Yes that video was posted on here yesterday evening and I for one took it as evidence of a mass exodus... but then somebody pointed out the traffic is blocked in both directions and 'normal pour le Périph'.
Edit: there probably has been a big exodus though.
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
What should he do? Starmer makes it clear that those who minimise anti-Semitism as a problem within the party have no place in Labour. Within an hour Corbyn is saying precisely that. What possible alternative did he have apart from taking action? Keep the antisemitism festering within the party whilst looking weak himself?
I agree Corbyn is probably not anti-Semitic himself but its irrelevant to the point that he and his ongoing actions are a big part of the problem of Labour antisemitism. If he wants to stay in party all he would have to do is apologise and promise never to repeat his minimisation - but chances are he simply can't bring himself to do that.
I agree that Starmer was faced with a very difficult quandary, and also a challenge to his challenge to his authority ; but I think, in this case, the cure might have been worse than the disease, not taking carefully enough taking into account the party's overall picture, or Corbyn's personal views compared to particular others, rather than his symbolic negligence. I think he probably should have issued some sort of sanction or public rebuke rather than suspension, and I suspect there may be some sort of attempt to conciliate back to this, once the Starmer ascendancy narrative starts to be replaced more fully by one of splits in the press.
Ive not read the report but isnt a key part that the leadership should not issue or be involved in sanctions but suspend people so that they can get an independent hearing?
Yes, and that's precisely why it was not Starmer who suspended Corbyn but the General Secretary of the LP (although Starmer said he agreed with the decision). What happens next is technically out of Starmer's hands, and he would be well advised to keep a distance while due process runs its course. Regardless of whether Corbyn is expelled or allowed back in, it shouldn't be seen as the Leader's decision.
And by the way, those (like HYUFD) re-tweeting Chris Williamson should be aware that he is not a member of the Labour Party and is hence an irrelevance. He has negligible support within the party (unlike Corbyn).
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
EC makes it Con +3 only for the boundary changes. They've gained a lot of seats in areas of falling populations. (e.g.,Cumbria, Durham Potteries, Black Country). And cities are (were?) growing in population ( eg, London +3, which will be all Inner) Which are both the reverse of the usual.
I have a lot of respect for leantossup.ca - they got the last Canada election and the 2018 midterms virtually spot on. They were also very good with the 2019 UK General Election, they were closer to the result than the domestic prediction sites.
Their current prediction for the US Presidency is very close to my own gut feel. I put it as narrowing to 'snake eyes' (1/36) for Trump to win - they're currently rating it as Biden 97.1%, Trump 2.6%, Tie 0.3%
Average ECV prediction is Biden 385.1, Trump 152.9
Interestingly they've got Texas as "lean Biden".
That feels to me as if they underestimate the possibility of systematic polling error (underweighting a pro-Trump constituency across the board), underestimate reversion to the mean (Trump fairly close to his floor, Biden to his ceiling), and underestimate fundamentals (Texas is a fairly red state with a Senator likely to be re-elected).
I'm not bullish on Trump, and think he's likely to lose, but 2.6% certainly doesn't feel realistic.
If you want to see why I think there is a good chance of a systematic polling error, click on here and then scroll down to the section "Standard Polling on EU Membership" and the table below it:
What it shows is that, up to the shooting of Jo Cox, Leave was leading in most of the polls, after the shooting it flipped the other way with one up to a 10% lead for Remain.
It is pretty clear that what changed the polling was not a sudden switching of minds but that people who had been Leave become more awkward about expressing their view given the backlash that followed in the days after Cox's shooting.
This election has exactly the same dynamics. A President who is hated by many in the US and overseas, and where to express support for him outside certain segments can lead to "problems".
This, and the underpolling of white non-college voters, will be the two main polling errors for 2020.
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
What should he do? Starmer makes it clear that those who minimise anti-Semitism as a problem within the party have no place in Labour. Within an hour Corbyn is saying precisely that. What possible alternative did he have apart from taking action? Keep the antisemitism festering within the party whilst looking weak himself?
I agree Corbyn is probably not anti-Semitic himself but its irrelevant to the point that he and his ongoing actions are a big part of the problem of Labour antisemitism. If he wants to stay in party all he would have to do is apologise and promise never to repeat his minimisation - but chances are he simply can't bring himself to do that.
(i) If a person says that antisemitism in Labour is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the AS card - is this a sign of an antisemite?
(ii) If a person says that racism in British society is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the race card - is this a sign of a racist?
I've been thinking about these 2 questions.
The labels really dont matter. The question for those in power is what can they do to improve the situation, not how to categorise everyone. The new policy to improve things includes saying "that antisemitism in Labour is overblown" wont be tolerated as it provides succour to the anti-Semites. His job is not to only exclude anti-Semites it is to make people of all religions feel welcome and valued in his party - that cannot be done whilst Corbyn is allowed to be vocal and public in his denial of reality.
You could be right. I'm genuinely not sure about it. If it's zero tolerance of antisemitism, I support that completely. But if it develops into zero tolerance of socialism, I'd be disappointed and would probably end my membership, although my vote is safe. My 2 questions, having thought about it, I think "probably" is the answer to both. Take your point about labeling being unhelpful - it often is - but I find such questions useful as a tool for exposing sloppy thinking and double standards on the Right. Nothing I like better than exposing sloppy thinking and double standards on the Right. Hobby.
“The chancellor has a net rating of +30 with Scottish swing voters, higher than Keir Starmer, Gordon Brown, Alex Ferguson, and even the Queen.
“Ruth has lost some of her popularity since she stepped down, but still gets a positive judgement from voters. No. 10 should lock away Boris, and put up Rishi and Ruth.
“In focus groups [Boris Johnson] is not just criticised in the way David Cameron and Theresa May were but loathed.”
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit will have already happened and the SNP will make an indyref a precondition on Starmer getting into Downing Street if they hold the balance of power.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
What's something that would be controversial? Countryside Alliance?
I have a lot of respect for leantossup.ca - they got the last Canada election and the 2018 midterms virtually spot on. They were also very good with the 2019 UK General Election, they were closer to the result than the domestic prediction sites.
Their current prediction for the US Presidency is very close to my own gut feel. I put it as narrowing to 'snake eyes' (1/36) for Trump to win - they're currently rating it as Biden 97.1%, Trump 2.6%, Tie 0.3%
Average ECV prediction is Biden 385.1, Trump 152.9
Interestingly they've got Texas as "lean Biden".
That feels to me as if they underestimate the possibility of systematic polling error (underweighting a pro-Trump constituency across the board), underestimate reversion to the mean (Trump fairly close to his floor, Biden to his ceiling), and underestimate fundamentals (Texas is a fairly red state with a Senator likely to be re-elected).
I'm not bullish on Trump, and think he's likely to lose, but 2.6% certainly doesn't feel realistic.
If you want to see why I think there is a good chance of a systematic polling error, click on here and then scroll down to the section "Standard Polling on EU Membership" and the table below it:
What it shows is that, up to the shooting of Jo Cox, Leave was leading in most of the polls, after the shooting it flipped the other way with one up to a 10% lead for Remain.
It is pretty clear that what changed the polling was not a sudden switching of minds but that people who had been Leave become more awkward about expressing their view given the backlash that followed in the days after Cox's shooting.
This election has exactly the same dynamics. A President who is hated by many in the US and overseas, and where to express support for him outside certain segments can lead to "problems".
This, and the underpolling of white non-college voters, will be the two main polling errors for 2020.
I think you are mis-remembering. There were plenty of polls showing a Leave win, right up to the date of the referendum, particularly online ones.
There were a few with modest leads but the trend was clear, post-Jo Cox's shooting the large leads Leave had in some polls evaporated and there were some hefty leads for Remain.
In fact, you can see it from the link you sent. I re-posted it but with the show all polling data tab unclicked. Scroll down the polls by date and you can see Leave generally in the lead up to Jo Cox's death and then it's leads reversed thereafter:
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit is well and truly over by 2024, so no soft - Brexit from Starmer, or if Len has is way RLB/ Pidcock.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit will have already happened and the SNP will make an indyref a precondition on Starmer getting into Downing Street if they hold the balance of power.
The SNP are hardly going to put the Tories in are they, if they did that would guarantee their support nosediving in Scotland and SLab recovering quicker than Lazarus, so Starmer has that card to play too and a Starmer premiership means Scots know we are moving into a more closely aligned FTA or even back into the EEA.
Lean Tossup has no record as far as I can see in a US presidential election, Trafalgar were the only pollster to correctly forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 so I suggest a bit less hubris from leantossup until the results are in
Yes that video was posted on here yesterday evening and I for one took it as evidence of a mass exodus... but then somebody pointed out the traffic is blocked in both directions and 'normal pour le Périph'.
Edit: there probably has been a big exodus though.
Lots of blue checkmark journos on twitter who live in Paris confirm exodus. BBC also reporting it.
Yes that video was posted on here yesterday evening and I for one took it as evidence of a mass exodus... but then somebody pointed out the traffic is blocked in both directions and 'normal pour le Périph'.
Edit: there probably has been a big exodus though.
People enjoying one last daily traffic jam before lockdown cuts the traffic?
I have a lot of respect for leantossup.ca - they got the last Canada election and the 2018 midterms virtually spot on. They were also very good with the 2019 UK General Election, they were closer to the result than the domestic prediction sites.
Their current prediction for the US Presidency is very close to my own gut feel. I put it as narrowing to 'snake eyes' (1/36) for Trump to win - they're currently rating it as Biden 97.1%, Trump 2.6%, Tie 0.3%
Average ECV prediction is Biden 385.1, Trump 152.9
Interestingly they've got Texas as "lean Biden".
That feels to me as if they underestimate the possibility of systematic polling error (underweighting a pro-Trump constituency across the board), underestimate reversion to the mean (Trump fairly close to his floor, Biden to his ceiling), and underestimate fundamentals (Texas is a fairly red state with a Senator likely to be re-elected).
I'm not bullish on Trump, and think he's likely to lose, but 2.6% certainly doesn't feel realistic.
If you want to see why I think there is a good chance of a systematic polling error, click on here and then scroll down to the section "Standard Polling on EU Membership" and the table below it:
What it shows is that, up to the shooting of Jo Cox, Leave was leading in most of the polls, after the shooting it flipped the other way with one up to a 10% lead for Remain.
It is pretty clear that what changed the polling was not a sudden switching of minds but that people who had been Leave become more awkward about expressing their view given the backlash that followed in the days after Cox's shooting.
This election has exactly the same dynamics. A President who is hated by many in the US and overseas, and where to express support for him outside certain segments can lead to "problems".
This, and the underpolling of white non-college voters, will be the two main polling errors for 2020.
Who is underpolling white non-college voters ?
Probably no-one in the sense that they are likely to be using the 2016 data as the baseline for their polls. 2016 was, of course, a historically high level for the cohort and the belief is probably that it cannot go higher.
Personally, I think what the polling companies will miss is a further advance from 2016 in the cohort. You can triangulate this from what we are seeing on the ground at the moment. Record turnout numbers yet the data where it exists doesn't suggests we are seeing a surge of Black voters nor Hispanic outside of Florida, which has its peculiarities, and white college educated turnout was already high. Nor, from where the data is granular, are we seeing an upsurge of young voters. By a process of elimination, there is a good chance it is white voters from the cohort.
If Sky History are now banning a programme 'The Chop' because one of their contestants has neo-nazi tattoes perhaps they might like to ban anyone wearing a Che Guavaro T-shirt .Or maybe Woke Sky does not employ anyone who might understand why a Che Guavaro t-shirt might offend the relatives of the victims who he murdered and tortured
The contrast in intellectual honesty between Arie Kapteyn and Robert Cahaly is striking.
Some rich irony from Cahaly: "...We live in a country where people will lie to their accountant, they’ll lie to their doctor, they’ll lie to their priest. And we’re supposed to believe they shed all of that when they get on the telephone with a stranger and become Honest Abe? I cannot accept that..."
How about pollsters lying... could that ever happen ?
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
EC makes it Con +3 only for the boundary changes. They've gained a lot of seats in areas of falling populations. (e.g.,Cumbria, Durham Potteries, Black Country). And cities are (were?) growing in population ( eg, London +3, which will be all Inner) Which are both the reverse of the usual.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Labour on 42% without a presence in Scotland is almost at the top of their range. We need a resurgence in the LDs fortunes.to get rid of the Tories and that doesn't look like it is coming anytime soon.
A good showing in the locals next year would help. Being 4th in Parliament is 'very unhelpful'!
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
There is a disappointingly substantial subsection of people, including it seems our very own @Casino_Royale, who believe that being gay is controversial.
Lol. Thank you. I always know I've won the argument when my opponent is reduced to trying to strawman me as a bigot because they're embarrassed they were shown to be wrong and have nowhere else to go.
Happy Friday @TOPPING - try not to give yourself a coronary. It's the weekend.
You said:
a) they should not take part in controversial events; and b) they should not take part in Pride.
Ergo, sunshine, you think taking part in Pride is controversial.
You do know what Pride is, don't you?
No, I didn't. I expressly said in my first post: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
That says a lot about you - not me.
You said that but that's not what Tim Davie said. And we are discussing the new guidelines being brought in by Tim Davie for the BBC which you say are long overdue/a good idea.
You're all over the place, pal.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
Dear god.
You said the measures were sensible. The measures are to disallow BBC employees in a private capacity from attending Pride.
But then as you note you also wrote: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
So either you didn't know what the measures were, or you did know what they were and remain all over the place.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit is well and truly over by 2024, so no soft - Brexit from Starmer, or if Len has is way RLB/ Pidcock.
You are assuming we dont get an EU extension to just post election 2024 as our Brexit trade deal. I think this is the logical political outcome, just not sure how they intend to sell it, obviously they cant call it an extension, but I think there will be a further negotiation scheduled for 2024/5 within whatever deal is agreed.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
What's something that would be controversial? Countryside Alliance?
I answered this at the start of the thread. Controversial means that it rises or likely to give rise to controversy to significant public disagreement. That means a march or demonstration on a live political issue, so - in my view - it would cover lockdown sceptics, BLM protests, pro/anti Brexit marches (although the BBC have been good on that one) or marching against the Government consultation on gender recognition, but would not cover the Notting Hill Carnival, Remembrance Day or Pride.
There is nothing contentious or unusual in this. There is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum at present in an attempt to get these revised guidelines withdrawn.
Senior BBC journalists shouldn't be expressing their personal political views on twitter etc. I wouldn't apply the same rules to the whole organization though.
One question I'm wondering - is it appropriate that the head of the BBC is a former Tory councillor?
Or the BBC's Director of Strategy is a former Labour minister....
There are two parts to postal ballots: 1. The casting and the posting 2. Whether they are accepted or not It is 2 where Trump's control of the courts will pay huge dividends. For me, a 34% chance that he will win feels about right.
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
A while back one of the guys behind CricViz said if there was a bowling equivalent of Bradman then they needed to take 150 plus test wickets at an average of under 8.
The nearest is S.F. Barnes with 189 test wickets at 16.43.
That's how good Bradman is.
How do you even begin to quantify the comparison between bowling and batting? Bradman's figures are remarkable, but it's almost impossible to work out what the bowling equivalent would be.
Whilst Warne's batting figures aren't great, he was decent and his slip fielding was excellent. I think he'd have made a very good captain too had it come his way.
You can quantify it by comparing to their peers. What are the 10th, 100th, median best batting/bowling average and how does the very best compare.
The one difference is that a batter is rarely denied the opportunity to score more runs by another batter doing well, but every time McGrath took wickets they were wickets Warne couldn't then take.
Yes that video was posted on here yesterday evening and I for one took it as evidence of a mass exodus... but then somebody pointed out the traffic is blocked in both directions and 'normal pour le Périph'.
Edit: there probably has been a big exodus though.
Traffic around Paris hit record levels just hours before a new national lockdown came into force across France. Jams stretched to a cumulative 430 miles (700 km) in the Ile-de-France region early on Thursday evening, local media reported. Lockdown measures came into force at midnight on Friday (23:00 GMT) to tackle spiralling Covid infections.
“The chancellor has a net rating of +30 with Scottish swing voters, higher than Keir Starmer, Gordon Brown, Alex Ferguson, and even the Queen.
“Ruth has lost some of her popularity since she stepped down, but still gets a positive judgement from voters. No. 10 should lock away Boris, and put up Rishi and Ruth.
“In focus groups [Boris Johnson] is not just criticised in the way David Cameron and Theresa May were but loathed.”
Yup. Scots don't hate English people, but they do tend to have a low opinion of over-privileged, lightweight and condescending English public schoolboys like Mr Johnson. There wasn't much love for Mr Cameron either, but at least you could see that he was a serious and intelligent man with some conception of the national interest. I think for most Scots it is just an utter mystery as to how Johnson is PM, and has solidified the sense that the English can't be trusted to make wise political choices.
The contrast in intellectual honesty between Arie Kapteyn and Robert Cahaly is striking.
Some rich irony from Cahaly: "...We live in a country where people will lie to their accountant, they’ll lie to their doctor, they’ll lie to their priest. And we’re supposed to believe they shed all of that when they get on the telephone with a stranger and become Honest Abe? I cannot accept that..."
How about pollsters lying... could that ever happen ?
He's making his polls up. The crosstabs are ludicrous
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
What's something that would be controversial? Countryside Alliance?
Oh no!
I'm going to have to give myself a good slapping if the conversation with Cassie continues along those lines.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit will have already happened and the SNP will make an indyref a precondition on Starmer getting into Downing Street if they hold the balance of power.
The SNP are hardly going to put the Tories in are they, if they did that would guarantee their support nosediving in Scotland and SLab recovering quicker than Lazarus, so Starmer has that card to play too and a Starmer premiership means Scots know we are moving into a more closely aligned FTA or even back into the EEA.
Lean Tossup has no record as far as I can see in a US presidential election, Trafalgar were the only pollster to correctly forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 so I suggest a bit less hubris from leantossup until the results are in
The SNP don't need to vote to put the Tories in - they can just vote down any Queen's Speech or Budget without a Referendum. If the SNP hold the balance of power they will need to be bought off - no ifs or buts.
Nutty as Chris Williamson is, I don't share the common view held by many here that this was a good move by Starmer. If anything, I think it's been his first big mis-step since becoming leader.
Antisemitism under Corbyn was a cancer within the Labour Party.
You don't try to find a middle way of keeping a cancer within the party, you excise it. That the antisemitic Williamson wants nothing to do with Labour is progress for Starmer.
He's a real threat to win the next election.
Williamson is a loon ; but Starmer stands to lose a lot more by this action than to gain. Rather than coaxing a party with a still heavily leftwing membership in his direction, he now faces the prospect of multiple kinds of acrimony. For the sake of party unity, and also to a certain extent I think in terms of strict accuracy, he would have done better to make an example of people with objectionable views still in the party, rather than Corbyn himself, who has been largely negligent and irresponsible on this particular issue rather than a hate-monger.
After six months of Starmer ascendency, the press story is now going to shift for a while from Tory incompetence to Labour splits, and Starmer is going to lose more supporters than he gains. I would expect to see Labour dip a little in the polls and see some slippage to the Greens and others, and if I was at in the higher reaches of Labour, personally, I would be thinking of some way to steady the ship.
What should he do? Starmer makes it clear that those who minimise anti-Semitism as a problem within the party have no place in Labour. Within an hour Corbyn is saying precisely that. What possible alternative did he have apart from taking action? Keep the antisemitism festering within the party whilst looking weak himself?
I agree Corbyn is probably not anti-Semitic himself but its irrelevant to the point that he and his ongoing actions are a big part of the problem of Labour antisemitism. If he wants to stay in party all he would have to do is apologise and promise never to repeat his minimisation - but chances are he simply can't bring himself to do that.
(i) If a person says that antisemitism in Labour is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the AS card - is this a sign of an antisemite?
(ii) If a person says that racism in British society is overblown, that much of it is smear or oversensitivity or misunderstanding or people playing the race card - is this a sign of a racist?
I've been thinking about these 2 questions.
The labels really dont matter. The question for those in power is what can they do to improve the situation, not how to categorise everyone. The new policy to improve things includes saying "that antisemitism in Labour is overblown" wont be tolerated as it provides succour to the anti-Semites. His job is not to only exclude anti-Semites it is to make people of all religions feel welcome and valued in his party - that cannot be done whilst Corbyn is allowed to be vocal and public in his denial of reality.
You could be right. I'm genuinely not sure about it. If it's zero tolerance of antisemitism, I support that completely. But if it develops into zero tolerance of socialism, I'd be disappointed and would probably end my membership, although my vote is safe. My 2 questions, having thought about it, I think "probably" is the answer to both. Take your point about labeling being unhelpful - it often is - but I find such questions useful as a tool for exposing sloppy thinking and double standards on the Right. Nothing I like better than exposing sloppy thinking and double standards on the Right. Hobby.
What on earth has it got to do with socialism? John McDonnell is if anything to the left of Corbyn, is he under threat from this policy - no. Why? - because he doesnt protect antisemites within the party.
Yes that video was posted on here yesterday evening and I for one took it as evidence of a mass exodus... but then somebody pointed out the traffic is blocked in both directions and 'normal pour le Périph'.
Edit: there probably has been a big exodus though.
Lots of blue checkmark journos on twitter who live in Paris confirm exodus. BBC also reporting it.
Yes, as per my edit - I accept it was for real (and predictable).
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Labour on 42% without a presence in Scotland is almost at the top of their range. We need a resurgence in the LDs fortunes.to get rid of the Tories and that doesn't look like it is coming anytime soon.
A good showing in the locals next year would help. Being 4th in Parliament is 'very unhelpful'!
That would be a start to sweeping up the South coast and South West England. Of course the resurgent LDs could always go into coalition with the Conservatives again.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
What's something that would be controversial? Countryside Alliance?
I answered this at the start of the thread. Controversial means that it rises or likely to give rise to controversy to significant public disagreement. That means a march or demonstration on a live political issue, so - in my view - it would cover lockdown sceptics, BLM protests, pro/anti Brexit marches (although the BBC have been good on that one) or marching against the Government consultation on gender recognition, but would not cover the Notting Hill Carnival, Remembrance Day or Pride.
There is nothing contentious or unusual in this. There is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum at present in an attempt to get these revised guidelines withdrawn.
Personally, I am quite happy for the BBC to be made into the propaganda lackeys of the Tory government. It makes it more likely that the BBC survives substantially intact until the government changes.
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
There is a disappointingly substantial subsection of people, including it seems our very own @Casino_Royale, who believe that being gay is controversial.
Lol. Thank you. I always know I've won the argument when my opponent is reduced to trying to strawman me as a bigot because they're embarrassed they were shown to be wrong and have nowhere else to go.
Happy Friday @TOPPING - try not to give yourself a coronary. It's the weekend.
You said:
a) they should not take part in controversial events; and b) they should not take part in Pride.
Ergo, sunshine, you think taking part in Pride is controversial.
You do know what Pride is, don't you?
No, I didn't. I expressly said in my first post: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
That says a lot about you - not me.
You said that but that's not what Tim Davie said. And we are discussing the new guidelines being brought in by Tim Davie for the BBC which you say are long overdue/a good idea.
You're all over the place, pal.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
Dear god.
You said the measures were sensible. The measures are to disallow BBC employees in a private capacity from attending Pride.
But then as you note you also wrote: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
So either you didn't know what the measures were, or you did know what they were and remain all over the place.
No they aren't. It's very clear you haven't read the existing guidelines nor the proposed changes to them.
You were reduced to trying to misrepresent my position and dogwhistle that I was a homophobe earlier. I know that's a victory because that's going aggressive and personal is what you always do when you sense you are losing the argument.
I won't be debating this subject with you any further.
Attending Pride is not necessarily going on a March. Most of the 70 000 at Newcastle are listening to bands, comedians, browsing stalls and going on a fun fair whilst drinking heavily. It's more like a festival than a political event.
Quite so. Brighton Pride, which is huge, has many more straight attendees than gay attendees these days.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit is well and truly over by 2024, so no soft - Brexit from Starmer, or if Len has is way RLB/ Pidcock.
You are assuming we dont get an EU extension to just post election 2024 as our Brexit trade deal. I think this is the logical political outcome, just not sure how they intend to sell it, obviously they cant call it an extension, but I think there will be a further negotiation scheduled for 2024/5 within whatever deal is agreed.
Plus, after the no-deal/skeleton-deal has been seen to hit the economy hard, Labour campaigning for EEA would most likely win.
The contrast in intellectual honesty between Arie Kapteyn and Robert Cahaly is striking.
Some rich irony from Cahaly: "...We live in a country where people will lie to their accountant, they’ll lie to their doctor, they’ll lie to their priest. And we’re supposed to believe they shed all of that when they get on the telephone with a stranger and become Honest Abe? I cannot accept that..."
How about pollsters lying... could that ever happen ?
He's making his polls up. The crosstabs are ludicrous
So he accounts for this "lying" by adding +6 to Trump?
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
There is a disappointingly substantial subsection of people, including it seems our very own @Casino_Royale, who believe that being gay is controversial.
Lol. Thank you. I always know I've won the argument when my opponent is reduced to trying to strawman me as a bigot because they're embarrassed they were shown to be wrong and have nowhere else to go.
Happy Friday @TOPPING - try not to give yourself a coronary. It's the weekend.
You said:
a) they should not take part in controversial events; and b) they should not take part in Pride.
Ergo, sunshine, you think taking part in Pride is controversial.
You do know what Pride is, don't you?
No, I didn't. I expressly said in my first post: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
That says a lot about you - not me.
You said that but that's not what Tim Davie said. And we are discussing the new guidelines being brought in by Tim Davie for the BBC which you say are long overdue/a good idea.
You're all over the place, pal.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
Dear god.
You said the measures were sensible. The measures are to disallow BBC employees in a private capacity from attending Pride.
But then as you note you also wrote: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
So either you didn't know what the measures were, or you did know what they were and remain all over the place.
Also, what about a straight person who wants to attend Pride? Does it become a political statement then?
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
EC makes it Con +3 only for the boundary changes. They've gained a lot of seats in areas of falling populations. (e.g.,Cumbria, Durham Potteries, Black Country). And cities are (were?) growing in population ( eg, London +3, which will be all Inner) Which are both the reverse of the usual.
Shooting their own fox then.
Well they are not allowed to hunt it on horseback anymore.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Labour on 42% without a presence in Scotland is almost at the top of their range. We need a resurgence in the LDs fortunes.to get rid of the Tories and that doesn't look like it is coming anytime soon.
A good showing in the locals next year would help. Being 4th in Parliament is 'very unhelpful'!
That would be a start to sweeping up the South coast and South West England. Of course the resurgent LDs could always go into coalition with the Conservatives again.
There is no way that the Lib Dems would support a Brexiteer government.
On the two UK polls today - for me the Tory drop into the 30s is more significant than the Labour leads (nice to see as they are). It's happening more frequently now.
“The chancellor has a net rating of +30 with Scottish swing voters, higher than Keir Starmer, Gordon Brown, Alex Ferguson, and even the Queen.
“Ruth has lost some of her popularity since she stepped down, but still gets a positive judgement from voters. No. 10 should lock away Boris, and put up Rishi and Ruth.
“In focus groups [Boris Johnson] is not just criticised in the way David Cameron and Theresa May were but loathed.”
Yup. Scots don't hate English people, but they do tend to have a low opinion of over-privileged, lightweight and condescending English public schoolboys like Mr Johnson. There wasn't much love for Mr Cameron either, but at least you could see that he was a serious and intelligent man with some conception of the national interest. I think for most Scots it is just an utter mystery as to how Johnson is PM, and has solidified the sense that the English can't be trusted to make wise political choices.
I am not Scottish but that resonates with my view too.
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
There is a disappointingly substantial subsection of people, including it seems our very own @Casino_Royale, who believe that being gay is controversial.
Lol. Thank you. I always know I've won the argument when my opponent is reduced to trying to strawman me as a bigot because they're embarrassed they were shown to be wrong and have nowhere else to go.
Happy Friday @TOPPING - try not to give yourself a coronary. It's the weekend.
You said:
a) they should not take part in controversial events; and b) they should not take part in Pride.
Ergo, sunshine, you think taking part in Pride is controversial.
You do know what Pride is, don't you?
No, I didn't. I expressly said in my first post: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
That says a lot about you - not me.
You said that but that's not what Tim Davie said. And we are discussing the new guidelines being brought in by Tim Davie for the BBC which you say are long overdue/a good idea.
You're all over the place, pal.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
Dear god.
You said the measures were sensible. The measures are to disallow BBC employees in a private capacity from attending Pride.
But then as you note you also wrote: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
So either you didn't know what the measures were, or you did know what they were and remain all over the place.
But you're the one claiming the measures would mean someone couldn't attend Pride in a personal capacity without any evidence for that. The measures don't to my knowledge do that.
As i previously said I think the new BBC rules are stupid and miss the real issues facing the BBC and ultimately they will back down...but the reaction on their curbs use of twitter is rather revealing, screaming something something its to do with the the Daily Mail, virtue signalling is alt-right smear, I will call out all these things I see as wrong...it sort of shows why the management want to try and have them be more careful about what they put on twitter.
The one bit that is right in the guidelines is reminder that twitter isn't what Britain thinks, but journalists across the spectrum continually forget this.
The contrast in intellectual honesty between Arie Kapteyn and Robert Cahaly is striking.
Some rich irony from Cahaly: "...We live in a country where people will lie to their accountant, they’ll lie to their doctor, they’ll lie to their priest. And we’re supposed to believe they shed all of that when they get on the telephone with a stranger and become Honest Abe? I cannot accept that..."
How about pollsters lying... could that ever happen ?
He's making his polls up. The crosstabs are ludicrous
You've got to give him his due though. Cahaly has clearly dismisses Day-Of-Week effects. He blasts out a 1000+ respondent poll over a mere 2 days. Those other pollsters.. you know 538 A rated wankers, might need 5 days to get a thousand respondents but not Trafalgar. Their Nevada poll needed over 74,000 contact attempts to get its 1024 respondents but BAM he got them in just 2 days.
It is a tremendous operation he has got going there.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Labour on 42% without a presence in Scotland is almost at the top of their range. We need a resurgence in the LDs fortunes.to get rid of the Tories and that doesn't look like it is coming anytime soon.
A good showing in the locals next year would help. Being 4th in Parliament is 'very unhelpful'!
That would be a start to sweeping up the South coast and South West England. Of course the resurgent LDs could always go into coalition with the Conservatives again.
LOL. Hardly likely to go into any sort of arrangement with the current Bonkers Blues! And I think the LD's are likely to be VERY wary of coalitions for while. Confidence and Supply is the best they're likely to offer, I think.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit will have already happened and the SNP will make an indyref a precondition on Starmer getting into Downing Street if they hold the balance of power.
The SNP are hardly going to put the Tories in are they, if they did that would guarantee their support nosediving in Scotland and SLab recovering quicker than Lazarus, so Starmer has that card to play too and a Starmer premiership means Scots know we are moving into a more closely aligned FTA or even back into the EEA.
Lean Tossup has no record as far as I can see in a US presidential election, Trafalgar were the only pollster to correctly forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 so I suggest a bit less hubris from leantossup until the results are in
The SNP don't need to vote to put the Tories in - they can just vote down any Queen's Speech or Budget without a Referendum. If the SNP hold the balance of power they will need to be bought off - no ifs or buts.
Fine, so the SNP vote down a Labour goverment and there is a general election, Labour picks up some seats from the SNP and Starmer gets his majority or just keeps having elections until he does, the SNP can never put the Tories in as they then commit suicide and hand the next election to SLab so he just has to bide his time
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit is well and truly over by 2024, so no soft - Brexit from Starmer, or if Len has is way RLB/ Pidcock.
You are assuming we dont get an EU extension to just post election 2024 as our Brexit trade deal. I think this is the logical political outcome, just not sure how they intend to sell it, obviously they cant call it an extension, but I think there will be a further negotiation scheduled for 2024/5 within whatever deal is agreed.
A possible scenario for traditional centrists of many sorts: Brexit happens on 1st Jan 2021 but it's not great, Boris continues to say No to Indyref2, SKS purges the Marxist left, SKS is nice to SNP but remains a unionist, Lab/SNP is elected at the next election on platform of applying to join EFTA and Indyref2, we succeed in joining EFTA and SKS manages to defeat Indyref2. Sunlit uplands all round. Sanity returns. USA elects someone sensible and 40 something in 2024.
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
There is a disappointingly substantial subsection of people, including it seems our very own @Casino_Royale, who believe that being gay is controversial.
Lol. Thank you. I always know I've won the argument when my opponent is reduced to trying to strawman me as a bigot because they're embarrassed they were shown to be wrong and have nowhere else to go.
Happy Friday @TOPPING - try not to give yourself a coronary. It's the weekend.
You said:
a) they should not take part in controversial events; and b) they should not take part in Pride.
Ergo, sunshine, you think taking part in Pride is controversial.
You do know what Pride is, don't you?
No, I didn't. I expressly said in my first post: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
That says a lot about you - not me.
You said that but that's not what Tim Davie said. And we are discussing the new guidelines being brought in by Tim Davie for the BBC which you say are long overdue/a good idea.
You're all over the place, pal.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
Dear god.
You said the measures were sensible. The measures are to disallow BBC employees in a private capacity from attending Pride.
But then as you note you also wrote: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
So either you didn't know what the measures were, or you did know what they were and remain all over the place.
Also, what about a straight person who wants to attend Pride? Does it become a political statement then?
Not wearing a poppy is seen as a political statement.
Only some virtues are acceptable to signal, it seems.
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Labour on 42% without a presence in Scotland is almost at the top of their range. We need a resurgence in the LDs fortunes.to get rid of the Tories and that doesn't look like it is coming anytime soon.
A good showing in the locals next year would help. Being 4th in Parliament is 'very unhelpful'!
That would be a start to sweeping up the South coast and South West England. Of course the resurgent LDs could always go into coalition with the Conservatives again.
Attending Pride is not necessarily going on a March. Most of the 70 000 at Newcastle are listening to bands, comedians, browsing stalls and going on a fun fair whilst drinking heavily. It's more like a festival than a political event.
Quite so. Brighton Pride, which is huge, has many more straight attendees than gay attendees these days.
Ditto Guernsey - many families with young kids simply enjoying a party.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
What's something that would be controversial? Countryside Alliance?
I answered this at the start of the thread. Controversial means that it rises or likely to give rise to controversy to significant public disagreement. That means a march or demonstration on a live political issue, so - in my view - it would cover lockdown sceptics, BLM protests, pro/anti Brexit marches (although the BBC have been good on that one) or marching against the Government consultation on gender recognition, but would not cover the Notting Hill Carnival, Remembrance Day or Pride.
There is nothing contentious or unusual in this. There is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum at present in an attempt to get these revised guidelines withdrawn.
Personally, I am quite happy for the BBC to be made into the propaganda lackeys of the Tory government. It makes it more likely that the BBC survives substantially intact until the government changes.
If you'd read the news coverage properly you'll know that the criticism (which led to these revised guidelines) included corporate moonlighting and improper factchecking of stories, including Laura Kuenssberg not fact checking the "Labour activist punches Tory" story before tweeting it out.
They are simply being updated for the digital age so the BBC retains the confidence of its audience, who are compelled to pay for it.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit will have already happened and the SNP will make an indyref a precondition on Starmer getting into Downing Street if they hold the balance of power.
The SNP are hardly going to put the Tories in are they, if they did that would guarantee their support nosediving in Scotland and SLab recovering quicker than Lazarus, so Starmer has that card to play too and a Starmer premiership means Scots know we are moving into a more closely aligned FTA or even back into the EEA.
Lean Tossup has no record as far as I can see in a US presidential election, Trafalgar were the only pollster to correctly forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 so I suggest a bit less hubris from leantossup until the results are in
The SNP don't need to vote to put the Tories in - they can just vote down any Queen's Speech or Budget without a Referendum. If the SNP hold the balance of power they will need to be bought off - no ifs or buts.
Fine, so the SNP vote down a Labour goverment and there is a general election, Labour picks up some seats from the SNP and Starmer gets his majority or just keeps having elections until he does, the SNP can never put the Tories in as they then commit suicide and hand the next election to SLab so he just has to bide his time
You're absolutely delusional if you think that if the Scots vote for the SNP the Labour Party will say "we don't care what you Scots think, we want another election instead of you having a referendum".
Especially considering Starmer has said he would respect the Scots votes. 🙄
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
And?
Are you capable of putting together a coherent sentence other than just 'And' like a toddler?
The point is virtually all the pollsters and even the Trump campaign thought Hillary had won in 2016 until the returns from the rustbelt came in
FUMING fans have slammed Sports Personality of the Year for snubbing Jermain Defoe despite his overwhelming support for Bradley Lowery.
The Bournemouth striker struck up a heartwarming friendship with Bradley and was left devastated by the six-year-old's death in July.
Like I said yesterday, don't count on Rashford making the it to the starting line.
On the debate we had a few days back about women being represented on the shortlist, this article makes a case for the greatest cricketer of all time actually being a woman:
A decent trick question a seasoned cricket fan can ask a more casual fan is to name the greatest cricketer of all time. Most such casual fans will unhesitatingly blurt out "Bradman" as the answer.
For me it's Shane Warne, as irritating as he was/is.
A while back one of the guys behind CricViz said if there was a bowling equivalent of Bradman then they needed to take 150 plus test wickets at an average of under 8.
The nearest is S.F. Barnes with 189 test wickets at 16.43.
That's how good Bradman is.
How do you even begin to quantify the comparison between bowling and batting? Bradman's figures are remarkable, but it's almost impossible to work out what the bowling equivalent would be.
Whilst Warne's batting figures aren't great, he was decent and his slip fielding was excellent. I think he'd have made a very good captain too had it come his way.
You can quantify it by comparing to their peers. What are the 10th, 100th, median best batting/bowling average and how does the very best compare.
The one difference is that a batter is rarely denied the opportunity to score more runs by another batter doing well, but every time McGrath took wickets they were wickets Warne couldn't then take.
The bowling gets complicated when you consider the difficulty of the wickets varies from 1 to 11.
I'll be honest, I am sceptical about just how useful Bradman's batting average is in assessing greatness. He played 37 of his 52 test matches against England (although it's worth noting that his first class average was still 95).
Similarly, I don't think Ronaldo and Messi are that much better than the footballers who have gone before them just because of their phenomenal goal scoring records. They played the game at a time when their teams were head and shoulders above the opposition. In Ronaldo's case that was due to Real's purchasing power, in Messi's case it was Pep and the generation of players produced by the Barca academy. Meanwhile the rest of La Liga has lost players to both of those clubs and other leagues (e.g. Valencia losing Silva and Mata to Man City and Chelsea).
Attending Pride is not necessarily going on a March. Most of the 70 000 at Newcastle are listening to bands, comedians, browsing stalls and going on a fun fair whilst drinking heavily. It's more like a festival than a political event.
Quite so. Brighton Pride, which is huge, has many more straight attendees than gay attendees these days.
Ditto Guernsey - many families with young kids simply enjoying a party.
Pride is no more a controversial political march than Mardi Gras is.
The contrast in intellectual honesty between Arie Kapteyn and Robert Cahaly is striking.
Some rich irony from Cahaly: "...We live in a country where people will lie to their accountant, they’ll lie to their doctor, they’ll lie to their priest. And we’re supposed to believe they shed all of that when they get on the telephone with a stranger and become Honest Abe? I cannot accept that..."
How about pollsters lying... could that ever happen ?
He's making his polls up. The crosstabs are ludicrous
So he accounts for this "lying" by adding +6 to Trump?
Nah something like Susquehanna "adds 6" by oversampling the GOP. Quinnipiac probably does the same for the Dems. He's not doing that. He's not phoning anyone, he's just plain making them up.
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
There is a disappointingly substantial subsection of people, including it seems our very own @Casino_Royale, who believe that being gay is controversial.
Lol. Thank you. I always know I've won the argument when my opponent is reduced to trying to strawman me as a bigot because they're embarrassed they were shown to be wrong and have nowhere else to go.
Happy Friday @TOPPING - try not to give yourself a coronary. It's the weekend.
You said:
a) they should not take part in controversial events; and b) they should not take part in Pride.
Ergo, sunshine, you think taking part in Pride is controversial.
You do know what Pride is, don't you?
No, I didn't. I expressly said in my first post: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
That says a lot about you - not me.
You said that but that's not what Tim Davie said. And we are discussing the new guidelines being brought in by Tim Davie for the BBC which you say are long overdue/a good idea.
You're all over the place, pal.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
Dear god.
You said the measures were sensible. The measures are to disallow BBC employees in a private capacity from attending Pride.
But then as you note you also wrote: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
So either you didn't know what the measures were, or you did know what they were and remain all over the place.
No they aren't. It's very clear you haven't read the existing guidelines nor the proposed changes to them.
You were reduced to trying to misrepresent my position and dogwhistle that I was a homophobe earlier. I know that's a victory because that's going aggressive and personal is what you always do when you sense you are losing the argument.
I won't be debating this subject with you any further.
Please don't run away. I will be as gentle as I can.
I read the article you linked to. On the BBC website. It says the following: "The BBC said it had considered impartiality in the context of public expressions of opinion, taking part in campaigns and participating in marches or protests."
According to other news reports, none of them it seems definitive, this "participating in marches" includes LGBT ie Pride marches.
So god knows where you are getting your information from I would be very grateful if you could show me where as you say you are happy with, BBC employees attending Pride marches in a personal capacity would be ok.
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit will have already happened and the SNP will make an indyref a precondition on Starmer getting into Downing Street if they hold the balance of power.
The SNP are hardly going to put the Tories in are they, if they did that would guarantee their support nosediving in Scotland and SLab recovering quicker than Lazarus, so Starmer has that card to play too and a Starmer premiership means Scots know we are moving into a more closely aligned FTA or even back into the EEA.
Lean Tossup has no record as far as I can see in a US presidential election, Trafalgar were the only pollster to correctly forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 so I suggest a bit less hubris from leantossup until the results are in
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit is well and truly over by 2024, so no soft - Brexit from Starmer, or if Len has is way RLB/ Pidcock.
You are assuming we dont get an EU extension to just post election 2024 as our Brexit trade deal. I think this is the logical political outcome, just not sure how they intend to sell it, obviously they cant call it an extension, but I think there will be a further negotiation scheduled for 2024/5 within whatever deal is agreed.
Plus, after the no-deal/skeleton-deal has been seen to hit the economy hard, Labour campaigning for EEA would most likely win.
I think all parties would be wise to leave well alone for a couple of cycles - the public are sick to the back teeth of the topic - and who knows where we'll all end up post-COVID 9let alone when)
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
There is a disappointingly substantial subsection of people, including it seems our very own @Casino_Royale, who believe that being gay is controversial.
Lol. Thank you. I always know I've won the argument when my opponent is reduced to trying to strawman me as a bigot because they're embarrassed they were shown to be wrong and have nowhere else to go.
Happy Friday @TOPPING - try not to give yourself a coronary. It's the weekend.
You said:
a) they should not take part in controversial events; and b) they should not take part in Pride.
Ergo, sunshine, you think taking part in Pride is controversial.
You do know what Pride is, don't you?
No, I didn't. I expressly said in my first post: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
That says a lot about you - not me.
You said that but that's not what Tim Davie said. And we are discussing the new guidelines being brought in by Tim Davie for the BBC which you say are long overdue/a good idea.
You're all over the place, pal.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
Dear god.
You said the measures were sensible. The measures are to disallow BBC employees in a private capacity from attending Pride.
But then as you note you also wrote: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
So either you didn't know what the measures were, or you did know what they were and remain all over the place.
But you're the one claiming the measures would mean someone couldn't attend Pride in a personal capacity without any evidence for that. The measures don't to my knowledge do that.
Yeah I've no idea, as I said at the outset. I'm just going from the many news reports of it and also, from the, erm, BBC website, which says as I just quoted to Cassie:
"The BBC said it had considered impartiality in the context of public expressions of opinion, taking part in campaigns and participating in marches or protests."
Tories should be back ahead in seats on those numbers when the Electoral Commission changes kick in.
No I think Labour would have a slim lead - plus Scotland of course means Labour government with an independence referendum as a pre-condition to it.
Though a Starmer premiership would lead to a softer Brexit and would make a Yes vote far less likely anyway, today's polling has both Starmer and Sunak far more popular in Scotland than Boris, the SNP need a Boris premiership and ideally a No Deal Brexit to win but Boris will not grant indyref2 while he is PM (plus of course the hard border argument may still be enough to see Scots vote No even then)
Brexit will have already happened and the SNP will make an indyref a precondition on Starmer getting into Downing Street if they hold the balance of power.
The SNP are hardly going to put the Tories in are they, if they did that would guarantee their support nosediving in Scotland and SLab recovering quicker than Lazarus, so Starmer has that card to play too and a Starmer premiership means Scots know we are moving into a more closely aligned FTA or even back into the EEA.
Lean Tossup has no record as far as I can see in a US presidential election, Trafalgar were the only pollster to correctly forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 so I suggest a bit less hubris from leantossup until the results are in
The SNP don't need to vote to put the Tories in - they can just vote down any Queen's Speech or Budget without a Referendum. If the SNP hold the balance of power they will need to be bought off - no ifs or buts.
Fine, so the SNP vote down a Labour goverment and there is a general election, Labour picks up some seats from the SNP and Starmer gets his majority or just keeps having elections until he does, the SNP can never put the Tories in as they then commit suicide and hand the next election to SLab so he just has to bide his time
You're absolutely delusional if you think that if the Scots vote for the SNP the Labour Party will say "we don't care what you Scots think, we want another election instead of you having a referendum".
Especially considering Starmer has said he would respect the Scots votes. 🙄
If Labour is largest party at Westminster Starmer does not need the SNP really, he will be PM with LD support and can ignore the SNP as they will either vote to put the Tories in and commit suicide or force an early election in which case if he picks up enough SNP seats he will get a majority anyway.
Starmer only needs the SNP to become PM if it is a hung parliament and the Tories are largest party but Labour and the SNP combined more than the Tories and DUP
Does that still give Conservatives largest party in the extrapolation you use?
That looks significant to me.
We're over three and a half years away from an election, ffs!
This is very true, and I could see all sorts of reasons why the Tories could win again in GE2024. The electorate might breathe a sigh of relief at the final Brexit settlement, and quickly get used to it next year, and a vaccine could come along - effectively ending both that and the coronavirus situation in 2021. The economic recovery will be unpleasant but it may be the UK is much better off in 2024 than 2021. The electorate are fickle these days, and can swing all over the shop, and Boris could be replaced.
But, if an election were held this December (as opposed to last) like in New Zealand and the USA this year I'd expect Starmer to win and form a minority administration.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
What's something that would be controversial? Countryside Alliance?
I answered this at the start of the thread. Controversial means that it rises or likely to give rise to controversy to significant public disagreement. That means a march or demonstration on a live political issue, so - in my view - it would cover lockdown sceptics, BLM protests, pro/anti Brexit marches (although the BBC have been good on that one) or marching against the Government consultation on gender recognition, but would not cover the Notting Hill Carnival, Remembrance Day or Pride.
There is nothing contentious or unusual in this. There is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum at present in an attempt to get these revised guidelines withdrawn.
Personally, I am quite happy for the BBC to be made into the propaganda lackeys of the Tory government. It makes it more likely that the BBC survives substantially intact until the government changes.
If you'd read the news coverage properly you'll know that the criticism (which led to these revised guidelines) included corporate moonlighting and improper factchecking of stories, including Laura Kuenssberg not fact checking the "Labour activist punches Tory" story before tweeting it out.
They are simply being updated for the digital age so the BBC retains the confidence of its audience, who are compelled to pay for it.
Absolutely, which is why I said I was in favour of the Government taking party control of the BBC.
Just remember your justifications when the party in control changes.
FPT - Tim Davie is quite right to introduce those new BBC guidelines - they are long overdue.
The question is whether management have the appetite to ensure they are enforced.
That's bollocks (if what I read is correct - big if).
BBC employees not allowed to go on Pride marches? Why the fuck not?
That's a straw man. The guidelines say that news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues. That wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity. That would cover a BBC employee attending a political march for gender self-identification for trans rights and then publicly tweeting or being interviewed about it. Common sense.
Most employers have clauses about bringing their employer into disrepute. The BBC lives or dies on its impartiality rules and the loose social media and offline activities of a small number of BBC employees have tainted the corporation's reputation.
This is some just the faux outrage of some existing BBC employees who want to discredit the guidelines before they come in so they can continue to have their cake and eat it.
I was reading your description to see the "oh yes that makes sense" bit. But there was none.
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
WTF is a controversial issue? And it says (you write): "attend" not "liveblog on behalf of the rebel alliance".
Get a grip man what possible problem would you have with Evan Davis "attending" a gay pride march?
You obviously didn't read my post very well, as I addressed your Evan Davis point in my third sentence. I also gave an example of a demonstration on a controversial issue which would be directly against existing government policy.
This looks to me like issue where you've already made your mind up, and aren't going to change it regardless of the arguments that are put to you.
But your interpretation is just that. Your interpretation. To make you feel better, presumably, otherwise even you would realise how absurd it is.
The sentence you started off with was as follows:
"news employees should not attend any marches or demonstrations on controversial issues".
And here's how it is being reported:
"In addition to strict new social media guidelines, Davie introduced a ban on the broadcaster’s news reporters taking part in “public demonstrations or gatherings about controversial issues” even when not marching under an identifiable BBC banner."
It would probably be less controversial if it exempted LGBT stuff. Politics and religion are choices people make, their sexuality and gender identity are inherent - they have no choice.
There is a disappointingly substantial subsection of people, including it seems our very own @Casino_Royale, who believe that being gay is controversial.
Lol. Thank you. I always know I've won the argument when my opponent is reduced to trying to strawman me as a bigot because they're embarrassed they were shown to be wrong and have nowhere else to go.
Happy Friday @TOPPING - try not to give yourself a coronary. It's the weekend.
You said:
a) they should not take part in controversial events; and b) they should not take part in Pride.
Ergo, sunshine, you think taking part in Pride is controversial.
You do know what Pride is, don't you?
No, I didn't. I expressly said in my first post: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
You have been wilfully misrepresenting my position this morning as you didn't do the research into the story first before reaching a conclusion on it, and are too embarrassed to row back.
That says a lot about you - not me.
You said that but that's not what Tim Davie said. And we are discussing the new guidelines being brought in by Tim Davie for the BBC which you say are long overdue/a good idea.
You're all over the place, pal.
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
Dear god.
You said the measures were sensible. The measures are to disallow BBC employees in a private capacity from attending Pride.
But then as you note you also wrote: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
So either you didn't know what the measures were, or you did know what they were and remain all over the place.
No they aren't. It's very clear you haven't read the existing guidelines nor the proposed changes to them.
You were reduced to trying to misrepresent my position and dogwhistle that I was a homophobe earlier. I know that's a victory because that's going aggressive and personal is what you always do when you sense you are losing the argument.
I won't be debating this subject with you any further.
Please don't run away. I will be as gentle as I can.
I read the article you linked to. On the BBC website. It says the following: "The BBC said it had considered impartiality in the context of public expressions of opinion, taking part in campaigns and participating in marches or protests."
According to other news reports, none of them it seems definitive, this "participating in marches" includes LGBT ie Pride marches.
So god knows where you are getting your information from I would be very grateful if you could show me where as you say you are happy with, BBC employees attending Pride marches in a personal capacity would be ok.
So you have no evidence that they're including pride as a march or protest then?
Do you think that post-COVID if Liverpool organise a victory parade for last season's Premiership that would be a verboten march under these rules?
Thank you - so you admit you were wrong when you said I said they should not take part in Pride, and that taking Pride is controversial. You admit that I never said any such thing. Now, you're saying that's what I said but not what Tim Davie said.
So I've been clear and consistent. You're the one that's all over the place, pal.
What's something that would be controversial? Countryside Alliance?
I answered this at the start of the thread. Controversial means that it rises or likely to give rise to controversy to significant public disagreement. That means a march or demonstration on a live political issue, so - in my view - it would cover lockdown sceptics, BLM protests, pro/anti Brexit marches (although the BBC have been good on that one) or marching against the Government consultation on gender recognition, but would not cover the Notting Hill Carnival, Remembrance Day or Pride.
There is nothing contentious or unusual in this. There is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum at present in an attempt to get these revised guidelines withdrawn.
Personally, I am quite happy for the BBC to be made into the propaganda lackeys of the Tory government. It makes it more likely that the BBC survives substantially intact until the government changes.
If you'd read the news coverage properly you'll know that the criticism (which led to these revised guidelines) included corporate moonlighting and improper factchecking of stories, including Laura Kuenssberg not fact checking the "Labour activist punches Tory" story before tweeting it out.
They are simply being updated for the digital age so the BBC retains the confidence of its audience, who are compelled to pay for it.
Absolutely, which is why I said I was in favour of the Government taking party control of the BBC.
Just remember your justifications when the party in control changes.
The Government haven't taken party control of the BBC.
Noteworthy - After some confusion Trump campaign confirm Georgia campaign swing on Sunday - ABC
Sensible, he has already been to New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Arizona, Florida and North Carolina this week so sensible to shore up Georgia as well, this week Biden has only been to Georgia and Florida with Biden going to Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota today and Trump to Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota
The thing is, many pollsters are acting for organisations for whom Trump voters are nothing more than ignorant redneck scum. Barely human. The mianstream media don;t make any secret of that fact.
Now, if you are a democrat leaning pollster, how on earth could you expect any Trump supporter to give you the time of day, let alone trust you with a political opinion that could get them ostracised or fired?
The democrat/media attitude to red America has made that enormous segment of the nation a completely closed book to them. They don;t know how many there are, they don;t know how they are feeling and they don;t know if they are going to vote and in what numbers.
Its a sum total of no f8cking clue.
How could it be otherwise when you have for the last four years completely dismissed and delegitimised the opinions of people you are now asking to contribute to your poll?
This continues the theme that is there for the reading. They know he has lost.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Trump thought he had lost on election day 2016, he won
In the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Biden wins will you feel embarrassed?
Comments
In more ways than one.
Edit: there probably has been a big exodus though.
OK then.
KABOOM!
And by the way, those (like HYUFD) re-tweeting Chris Williamson should be aware that he is not a member of the Labour Party and is hence an irrelevance. He has negligible support within the party (unlike Corbyn).
They've gained a lot of seats in areas of falling populations. (e.g.,Cumbria, Durham Potteries, Black Country). And cities are (were?) growing in population ( eg, London +3, which will be all Inner) Which are both the reverse of the usual.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1322134657324978176
“The chancellor has a net rating of +30 with Scottish swing voters, higher than Keir Starmer, Gordon Brown, Alex Ferguson, and even the Queen.
“Ruth has lost some of her popularity since she stepped down, but still gets a positive judgement from voters. No. 10 should lock away Boris, and put up Rishi and Ruth.
“In focus groups [Boris Johnson] is not just criticised in the way David Cameron and Theresa May were but loathed.”
PS if you need any more evidence as to why Trafalgar are nonsense this is another brilliant takedown of them: https://leantossup.ca/trafalgar-rebellion-lies/
In fact, you can see it from the link you sent. I re-posted it but with the show all polling data tab unclicked. Scroll down the polls by date and you can see Leave generally in the lead up to Jo Cox's death and then it's leads reversed thereafter:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36271589
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1321928331835723776?s=20
https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1321931036431912973?s=20
Lean Tossup has no record as far as I can see in a US presidential election, Trafalgar were the only pollster to correctly forecast Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016 so I suggest a bit less hubris from leantossup until the results are in
Personally, I think what the polling companies will miss is a further advance from 2016 in the cohort. You can triangulate this from what we are seeing on the ground at the moment. Record turnout numbers yet the data where it exists doesn't suggests we are seeing a surge of Black voters nor Hispanic outside of Florida, which has its peculiarities, and white college educated turnout was already high. Nor, from where the data is granular, are we seeing an upsurge of young voters. By a process of elimination, there is a good chance it is white voters from the cohort.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/10/29/2020-polls-trump-biden-prediction-accurate-2016-433619
The contrast in intellectual honesty between Arie Kapteyn and Robert Cahaly is striking.
Some rich irony from Cahaly:
"...We live in a country where people will lie to their accountant, they’ll lie to their doctor, they’ll lie to their priest. And we’re supposed to believe they shed all of that when they get on the telephone with a stranger and become Honest Abe? I cannot accept that..."
How about pollsters lying... could that ever happen ?
You said the measures were sensible. The measures are to disallow BBC employees in a private capacity from attending Pride.
But then as you note you also wrote: "that wouldn't include a LGBT BBC employee attending a pride march in a private capacity."
So either you didn't know what the measures were, or you did know what they were and remain all over the place.
There is nothing contentious or unusual in this. There is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum at present in an attempt to get these revised guidelines withdrawn.
1. The casting and the posting
2. Whether they are accepted or not
It is 2 where Trump's control of the courts will pay huge dividends. For me, a 34% chance that he will win feels about right.
The one difference is that a batter is rarely denied the opportunity to score more runs by another batter doing well, but every time McGrath took wickets they were wickets Warne couldn't then take.
Traffic around Paris hit record levels just hours before a new national lockdown came into force across France.
Jams stretched to a cumulative 430 miles (700 km) in the Ile-de-France region early on Thursday evening, local media reported.
Lockdown measures came into force at midnight on Friday (23:00 GMT) to tackle spiralling Covid infections.
I'm going to have to give myself a good slapping if the conversation with Cassie continues along those lines.
For the record, I think Labour are now creeping ahead.
https://twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1322136294793904130?s=20
You were reduced to trying to misrepresent my position and dogwhistle that I was a homophobe earlier. I know that's a victory because that's going aggressive and personal is what you always do when you sense you are losing the argument.
I won't be debating this subject with you any further.
Well they are not allowed to hunt it on horseback anymore.
The one bit that is right in the guidelines is reminder that twitter isn't what Britain thinks, but journalists across the spectrum continually forget this.
It is a tremendous operation he has got going there.
And I think the LD's are likely to be VERY wary of coalitions for while. Confidence and Supply is the best they're likely to offer, I think.
The most you could take from this as a Trump supporter would be that he is hoping to fight contended results. But it's a far cry from a victory party setup, that's the point.
Fucking
Christ
Only some virtues are acceptable to signal, it seems.
They are simply being updated for the digital age so the BBC retains the confidence of its audience, who are compelled to pay for it.
Especially considering Starmer has said he would respect the Scots votes. 🙄
The point is virtually all the pollsters and even the Trump campaign thought Hillary had won in 2016 until the returns from the rustbelt came in
I'll be honest, I am sceptical about just how useful Bradman's batting average is in assessing greatness. He played 37 of his 52 test matches against England (although it's worth noting that his first class average was still 95).
Similarly, I don't think Ronaldo and Messi are that much better than the footballers who have gone before them just because of their phenomenal goal scoring records. They played the game at a time when their teams were head and shoulders above the opposition. In Ronaldo's case that was due to Real's purchasing power, in Messi's case it was Pep and the generation of players produced by the Barca academy. Meanwhile the rest of La Liga has lost players to both of those clubs and other leagues (e.g. Valencia losing Silva and Mata to Man City and Chelsea).
I read the article you linked to. On the BBC website. It says the following: "The BBC said it had considered impartiality in the context of public expressions of opinion, taking part in campaigns and participating in marches or protests."
According to other news reports, none of them it seems definitive, this "participating in marches" includes LGBT ie Pride marches.
So god knows where you are getting your information from I would be very grateful if you could show me where as you say you are happy with, BBC employees attending Pride marches in a personal capacity would be ok.
Report from Belgium:
https://twitter.com/JamesAALongman/status/1322132883264413701?s=20
"The BBC said it had considered impartiality in the context of public expressions of opinion, taking part in campaigns and participating in marches or protests."
Starmer only needs the SNP to become PM if it is a hung parliament and the Tories are largest party but Labour and the SNP combined more than the Tories and DUP
But, if an election were held this December (as opposed to last) like in New Zealand and the USA this year I'd expect Starmer to win and form a minority administration.
Just remember your justifications when the party in control changes.
Do you think that post-COVID if Liverpool organise a victory parade for last season's Premiership that would be a verboten march under these rules?
Now, if you are a democrat leaning pollster, how on earth could you expect any Trump supporter to give you the time of day, let alone trust you with a political opinion that could get them ostracised or fired?
The democrat/media attitude to red America has made that enormous segment of the nation a completely closed book to them. They don;t know how many there are, they don;t know how they are feeling and they don;t know if they are going to vote and in what numbers.
Its a sum total of no f8cking clue.
How could it be otherwise when you have for the last four years completely dismissed and delegitimised the opinions of people you are now asking to contribute to your poll?