Tonight’s big political bet – how many Senators will vote to impeach Trump? – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
Derry amusing.Black_Rook said:
An Antrim payment surely?MarqueeMark said:
That's the DUPs price for future support, right there.Razedabode said:An undersea tunnel, possibly dubbed “Boris’ burrow”, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get the green light as early next month
Via @Telegraph
..at least we’ll all have this to look forward to
Looks like they got a down payment.....1 -
That keeps those Cumbrian seats safe. A fast motorway round the coast to Whitehaven, presumably.Foxy said:
Put the customs posts on the IoM presumably. And quite a major spur off the M6.MarqueeMark said:
I heard the cost of tunnelling has very significantly decreased since the Channel Tunnel. Still about a million tons of munitions in that trench above, so you are going to have to go REALLY deep - or around.kle4 said:
I've heard that would be en expensive, technical nightmare. But I don't think anyone cares about the cost of things anymore in fairness.Razedabode said:An undersea tunnel, possibly dubbed “Boris’ burrow”, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get the green light as early next month
Via @Telegraph
..at least we’ll all that this to look forward to
If you wanted a really funky project - but safer - try TWO tunnels. But with the Isle of Man in between them. And starting in Cumbria - cutting out Scotland, just in case it goes independent.0 -
His balls had already been surgically removed.kle4 said:
The man's 78 and probably not standing again, what did he have to lose by growing some balls?Alistair said:This speech by McConnell.
Absolute wow.
What a coward. He wants trump convicted but too scared to do it himself.
I didn't think my opinion of him could go any lower yet here I am.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiN6NDmONFM0 -
It's costing £75m near me just to put in a road to go around a medium sized town, I break out in cold sweats at the thought of hte cost of a road or tunnel to NI, over/under/around a munitions dump.0
-
Weird though that some people seem to complain about BBC journalists voicing this kind of "opinion" about a foreign country ONLY when the foreign country is the USA.felix said:
No it really is not factual reporting. It's as clear an expression of an opinion as you can get.Philip_Thompson said:
It's a factual reporting from another country.FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=200 -
How about a very very large spiral ramp..kle4 said:It's costing £75m near me just to put in a road to go around a medium sized town, I break out in cold sweats at the thought of hte cost of a road or tunnel to NI, over/under/around a munitions dump.
1 -
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
2 -
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.1 -
Something I have been kicking around. Boris was OK at the start of the pandemic. He got the nation on board with the lockdown in March. His numbers were great. But then, he lost his way when he got Covid. And then the lockdowns had to be reinstated and relaxed and then reinstated by him. It was a real downer. It's not who Boris is. The messing aroundkle4 said:
I assume it'll never happen (given how long things take they wouldn't get out of the planning phase in this parliament), but it's just that Boris intended his premiership to be about 'levelling' up the country with big spending on infrastructure, and he wants to get that image back in peoples' heads with the elections in 3 months.rottenborough said:
Why are we planning to dig a tunnel to NI when it is likely to be just full of queueing food lorries struggling to show all the correct paperwork to enter the single market?MarqueeMark said:
I heard the cost of tunnelling has very significantly decreased since the Channel Tunnel. Still about a million tons of munitions in that trench above, so you are going to have to go REALLY deep - or around.kle4 said:
I've heard that would be en expensive, technical nightmare. But I don't think anyone cares about the cost of things anymore in fairness.Razedabode said:An undersea tunnel, possibly dubbed “Boris’ burrow”, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get the green light as early next month
Via @Telegraph
..at least we’ll all that this to look forward to
If you wanted a really funky project - but safer - try TWO tunnels. But with the Isle of Man in between them. And starting in Cumbria - cutting out Scotland, just in case it goes independent.
BUT...then came the vaccine roll-out. It really is Boris at his best. Big idea stuff being implemented. So the vaccine didn't need a Hard-hat and a JCB, but it was the sort of stuff he envisaged doing before the Bastard Bug took hold. Grand, legacy projects. Linking the UK together is as big a project as he could ever leave behind. It's what makes Boris fired up. OK, he's been robbed of the money for the nation to pay. But with very low interest rates, private capital can take these on. With some helping hand from Govt. to prime the pump.
Prediction: Boris is going to spend the next few years making these things happen.
Up north.
2 -
The vast sums spent on dual roads streaking up to Aberdeen and other points north do good business in...speeding fines if not commercial traffic.MarqueeMark said:
That keeps those Cumbrian seats safe. A fast motorway round the coast to Whitehaven, presumably.Foxy said:
Put the customs posts on the IoM presumably. And quite a major spur off the M6.MarqueeMark said:
I heard the cost of tunnelling has very significantly decreased since the Channel Tunnel. Still about a million tons of munitions in that trench above, so you are going to have to go REALLY deep - or around.kle4 said:
I've heard that would be en expensive, technical nightmare. But I don't think anyone cares about the cost of things anymore in fairness.Razedabode said:An undersea tunnel, possibly dubbed “Boris’ burrow”, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get the green light as early next month
Via @Telegraph
..at least we’ll all that this to look forward to
If you wanted a really funky project - but safer - try TWO tunnels. But with the Isle of Man in between them. And starting in Cumbria - cutting out Scotland, just in case it goes independent.
But then I am I bit jaundiced ... I do know what the problems are between Exeter and Barnstable.0 -
Do they - I get very annoyed watching both CNN and Fox as they in no way resemble news channels wrt US politics. They are way more partisan than anything in the UK or here in Spain [ insofar as my Spanish allows me to understand some of the niceties]. I presume you mean when the BBC report on places like China, N. Korea , etc. I watch the BBC World service a lot and on the whole they seem to report more and comment less. This is the balance I prefer as I can then make my own judgement. I watch Euronews too and their reports are pretty neutral in the main - the only recent exception being the silly Keating character who is clearly crazy about the whole vaccine business.kamski said:
Weird though that some people seem to complain about BBC journalists voicing this kind of "opinion" about a foreign country ONLY when the foreign country is the USA.felix said:
No it really is not factual reporting. It's as clear an expression of an opinion as you can get.Philip_Thompson said:
It's a factual reporting from another country.FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=200 -
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.1 -
I'm struggling. What was hypocritical about impeaching Trump?HYUFD said:0 -
So the Covid deaths over the past 7 days are sub-700 (688). That's a big drop. Yay!! We got there.
Sub 500 next week. Sub 350 by the end of the February. Sub-150 a day by the end of March. Maybe even back down into just double figures.
That looks like a great decline to me.4 -
In the last week alone I've seen news reports (Sky since I don't want the Beeb but I'm assuming BBC are the same) of journalists calling out the Chinese (Uighur, Hong Kong), Russians (Navalny) and Myanmar (Aung San Suu Kyi). They quite rightly don't just stick to the 'official' line being of the country being reported on.felix said:
Do they - I get very annoyed watching both CNN and Fox as they in no way resemble news channels wrt US politics. They are way more partisan than anything in the UK or here in Spain [ insofar as my Spanish allows me to understand some of the niceties]. I presume you mean when the BBC report on places like China, N. Korea , etc. I watch the BBC World service a lot and on the whole they seem to report more and comment less. This is the balance I prefer as I can then make my own judgement. I watch Euronews too and their reports are pretty neutral in the main - the only recent exception being the silly Keating character who is clearly crazy about the whole vaccine business.kamski said:
Weird though that some people seem to complain about BBC journalists voicing this kind of "opinion" about a foreign country ONLY when the foreign country is the USA.felix said:
No it really is not factual reporting. It's as clear an expression of an opinion as you can get.Philip_Thompson said:
It's a factual reporting from another country.FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
How is this any different?0 -
Surely the incitement thing was the basis of the trial. Like the process or not the idea of an acquittal suggests the incitement was not proven. IANAE but I thought that was the idea of the 'rule of law'. I'm not keen on the 'rule of the journo hack' as an alternative, whatever my personal views about Trump.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=200 -
So when a Russian court says that Navalny is the criminal that is all the media should report? 🤔felix said:
Surely the incitement thing was the basis of the trial. Like the process or not the idea of an acquittal suggests the incitement was not proven. IANAE but I thought that was the idea of the 'rule of law'. I'm not keen on the 'rule of the journo hack' as an alternative, whatever my personal views about Trump.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=200 -
I have never heard anyone on here complain about BBC journalists offering a critical analysis of Putin or Erdogan, but there seem to be what seem to me to be complaints about comments like this from BBC journalists about Trump.felix said:
Do they - I get very annoyed watching both CNN and Fox as they in no way resemble news channels wrt US politics. They are way more partisan than anything in the UK or here in Spain [ insofar as my Spanish allows me to understand some of the niceties]. I presume you mean when the BBC report on places like China, N. Korea , etc. I watch the BBC World service a lot and on the whole they seem to report more and comment less. This is the balance I prefer as I can then make my own judgement. I watch Euronews too and their reports are pretty neutral in the main - the only recent exception being the silly Keating character who is clearly crazy about the whole vaccine business.kamski said:
Weird though that some people seem to complain about BBC journalists voicing this kind of "opinion" about a foreign country ONLY when the foreign country is the USA.felix said:
No it really is not factual reporting. It's as clear an expression of an opinion as you can get.Philip_Thompson said:
It's a factual reporting from another country.FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
Unless I have completely misunderstood, for example, this from you:
"When journalists make such clearly partisan comments they have zero credibility. With Fox and CNN this is pretty normal these days. From the BBC disappointing. Like the result or not - he has had a trial under the law of the constitution. Due process has I presume been followed. I think the big losers politically are the Republicans. I'd rather journalism was not added to the list."0 -
I wasn't actually wasn't complaining...more observing that my understanding was the new boss of the BBC had told them they weren't to voice opinions, especially on politics, on twitter. So if it criticizing Trump or Erdogan, it doesn't matter, the dictact was to refrain.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.
There was quite a backlash against it from the staff, so I wonder if they have quietly dropped it.0 -
The accepted multiplier in big civil engineering contracts is 2.8. So if you spend £10 billion, the knock-on contracts makes it feel like £28 billion.kle4 said:It's costing £75m near me just to put in a road to go around a medium sized town, I break out in cold sweats at the thought of hte cost of a road or tunnel to NI, over/under/around a munitions dump.
If you want to spend your way out of Covid, that is the way to do it. The Govt. spends £30 billion. It feels like £84 billion to the northern economies.1 -
I'm not sure if that was meant to apply to reporting foreign politics.FrancisUrquhart said:
I wasn't actually wasn't complaining...more observing that my understanding was the new boss of the BBC had told them they weren't to voice opinions, especially on politics, on twitter. There was quite a backlash against it from the staff, so I wonder if they have quietly dropped it.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.
How would you report on eg the Navalny case etc without delving into opinions? When countries don't have t he rule of law then what's supposed to be done?0 -
That though is a criticism of the legal processes in different countries, control of the judiciary, etc. People may well feel that Trump is awful on many levels. Last time I looked the US has a functioning democracy, legal system , etc. However, on the wider point, I want journalists to report the news rather than tell people what to think.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.1 -
Probably.FrancisUrquhart said:
I wasn't actually wasn't complaining...more observing that my understanding was the new boss of the BBC had told them they weren't to voice opinions, especially on politics, on twitter. There was quite a backlash against it from the staff, so I wonder if they have quietly dropped it.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.
As it is entirely unenforceable in all but the most blatant cases. Which would be covered by existing contracts anyways.0 -
OK, I'm not really familiar with the story, and I don't use Twitter so don't really care, but perhaps those "rules" would apply more to UK politics than foreign news?FrancisUrquhart said:
I wasn't actually wasn't complaining...more observing that my understanding was the new boss of the BBC had told them they weren't to voice opinions, especially on politics, on twitter. There was quite a backlash against it from the staff, so I wonder if they have quietly dropped it.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.0 -
Exciting.MarqueeMark said:
Something I have been kicking around. Boris was OK at the start of the pandemic. He got the nation on board with the lockdown in March. His numbers were great. But then, he lost his way when he got Covid. And then the lockdowns had to be reinstated and relaxed and then reinstated by him. It was a real downer. It's not who Boris is. The messing aroundkle4 said:
I assume it'll never happen (given how long things take they wouldn't get out of the planning phase in this parliament), but it's just that Boris intended his premiership to be about 'levelling' up the country with big spending on infrastructure, and he wants to get that image back in peoples' heads with the elections in 3 months.rottenborough said:
Why are we planning to dig a tunnel to NI when it is likely to be just full of queueing food lorries struggling to show all the correct paperwork to enter the single market?MarqueeMark said:
I heard the cost of tunnelling has very significantly decreased since the Channel Tunnel. Still about a million tons of munitions in that trench above, so you are going to have to go REALLY deep - or around.kle4 said:
I've heard that would be en expensive, technical nightmare. But I don't think anyone cares about the cost of things anymore in fairness.Razedabode said:An undersea tunnel, possibly dubbed “Boris’ burrow”, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get the green light as early next month
Via @Telegraph
..at least we’ll all that this to look forward to
If you wanted a really funky project - but safer - try TWO tunnels. But with the Isle of Man in between them. And starting in Cumbria - cutting out Scotland, just in case it goes independent.
BUT...then came the vaccine roll-out. It really is Boris at his best. Big idea stuff being implemented. So the vaccine didn't need a Hard-hat and a JCB, but it was the sort of stuff he envisaged doing before the Bastard Bug took hold. Grand, legacy projects. Linking the UK together is as big a project as he could ever leave behind. It's what makes Boris fired up. OK, he's been robbed of the money for the nation to pay. But with very low interest rates, private capital can take these on. With some helping hand from Govt. to prime the pump.
Prediction: Boris is going to spend the next few years making these things happen.
Up north.0 -
The Democrats made a huge error in pressing for impeachment. Staggeringly poor politics.0
-
Indeed and this was an entirely factual reporting of another country, the control of the Senate, the events and the reason for most Republicans to acquit despite the facts.felix said:
That though is a criticism of the legal processes in different countries, control of the judiciary, etc. People may well feel that Trump is awful on many levels. Last time I looked the US has a functioning democracy, legal system , etc. However, on the wider point, I want journalists to report the news rather than tell people what to think.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.0 -
The point was the dictact was about doing so via twitter. I personally always thought it was a stupid rule. The thought that stopping somebody posting a partisan political point on twitter proves they don't hold partisan views is ludicrous.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm not sure if that was meant to apply to reporting foreign politics.FrancisUrquhart said:
I wasn't actually wasn't complaining...more observing that my understanding was the new boss of the BBC had told them they weren't to voice opinions, especially on politics, on twitter. There was quite a backlash against it from the staff, so I wonder if they have quietly dropped it.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.
How would you report on eg the Navalny case etc without delving into opinions? When countries don't have t he rule of law then what's supposed to be done?0 -
A north-south major road in Devon would be welcome. It is well over two hours south coast to north coast. Just staying in the one county. I've only been up there once in ten years, because it is so hassle-some.FlightsPath said:
The vast sums spent on dual roads streaking up to Aberdeen and other points north do good business in...speeding fines if not commercial traffic.MarqueeMark said:
That keeps those Cumbrian seats safe. A fast motorway round the coast to Whitehaven, presumably.Foxy said:
Put the customs posts on the IoM presumably. And quite a major spur off the M6.MarqueeMark said:
I heard the cost of tunnelling has very significantly decreased since the Channel Tunnel. Still about a million tons of munitions in that trench above, so you are going to have to go REALLY deep - or around.kle4 said:
I've heard that would be en expensive, technical nightmare. But I don't think anyone cares about the cost of things anymore in fairness.Razedabode said:An undersea tunnel, possibly dubbed “Boris’ burrow”, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get the green light as early next month
Via @Telegraph
..at least we’ll all that this to look forward to
If you wanted a really funky project - but safer - try TWO tunnels. But with the Isle of Man in between them. And starting in Cumbria - cutting out Scotland, just in case it goes independent.
But then I am I bit jaundiced ... I do know what the problems are between Exeter and Barnstable.
But you'd annoy a host of folk, wherever you sited it.
0 -
The BBC is not the same as SKY - especially the World service. Further if you cannot see the difference between open democracies and closed authoritarian countries then any discussion is clearly pointless. We must agree to differ.Philip_Thompson said:
In the last week alone I've seen news reports (Sky since I don't want the Beeb but I'm assuming BBC are the same) of journalists calling out the Chinese (Uighur, Hong Kong), Russians (Navalny) and Myanmar (Aung San Suu Kyi). They quite rightly don't just stick to the 'official' line being of the country being reported on.felix said:
Do they - I get very annoyed watching both CNN and Fox as they in no way resemble news channels wrt US politics. They are way more partisan than anything in the UK or here in Spain [ insofar as my Spanish allows me to understand some of the niceties]. I presume you mean when the BBC report on places like China, N. Korea , etc. I watch the BBC World service a lot and on the whole they seem to report more and comment less. This is the balance I prefer as I can then make my own judgement. I watch Euronews too and their reports are pretty neutral in the main - the only recent exception being the silly Keating character who is clearly crazy about the whole vaccine business.kamski said:
Weird though that some people seem to complain about BBC journalists voicing this kind of "opinion" about a foreign country ONLY when the foreign country is the USA.felix said:
No it really is not factual reporting. It's as clear an expression of an opinion as you can get.Philip_Thompson said:
It's a factual reporting from another country.FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
How is this any different?0 -
You may see the US and Russia as equivalent wrt to democratic structures and the rule of law. I do not.Philip_Thompson said:
So when a Russian court says that Navalny is the criminal that is all the media should report? 🤔felix said:
Surely the incitement thing was the basis of the trial. Like the process or not the idea of an acquittal suggests the incitement was not proven. IANAE but I thought that was the idea of the 'rule of law'. I'm not keen on the 'rule of the journo hack' as an alternative, whatever my personal views about Trump.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=200 -
Er, there is a dual carriageway from Exeter to Barnstaple? A fast, efficient road as I recallMarqueeMark said:
A north-south major road in Devon would be welcome. It is well over two hours south coast to north coast. Just staying in the one county. I've only been up there once in ten years, because it is so hassle-some.FlightsPath said:
The vast sums spent on dual roads streaking up to Aberdeen and other points north do good business in...speeding fines if not commercial traffic.MarqueeMark said:
That keeps those Cumbrian seats safe. A fast motorway round the coast to Whitehaven, presumably.Foxy said:
Put the customs posts on the IoM presumably. And quite a major spur off the M6.MarqueeMark said:
I heard the cost of tunnelling has very significantly decreased since the Channel Tunnel. Still about a million tons of munitions in that trench above, so you are going to have to go REALLY deep - or around.kle4 said:
I've heard that would be en expensive, technical nightmare. But I don't think anyone cares about the cost of things anymore in fairness.Razedabode said:An undersea tunnel, possibly dubbed “Boris’ burrow”, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get the green light as early next month
Via @Telegraph
..at least we’ll all that this to look forward to
If you wanted a really funky project - but safer - try TWO tunnels. But with the Isle of Man in between them. And starting in Cumbria - cutting out Scotland, just in case it goes independent.
But then I am I bit jaundiced ... I do know what the problems are between Exeter and Barnstable.
But you'd annoy a host of folk, wherever you sited it.0 -
But the impeachment "trial" is not any kind of normal legal process is it? It's not really controversial to suggest that the Republican senators who voted to acquit did so for political reasons, rather than after carefully considering the evidence in a legal sense.felix said:
That though is a criticism of the legal processes in different countries, control of the judiciary, etc. People may well feel that Trump is awful on many levels. Last time I looked the US has a functioning democracy, legal system , etc. However, on the wider point, I want journalists to report the news rather than tell people what to think.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.2 -
Some things are worth attempting even if they will fail. What he did crossed so many lines and as they argued, if this was not impeachable what was?Mysticrose said:The Democrats made a huge error in pressing for impeachment. Staggeringly poor politics.
1 -
Once the dams are built roads and railways could run along the top of them and they could be used to generate vast amounts of tidal electricity.Black_Rook said:If we built two giant dams - one between Stranraer and Larne, and the other between Fishguard and Rosslare - then we could simply pump out the contents of the Irish Sea and create thousands of square miles of extra land. Roads and railways could then be built across it without any of this inconvenient tunnelling nonsense. Problem solved.
No need to pump the water out... In fact you'd be forever pumping as the rivers of Wales, northern England, southern Scotland and eastern Ireland would be constantly filling up the basin.0 -
Small scale thinking. How about this...Benpointer said:
Once the dams are built roads and railways could run along the top of them and they could be used to generate vast amounts of tidal electricity.Black_Rook said:If we built two giant dams - one between Stranraer and Larne, and the other between Fishguard and Rosslare - then we could simply pump out the contents of the Irish Sea and create thousands of square miles of extra land. Roads and railways could then be built across it without any of this inconvenient tunnelling nonsense. Problem solved.
No need to pump the water out... In fact you'd be forever pumping as the rivers of Wales, northern England, southern Scotland and eastern Ireland would be constantly filling up the basin.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bigthink.com/amp/north-sea-dam-26452231310 -
For me when a reporter appears to override in his commentary a decision based on due process in a country with a functioning democracy where the rule of law prevails, for me this is not good journalism. If you think that Turkey and Russia are equivalent functioning democracies to the USA, EU and the UK good on you. We must agree to differ.kamski said:
I have never heard anyone on here complain about BBC journalists offering a critical analysis of Putin or Erdogan, but there seem to be what seem to me to be complaints about comments like this from BBC journalists about Trump.felix said:
Do they - I get very annoyed watching both CNN and Fox as they in no way resemble news channels wrt US politics. They are way more partisan than anything in the UK or here in Spain [ insofar as my Spanish allows me to understand some of the niceties]. I presume you mean when the BBC report on places like China, N. Korea , etc. I watch the BBC World service a lot and on the whole they seem to report more and comment less. This is the balance I prefer as I can then make my own judgement. I watch Euronews too and their reports are pretty neutral in the main - the only recent exception being the silly Keating character who is clearly crazy about the whole vaccine business.kamski said:
Weird though that some people seem to complain about BBC journalists voicing this kind of "opinion" about a foreign country ONLY when the foreign country is the USA.felix said:
No it really is not factual reporting. It's as clear an expression of an opinion as you can get.Philip_Thompson said:
It's a factual reporting from another country.FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
Unless I have completely misunderstood, for example, this from you:
"When journalists make such clearly partisan comments they have zero credibility. With Fox and CNN this is pretty normal these days. From the BBC disappointing. Like the result or not - he has had a trial under the law of the constitution. Due process has I presume been followed. I think the big losers politically are the Republicans. I'd rather journalism was not added to the list."0 -
This is THE Trumpskyite line now, as reflected in The Donald's "defense" at his second trial. That the Democrats have been just as bad, just as inflamatory, just as provocative as You-Know-Who.rcs1000 said:
I'm struggling. What was hypocritical about impeaching Trump?HYUFD said:
Hogwash, and most of 'em (senators, politicos, pundits, voters) know it. BUT they think if they just keep repeating it, before long, not only will THEY believe it, but that they can get a (bare) majority of the electorate (at least in key states and districts) to believe it too.1 -
Johnson does like big shiny projects - garden bridge, Boris Island... Only thing is, they don't seem to actually, like, happen.MarqueeMark said:
That's the DUPs price for future support, right there.Razedabode said:An undersea tunnel, possibly dubbed “Boris’ burrow”, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get the green light as early next month
Via @Telegraph
..at least we’ll all have this to look forward to
Looks like they got a down payment.....1 -
Bloody hell, I'm glad I have never met you coming the other way in the 'fast lane' of the A377!Leon said:
Er, there is a dual carriageway from Exeter to Barnstaple? A fast, efficient road as I recallMarqueeMark said:
A north-south major road in Devon would be welcome. It is well over two hours south coast to north coast. Just staying in the one county. I've only been up there once in ten years, because it is so hassle-some.FlightsPath said:
The vast sums spent on dual roads streaking up to Aberdeen and other points north do good business in...speeding fines if not commercial traffic.MarqueeMark said:
That keeps those Cumbrian seats safe. A fast motorway round the coast to Whitehaven, presumably.Foxy said:
Put the customs posts on the IoM presumably. And quite a major spur off the M6.MarqueeMark said:
I heard the cost of tunnelling has very significantly decreased since the Channel Tunnel. Still about a million tons of munitions in that trench above, so you are going to have to go REALLY deep - or around.kle4 said:
I've heard that would be en expensive, technical nightmare. But I don't think anyone cares about the cost of things anymore in fairness.Razedabode said:An undersea tunnel, possibly dubbed “Boris’ burrow”, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get the green light as early next month
Via @Telegraph
..at least we’ll all that this to look forward to
If you wanted a really funky project - but safer - try TWO tunnels. But with the Isle of Man in between them. And starting in Cumbria - cutting out Scotland, just in case it goes independent.
But then I am I bit jaundiced ... I do know what the problems are between Exeter and Barnstable.
But you'd annoy a host of folk, wherever you sited it.0 -
So you believe the US doesn't have the rule of law? Then you are clear. Fair enough.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm not sure if that was meant to apply to reporting foreign politics.FrancisUrquhart said:
I wasn't actually wasn't complaining...more observing that my understanding was the new boss of the BBC had told them they weren't to voice opinions, especially on politics, on twitter. There was quite a backlash against it from the staff, so I wonder if they have quietly dropped it.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.
How would you report on eg the Navalny case etc without delving into opinions? When countries don't have t he rule of law then what's supposed to be done?0 -
There were 17.5 million important men and women actually. And I was not one of them. It was a very fine judgement, but in the end I was willing to put up with it, the effort by Cameron, for an easy life. But I believe in democracy and an accommodation. But rampant europhiles and others just playing politics and wanted to frustrate ANY agreement.WhisperingOracle said:The storming of the Capitol obviously had nothing to do with a mob in Farage's mind, ofcourse. What a deeply inadequate and dangerous man he is, and yet the single most important figure behind this country's most important decision in 50 years.
So having seen that, no way no way no way, will I go near the EU, which goes even less democratic every day.
Thank you and good night.0 -
Global cases AND deaths now in steep decline.
We are maybe through the worst - Deus Vult
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries0 -
Yes. The mistake was not in impeachment, it was in not convicting. That error was the Republicans.kle4 said:
Some things are worth attempting even if they will fail. What he did crossed so many lines and as they argued, if this was not impeachable what was?Mysticrose said:The Democrats made a huge error in pressing for impeachment. Staggeringly poor politics.
If the Republicans are not made to pay for that error then the whole of the USA will end up doing so.0 -
That is a different issue altogether. The impeachment process is clearly unsatisfactory - you might just as easily say that Democratic senators were politically motivated. The journalist did not make that point however.kamski said:
But the impeachment "trial" is not any kind of normal legal process is it? It's not really controversial to suggest that the Republican senators who voted to acquit did so for political reasons, rather than after carefully considering the evidence in a legal sense.felix said:
That though is a criticism of the legal processes in different countries, control of the judiciary, etc. People may well feel that Trump is awful on many levels. Last time I looked the US has a functioning democracy, legal system , etc. However, on the wider point, I want journalists to report the news rather than tell people what to think.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.0 -
Where is the opinion?felix said:
No it really is not factual reporting. It's as clear an expression of an opinion as you can get.Philip_Thompson said:
It's a factual reporting from another country.FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=200 -
The speed of drop off in South Africa is incredible.Leon said:Global cases AND deaths now in steep decline.
We are maybe through the worst - Deus Vult
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries0 -
The rivers would be needed to irrigate the fantastic reclaimed farmland that would be created by the project. However, any excess water could be carried out over the tops of the dams on a system of giant aqueducts. These trifling problems are easily solved.Benpointer said:
Once the dams are built roads and railways could run along the top of them and they could be used to generate vast amounts of tidal electricity.Black_Rook said:If we built two giant dams - one between Stranraer and Larne, and the other between Fishguard and Rosslare - then we could simply pump out the contents of the Irish Sea and create thousands of square miles of extra land. Roads and railways could then be built across it without any of this inconvenient tunnelling nonsense. Problem solved.
No need to pump the water out... In fact you'd be forever pumping as the rivers of Wales, northern England, southern Scotland and eastern Ireland would be constantly filling up the basin.1 -
I confess my geography is hazy. But there is a fast road. The North Devon Link Road? I just remember zipping along itBenpointer said:
Bloody hell, I'm glad I have never met you coming the other way in the 'fast lane' of the A377!Leon said:
Er, there is a dual carriageway from Exeter to Barnstaple? A fast, efficient road as I recallMarqueeMark said:
A north-south major road in Devon would be welcome. It is well over two hours south coast to north coast. Just staying in the one county. I've only been up there once in ten years, because it is so hassle-some.FlightsPath said:
The vast sums spent on dual roads streaking up to Aberdeen and other points north do good business in...speeding fines if not commercial traffic.MarqueeMark said:
That keeps those Cumbrian seats safe. A fast motorway round the coast to Whitehaven, presumably.Foxy said:
Put the customs posts on the IoM presumably. And quite a major spur off the M6.MarqueeMark said:
I heard the cost of tunnelling has very significantly decreased since the Channel Tunnel. Still about a million tons of munitions in that trench above, so you are going to have to go REALLY deep - or around.kle4 said:
I've heard that would be en expensive, technical nightmare. But I don't think anyone cares about the cost of things anymore in fairness.Razedabode said:An undersea tunnel, possibly dubbed “Boris’ burrow”, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get the green light as early next month
Via @Telegraph
..at least we’ll all that this to look forward to
If you wanted a really funky project - but safer - try TWO tunnels. But with the Isle of Man in between them. And starting in Cumbria - cutting out Scotland, just in case it goes independent.
But then I am I bit jaundiced ... I do know what the problems are between Exeter and Barnstable.
But you'd annoy a host of folk, wherever you sited it.0 -
It may be a statistical quirk though - deaths shifting from countries where decent records are kept (the developed world) to those where they are much patchier (Latin America, Africa, South Asia).Leon said:Global cases AND deaths now in steep decline.
We are maybe through the worst - Deus Vult
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries0 -
The rule of law does not prevail here.felix said:
For me when a reporter appears to override in his commentary a decision based on due process in a country with a functioning democracy where the rule of law prevails, for me this is not good journalism. If you think that Turkey and Russia are equivalent functioning democracies to the USA, EU and the UK good on you. We must agree to differ.kamski said:
I have never heard anyone on here complain about BBC journalists offering a critical analysis of Putin or Erdogan, but there seem to be what seem to me to be complaints about comments like this from BBC journalists about Trump.felix said:
Do they - I get very annoyed watching both CNN and Fox as they in no way resemble news channels wrt US politics. They are way more partisan than anything in the UK or here in Spain [ insofar as my Spanish allows me to understand some of the niceties]. I presume you mean when the BBC report on places like China, N. Korea , etc. I watch the BBC World service a lot and on the whole they seem to report more and comment less. This is the balance I prefer as I can then make my own judgement. I watch Euronews too and their reports are pretty neutral in the main - the only recent exception being the silly Keating character who is clearly crazy about the whole vaccine business.kamski said:
Weird though that some people seem to complain about BBC journalists voicing this kind of "opinion" about a foreign country ONLY when the foreign country is the USA.felix said:
No it really is not factual reporting. It's as clear an expression of an opinion as you can get.Philip_Thompson said:
It's a factual reporting from another country.FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
Unless I have completely misunderstood, for example, this from you:
"When journalists make such clearly partisan comments they have zero credibility. With Fox and CNN this is pretty normal these days. From the BBC disappointing. Like the result or not - he has had a trial under the law of the constitution. Due process has I presume been followed. I think the big losers politically are the Republicans. I'd rather journalism was not added to the list."
The rule of politics prevailed.1 -
Front pages full of stories of the unlocking....seems government have been busy briefing again
Back in the boozer for Easter apparently. Picnics with anybody from March 8th..... just got to move the snow before putting the blanket down!0 -
Why would he?felix said:
That is a different issue altogether. The impeachment process is clearly unsatisfactory - you might just as easily say that Democratic senators were politically motivated. The journalist did not make that point however.kamski said:
But the impeachment "trial" is not any kind of normal legal process is it? It's not really controversial to suggest that the Republican senators who voted to acquit did so for political reasons, rather than after carefully considering the evidence in a legal sense.felix said:
That though is a criticism of the legal processes in different countries, control of the judiciary, etc. People may well feel that Trump is awful on many levels. Last time I looked the US has a functioning democracy, legal system , etc. However, on the wider point, I want journalists to report the news rather than tell people what to think.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.
Seven Republicans voted with the Democrats. As he said, it was the most crosspartisan impeachment vote that has ever been held.0 -
I believe that the Republican party should have voted to impeach in the long-term interest of the party surviving. America is in a very difficult place at the moment - the degree of polarisation is close to 50/50. Biden has a difficult task ahead of him. The country needs a period of calm and stabilty.LostPassword said:
Yes. The mistake was not in impeachment, it was in not convicting. That error was the Republicans.kle4 said:
Some things are worth attempting even if they will fail. What he did crossed so many lines and as they argued, if this was not impeachable what was?Mysticrose said:The Democrats made a huge error in pressing for impeachment. Staggeringly poor politics.
If the Republicans are not made to pay for that error then the whole of the USA will end up doing so.0 -
Not exactly N to S though, good as it is...Leon said:
I confess my geography is hazy. But there is a fast road. The North Devon Link Road? I just remember zipping along itBenpointer said:
Bloody hell, I'm glad I have never met you coming the other way in the 'fast lane' of the A377!Leon said:
Er, there is a dual carriageway from Exeter to Barnstaple? A fast, efficient road as I recallMarqueeMark said:
A north-south major road in Devon would be welcome. It is well over two hours south coast to north coast. Just staying in the one county. I've only been up there once in ten years, because it is so hassle-some.FlightsPath said:
The vast sums spent on dual roads streaking up to Aberdeen and other points north do good business in...speeding fines if not commercial traffic.MarqueeMark said:
That keeps those Cumbrian seats safe. A fast motorway round the coast to Whitehaven, presumably.Foxy said:
Put the customs posts on the IoM presumably. And quite a major spur off the M6.MarqueeMark said:
I heard the cost of tunnelling has very significantly decreased since the Channel Tunnel. Still about a million tons of munitions in that trench above, so you are going to have to go REALLY deep - or around.kle4 said:
I've heard that would be en expensive, technical nightmare. But I don't think anyone cares about the cost of things anymore in fairness.Razedabode said:An undersea tunnel, possibly dubbed “Boris’ burrow”, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland could get the green light as early next month
Via @Telegraph
..at least we’ll all that this to look forward to
If you wanted a really funky project - but safer - try TWO tunnels. But with the Isle of Man in between them. And starting in Cumbria - cutting out Scotland, just in case it goes independent.
But then I am I bit jaundiced ... I do know what the problems are between Exeter and Barnstable.
But you'd annoy a host of folk, wherever you sited it.0 -
In this instance? Absolutely, 100% this was not the "rule of law", there was no court of law here.felix said:
So you believe the US doesn't have the rule of law? Then you are clear. Fair enough.Philip_Thompson said:
I'm not sure if that was meant to apply to reporting foreign politics.FrancisUrquhart said:
I wasn't actually wasn't complaining...more observing that my understanding was the new boss of the BBC had told them they weren't to voice opinions, especially on politics, on twitter. There was quite a backlash against it from the staff, so I wonder if they have quietly dropped it.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.
How would you report on eg the Navalny case etc without delving into opinions? When countries don't have t he rule of law then what's supposed to be done?
The Senators voted not solely based upon evidence but upon fear they'd be primaried if they voted to convict. If this was a court of law and judges voted to acquit as they feared reprisals if they voted to convict then the rule of law would have broken down already yes.0 -
I suppose he stated incitement as a fact before saying that trump was acquitted. The implication being the acquittal was wrong. That’s close to an opinion although I don’t think it is problematic as it’s just natural reportingPhilip_Thompson said:
In the last week alone I've seen news reports (Sky since I don't want the Beeb but I'm assuming BBC are the same) of journalists calling out the Chinese (Uighur, Hong Kong), Russians (Navalny) and Myanmar (Aung San Suu Kyi). They quite rightly don't just stick to the 'official' line being of the country being reported on.felix said:
Do they - I get very annoyed watching both CNN and Fox as they in no way resemble news channels wrt US politics. They are way more partisan than anything in the UK or here in Spain [ insofar as my Spanish allows me to understand some of the niceties]. I presume you mean when the BBC report on places like China, N. Korea , etc. I watch the BBC World service a lot and on the whole they seem to report more and comment less. This is the balance I prefer as I can then make my own judgement. I watch Euronews too and their reports are pretty neutral in the main - the only recent exception being the silly Keating character who is clearly crazy about the whole vaccine business.kamski said:
Weird though that some people seem to complain about BBC journalists voicing this kind of "opinion" about a foreign country ONLY when the foreign country is the USA.felix said:
No it really is not factual reporting. It's as clear an expression of an opinion as you can get.Philip_Thompson said:
It's a factual reporting from another country.FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
How is this any different?0 -
Hmmmm... (a) I don't buy it; (b) if it does happen I hope to goodness it's not too soon - it'd be better to wait than to risk any further major reversals.FrancisUrquhart said:Front pages full of stories of the unlocking....seems government have been busy briefing again
Back in the boozer for Easter apparently. Picnics with anybody from March 8th..... just got to move the snow before putting the blanket down!0 -
Felt that way about the first impeachment of You-Know-Who. But NOT the second.Mysticrose said:The Democrats made a huge error in pressing for impeachment. Staggeringly poor politics.
Why? Because I believed that, given the fact the Senate was clearly NOT going to convict, that an impeachment BEFORE the verdict of the 2020 election was both pointless since the Dems garbled the reason(s) for impeachment at that time, AND there was zero chance of conviction, again on grounds presented and at that time.
However, the situation has changed in many ways, since a) the election of Joe Biden AND Kamala Harris; b) the attempted Trumpsky Putch; and b) the Democrats winning 50 seats in US Senate.
With the most important being the Putsch. Which IMHO (shared by many) virtually compelled impeachment, and SHOULD have resulted in conviction. AND even the failure of the attempt, has succeeded in putting the brand of Cain upon the GOP in general, in particular on those politicos & pundits who are STILL standing up (or like Lindsay Graham, slithering around) for their Fearless Leader.
0 -
There's never going to be any further major reversals now.Black_Rook said:
Hmmmm... (a) I don't buy it; (b) if it does happen I hope to goodness it's not too soon - it'd be better to wait than to risk any further major reversals.FrancisUrquhart said:Front pages full of stories of the unlocking....seems government have been busy briefing again
Back in the boozer for Easter apparently. Picnics with anybody from March 8th..... just got to move the snow before putting the blanket down!
Even if lifting lockdown triggered R going back up, the vaccine rollout would be increasingly pushing it back down.1 -
Old Tone back again with more suggestions....is he thinking of coming back into politics?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9257783/TONY-BLAIR-world-needs-agree-form-Covid-passport-Britain-lead-way.html0 -
Easter on the piss would be good. I'm getting bored of drinking on ZoonPhilip_Thompson said:
There's never going to be any further major reversals now.Black_Rook said:
Hmmmm... (a) I don't buy it; (b) if it does happen I hope to goodness it's not too soon - it'd be better to wait than to risk any further major reversals.FrancisUrquhart said:Front pages full of stories of the unlocking....seems government have been busy briefing again
Back in the boozer for Easter apparently. Picnics with anybody from March 8th..... just got to move the snow before putting the blanket down!
Even if lifting lockdown triggered R going back up, the vaccine rollout would be increasingly pushing it back down.2 -
Lol - there have only been 4 ...ever. You really need to do better than that. Look I do not like the porcess of impeachment. However, it is part of the American constitution which is a functioning democracy and the rule of law. The Democrats chose to use it, as is their right. They knew the numbers. In the long run they may achieve their objective but equally they might shore up the sense of grievance which exists among around half of the voters. I doubt if Biden's heart was really in this because he is playing a longer game of winning hearts and minds. Either way, my original point is I like my journalists less partisan - the reason I largely ignore CNN/Fox/Sky , etc.Philip_Thompson said:
Why would he?felix said:
That is a different issue altogether. The impeachment process is clearly unsatisfactory - you might just as easily say that Democratic senators were politically motivated. The journalist did not make that point however.kamski said:
But the impeachment "trial" is not any kind of normal legal process is it? It's not really controversial to suggest that the Republican senators who voted to acquit did so for political reasons, rather than after carefully considering the evidence in a legal sense.felix said:
That though is a criticism of the legal processes in different countries, control of the judiciary, etc. People may well feel that Trump is awful on many levels. Last time I looked the US has a functioning democracy, legal system , etc. However, on the wider point, I want journalists to report the news rather than tell people what to think.kamski said:
Indeed, it's like complaining that a BBC journalist shouldn't be allowed to say something critical of Erdogan because a Turkish court, or the Turkish parliament said that Erdogan is right. Actually bizarre how strongly people on here identify with Trump (unless they are Americans).Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely.algarkirk said:
I am no friend of BBC bias, but this analysis when carefully considered looks like a completely reasonable account of the circumstances, or what is sometimes called a factual account. He says that Trump did do certain things which incited people and that some senators had particular motivations when making their decisions. I wonder which facts are seriously in dispute here?FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
If this was a report about Putin or Myanmar then almost nobody would bat an eyelid.
Seven Republicans voted with the Democrats. As he said, it was the most crosspartisan impeachment vote that has ever been held.1 -
Are we talking about the same thing?felix said:
For me when a reporter appears to override in his commentary a decision based on due process in a country with a functioning democracy where the rule of law prevails, for me this is not good journalism. If you think that Turkey and Russia are equivalent functioning democracies to the USA, EU and the UK good on you. We must agree to differ.kamski said:
I have never heard anyone on here complain about BBC journalists offering a critical analysis of Putin or Erdogan, but there seem to be what seem to me to be complaints about comments like this from BBC journalists about Trump.felix said:
Do they - I get very annoyed watching both CNN and Fox as they in no way resemble news channels wrt US politics. They are way more partisan than anything in the UK or here in Spain [ insofar as my Spanish allows me to understand some of the niceties]. I presume you mean when the BBC report on places like China, N. Korea , etc. I watch the BBC World service a lot and on the whole they seem to report more and comment less. This is the balance I prefer as I can then make my own judgement. I watch Euronews too and their reports are pretty neutral in the main - the only recent exception being the silly Keating character who is clearly crazy about the whole vaccine business.kamski said:
Weird though that some people seem to complain about BBC journalists voicing this kind of "opinion" about a foreign country ONLY when the foreign country is the USA.felix said:
No it really is not factual reporting. It's as clear an expression of an opinion as you can get.Philip_Thompson said:
It's a factual reporting from another country.FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
Unless I have completely misunderstood, for example, this from you:
"When journalists make such clearly partisan comments they have zero credibility. With Fox and CNN this is pretty normal these days. From the BBC disappointing. Like the result or not - he has had a trial under the law of the constitution. Due process has I presume been followed. I think the big losers politically are the Republicans. I'd rather journalism was not added to the list."
A journalist tweeted this: "Historical takeaway: a president who incited an insurrectionary mob to attack the US Capitol was acquitted in an impeachment trial six weeks later partly because Republican Senators were afraid of his personal base."
It doesn't seem a controversial statement, let alone an attempt to override a "decision based on due process in a country with a functioning democracy where the rule of law prevails"
Unless you think Trump didn't incite an insurrectionary mob? Even the Republican Senate leader McConnell hasn't said that (in fact he said "There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically, and morally, responsible for provoking the events of the day"), but instead claims to have voted to acquit because he claims he doesn't think congress has the power to convict after someone has left office (a claim at best disingenuous as he was the one who delayed the senate trial until after Trump had left office).0 -
One thing he has never quite seemed to appreciate is that the average Brit doesn't like ID related stuff. Brits are more freedom loving than that.FrancisUrquhart said:Old Tone back again with more suggestions....is he thinking of coming back into politics?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9257783/TONY-BLAIR-world-needs-agree-form-Covid-passport-Britain-lead-way.html1 -
1) Normality is just a few tens of millions of jabs awayBlack_Rook said:
Hmmmm... (a) I don't buy it; (b) if it does happen I hope to goodness it's not too soon - it'd be better to wait than to risk any further major reversals.FrancisUrquhart said:Front pages full of stories of the unlocking....seems government have been busy briefing again
Back in the boozer for Easter apparently. Picnics with anybody from March 8th..... just got to move the snow before putting the blanket down!
2) The only threat to Boris' position is from the backbenches. Who (rightly IMO) want to open up sooner than SAGE.0 -
It would be typical of Boris if he built a tunnel from Scotland to Northern Ireland, and by the time it was finished, it linked two independent countries in the EU.3
-
I think he would be content only with a BBC report that went along the following bland and uninformative lines. "Today the US Senate failed to impeach ex US President Trump on a charge of inciting a riot at the Capitol. The leaders of both parties in the Senate accepted that he was entirely responsible for the actions of the rioters. We cannot offer you any insight into the reasons that led an acquittal in such circumstances, because to do so would be to interpret the facts as we see them."kamski said:
Are we talking about the same thing?felix said:
For me when a reporter appears to override in his commentary a decision based on due process in a country with a functioning democracy where the rule of law prevails, for me this is not good journalism. If you think that Turkey and Russia are equivalent functioning democracies to the USA, EU and the UK good on you. We must agree to differ.kamski said:
I have never heard anyone on here complain about BBC journalists offering a critical analysis of Putin or Erdogan, but there seem to be what seem to me to be complaints about comments like this from BBC journalists about Trump.felix said:
Do they - I get very annoyed watching both CNN and Fox as they in no way resemble news channels wrt US politics. They are way more partisan than anything in the UK or here in Spain [ insofar as my Spanish allows me to understand some of the niceties]. I presume you mean when the BBC report on places like China, N. Korea , etc. I watch the BBC World service a lot and on the whole they seem to report more and comment less. This is the balance I prefer as I can then make my own judgement. I watch Euronews too and their reports are pretty neutral in the main - the only recent exception being the silly Keating character who is clearly crazy about the whole vaccine business.kamski said:
Weird though that some people seem to complain about BBC journalists voicing this kind of "opinion" about a foreign country ONLY when the foreign country is the USA.felix said:
No it really is not factual reporting. It's as clear an expression of an opinion as you can get.Philip_Thompson said:
It's a factual reporting from another country.FrancisUrquhart said:I thought BBC journos were supposed to be taming down their political stances on twitter? I am not saying his take is wrong, but my understanding was they were supposed to be keeping their opinions to themselves.
https://twitter.com/NickBryantNY/status/1360693180493135876?s=20
Unless I have completely misunderstood, for example, this from you:
"When journalists make such clearly partisan comments they have zero credibility. With Fox and CNN this is pretty normal these days. From the BBC disappointing. Like the result or not - he has had a trial under the law of the constitution. Due process has I presume been followed. I think the big losers politically are the Republicans. I'd rather journalism was not added to the list."
A journalist tweeted this: "Historical takeaway: a president who incited an insurrectionary mob to attack the US Capitol was acquitted in an impeachment trial six weeks later partly because Republican Senators were afraid of his personal base."
It doesn't seem a controversial statement, let alone an attempt to override a "decision based on due process in a country with a functioning democracy where the rule of law prevails"
Unless you think Trump didn't incite an insurrectionary mob? Even the Republican Senate leader McConnell hasn't said that (in fact he said "There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically, and morally, responsible for provoking the events of the day"), but instead claims to have voted to acquit because he claims he doesn't think congress has the power to convict after someone has left office (a claim at best disingenuous as he was the one who delayed the senate trial until after Trump had left office).0 -
0
-
I presume this will make HS2 look cheap?
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1360724248382353414?s=190 -
But, like with the single dose, why isn't Tone feeding these ideas to SKS?FrancisUrquhart said:Old Tone back again with more suggestions....is he thinking of coming back into politics?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9257783/TONY-BLAIR-world-needs-agree-form-Covid-passport-Britain-lead-way.html
SKS looks as though he may not have had an original thought in his life.
He could do with some of Tone's magic stardust coming his way.1 -
0
-
Maybe we could get swampy and his mates who have been digging the tunnels under HS2 to.do Boris Burrow.0
-
This year, and in every year to come, the only thing that will make ever make HS2 look cheap (or at least cheaper) is the previously reported estimated cost of HS2, by comparison to the estimate after it is updated.FrancisUrquhart said:I presume this will make HS2 look cheap?
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1360724248382353414?s=193 -
Unlikely as the UK government gets the final say on the Union in Scotland and Unionists still win more votes than Nationalists in NI.Fairliered said:It would be typical of Boris if he built a tunnel from Scotland to Northern Ireland, and by the time it was finished, it linked two independent countries in the EU.
It is actually a great way to unite our United Kingdom closer together1 -
Conviction would have actually seen Trump create a new populist party which would have overtaken the GOP, Trump would have followed what his mate Farage did in creating the Brexit Party in regards to May's Tories and forced a reverse takeover.felix said:
I believe that the Republican party should have voted to impeach in the long-term interest of the party surviving. America is in a very difficult place at the moment - the degree of polarisation is close to 50/50. Biden has a difficult task ahead of him. The country needs a period of calm and stabilty.LostPassword said:
Yes. The mistake was not in impeachment, it was in not convicting. That error was the Republicans.kle4 said:
Some things are worth attempting even if they will fail. What he did crossed so many lines and as they argued, if this was not impeachable what was?Mysticrose said:The Democrats made a huge error in pressing for impeachment. Staggeringly poor politics.
If the Republicans are not made to pay for that error then the whole of the USA will end up doing so.
0 -
We can put it on Scotland's tab.Fairliered said:It would be typical of Boris if he built a tunnel from Scotland to Northern Ireland, and by the time it was finished, it linked two independent countries in the EU.
What will they do with the spoil? Boris Island?0 -
-
Yes, it's Opinium.Floater said:Is this a "proper poll"?
https://twitter.com/OprosUK/status/1360682995653496837
They also asked: "Do you think a Labour government led by Keir Starmer would have done a better or worse job at slowing the spread of coronavirus?
Better 31%
Worse 20%
However, as all the news is now dominated by the vaccine rollout, Johnson is at present able to get away with his wider failings on Covid by virtue of being seen to have succeeded with the vaccine.0 -
We'll never know now whether your prediction would have happened.HYUFD said:
Conviction would have actually seen Trump create a new populist party which would have overtaken the GOP, Trump would have followed what his mate Farage did in creating the Brexit Party in regards to May's Tories and forced a reverse takeover.felix said:
I believe that the Republican party should have voted to impeach in the long-term interest of the party surviving. America is in a very difficult place at the moment - the degree of polarisation is close to 50/50. Biden has a difficult task ahead of him. The country needs a period of calm and stabilty.LostPassword said:
Yes. The mistake was not in impeachment, it was in not convicting. That error was the Republicans.kle4 said:
Some things are worth attempting even if they will fail. What he did crossed so many lines and as they argued, if this was not impeachable what was?Mysticrose said:The Democrats made a huge error in pressing for impeachment. Staggeringly poor politics.
If the Republicans are not made to pay for that error then the whole of the USA will end up doing so.
However, what should not be in dispute is this.
Not convicting shows that Trump has already created a new populist party by taking over the GOP.0 -
I have just read David Herdson's excellent article on this May's elections. Much of it I do agree with - though I think it is stretching things a bit to view elections held less than 17 months beyond the previous GE as 'midterm', particularly in the context of normal party politics having been in abeyance since March 2020. The polls suggest that the Tories have recovered to roughly how things stood in early Autumn of last year - a steady lead but still well down on the stratospheric poll leads of March/April 2020. I must also point out that the Tories performed well in the County Council elections of April 1961 - and the Urban and City Council elections held a month later. A year later Macmillan's government had become unpopular and the Tories went on to lose in 1964.0
-
"two independent countries in the EU"?Fairliered said:It would be typical of Boris if he built a tunnel from Scotland to Northern Ireland, and by the time it was finished, it linked two independent countries in the EU.
No country in the EU is independent.0 -
It's better to win the fourth lap than the first three. No-one remembers who was winning at the bell.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Yes, it's Opinium.Floater said:Is this a "proper poll"?
https://twitter.com/OprosUK/status/1360682995653496837
They also asked: "Do you think a Labour government led by Keir Starmer would have done a better or worse job at slowing the spread of coronavirus?
Better 31%
Worse 20%
However, as all the news is now dominated by the vaccine rollout, Johnson is at present able to get away with his wider failings on Covid by virtue of being seen to have succeeded with the vaccine.1 -
And as others have pointed out - independent countries in the EU? Um, OK.HYUFD said:
Unlikely as the UK government gets the final say on the Union in Scotland and Unionists still win more votes than Nationalists in NI.Fairliered said:It would be typical of Boris if he built a tunnel from Scotland to Northern Ireland, and by the time it was finished, it linked two independent countries in the EU.
It is actually a great way to unite our United Kingdom closer together1 -
.
Unite the Union in unified unity!HYUFD said:
Unlikely as the UK government gets the final say on the Union in Scotland and Unionists still win more votes than Nationalists in NI.Fairliered said:It would be typical of Boris if he built a tunnel from Scotland to Northern Ireland, and by the time it was finished, it linked two independent countries in the EU.
It is actually a great way to unite our United Kingdom closer together0 -
I suspect that within a few months when all developed countries will have vaccinated their populations that it will no longer particularly matter who managed to get there first. The final death totals are likely to be just as important - and lasting in terms of impact.MarqueeMark said:
It's better to win the fourth lap than the first three. No-one remembers who was winning at the bell.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Yes, it's Opinium.Floater said:Is this a "proper poll"?
https://twitter.com/OprosUK/status/1360682995653496837
They also asked: "Do you think a Labour government led by Keir Starmer would have done a better or worse job at slowing the spread of coronavirus?
Better 31%
Worse 20%
However, as all the news is now dominated by the vaccine rollout, Johnson is at present able to get away with his wider failings on Covid by virtue of being seen to have succeeded with the vaccine.0 -
about that "within a few months"....justin124 said:
I suspect that within a few months when all developed countries will have vaccinated their populations that it will no longer particularly matter who managed to get there first. The final death totals are likely to be just as important - and lasting in terms of impact.MarqueeMark said:
It's better to win the fourth lap than the first three. No-one remembers who was winning at the bell.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Yes, it's Opinium.Floater said:Is this a "proper poll"?
https://twitter.com/OprosUK/status/1360682995653496837
They also asked: "Do you think a Labour government led by Keir Starmer would have done a better or worse job at slowing the spread of coronavirus?
Better 31%
Worse 20%
However, as all the news is now dominated by the vaccine rollout, Johnson is at present able to get away with his wider failings on Covid by virtue of being seen to have succeeded with the vaccine.0 -
Apart from being independent enough to decide whether they want to be in the EU or not.Wulfrun_Phil said:
"two independent countries in the EU"?Fairliered said:It would be typical of Boris if he built a tunnel from Scotland to Northern Ireland, and by the time it was finished, it linked two independent countries in the EU.
No country in the EU is independent.0 -
I think we'd all be disappointed if you didn't point out political parallels from a time before the Beatles released their first song...justin124 said:I have just read David Herdson's excellent article on this May's elections. Much of it I do agree with - though I think it is stretching things a bit to view elections held less than 17 months beyond the previous GE as 'midterm', particularly in the context of normal party politics having been in abeyance since March 2020. The polls suggest that the Tories have recovered to roughly how things stood in early Autumn of last year - a steady lead but still well down on the stratospheric poll leads of March/April 2020. I must also point out that the Tories performed well in the County Council elections of April 1961 - and the Urban and City Council elections held a month later. A year later Macmillan's government had become unpopular and the Tories went on to lose in 1964.
0 -
If only the founding fathers had known that 52-48 is a “clear majority”0
-
I was too young to remember those elections - but have studied them .We were marginally closer to 'midterm' in April/May 1961 than will be the case in early May this year. Your point is?BluestBlue said:
I think we'd all be disappointed if you didn't point out political parallels from a time before the Beatles released their first song...justin124 said:I have just read David Herdson's excellent article on this May's elections. Much of it I do agree with - though I think it is stretching things a bit to view elections held less than 17 months beyond the previous GE as 'midterm', particularly in the context of normal party politics having been in abeyance since March 2020. The polls suggest that the Tories have recovered to roughly how things stood in early Autumn of last year - a steady lead but still well down on the stratospheric poll leads of March/April 2020. I must also point out that the Tories performed well in the County Council elections of April 1961 - and the Urban and City Council elections held a month later. A year later Macmillan's government had become unpopular and the Tories went on to lose in 1964.
0 -
That it's so far back in time it has absolutely zero bearing on what will happen now?justin124 said:
I was too young to remember those elections - but have studied them .We were marginally closer to 'midterm' in April/May 1961 than will be the case in early May this year. Your point is?BluestBlue said:
I think we'd all be disappointed if you didn't point out political parallels from a time before the Beatles released their first song...justin124 said:I have just read David Herdson's excellent article on this May's elections. Much of it I do agree with - though I think it is stretching things a bit to view elections held less than 17 months beyond the previous GE as 'midterm', particularly in the context of normal party politics having been in abeyance since March 2020. The polls suggest that the Tories have recovered to roughly how things stood in early Autumn of last year - a steady lead but still well down on the stratospheric poll leads of March/April 2020. I must also point out that the Tories performed well in the County Council elections of April 1961 - and the Urban and City Council elections held a month later. A year later Macmillan's government had become unpopular and the Tories went on to lose in 1964.
0 -
But 'midterm' unpopularity was as obvious back then as it is today. In March 1962 the Tories lost Orpington to the Liberals - and a further three seats to Labour at by elections that year. Moreover , the Television Age had arrived by that time too.RobD said:
That it's so far back in time it has absolutely zero bearing on what will happen now?justin124 said:
I was too young to remember those elections - but have studied them .We were marginally closer to 'midterm' in April/May 1961 than will be the case in early May this year. Your point is?BluestBlue said:
I think we'd all be disappointed if you didn't point out political parallels from a time before the Beatles released their first song...justin124 said:I have just read David Herdson's excellent article on this May's elections. Much of it I do agree with - though I think it is stretching things a bit to view elections held less than 17 months beyond the previous GE as 'midterm', particularly in the context of normal party politics having been in abeyance since March 2020. The polls suggest that the Tories have recovered to roughly how things stood in early Autumn of last year - a steady lead but still well down on the stratospheric poll leads of March/April 2020. I must also point out that the Tories performed well in the County Council elections of April 1961 - and the Urban and City Council elections held a month later. A year later Macmillan's government had become unpopular and the Tories went on to lose in 1964.
0 -
The fortunes of the governing party in each parliament are different. The fact you have to go back almost sixty years proves my point, doesn't it?justin124 said:
But 'midterm' unpopularity was as obvious back then as it is today. In March 1962 the Tories lost Orpington to the Liberals - and a further three seats to Labour at by elections that year. Moreover , the Television Age had arrived by that time too.RobD said:
That it's so far back in time it has absolutely zero bearing on what will happen now?justin124 said:
I was too young to remember those elections - but have studied them .We were marginally closer to 'midterm' in April/May 1961 than will be the case in early May this year. Your point is?BluestBlue said:
I think we'd all be disappointed if you didn't point out political parallels from a time before the Beatles released their first song...justin124 said:I have just read David Herdson's excellent article on this May's elections. Much of it I do agree with - though I think it is stretching things a bit to view elections held less than 17 months beyond the previous GE as 'midterm', particularly in the context of normal party politics having been in abeyance since March 2020. The polls suggest that the Tories have recovered to roughly how things stood in early Autumn of last year - a steady lead but still well down on the stratospheric poll leads of March/April 2020. I must also point out that the Tories performed well in the County Council elections of April 1961 - and the Urban and City Council elections held a month later. A year later Macmillan's government had become unpopular and the Tories went on to lose in 1964.
1 -
What's striking in all these findings is the number who say dunno/much the same. It's what I'm also picking up in phone canvassing - most people see the pandemic as apolitical, and aren't inclined to change their votes over it. Johnson certainly benefits from the issue being the only game in town and always having something reportable to say about it (that, rather than a vaccine bonus, is what's helping the Tory vote), but I'll be surprised if it ends up being hugely beneficial to either side, even after the inquiry.MarqueeMark said:
It's better to win the fourth lap than the first three. No-one remembers who was winning at the bell.Wulfrun_Phil said:
Yes, it's Opinium.Floater said:Is this a "proper poll"?
https://twitter.com/OprosUK/status/1360682995653496837
They also asked: "Do you think a Labour government led by Keir Starmer would have done a better or worse job at slowing the spread of coronavirus?
Better 31%
Worse 20%
However, as all the news is now dominated by the vaccine rollout, Johnson is at present able to get away with his wider failings on Covid by virtue of being seen to have succeeded with the vaccine.1 -
Simple and straightforward. He whipped them up. He told them to come. He told them to march. For the express purpose of preventing the certification of his opponent's win. He'd angered them so much with lies violence was emminently possible.HYUFD said:0 -
He's already come back, as he now often makes policy suggestions which are taken somewhat seriously rather than people just reflexively mentioning Iraq or telling him to shut his trap.FrancisUrquhart said:Old Tone back again with more suggestions....is he thinking of coming back into politics?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9257783/TONY-BLAIR-world-needs-agree-form-Covid-passport-Britain-lead-way.html
But a man who names his post politics think tank the 'Tony Blair Institute' is probably not inclined to drag himself down into the muck of parliamentary politics, and its at least part time local focus, rather than focus on himself.0
