Isn't giving an electoral speech from the White House illegal?
President Bartlett always made a point not to make even fundraising phone calls from the White House. Though unsurprising that Trump doesn't care about such trivialities like that.
Isn't giving an electoral speech from the White House illegal?
President Bartlett always made a point not to make even fundraising phone calls from the White House. Though unsurprising that Trump doesn't care about such trivialities like that.
Isn't giving an electoral speech from the White House illegal?
President Bartlett always made a point not to make even fundraising phone calls from the White House. Though unsurprising that Trump doesn't care about such trivialities like that.
The President is actually exempt from that legislation - but conducting a party political event with numerous people who aren’t President is indeed illegal. The scofflaw in the White House obviously doesn’t give a damn, and the chances of litigating it before the election are nil.
Isn't giving an electoral speech from the White House illegal?
President Bartlett always made a point not to make even fundraising phone calls from the White House. Though unsurprising that Trump doesn't care about such trivialities like that.
Like Trump would care. He thinks rules apply solely to others.
Isn't giving an electoral speech from the White House illegal?
President Bartlett always made a point not to make even fundraising phone calls from the White House. Though unsurprising that Trump doesn't care about such trivialities like that.
The President is actually exempt from that legislation - but conducting a party political event with numerous people who aren’t President is indeed illegal. The scofflaw in the White House obviously doesn’t give a damn, and the chances of litigating it before the election are nil.
As Hornblower said after violating Swedish neutrality to blow up an enemy ship:
‘They can say what they like, but nothing they can say will put Blanchefleur together again.’
One thing that it’s possible polls are not picking up is the shy Trump abandoners. Certainly in the red areas in swing states, those Republicans who have switched are very hesitant to talk about it (& if their neighbours are true believers, who can blame them ?). Do the polls pick them up ?
The undecideds from last time around are also breaking significantly for Biden this time around. Will they turn out ?
As usual, it's easy to fall into the trap of applying the rules of what happened last time or in previous elections to the current contest.
If you have a deeply polarised electorate, the notion of "bounces" from conventions or conferences just doesn't apply. The polls I see suggest the number who are undecided to be very small - the two camps are entrenched and whether you are in one because you like one guy or because you despise the other doesn't much matter. It will take far more than a convention to make you change your mind.
As OGH says, the State numbers will be more revealing - I'd love to see the Trafalgar and Rasmussen crosstabs to see how their sampling differs from other pollsters. Rasmussen's daily Trump approval poll is +4 (51-47) but other pollsters are substantially different. Who are Rasmussen asking and what are they asking to produce such a variation?
Isn't giving an electoral speech from the White House illegal?
President Bartlett always made a point not to make even fundraising phone calls from the White House. Though unsurprising that Trump doesn't care about such trivialities like that.
Like Trump would care. He thinks rules apply solely to others.
And who is President Bartlett?
Really ? Maybe you’re both too young and too old (I got the DVDs for my kids and they loved West Wing).
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
So what, if there is no Tory candidate they can still vote Labour not Tory
Not if Labour are in a pact with the Tories.
Lets say hypothetically this imaginary pact comes about and there's a potential Tory+Lab+LD rainbow coalition majority - are you suggesting Labour would make Ruth Davidson (or whoever) First Minister?
I don't think so. This is prima facie nonsense.
It does not matter, Labour can vote for a Labour FM but that is irrelevant all that matters is Sturgeon loses her majority next year a la May 2017 and there is a Unionist majority even if she stays FM, then cue the SNP civil war as Salmond prepares to seize the crown from a wounded Sturgeon in revenge for her and her allies treatment of him
But how does that deal with the invasion of armies of flying pigs in your scenario?
If you're relying upon desperation to tactical voting then you've already lost the election - as Remainers found out last time. You win by convincing people to vote for you, or not to vote for your opposition, not by clever tricks.
Not at Holyrood.
There if you are Unionists you win by reducing the SNP majority at the constituency level to a low enough level you can get a Unionist majority on the top up list where there will be multiple Unionist parties still standing.
The SNP will be the only Nationalist party at the constituency level, so it needs the Unionist Alliance to beat it
I doubt Labour or the Liberals will agree to any formal alliance with the Conservatives. What makes you think they will?
The Tories will stand down in all constituencies they are not first or second at Holyrood, Labour or the LDs do not need to agree anything
So the "Unionist Alliance" is basically the Tories admitting they are sh*t and giving up and going home?
You'll only be standing in 33% of constituencies. The Scottish and Unionist party indeed.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
So what, if there is no Tory candidate they can still vote Labour not Tory
Not if Labour are in a pact with the Tories.
Lets say hypothetically this imaginary pact comes about and there's a potential Tory+Lab+LD rainbow coalition majority - are you suggesting Labour would make Ruth Davidson (or whoever) First Minister?
I don't think so. This is prima facie nonsense.
It does not matter, Labour can vote for a Labour FM but that is irrelevant all that matters is Sturgeon loses her majority next year a la May 2017 and there is a Unionist majority even if she stays FM, then cue the SNP civil war as Salmond prepares to seize the crown from a wounded Sturgeon in revenge for her and her allies treatment of him
But how does that deal with the invasion of armies of flying pigs in your scenario?
If you're relying upon desperation to tactical voting then you've already lost the election - as Remainers found out last time. You win by convincing people to vote for you, or not to vote for your opposition, not by clever tricks.
Not at Holyrood.
There if you are Unionists you win by reducing the SNP majority at the constituency level to a low enough level you can get a Unionist majority on the top up list where there will be multiple Unionist parties still standing.
The SNP will be the only Nationalist party at the constituency level, so it needs the Unionist Alliance to beat it
I doubt Labour or the Liberals will agree to any formal alliance with the Conservatives. What makes you think they will?
The Tories will stand down in all constituencies they are not first or second at Holyrood, Labour or the LDs do not need to agree anything
So the "Unionist Alliance" is basically the Tories admitting they are sh*t and giving up and going home?
You'll only be standing in 33% of constituencies. The Scottish and Unionist party indeed.
To help save the Union in seats they are not the best chance of beating the SNP and to avoid going full Madrid and Rajoy on Catalonia which they will have to do if the Nationalists get a majority given Boris' commitment to block indyref2 no matter what the cost
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
So what, if there is no Tory candidate they can still vote Labour not Tory
Not if Labour are in a pact with the Tories.
Lets say hypothetically this imaginary pact comes about and there's a potential Tory+Lab+LD rainbow coalition majority - are you suggesting Labour would make Ruth Davidson (or whoever) First Minister?
I don't think so. This is prima facie nonsense.
It does not matter, Labour can vote for a Labour FM but that is irrelevant all that matters is Sturgeon loses her majority next year a la May 2017 and there is a Unionist majority even if she stays FM, then cue the SNP civil war as Salmond prepares to seize the crown from a wounded Sturgeon in revenge for her and her allies treatment of him
But how does that deal with the invasion of armies of flying pigs in your scenario?
If you're relying upon desperation to tactical voting then you've already lost the election - as Remainers found out last time. You win by convincing people to vote for you, or not to vote for your opposition, not by clever tricks.
Not at Holyrood.
There if you are Unionists you win by reducing the SNP majority at the constituency level to a low enough level you can get a Unionist majority on the top up list where there will be multiple Unionist parties still standing.
The SNP will be the only Nationalist party at the constituency level, so it needs the Unionist Alliance to beat it
I doubt Labour or the Liberals will agree to any formal alliance with the Conservatives. What makes you think they will?
The Tories will stand down in all constituencies they are not first or second at Holyrood, Labour or the LDs do not need to agree anything
So the "Unionist Alliance" is basically the Tories admitting they are sh*t and giving up and going home?
You'll only be standing in 33% of constituencies. The Scottish and Unionist party indeed.
To help save the Union in seats they are not the best chance of beating the SNP and to avoid going full Madrid and Rajoy on Catalonia which they will have to do if the Nationalists get a majority given Boris' commitment to block indyref2 no matter what the cost
Electoral tricks won't save the union, just delay the inevitable.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
So what, if there is no Tory candidate they can still vote Labour not Tory
Not if Labour are in a pact with the Tories.
Lets say hypothetically this imaginary pact comes about and there's a potential Tory+Lab+LD rainbow coalition majority - are you suggesting Labour would make Ruth Davidson (or whoever) First Minister?
I don't think so. This is prima facie nonsense.
It does not matter, Labour can vote for a Labour FM but that is irrelevant all that matters is Sturgeon loses her majority next year a la May 2017 and there is a Unionist majority even if she stays FM, then cue the SNP civil war as Salmond prepares to seize the crown from a wounded Sturgeon in revenge for her and her allies treatment of him
But how does that deal with the invasion of armies of flying pigs in your scenario?
If you're relying upon desperation to tactical voting then you've already lost the election - as Remainers found out last time. You win by convincing people to vote for you, or not to vote for your opposition, not by clever tricks.
Not at Holyrood.
There if you are Unionists you win by reducing the SNP majority at the constituency level to a low enough level you can get a Unionist majority on the top up list where there will be multiple Unionist parties still standing.
The SNP will be the only Nationalist party at the constituency level, so it needs the Unionist Alliance to beat it
I doubt Labour or the Liberals will agree to any formal alliance with the Conservatives. What makes you think they will?
The Tories will stand down in all constituencies they are not first or second at Holyrood, Labour or the LDs do not need to agree anything
So the "Unionist Alliance" is basically the Tories admitting they are sh*t and giving up and going home?
You'll only be standing in 33% of constituencies. The Scottish and Unionist party indeed.
To help save the Union in seats they are not the best chance of beating the SNP and to avoid going full Madrid and Rajoy on Catalonia which they will have to do if the Nationalists get a majority given Boris' commitment to block indyref2 no matter what the cost
Electoral tricks won't save the union, just delay the inevitable.
Weak leftwingers like you certainly will do sod all to save it, despite the fact without Scotland there is near zero chance of there ever being a Labour government again, certainly without a Blairite leader.
As everyone is getting exercised about LPFs, here's my two cents:
Pretty much all FTAs contain some LPF provisions. (The USMCA - which should be a case study in how not to do these things - has provisions on a per industry basis, including how much people need to be paid per hour, plus restrictions on FTAs with other countries, and rules on how LBGT workers must be treated. I doubt any agreed UK-EU agreement will be anywhere near as onerous.)
There are also going to be LPF provisions that we want, such as regarding taxation (hello Ireland) and state subsidies to export industries. I think it's a little naive to think this is entirely one way.
Finally, I think people are too worried about scope, and not enough about enforcement mechanisms.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
So what, if there is no Tory candidate they can still vote Labour not Tory
Not if Labour are in a pact with the Tories.
Lets say hypothetically this imaginary pact comes about and there's a potential Tory+Lab+LD rainbow coalition majority - are you suggesting Labour would make Ruth Davidson (or whoever) First Minister?
I don't think so. This is prima facie nonsense.
It does not matter, Labour can vote for a Labour FM but that is irrelevant all that matters is Sturgeon loses her majority next year a la May 2017 and there is a Unionist majority even if she stays FM, then cue the SNP civil war as Salmond prepares to seize the crown from a wounded Sturgeon in revenge for her and her allies treatment of him
But how does that deal with the invasion of armies of flying pigs in your scenario?
If you're relying upon desperation to tactical voting then you've already lost the election - as Remainers found out last time. You win by convincing people to vote for you, or not to vote for your opposition, not by clever tricks.
Not at Holyrood.
There if you are Unionists you win by reducing the SNP majority at the constituency level to a low enough level you can get a Unionist majority on the top up list where there will be multiple Unionist parties still standing.
The SNP will be the only Nationalist party at the constituency level, so it needs the Unionist Alliance to beat it
I doubt Labour or the Liberals will agree to any formal alliance with the Conservatives. What makes you think they will?
The Tories will stand down in all constituencies they are not first or second at Holyrood, Labour or the LDs do not need to agree anything
So the "Unionist Alliance" is basically the Tories admitting they are sh*t and giving up and going home?
You'll only be standing in 33% of constituencies. The Scottish and Unionist party indeed.
To help save the Union in seats they are not the best chance of beating the SNP and to avoid going full Madrid and Rajoy on Catalonia which they will have to do if the Nationalists get a majority given Boris' commitment to block indyref2 no matter what the cost
Electoral tricks won't save the union, just delay the inevitable.
Weak leftwingers like you certainly will do sod all to save it, despite the fact without Scotland there is near zero chance of there ever being a Labour government again, certainly without a Blairite leader.
However you can be ignored
It is not for me to save it. It has nothing to do with me. It's up to them.
Incidentally MorningnConsiltnhave put their State by state Trump favourabilry numbers behind a pay wall.
American polling is a shit show at times, I know there's house effects but there's no way pollsters here would ever be described as Tory supporting or Labour supporting.
McSally is a truly dreadful candidate, who got her ass handed to her in 2018. I think McSally will buck the trend of Republican incumbents outpolling Trump, and will (rightly) lose.
Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if there's an element within the FDA that would like to delay a vaccine to spoil Trump's big electoral plan. I suspect that if it's the case, those concerned have justified it to themselves as 'the greater good'. People lose all perspective and moral compass when it comes to Trump.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
So what, if there is no Tory candidate they can still vote Labour not Tory
Not if Labour are in a pact with the Tories.
Lets say hypothetically this imaginary pact comes about and there's a potential Tory+Lab+LD rainbow coalition majority - are you suggesting Labour would make Ruth Davidson (or whoever) First Minister?
I don't think so. This is prima facie nonsense.
It does not matter, Labour can vote for a Labour FM but that is irrelevant all that matters is Sturgeon loses her majority next year a la May 2017 and there is a Unionist majority even if she stays FM, then cue the SNP civil war as Salmond prepares to seize the crown from a wounded Sturgeon in revenge for her and her allies treatment of him
But how does that deal with the invasion of armies of flying pigs in your scenario?
If you're relying upon desperation to tactical voting then you've already lost the election - as Remainers found out last time. You win by convincing people to vote for you, or not to vote for your opposition, not by clever tricks.
Not at Holyrood.
There if you are Unionists you win by reducing the SNP majority at the constituency level to a low enough level you can get a Unionist majority on the top up list where there will be multiple Unionist parties still standing.
The SNP will be the only Nationalist party at the constituency level, so it needs the Unionist Alliance to beat it
I doubt Labour or the Liberals will agree to any formal alliance with the Conservatives. What makes you think they will?
The Tories will stand down in all constituencies they are not first or second at Holyrood, Labour or the LDs do not need to agree anything
So the "Unionist Alliance" is basically the Tories admitting they are sh*t and giving up and going home?
You'll only be standing in 33% of constituencies. The Scottish and Unionist party indeed.
To help save the Union in seats they are not the best chance of beating the SNP and to avoid going full Madrid and Rajoy on Catalonia which they will have to do if the Nationalists get a majority given Boris' commitment to block indyref2 no matter what the cost
Electoral tricks won't save the union, just delay the inevitable.
Weak leftwingers like you certainly will do sod all to save it, despite the fact without Scotland there is near zero chance of there ever being a Labour government again, certainly without a Blairite leader.
However you can be ignored
It is not for me to save it. It has nothing to do with me. It's up to them.
And the best chance of that is uniting the Unionist vote at the Holyrood constituency level to meet the united Nationalist vote there
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
So what, if there is no Tory candidate they can still vote Labour not Tory
Not if Labour are in a pact with the Tories.
Lets say hypothetically this imaginary pact comes about and there's a potential Tory+Lab+LD rainbow coalition majority - are you suggesting Labour would make Ruth Davidson (or whoever) First Minister?
I don't think so. This is prima facie nonsense.
It does not matter, Labour can vote for a Labour FM but that is irrelevant all that matters is Sturgeon loses her majority next year a la May 2017 and there is a Unionist majority even if she stays FM, then cue the SNP civil war as Salmond prepares to seize the crown from a wounded Sturgeon in revenge for her and her allies treatment of him
But how does that deal with the invasion of armies of flying pigs in your scenario?
If you're relying upon desperation to tactical voting then you've already lost the election - as Remainers found out last time. You win by convincing people to vote for you, or not to vote for your opposition, not by clever tricks.
Not at Holyrood.
There if you are Unionists you win by reducing the SNP majority at the constituency level to a low enough level you can get a Unionist majority on the top up list where there will be multiple Unionist parties still standing.
The SNP will be the only Nationalist party at the constituency level, so it needs the Unionist Alliance to beat it
I doubt Labour or the Liberals will agree to any formal alliance with the Conservatives. What makes you think they will?
The Tories will stand down in all constituencies they are not first or second at Holyrood, Labour or the LDs do not need to agree anything
So the "Unionist Alliance" is basically the Tories admitting they are sh*t and giving up and going home?
You'll only be standing in 33% of constituencies. The Scottish and Unionist party indeed.
To help save the Union in seats they are not the best chance of beating the SNP and to avoid going full Madrid and Rajoy on Catalonia which they will have to do if the Nationalists get a majority given Boris' commitment to block indyref2 no matter what the cost
Electoral tricks won't save the union, just delay the inevitable.
Weak leftwingers like you certainly will do sod all to save it, despite the fact without Scotland there is near zero chance of there ever being a Labour government again, certainly without a Blairite leader.
However you can be ignored
It is not for me to save it. It has nothing to do with me. It's up to them.
And the best chance of that is uniting the Unionist vote at the Holyrood constituency level to meet the united Nationalist vote there
You're ****ing doing it again - confusing the pro-referendum, pro-independence and pro- 'Nationalist' elements, whatever that latter means - 'SNP' presumably.
There are/have been Green, Independent Labour, Independent Independent MSPs who would be furiouys to be calledf 'nationalist' by such as you.
As for Florida, Bush won every count, and of course let's not forget the highly partisan Dem appointed Florida supreme court that made some shocking decisions that defied logic and backed Gore.
Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if there's an element within the FDA that would like to delay a vaccine to spoil Trump's big electoral plan. I suspect that if it's the case, those concerned have justified it to themselves as 'the greater good'. People lose all perspective and moral compass when it comes to Trump.
This should be easy to test:
(1) Are US vaccines, under the FDA's purview, finding it go through trials?
(2) Are there mysterious hold ups, with requests for information and the the like, that are preventing people from signing up or receiving vaccine trials in the US?
To (1), the answer is no. Moderna is perhaps one week behind Oxford, and Pfizer is only a couple of weeks behind them. Novavax will also be entering Phase 3 in the next few weeks. Of the leading vaccine candidates the US ones are going through at almost exactly the same speed through the approval process.
The same is true of (2). Human trials have been accelerated across the board.
I am much more worried that one of the vaccine candidates will spur an excessive immune response, be rushed into mass trials, and end up killing people.
I would happily back a Labour or LD FM, though not a Green as they back independence.
I would also happily stand down all Scottish Conservative candidates for the constituency seats at Holyrood next year where the Scottish Conservatives were not in first or second place in 2021 and just stand Tory candidates for the list in those areas
Just so I'm clear - you would advocate Scottish Conservatives NOT standing in seats where they weren't first or second last time and not contesting any seat where they were second but the winner was Labour or Lib Dem and you would expect reciprocity.
Fair enough - Labour would be the Unionist Alliance candidate in twice as many SNP seats as the Conservative with the LDs in two or three others.
Some of the SNP seats are held with large majorities and 59 of the 63 SNP members won through the constituencies with just four coming off the Regional AMs. Indeed, Conservative, Labour and LD won 46 of 60 seats through the AM system.
In practice, taking 10-12 SNP seats would be enough to deprive the SNP-Green grouping of their majority with Lab, Con and LD having maybe 70-72 between them so a majority to form an administration but even if the Conservatives won more seats than Labour you would support a Labour FM if it were the price of Labour's support.
It is an interesting idea but assumes a level of voter cooperation which may not be there when push comes to shove.
Not to mention the effect on Labour oif actuallyt governing in coalition with the Tories. They're already doing it informally in local gmt and formally in Aberdeen (technically including Independents [= shy Tories in this context] and Labour party councillors technically still suspended).
And it coiuld lead to a split within the Labour Party as well, with a part of iut allying with the SNP, Greens and true Independent MSPs.
Fine, the support of Unionist Tories would far outweigh any nationalists who went SNP at Holyrood, it is Scottish Tories who ensure Ian Murray is still an MP.
You really don't read my posts. I didn;t say that Labour MSPs would join the SNP - simply that they might ally with the pro-independence parties. It's an important distinction.
Fine then they can be expelled from Labour and deselected given Starmer and Leonard have made clear Labour is a Unionist party
By when it would be too late.
The other problem for you is that a very significant proportion of Labour voters in Sxcotland are pro-independence as well as being anti-Tory.
A very, very significant proportion of Labour voters in Scotland, even if they would vote No, are more anti-Tory than they are anti-independence.
So what, if there is no Tory candidate they can still vote Labour not Tory
Not if Labour are in a pact with the Tories.
Lets say hypothetically this imaginary pact comes about and there's a potential Tory+Lab+LD rainbow coalition majority - are you suggesting Labour would make Ruth Davidson (or whoever) First Minister?
I don't think so. This is prima facie nonsense.
It does not matter, Labour can vote for a Labour FM but that is irrelevant all that matters is Sturgeon loses her majority next year a la May 2017 and there is a Unionist majority even if she stays FM, then cue the SNP civil war as Salmond prepares to seize the crown from a wounded Sturgeon in revenge for her and her allies treatment of him
But how does that deal with the invasion of armies of flying pigs in your scenario?
If you're relying upon desperation to tactical voting then you've already lost the election - as Remainers found out last time. You win by convincing people to vote for you, or not to vote for your opposition, not by clever tricks.
Not at Holyrood.
There if you are Unionists you win by reducing the SNP majority at the constituency level to a low enough level you can get a Unionist majority on the top up list where there will be multiple Unionist parties still standing.
The SNP will be the only Nationalist party at the constituency level, so it needs the Unionist Alliance to beat it
I doubt Labour or the Liberals will agree to any formal alliance with the Conservatives. What makes you think they will?
The Tories will stand down in all constituencies they are not first or second at Holyrood, Labour or the LDs do not need to agree anything
So the "Unionist Alliance" is basically the Tories admitting they are sh*t and giving up and going home?
You'll only be standing in 33% of constituencies. The Scottish and Unionist party indeed.
To help save the Union in seats they are not the best chance of beating the SNP and to avoid going full Madrid and Rajoy on Catalonia which they will have to do if the Nationalists get a majority given Boris' commitment to block indyref2 no matter what the cost
Electoral tricks won't save the union, just delay the inevitable.
Weak leftwingers like you certainly will do sod all to save it, despite the fact without Scotland there is near zero chance of there ever being a Labour government again, certainly without a Blairite leader.
However you can be ignored
It is not for me to save it. It has nothing to do with me. It's up to them.
And the best chance of that is uniting the Unionist vote at the Holyrood constituency level to meet the united Nationalist vote there
You're ****ing doing it again - confusing the pro-referendum, pro-independence and pro- 'Nationalist' elements, whatever that latter means - 'SNP' presumably.
There are/have been Green, Independent Labour, Independent Independent MSPs who would be furiouys to be calledf 'nationalist' by such as you.
Yes and they all stand on the list only and just let their chums in the SNP have a free run at the constituency level
As for Florida, Bush won every count, and of course let's not forget the highly partisan Dem appointed Florida supreme court that made some shocking decisions that defied logic and backed Gore.
The point is we can perhaps excuse Trump or anyone else who harbours conspiracy theories around American elections, given their recent history.
Today's Covid hospital patient total is 834 - down about another 10% in a week - and it looks like it could scrape in just below 800 tomorrow.
Incidentally, 30% of all remaining Covid patients are now in Scottish hospitals. As I've pointed out before, at the peak of the pandemic the number of hospital patients per head of population was approximately the same in all four constituent parts of the UK, so why the current figures are so skewed is anyone's guess.
Today's Covid hospital patient total is 834 - down about another 10% in a week - and it looks like it could scrape in just below 800 tomorrow.
Incidentally, 30% of all remaining Covid patients are now in Scottish hospitals. As I've pointed out before, at the peak of the pandemic the number of hospital patients per head of population was approximately the same in all four constituent parts of the UK, so why the current figures are so skewed is anyone's guess.
Its strange given the amazing job Saint Nicola has done compared to Beastly BoZo . . .
Sunshine holidays: not the best idea. The latest in an ongoing series (from the Graun)...
The Rome region in Italy recorded 215 new coronavirus cases in the past 24 hours to Sunday, mainly because of people returning from holiday, the largest such rise since the Italian capital was in lockdown in March, health officials said Saturday.
The figure is a record number and is more than the 208 people infected in a one-day period on 28 March, when Rome had come to a virtual standstill to stop the coronavirus spreading, the capital’s health official Alessio D’Amato said.
“Sixty-one percent [of the cases] are linked to people returning from vacation,” D’Amato said, almost half the cases were returning from Sardinia.
Sardinia had been spared the first wave earlier this year, but D’Amato said the movement of tourists and people partying have helped spread the virus.
Today's Covid hospital patient total is 834 - down about another 10% in a week - and it looks like it could scrape in just below 800 tomorrow.
Incidentally, 30% of all remaining Covid patients are now in Scottish hospitals. As I've pointed out before, at the peak of the pandemic the number of hospital patients per head of population was approximately the same in all four constituent parts of the UK, so why the current figures are so skewed is anyone's guess.
Its strange given the amazing job Saint Nicola has done compared to Beastly BoZo . . .
We don't know whether this is a weakness or a strength. For all we know the Scottish NHS is being hyper cautious and is worried about letting those recovering from Covid go home too soon.
But I'm totally guessing as to the possible causes, which is why I contented myself with reporting the apparent anomaly.
Today's Covid hospital patient total is 834 - down about another 10% in a week - and it looks like it could scrape in just below 800 tomorrow.
Incidentally, 30% of all remaining Covid patients are now in Scottish hospitals. As I've pointed out before, at the peak of the pandemic the number of hospital patients per head of population was approximately the same in all four constituent parts of the UK, so why the current figures are so skewed is anyone's guess.
Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me if there's an element within the FDA that would like to delay a vaccine to spoil Trump's big electoral plan. I suspect that if it's the case, those concerned have justified it to themselves as 'the greater good'. People lose all perspective and moral compass when it comes to Trump.
Sorry, but that is as absurd as your affection for hydroxychloroquine. If we’re talking about perspective.
Today's Covid hospital patient total is 834 - down about another 10% in a week - and it looks like it could scrape in just below 800 tomorrow.
Incidentally, 30% of all remaining Covid patients are now in Scottish hospitals. As I've pointed out before, at the peak of the pandemic the number of hospital patients per head of population was approximately the same in all four constituent parts of the UK, so why the current figures are so skewed is anyone's guess.
Its strange given the amazing job Saint Nicola has done compared to Beastly BoZo . . .
We don't know whether this is a weakness or a strength. For all we know the Scottish NHS is being hyper cautious and is worried about letting those recovering from Covid go home too soon.
But I'm totally guessing as to the possible causes, which is why I contented myself with reporting the apparent anomaly.
Indeed, we may well have "Saved the NHS" by sacrificing patients.
Biden's biggest risk is if he just tries to win by boosting his base.
He needs to appeal to WWC in the swing states as well, and not be complacent.
Condemning the violence and disorder in the big cities is essential.
Biden's strength is that he is Average Joe next door. Not extreme on anything, indeed a throwback to an older type of Democrat who appeals to a wider coalition than the Berniebots. Sometimes being old fashioned is a good thing, and he plays to an older style of politics.
Today's Covid hospital patient total is 834 - down about another 10% in a week - and it looks like it could scrape in just below 800 tomorrow.
Incidentally, 30% of all remaining Covid patients are now in Scottish hospitals. As I've pointed out before, at the peak of the pandemic the number of hospital patients per head of population was approximately the same in all four constituent parts of the UK, so why the current figures are so skewed is anyone's guess.
Obesity rates?
It can't be. AFAIK the average Scot is only marginally older and sicker than the mean for the UK. To account for this kind of disproportionality, half the Scottish population would need to be morbidly obese.
As for Florida, Bush won every count, and of course let's not forget the highly partisan Dem appointed Florida supreme court that made some shocking decisions that defied logic and backed Gore.
When Bill Clinton is implicated in the Epstein stuff this will turn then into overdrive.
2022 will see the Tea Party swept away by the QAnon candidates.
One of my favourite QAnon theories was the Dems take a special pill that stops them producing DNA/semen so that's why the the Dems never get charged for all the many sex crimes they commit because there's never any physical evidence.
Today's Covid hospital patient total is 834 - down about another 10% in a week - and it looks like it could scrape in just below 800 tomorrow.
Incidentally, 30% of all remaining Covid patients are now in Scottish hospitals. As I've pointed out before, at the peak of the pandemic the number of hospital patients per head of population was approximately the same in all four constituent parts of the UK, so why the current figures are so skewed is anyone's guess.
Obesity rates?
It can't be. AFAIK the average Scot is only marginally older and sicker than the mean for the UK. To account for this kind of disproportionality, half the Scottish population would need to be morbidly obese.
Less sunlight, so less vitamin D perhaps. If so then skin cancers should be rarer. No idea if they are.
Scottish people may be a little less fit.
Scottish people's diets may be a little less rounded.
For what it's worth I don't get so much sun (don't really like it), I'm not so fit, and my diet isn't that great. Thus no criticism, but these things might be factors.
Biden's biggest risk is if he just tries to win by boosting his base.
He needs to appeal to WWC in the swing states as well, and not be complacent.
Condemning the violence and disorder in the big cities is essential.
Considering the violence is getting stoked by Federal Agents roughing up unarmed peaceful protesters and 'moms' whom should he be condemning though?
You're stretching here. Federal Agents are the good guys. It's anarchy otherwise. I'm pretty sure we'd not like anarchy.
Things go wrong in this, but the sense of things isn't turned on its head.
I don't want anarchy but I don't want authoritarian abuse either.
I'm struggling to see how armed, unidentifiable Federal Agents with no ID tags attacking unarmed peaceful protestors and even the media are "the good guys". Perhaps you can explain that one to me?
When Bill Clinton is implicated in the Epstein stuff this will turn then into overdrive.
2022 will see the Tea Party swept away by the QAnon candidates.
One of my favourite QAnon theories was the Dems take a special pill that stops them producing DNA/semen so that's why the the Dems never get charged for all the many sex crimes they commit because there's never any physical evidence.
That would have been handy for Bill Clinton.
There would have been no Monica's dress saga and hence impeachment to concern him.
When Bill Clinton is implicated in the Epstein stuff this will turn then into overdrive.
2022 will see the Tea Party swept away by the QAnon candidates.
One of my favourite QAnon theories was the Dems take a special pill that stops them producing DNA/semen so that's why the the Dems never get charged for all the many sex crimes they commit because there's never any physical evidence.
That would have been handy for Bill Clinton.
There would have been no Monica's dress saga and hence impeachment to concern him.
I expect that is why the Dems created the drug. Won't get caught twice...
Wonder if it will be true or another work of fiction like others they've bigged up then released this year.
We're always sorry to hear of people being murdered, of course, but is a report that it may have happened undetected 24 years ago really the main news tomorrow?
Today's Covid hospital patient total is 834 - down about another 10% in a week - and it looks like it could scrape in just below 800 tomorrow.
Incidentally, 30% of all remaining Covid patients are now in Scottish hospitals. As I've pointed out before, at the peak of the pandemic the number of hospital patients per head of population was approximately the same in all four constituent parts of the UK, so why the current figures are so skewed is anyone's guess.
Its strange given the amazing job Saint Nicola has done compared to Beastly BoZo . . .
We don't know whether this is a weakness or a strength. For all we know the Scottish NHS is being hyper cautious and is worried about letting those recovering from Covid go home too soon.
But I'm totally guessing as to the possible causes, which is why I contented myself with reporting the apparent anomaly.
Indeed, we may well have "Saved the NHS" by sacrificing patients.
Scotland's overall Covid death rate is a little lower than that in Wales and substantially lower than that in England (Northern Ireland does much better than Scotland, but I think that it probably benefited from relative geographic isolation and prompt action by the Republic.) OTOH, it has been oft reported that a greater proportion of Scottish Covid deaths have happened in care homes.
I suppose what could be happening is that...
1. The disease spread unevenly through the UK, hitting London first and hardest. This would mean that lockdown measures started to come into force at an earlier stage in the pandemic in Scotland, limiting its severity 2. The Scottish NHS panic flapped at the start of the pandemic, like everyone else, and threw out as many frail old people as quickly as possible to free up hospital beds. The situation in the care homes then developed in a similar fashion to the rest of the UK 3. However, perhaps the Scottish NHS modified its practices at some point and began to keep recovering Covid patients in hospital for longer? Therefore, later on in the pandemic, it has done a better job of keeping its Covid patients alive, which has helped to suppress the Scottish mortality rate further - but also means that they have more Covid patients left in hospital now than might be expected
If a record exists of the average length of hospital stay for a Covid-19 patient in each of the four home nations, then this might yield evidence for point 3.
When Bill Clinton is implicated in the Epstein stuff this will turn then into overdrive.
2022 will see the Tea Party swept away by the QAnon candidates.
One of my favourite QAnon theories was the Dems take a special pill that stops them producing DNA/semen so that's why the the Dems never get charged for all the many sex crimes they commit because there's never any physical evidence.
That would have been handy for Bill Clinton.
There would have been no Monica's dress saga and hence impeachment to concern him.
I expect that is why the Dems created the drug. Won't get caught twice...
Comments
President Bartlett always made a point not to make even fundraising phone calls from the White House. Though unsurprising that Trump doesn't care about such trivialities like that.
The scofflaw in the White House obviously doesn’t give a damn, and the chances of litigating it before the election are nil.
And who is President Bartlett?
Trump got a 4% bounce after the 2016 GOP convention with his convention next week
‘They can say what they like, but nothing they can say will put Blanchefleur together again.’
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1297157870862172163
Certainly in the red areas in swing states, those Republicans who have switched are very hesitant to talk about it (& if their neighbours are true believers, who can blame them ?). Do the polls pick them up ?
The undecideds from last time around are also breaking significantly for Biden this time around. Will they turn out ?
As usual, it's easy to fall into the trap of applying the rules of what happened last time or in previous elections to the current contest.
If you have a deeply polarised electorate, the notion of "bounces" from conventions or conferences just doesn't apply. The polls I see suggest the number who are undecided to be very small - the two camps are entrenched and whether you are in one because you like one guy or because you despise the other doesn't much matter. It will take far more than a convention to make you change your mind.
As OGH says, the State numbers will be more revealing - I'd love to see the Trafalgar and Rasmussen crosstabs to see how their sampling differs from other pollsters. Rasmussen's daily Trump approval poll is +4 (51-47) but other pollsters are substantially different. Who are Rasmussen asking and what are they asking to produce such a variation?
The Government is going to have to get involved to ensure FTTP is rolled out, or they are going to have take a share/nationalise Openreach.
A new owner will never commit to long-term FTTP rollout.
Maybe you’re both too young and too old (I got the DVDs for my kids and they loved West Wing).
You'll only be standing in 33% of constituencies. The Scottish and Unionist party indeed.
Has Joe Root bought England first innings runs on the spreads?
https://twitter.com/PreetBharara/status/1296999928133308416
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory
Or there was that time the GOP paid some ex-CIA types to break into the Democrats HQ and steal their plans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
Or last time when the GOP was helped by Russian hackers and trolls.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/opinion/trump-russia-2016-report.html
https://twitter.com/DavidCollinsST/status/1297219549868294146
Reading the "cross tabs" on American polls is distressing.
Oh, and bugger the bounce.
Just get rid of him, so they can (try to) wipe away the scum.
His view was what happened in Chicago/Illinois might very well have happened elsewhere to deprive him of the Presidency in 1960.
However you can be ignored
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461
Nixon was a serial ratfucker.
Pretty much all FTAs contain some LPF provisions. (The USMCA - which should be a case study in how not to do these things - has provisions on a per industry basis, including how much people need to be paid per hour, plus restrictions on FTAs with other countries, and rules on how LBGT workers must be treated. I doubt any agreed UK-EU agreement will be anywhere near as onerous.)
There are also going to be LPF provisions that we want, such as regarding taxation (hello Ireland) and state subsidies to export industries. I think it's a little naive to think this is entirely one way.
Finally, I think people are too worried about scope, and not enough about enforcement mechanisms.
Decent innings. Come on get a few wickets now.
Oh, 2000 -- hanging chads. A GOP-stacked Supreme Court hands Bush the presidency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida
Probably too soon for Root...
There are/have been Green, Independent Labour, Independent Independent MSPs who would be furiouys to be calledf 'nationalist' by such as you.
As for Florida, Bush won every count, and of course let's not forget the highly partisan Dem appointed Florida supreme court that made some shocking decisions that defied logic and backed Gore.
https://twitter.com/DavidCollinsST/status/1297223793816068097
(1) Are US vaccines, under the FDA's purview, finding it go through trials?
(2) Are there mysterious hold ups, with requests for information and the the like, that are preventing people from signing up or receiving vaccine trials in the US?
To (1), the answer is no. Moderna is perhaps one week behind Oxford, and Pfizer is only a couple of weeks behind them. Novavax will also be entering Phase 3 in the next few weeks. Of the leading vaccine candidates the US ones are going through at almost exactly the same speed through the approval process.
The same is true of (2). Human trials have been accelerated across the board.
I am much more worried that one of the vaccine candidates will spur an excessive immune response, be rushed into mass trials, and end up killing people.
Heck, even England don’t collapse like this.
The extra hundred-odd runs we've scored since we were talking about declarations earlier have made the option of a Follow On much more likely.
Incidentally, 30% of all remaining Covid patients are now in Scottish hospitals. As I've pointed out before, at the peak of the pandemic the number of hospital patients per head of population was approximately the same in all four constituent parts of the UK, so why the current figures are so skewed is anyone's guess.
He needs to appeal to WWC in the swing states as well, and not be complacent.
Condemning the violence and disorder in the big cities is essential.
The Rome region in Italy recorded 215 new coronavirus cases in the past 24 hours to Sunday, mainly because of people returning from holiday, the largest such rise since the Italian capital was in lockdown in March, health officials said Saturday.
The figure is a record number and is more than the 208 people infected in a one-day period on 28 March, when Rome had come to a virtual standstill to stop the coronavirus spreading, the capital’s health official Alessio D’Amato said.
“Sixty-one percent [of the cases] are linked to people returning from vacation,” D’Amato said, almost half the cases were returning from Sardinia.
Sardinia had been spared the first wave earlier this year, but D’Amato said the movement of tourists and people partying have helped spread the virus.
No further disasters.
But 13-4 is a pretty fair disaster on its own.
But I'm totally guessing as to the possible causes, which is why I contented myself with reporting the apparent anomaly.
For example, they don't even have ads up at Waterloo.
If we’re talking about perspective.
Things go wrong in this, but the sense of things isn't turned on its head.
2022 will see the Tea Party swept away by the QAnon candidates.
Scottish people may be a little less fit.
Scottish people's diets may be a little less rounded.
For what it's worth I don't get so much sun (don't really like it), I'm not so fit, and my diet isn't that great. Thus no criticism, but these things might be factors.
https://twitter.com/JessReports/status/1297230748718522368?s=09
I'm struggling to see how armed, unidentifiable Federal Agents with no ID tags attacking unarmed peaceful protestors and even the media are "the good guys". Perhaps you can explain that one to me?
There are others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/08/heres-a-voter-fraud-myth-richard-daley-stole-illinois-for-john-kennedy-in-the-1960-election/
IMO, Nixon was just one of life’s ratfuckers.
There would have been no Monica's dress saga and hence impeachment to concern him.
I suppose what could be happening is that...
1. The disease spread unevenly through the UK, hitting London first and hardest. This would mean that lockdown measures started to come into force at an earlier stage in the pandemic in Scotland, limiting its severity
2. The Scottish NHS panic flapped at the start of the pandemic, like everyone else, and threw out as many frail old people as quickly as possible to free up hospital beds. The situation in the care homes then developed in a similar fashion to the rest of the UK
3. However, perhaps the Scottish NHS modified its practices at some point and began to keep recovering Covid patients in hospital for longer? Therefore, later on in the pandemic, it has done a better job of keeping its Covid patients alive, which has helped to suppress the Scottish mortality rate further - but also means that they have more Covid patients left in hospital now than might be expected
If a record exists of the average length of hospital stay for a Covid-19 patient in each of the four home nations, then this might yield evidence for point 3.