed. In the province that CCF back in 1944 and which was a Dipper stronghold for decades afterward.\
Wonder IF the ghosts of Tommy Douglas and Seymour Lipset are having a good moan about this? OR have achieved such a philosophical state of mind they really don't give a hoot? Somehow I doubt that!
"I am hurt, but I am not slain. I shall lay me down and bleed a while, then rise and fight again."
Indeed. Also, it's interesting that here too the results are partial, because the more left-wing voters overwhelmingly voted by mail - this isn't enough to change the outocme, but it means that the initial reports may need to be modified. Good practice for next week.
I don't know if anyone posted this earlier but there was a classic interview on PM this evening at about 5.15 with a former French health minister (who also worked with MSF)
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Are you asking me, or my idea of how Pelosi thinks? The answer to the latter question is that Pelosi is a careful incrementalist and PR statehood is a risky gamechanger move. It's not in her nature. I'm not saying she can't be persuaded, but I think her and Biden are sizeable impediments. Likewise, especially with Biden, to ending the filibuster.
Why is PR statehood risky if PR have voted for it?
Its worth remembering that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and other Republicans as well as Democrats have all advocated PR statehood in the past.
I favor statehood for Puerto Rico and if the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood in their coming referendum I would, as President, initiate the enabling legislation to make this a reality. ~ Ronald Reagan
There's another issue that I’ve decided to mention here tonight. I’ve long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum. ~ George HW Bush
The idea this is some dodgy Democrat scheme is absurd.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
The same white working class voters who voted for Brexit and Boris in the ex industrial and rural parts of the UK voted for Trump in the USA too, demographically the parallels are striking it was a white working class and lower middle class revolt against the liberal establishment that was what Trump saw in Farage and Brexit and that helped further energise his campaign.
Most of the polls in 2016 were wrong in both the EU referendum and the US presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
No I was right about that too, it was a vote of middle income, non college or non university educated voters, not the poor but not the rich either
You said: "white working class and lower middle class revolt" The actual data shows that the middle classes voted leave in higher proportions than the working classes in EVERY income bracket.
BBC News is pretty bloody awful these days. Laura K simply parrots the parties’ stock lines, and there is very little insight or analysis generally. I gave up on it a while ago.
What do you watch when you want to see a news programme? I don't think it's wonderful, but it makes a reasonable shot at impartiality between the parties, whatever its underlying liberal/centrist cultural flavour. For example, I expect they will cover the EHRC report tomorrow in detail, and lefties like me will grumble, but without any real conviction that they're not trying to do a decent job.. A glance at the US media shows the horrors of predominantly partisan news coverage - people mostly watch the channel that tells them what they want to hear.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
The same white working class voters who voted for Brexit and Boris in the UK in the ex industrial and rural parts of the UK voted for Trump in the USA too, demographically the parallels are striking it was a white working class and lower middle class revolt against the liberal establishment that was what Trump saw in Farage and Brexit and that helped further energise his campaign.
The polls in 2016 were wrong in both the referendum and the presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
Clinton won a plurality of voters earning <$50,000 Trump won a plurality of voters earning >$50,000 EDIT: I think, actually, I can use the word majority in both cases, but I haven't checked
Trump won 50% of voters earning $50 000 - 99 999 but only 48% of voters earning over $250 000 a year.
Hillary won 48% of voters earning $200 000 - 249 999 but only 46% of voters earning $50 000 - 99 999.
Trump's largest vote came from the lower middle class and skilled working class, much as Boris got his largest vote with C1s and C2s last year, it was a revolt of middle income, largely non graduate voters who voted for Trump and Boris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
Sophistry. Each of those high income groups had more Trump than Clinton voters. The two lower ones had more Clinton than Trump voters. You're picking one candidate's figure from the table and trying to weave it into implying the opposite of the truth. That's pretty dishonest.
Nope, my point standards absolutely, in 2012 Mitt Romney got 55% of voters earning over $250 000 a year ie the richest voters in America, by 2016 Trump's share of that group after succeeding Romney as GOP nominee had plunged to just 48%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
In the UK too in 2015 Cameron got 51% of voters earning over £70,000 (at the time over $100 000 in US terms) but by 2019 Boris' share of the richest UK voters earning over £70,000 had also plunged to just 40% but his share of voters earning £20 - 39 999 ie middle income earners had risen from the 37% Cameron got to 47%
Puerto Rico is, of course, having a referendum on November 3rd on this very subject. It's sixth. Maybe we should wait to see whether they actually want Statehood or not first. They haven't until now. Well they did last time but with only 23% turnout.
Thanks! - had totally forgetten.
BTW, did you see Saskatchewan provincial results?
As you (I'm sure) already know, NDP got royally thrashed. In the province that CCF back in 1944 and which was a Dipper stronghold for decades afterward.\
Wonder IF the ghosts of Tommy Douglas and Seymour Lipset are having a good moan about this? OR have achieved such a philosophical state of mind they really don't give a hoot? Somehow I doubt that!
"I am hurt, but I am not slain. I shall lay me down and bleed a while, then rise and fight again."
Did indeed. The Prairies have drifted right as BC has gone the other way. All part of the long, slow, fascinating arc of politics I guess.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
The same white working class voters who voted for Brexit and Boris in the UK in the ex industrial and rural parts of the UK voted for Trump in the USA too, demographically the parallels are striking it was a white working class and lower middle class revolt against the liberal establishment that was what Trump saw in Farage and Brexit and that helped further energise his campaign.
The polls in 2016 were wrong in both the referendum and the presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
Clinton won a plurality of voters earning <$50,000 Trump won a plurality of voters earning >$50,000 EDIT: I think, actually, I can use the word majority in both cases, but I haven't checked
Trump won 50% of voters earning $50 000 - 99 999 but only 48% of voters earning over $250 000 a year.
Hillary won 48% of voters earning $200 000 - 249 999 but only 46% of voters earning $50 000 - 99 999.
Trump's largest vote came from the lower middle class and skilled working class, much as Boris got his largest vote with C1s and C2s last year, it was a revolt of middle income, largely non graduate voters who voted for Trump and Boris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
Sophistry. Each of those high income groups had more Trump than Clinton voters. The two lower ones had more Clinton than Trump voters. You're picking one candidate's figure from the table and trying to weave it into implying the opposite of the truth. That's pretty dishonest.
Nope, my point standards absolutely, in 2012 Mitt Romney got 55% of voters earning over $250 000 a year ie the richest voters in America, by 2016 Trump's share of that group after succeeding Romney as GOP nominee had plunged to just 48%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
In the UK too in 2015 Cameron got 51% of voters earning over £70,000 (at the time over $100 000 in US terms) but by 2019 Boris' share of the richest voters had also plunged to just 40% but his share of voters earning £20 - 39 999 had risen from the 37% Cameron got to 47%
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Are you asking me, or my idea of how Pelosi thinks? The answer to the latter question is that Pelosi is a careful incrementalist and PR statehood is a risky gamechanger move. It's not in her nature. I'm not saying she can't be persuaded, but I think her and Biden are sizeable impediments. Likewise, especially with Biden, to ending the filibuster.
Why is PR statehood risky if PR have voted for it?
Its worth remembering that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and other Republicans as well as Democrats have all advocated PR statehood in the past.
I favor statehood for Puerto Rico and if the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood in their coming referendum I would, as President, initiate the enabling legislation to make this a reality. ~ Ronald Reagan
There's another issue that I’ve decided to mention here tonight. I’ve long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum. ~ George HW Bush
The idea this is some dodgy Democrat scheme is absurd.
I didn't say I thought it was dodgy, I said I think Pelosi would see it as risky. It's a big, norm-changing step to take. The first new state for decades and admitted partially for partisan advantage (or reduction of disadvantage, if you prefer). Ronald Reagan may well have given speeches in favour, but how many similarly dramatic steps has Pelosi advocated recently?
I'm not judging the merits of the idea, I'm saying I think Pelosi is likely to be reluctant and people should factor this into their expectations of how Dems will act if they win all 3 chambers next week.
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Are you asking me, or my idea of how Pelosi thinks? The answer to the latter question is that Pelosi is a careful incrementalist and PR statehood is a risky gamechanger move. It's not in her nature. I'm not saying she can't be persuaded, but I think her and Biden are sizeable impediments. Likewise, especially with Biden, to ending the filibuster.
IF Puerto Rico votes decisively for statehood - meaning majority in high turnout vote - AND Democrats have the votes in both Senate and House AND Joe Biden is President - then Puerto Rico will be in like Flynn, no ifs, ands or buts.
Only hurdle left would be possibility that Congress MIGHT (but also might not) require ANOTHER referendum on statehood (for example, if first vote was close).
Why? Because there is VERY LITTLE political risk if all these factors align. Because IF Puerto Rico actually becomes a state, the number of politicians willing to be actively anti-Puerto Rico statehood will fall like a rock. Just as was the case with Alaska, Hawaii, Texas and every state whose admission was controversial.
Does...does Trump actually like Farage? Granted, I don't know america very well, but it just seems odd that Farage would be much of a draw at a Trump rally, or appeal better than a homegrown figure. So unless they really are good mates it surprises me.
Farage spoke at his first Trump rally even before Trump became President in Mississippi in summer 2016, Trump used Brexit as fuel for his anti establishment, white working class revolt message
Even so, I agree with Kle4. Brexit was a long time ago for Americans, hardly something with much impact these days right? How many Americans even know who Farage is before he's introduced?
The same white working class voters who voted for Brexit and Boris in the UK in the ex industrial and rural parts of the UK voted for Trump in the USA too, demographically the parallels are striking it was a white working class and lower middle class revolt against the liberal establishment that was what Trump saw in Farage and Brexit and that helped further energise his campaign.
The polls in 2016 were wrong in both the referendum and the presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
Clinton won a plurality of voters earning <$50,000 Trump won a plurality of voters earning >$50,000 EDIT: I think, actually, I can use the word majority in both cases, but I haven't checked
Trump won 50% of voters earning $50 000 - 99 999 but only 48% of voters earning over $250 000 a year.
Hillary won 48% of voters earning $200 000 - 249 999 but only 46% of voters earning $50 000 - 99 999.
Trump's largest vote came from the lower middle class and skilled working class, much as Boris got his largest vote with C1s and C2s last year, it was a revolt of middle income, largely non graduate voters who voted for Trump and Boris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
Sophistry. Each of those high income groups had more Trump than Clinton voters. The two lower ones had more Clinton than Trump voters. You're picking one candidate's figure from the table and trying to weave it into implying the opposite of the truth. That's pretty dishonest.
Nope, my point standards absolutely, in 2012 Mitt Romney got 55% of voters earning over $250 000 a year ie the richest voters in America, by 2016 Trump's share of that group after succeeding Romney as GOP nominee had plunged to just 48%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
In the UK too in 2015 Cameron got 51% of voters earning over £70,000 (at the time over $100 000 in US terms) but by 2019 Boris' share of the richest voters had also plunged to just 40% but his share of voters earning £20 - 39 999 had risen from the 37% Cameron got to 47%
As I correctly said it was a revolt of middle income, non graduates that voted for both Brexit and Boris in the UK and for Trump in the USA
Sophistry upon sophistry. I hate lies, but I hate them more from people who are obviously clever.
Not lies, just facts, even the article you linked to said quite clearly the Brexit vote came mainly from non graduates with only GCSEs or A Levels who were middle income earners, not rich and middle income earners also voted Leave by a greater percentage than the poor as well as the rich, so again a reflection of the US vote in 2016.
There may have been more support for Trump, Boris and Brexit amongst middle income earners than the poor but there was certainly a shift against the Trump GOP and against the Boris Tories from rich graduates and the only voters to vote majority Remain were the rich and university graduates
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Are you asking me, or my idea of how Pelosi thinks? The answer to the latter question is that Pelosi is a careful incrementalist and PR statehood is a risky gamechanger move. It's not in her nature. I'm not saying she can't be persuaded, but I think her and Biden are sizeable impediments. Likewise, especially with Biden, to ending the filibuster.
Why is PR statehood risky if PR have voted for it?
Its worth remembering that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and other Republicans as well as Democrats have all advocated PR statehood in the past.
I favor statehood for Puerto Rico and if the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood in their coming referendum I would, as President, initiate the enabling legislation to make this a reality. ~ Ronald Reagan
There's another issue that I’ve decided to mention here tonight. I’ve long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum. ~ George HW Bush
The idea this is some dodgy Democrat scheme is absurd.
I didn't say I thought it was dodgy, I said I think Pelosi would see it as risky. It's a big, norm-changing step to take. The first new state for decades and admitted partially for partisan advantage (or reduction of disadvantage, if you prefer). Ronald Reagan may well have given speeches in favour, but how many similarly dramatic steps has Pelosi advocated recently?
I'm not judging the merits of the idea, I'm saying I think Pelosi is likely to be reluctant and people should factor this into their expectations of how Dems will act if they win all 3 chambers next week.
There was partisan (or sectional, which is more or less same thing) to admission of EVERY new state starting with Vermont. So that argument is does NOT hold as much water as a colander, methinks.
As for Pelosi, why would she resist what she and virtually every Democrat in Congress wants - statehood for PR if Puerto Ricans really wants it.
AND achieving statehood for Puerto Rico would make achieving statehood for District of Columbia MUCH easier. Though still heavy lifting due to constitutional issue, which is totally absent in case of PR.
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Are you asking me, or my idea of how Pelosi thinks? The answer to the latter question is that Pelosi is a careful incrementalist and PR statehood is a risky gamechanger move. It's not in her nature. I'm not saying she can't be persuaded, but I think her and Biden are sizeable impediments. Likewise, especially with Biden, to ending the filibuster.
Why is PR statehood risky if PR have voted for it?
Its worth remembering that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and other Republicans as well as Democrats have all advocated PR statehood in the past.
I favor statehood for Puerto Rico and if the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood in their coming referendum I would, as President, initiate the enabling legislation to make this a reality. ~ Ronald Reagan
There's another issue that I’ve decided to mention here tonight. I’ve long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum. ~ George HW Bush
The idea this is some dodgy Democrat scheme is absurd.
I didn't say I thought it was dodgy, I said I think Pelosi would see it as risky. It's a big, norm-changing step to take. The first new state for decades and admitted partially for partisan advantage (or reduction of disadvantage, if you prefer). Ronald Reagan may well have given speeches in favour, but how many similarly dramatic steps has Pelosi advocated recently?
I'm not judging the merits of the idea, I'm saying I think Pelosi is likely to be reluctant and people should factor this into their expectations of how Dems will act if they win all 3 chambers next week.
I see no reason Pelosi would be reluctant if PR votes for it. A vote for it will be followed by a vote in the House as surely as night follows day.
Re the header: Am I the only person who finds it hard to imagine Pelosi and Biden whipping votes for DC statehood and an expanded SCOTUS? It just seems so against their instincts and histories. Pelosi had to be dragged against her will to impeachment, for example.
Pelosi was against impeachment as she knew it was a lost cause and could play into Trump's hands. The votes were never there.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Are you asking me, or my idea of how Pelosi thinks? The answer to the latter question is that Pelosi is a careful incrementalist and PR statehood is a risky gamechanger move. It's not in her nature. I'm not saying she can't be persuaded, but I think her and Biden are sizeable impediments. Likewise, especially with Biden, to ending the filibuster.
IF Puerto Rico votes decisively for statehood - meaning majority in high turnout vote - AND Democrats have the votes in both Senate and House AND Joe Biden is President - then Puerto Rico will be in like Flynn, no ifs, ands or buts.
Only hurdle left would be possibility that Congress MIGHT (but also might not) require ANOTHER referendum on statehood (for example, if first vote was close).
Why? Because there is VERY LITTLE political risk if all these factors align. Because IF Puerto Rico actually becomes a state, the number of politicians willing to be actively anti-Puerto Rico statehood will fall like a rock. Just as was the case with Alaska, Hawaii, Texas and every state whose admission was controversial.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54712003
"audiences aged 55 and over are BBC television's most loyal consumers - with a staggering 92% reach in that age group, who watch nearly 13 minutes of BBC TV a week, compared with the two and a half minutes watched by 16-34 year olds."
2 and a half minutes. No one will pay hundreds of quid for that. The BBC is committing suicide
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48840138#:~:text=There is no question that,by 16-34 year olds.
It is also one of those things where because they may have been an issue for a long time, both sides could have done something about it if they wanted, so it should (though doesn't I'd guess) tone done the outrage at those opposed to it, since you cannot declaim 'how dare someone think X?' if most people on one's own side think x, or thought x recently, or never gave a shit about it before. The same thing happens with rather maufactured outrage over terminology which has changed rapidly, or fast changing social views.
Seriously, start to question your beliefs.
--AS
The only thing to watch out for is making too much data public in a way that makes individuals identifiable. It's perhaps legally ok if we're talking about people who have died recently, but insensitive.
In any case, that granularity of data is only going to be of niche interest outside research and governance. The question is, what do you want from the data? Most people want a rough idea of how much worse/better this is getting, and how bad it currently is in their home town. The time-series and cloropleth visualisations, along with the data tables, that are all over the media are good enough for most casual consumers.
Of course, what some people want from the data is confirmation that their political ideology is right or to find reasons to complain about someone in some party they already don't like.
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1321508384101851136?s=19
Like this one saying Instagram filters are racist:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54360146
Or this one is even more ridiculous saying that having to adapt to fit in at work and it's racist/sexist that they had to:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54388703
It's inevitable if the BBC can't respond to those who want to watch it, which it can't as it understands the young so badly (who criticised it heavily over Corbyn, for example) that it takes its cue on news stories from Twitter storms - which are irrelevant and add no value - but also really piss off its traditional core audience at the same time.
It then thinks it's got the balance right as it's criticised equally by both sides.
Chortle.
Trump's rallies are the faithful already baked in, so the two are not really similar at all.
But I tend to agree it's days are numbered in its current form. Anecdotally people on left and right increasingly object to it, people are so used to getting news for free or purchase the kind of news slant they want to hear, and it just feels like they are losing the battle for the principle of funding it in the way it is now.
I don’t think anyone on PB is doing this. Different posters do, however, offer different approaches to it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53637305
63% of Britons use BBCiPlayer too
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=content-type&blobheadervalue1=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1370006458226&ssbinary=true
I predict BBC income is going to collapse in the next few years, without any politician doing anything much. And then it will be finished as we know it.
I find this deeply sad. I am a patriotic Brit and the Beeb used to be something British to be proud of: a unifying force in the UK. But it is self-immolating.
Its only hope is to massively downsize, concentrate on good neutral news (like the World Service but on TV), forget the Woke shit, have maybe two TV channels - one populist for Masterchef etc, one quality and Netflix drama-ish, and keep the best of the radio. Then charge subscriptions. It might then survive, albeit very much smaller.
Incidentally both parties have been saying for decades that Puerto Rico is eligible for statehood if they vote for it. Both the GOP and the Democrats have until recently said that consistently.
They will point to the fact their numbers are up as people tune in to find out what Tier we are in or what Boris is going to bumble about at his press conference, but their coverage of the COVID pandemic has been utter wank.
Maybe we should wait to see whether they actually want Statehood or not first.
They haven't until now.
Well they did last time but with only 23% turnout.
As for DC statehood, that (probably) requires a constitutional amendment, which requires 2/2 majority of both houses of Congress AND ratification by super-majority of states. So do NOT think it's something that Democrats could have achieved UNLESS plenty of GOPers went along - unlikely at best.
But.
RT supports literal fascists. Whatever you think of the BBC, Putin is an actual fascist and RT is his mouthpiece.
It is one paradox of the Tory gerontocracy.
My criticism of the licence fee, and the BBC attitude we just can't get rid of it, is that technology has evolved so much now, that it isn't even that you can get 900 channels on Sky, it is that there so many different ways you can watch content and they have no ability to work out which are in compliance and which aren't.
It's not a simply Republicans charlatans and Democrats saints thing, this. It's silly for anyone to suggest it is.
They'd rather go down the drain.
Wiki says a boycott by the non-statehood side last time, which would explain that low turnout I guess.
In fairness, a bit like people getting overexcited about changing their constitution, revised status for a place probably won't solve as many problems as some think it will, though for others it will be about principle anyway.
https://twitter.com/josh_wingrove/status/1321585948547706880
But the Republican Party right now seems infected with the cancer of Trump, and it's caused them to lose their moral compass. I can only hope a good kicking changes that.
You're eligible. In fact, you live a lot closer to Wales than their current leader,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Ilyin
I don't call people fascists lightly. But Putin is one.
It's not just the news and entertainment programs where BBC-think has taken over, it's all of them. The last time I listened to radio 4 they started slagging off Trump on the religious issues program on a Sunday. They really can't help themselves.
I think their income will shrink for the next few years and then they'll get their funding from general taxation when Labour get back in.
BTW, did you see Saskatchewan provincial results?
As you (I'm sure) already know, NDP got royally thrashed. In the province that CCF back in 1944 and which was a Dipper stronghold for decades afterward.\
Wonder IF the ghosts of Tommy Douglas and Seymour Lipset are having a good moan about this? OR have achieved such a philosophical state of mind they really don't give a hoot? Somehow I doubt that!
"I am hurt, but I am not slain. I shall lay me down and bleed a while, then rise and fight again."
Until now both the GOP and Democrats have said that if PR votes for Statehood they'd support that.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1321586166076825600?s=20
I do think that the lack of interest in everyday news is a problem, but a separate one from BBC news coverage, which IMO should simply be funded from taxation with an independent Board retained to ensure that it's not in hock to the Government of the day. I'm not really bothered how Strictly is funded.
You spoke of incrementalism. In my own (perhaps less-than-) humble opinion, fact that DC was granted electoral votes in the 1960s may have HURT the cause of statehood, by taking off some of the pressure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqsgR0OG654
In truth I now get my news from many sources. I watch some American news, CNN or Fox, some Al Jazeera (which can be very good when it is not covering stories with a Muslim angle - when it is hideously biased). I might watch the Beeb occasionally, or ITV, on big UK events, very infrequently I watch Newsnight (which is also going Woke)
Otherwise I sieve stories from social media, I have a balanced Twitter stream which feeds me diverse voices from left right, north south, up and down, atheist and Mormon. I also read the FT, Guardian, Times, Economist, Spectator. And I sauce it up with Prison Planet or the Canary, you need a mix.
Time was I would have relied in BBC news for 70-80% of my info. That era has gone for ever and will never return. The same fate awaits the BBC in toto.
PR and DC only voted for Statehood in recent years - and PR's proper referendum only happens on Tuesday. If both vote for Statehood then there's no good reason to deny it to them.
It wasn't on Obama's agenda in 2008 as it wouldn't be foisted upon the States without them voting for it.
The other thing that doesn't really fly now is watered down versions of specialist shows e.g. Click. Nobody watches Click. If you are into tech there are loads of great YouTube channels, ranging from really specialist to more light hearted reviews, builds, etc. And crucial they put out way more content, usually daily.
IF he REALLY wants to impress the crowd, should tell him that he knows Tony Blair. Because most right-wing GOPers LOVE Tony because of his stalwart support for W. Whereas Democrats USED to like Blair but now (to the extent they can remember him at all) dislike if not despise him for the same reason.
As for Farange's motivation, if Trumpsky's re-elected he's got prospect of all kinds of kudos (including financial). And if The Donald fails in his valiant battle against sinister forces of sanity, welll NF will still be on good terms with some of the top land pirates in American, with future opportunities for fun AND profit.
A state with electoral college votes would have got federal disaster relief much quicker following a hurricane like that.
Most of the polls in 2016 were wrong in both the EU referendum and the US presidential election, if the white working class turn out in similar numbers or even greater numbers for Trump in the key swing states next week the polls will be wrong yet again
e.g. If I want to know about football, I read the Athletic, I watch Tifo Football, listen to Stats Bomb. All these sources are a million times better than the crap on the BBC Sport Football section or Gary and his mates prattling on MOTD (they only just discovered XG recently). I have no reason to watch MOTD now, all the goals are up legally within 30 mins on YouTube, then I can read / watch all the analysis from the likes of the sources above.
But DC has unambiguously voted for Statehood in recent years and the House has already voted in favour of it so Pelosi can be counted upon for that quite reasonably.
PR is voting in a referendum on Tuesday. If they vote for it unambiguously then what reason is there for them to be denied statehood?
Trump won a plurality of voters earning >$50,000
EDIT: I think, actually, I can use the word majority in both cases, but I haven't checked
It sounds like Farage is presented mostly as a way to show how much other countries will respect and like Trump.
Hillary won 48% of voters earning $200 000 - 249 999 but only 46% of voters earning $50 000 - 99 999.
Trump's largest vote came from the lower middle class and skilled working class, much as Boris got his largest vote with C1s and C2s last year, it was a revolt of middle income, largely non graduate voters who voted for Trump and Boris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/brexit-and-the-squeezed-middle/
Apsana Begum, 30, entered Parliament at last December’s general election with a giant 28,904 majority in East London’s Poplar and Limehouse.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13048307/labour-mp-housing-fraud-flat/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/grenier-sk-election-results-1.5778114
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000ntbl
I'm afraid he was right...even if it seemed like there had been a few glasses consumed beforehand.
Its worth remembering that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and other Republicans as well as Democrats have all advocated PR statehood in the past.
I favor statehood for Puerto Rico and if the people of Puerto Rico vote for statehood in their coming referendum I would, as President, initiate the enabling legislation to make this a reality. ~ Ronald Reagan
There's another issue that I’ve decided to mention here tonight. I’ve long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum. ~ George HW Bush
The idea this is some dodgy Democrat scheme is absurd.
The actual data shows that the middle classes voted leave in higher proportions than the working classes in EVERY income bracket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
In the UK too in 2015 Cameron got 51% of voters earning over £70,000 (at the time over $100 000 in US terms) but by 2019 Boris' share of the richest UK voters earning over £70,000 had also plunged to just 40% but his share of voters earning £20 - 39 999 ie middle income earners had risen from the 37% Cameron got to 47%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
As I correctly said it was a revolt of middle income, non graduates that voted for both Brexit and Boris in the UK and for Trump in the USA
It seems perfectly timed by Labour to bury it at a time when it will be incapable of holding the conversation for long because of the US election.
I hate lies, but I hate them more from people who are obviously clever.
I'm not judging the merits of the idea, I'm saying I think Pelosi is likely to be reluctant and people should factor this into their expectations of how Dems will act if they win all 3 chambers next week.
Only hurdle left would be possibility that Congress MIGHT (but also might not) require ANOTHER referendum on statehood (for example, if first vote was close).
Why? Because there is VERY LITTLE political risk if all these factors align. Because IF Puerto Rico actually becomes a state, the number of politicians willing to be actively anti-Puerto Rico statehood will fall like a rock. Just as was the case with Alaska, Hawaii, Texas and every state whose admission was controversial.
For same reason: once you're in, your in.
There may have been more support for Trump, Boris and Brexit amongst middle income earners than the poor but there was certainly a shift against the Trump GOP and against the Boris Tories from rich graduates and the only voters to vote majority Remain were the rich and university graduates
As for Pelosi, why would she resist what she and virtually every Democrat in Congress wants - statehood for PR if Puerto Ricans really wants it.
AND achieving statehood for Puerto Rico would make achieving statehood for District of Columbia MUCH easier. Though still heavy lifting due to constitutional issue, which is totally absent in case of PR.
Someone who will likely be key will be Corbyn - he could do more than anyone to keep it in the news depending on his reaction to what it will say.