I keep waiting to find out that Fox is actually making some weird gonzo movie like Orlando Bloom? (Or was it another famous hollywood actor that appeared to go increasingly weird and unhinged and it actually all an act for some movie).
'persons of pigment' 'the hell or high altar of wokenesss'
Does Lozza write his own songs? Watch out, Cole Porter.
What does that even mean? He’s reached a point of total incoherence. To be charitable, perhaps he’s still drunk after last night …
Edit. I see it was sent before the match - must have been pre-fuelling.
Fairly clear what he means. He dislikes hearing others opinions and wants them to shut up. Quite strange for someone who allegedly opposes cancel culture but there you go.
I keep waiting to find out that Fox is actually making some weird gonzo movie like Orlando Bloom? (Or was it another famous hollywood actor that appeared to go increasingly weird and unhinged and it actually all an act for some movie).
Joaquin Phoenix, and it was tedious schtick with him.
I think Fox's issue is he tries too hard, after enjoying the mild praise/outrage from his initial burst onto the political scene a bit too much.
I keep waiting to find out that Fox is actually making some weird gonzo movie like Orlando Bloom? (Or was it another famous hollywood actor that appeared to go increasingly weird and unhinged and it actually all an act for some movie).
Joaquin Phoenix, and it was tedious schtick with him.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
It was and it didn't.
I don't think it was. There was a highly adversarial legal process, where claims were made and as far as I recall, thrown out wholesale. The Sydney Powell lawsuit had a big dose of farce, but a few of the claims had some validity and could and should have been checked. Of course this is just as much the Republican/Trump administration's fault as it is the Democrats'. However, those who said at the time (as some did here) that extra investigations were a bad idea because they were an insult to democracy and opened the floodgates, were simply wrong. What the lack of rigour has actually achieved is what it was designed to prevent. You are a physics teacher (right?). There is no harm that can come from dispassionate investigation of the facts.
The Georgia results were recounted and seperatly hand verified.
Biden won every time.
They had the highest possible level of rigour applied.
That still didn't stop accusations that Trump won Georgia.
That would ensure that votes cast equalled votes counted, but not that those votes were cast by people who existed and were entitled to vote.
I keep waiting to find out that Fox is actually making some weird gonzo movie like Orlando Bloom? (Or was it another famous hollywood actor that appeared to go increasingly weird and unhinged and it actually all an act for some movie).
Joaquin Phoenix, and it was tedious schtick with him.
Sorry yes thats him. Fox's schtick isnt tedious?
What I meant was it was tedious with Phoenix, who is much more acclaimed actor, so it's even more tedious were it a less acclaimed one.
'persons of pigment' 'the hell or high altar of wokenesss'
Does Lozza write his own songs? Watch out, Cole Porter.
What does that even mean? He’s reached a point of total incoherence. To be charitable, perhaps he’s still drunk after last night …
Edit. I see it was sent before the match - must have been pre-fuelling.
Fairly clear what he means. He dislikes hearing others opinions and wants them to shut up. Quite strange for someone who allegedly opposes cancel culture but there you go.
People that go for cancel culture always like to cancel opinions they don't like, or stay silent when people who aren't on their side, have their opinions cancelled.
What these people want is to say things without being challenged, that's the truth of it.
Fake, non-existent war that doesn't matter to the average voter. End of story.
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
My point TSE, was that I recall - I may be wrong - that Cameron's ratings were also in the gutter and yet he was able to recover and win. A combination of Brown becoming unpopular, boredom of Labour and Cameron being liked.
These are all things that could conceivably happen to Starmer.
Amusingly, as part of an opus I'm writing you could argue that Starmer is following Thatcher's trajectory of LOTO but there were far too few polls in those days.
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
My point TSE, was that I recall - I may be wrong - that Cameron's ratings were also in the gutter and yet he was able to recover and win. A combination of Brown becoming unpopular, boredom of Labour and Cameron being liked.
These are all things that could conceivably happen to Starmer.
Amusingly, as part of an opus I'm writing you could argue that Starmer is following Thatcher's trajectory of LOTO but there were far too few polls in those days.
I hope you are well BTW - and I will be excited to read it.
How do you rate Starmer's chances now and what next for him?
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
It was and it didn't.
I don't think it was. There was a highly adversarial legal process, where claims were made and as far as I recall, thrown out wholesale. The Sydney Powell lawsuit had a big dose of farce, but a few of the claims had some validity and could and should have been checked. Of course this is just as much the Republican/Trump administration's fault as it is the Democrats'. However, those who said at the time (as some did here) that extra investigations were a bad idea because they were an insult to democracy and opened the floodgates, were simply wrong. What the lack of rigour has actually achieved is what it was designed to prevent. You are a physics teacher (right?). There is no harm that can come from dispassionate investigation of the facts.
No, there was. Many/most of the “disputed” states conducted rigorous audits to validate the results and they found nothing. They have been rejected by Trumpists, not because they weren’t rigorous but because they found nothing.
Your comments about whether claims were properly examined by the courts is accepting Trumpist propaganda. There were not “serious claims” rejected by courts on technicalities. Leaving aside the fantastical Powell stuff about Dominion etc, as well as mathematical illiterate statistical claims about how Mail in votes should closely correlate to votes cast and counted on the day, what there were were protests which were trying to throw out millions of vote on the back of claims that electoral authorities had put in place voting mechanisms that they shouldn’t have. Effectively that huge numbers of people who voted in good faith should have their votes rejected, not because they voted fraudulently, but for no other reason than they followed the guidance of the electoral administration authorities. Most of which was challenged before the election and rejected, or could have been challenged and wasn’t.
And as the Courts quite properly pointed out, you need a bit more than that to throw out hundreds of thousands/millions of votes to do that. Some sort of legitimate evidence that the guidance followed in good faith resulted in widespread fraud and unsafe electoral outcomes as a result. Essentially if an eligible voter cast a single vote in good faith believing that they were in compliance with the rules and with a legitimate expectation that their vote would be counted, and errors by administration authorities should not be grounds to not count that vote. times 1,000,000
'persons of pigment' 'the hell or high altar of wokenesss'
Does Lozza write his own songs? Watch out, Cole Porter.
What does that even mean? He’s reached a point of total incoherence. To be charitable, perhaps he’s still drunk after last night …
Edit. I see it was sent before the match - must have been pre-fuelling.
Fairly clear what he means. He dislikes hearing others opinions and wants them to shut up. Quite strange for someone who allegedly opposes cancel culture but there you go.
Through visualisation, I was trying to make sense of the ‘hell and high altar of wokeness’ but it was making my head hurt, so I had to stop.
I presume it will be unity, as I would expect the EU probably insist we change our plates at some point lest people think we are still in the EU.
Though I see one of the first comments under that story is someone moaning about a 'butcher's apron', a sure sign they are a bot or mentally 14 years old and probably shouldn't be driving anyway.
I presume it will be unity, as I would expect the EU probably insist we change our plates at some point lest people think we are still in the EU.
Though I see one of the first comments under that story is someone moaning about a 'butcher's apron', a sure sign they are a bot or mentally 14 years old and probably shouldn't be driving anyway.
I was struck by the longstanding use of the misleading GB - or did NI have a separate plate?
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
It was and it didn't.
I don't think it was. There was a highly adversarial legal process, where claims were made and as far as I recall, thrown out wholesale. The Sydney Powell lawsuit had a big dose of farce, but a few of the claims had some validity and could and should have been checked. Of course this is just as much the Republican/Trump administration's fault as it is the Democrats'. However, those who said at the time (as some did here) that extra investigations were a bad idea because they were an insult to democracy and opened the floodgates, were simply wrong. What the lack of rigour has actually achieved is what it was designed to prevent. You are a physics teacher (right?). There is no harm that can come from dispassionate investigation of the facts.
The Georgia results were recounted and seperatly hand verified.
Biden won every time.
They had the highest possible level of rigour applied.
That still didn't stop accusations that Trump won Georgia.
That would ensure that votes cast equalled votes counted, but not that those votes were cast by people who existed and were entitled to vote.
I presume it will be unity, as I would expect the EU probably insist we change our plates at some point lest people think we are still in the EU.
Though I see one of the first comments under that story is someone moaning about a 'butcher's apron', a sure sign they are a bot or mentally 14 years old and probably shouldn't be driving anyway.
I was struck by the longstanding use of the misleading GB - or did NI have a separate plate?
I think they may have been the forgotten sibling of the UK tribe in that regard.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
It was and it didn't.
I don't think it was. There was a highly adversarial legal process, where claims were made and as far as I recall, thrown out wholesale. The Sydney Powell lawsuit had a big dose of farce, but a few of the claims had some validity and could and should have been checked. Of course this is just as much the Republican/Trump administration's fault as it is the Democrats'. However, those who said at the time (as some did here) that extra investigations were a bad idea because they were an insult to democracy and opened the floodgates, were simply wrong. What the lack of rigour has actually achieved is what it was designed to prevent. You are a physics teacher (right?). There is no harm that can come from dispassionate investigation of the facts.
The Georgia results were recounted and seperatly hand verified.
Biden won every time.
They had the highest possible level of rigour applied.
That still didn't stop accusations that Trump won Georgia.
That would ensure that votes cast equalled votes counted, but not that those votes were cast by people who existed and were entitled to vote.
And there was more than enough publicly available information on who voted to be able to provide serious evidence of large numbers of ghost votes if people had looked for it. But if they did they couldn’t find it, and any such “lists” they did produce were pretty rapidly and easily debunked by the authorities. But once the lists were out there, the conspiracy theorists just accepted them as fact, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Whilst clinging to the bonkers “statistical analysis” at the same time.
As long as Trump continued to claim the election was stolen, a large part of his support believed it regardless of how ridiculous it was. Often it was a mutual feedback loop - a bonkers Trumpist supporter would produce a ridiculous theory and back it up with “evidence”. Trump would repeat it and retweet it to millions. And to his millions of supporters in then became established fact that the authorities were covering up and the courts were dismissing on “technicalities”.
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
My point TSE, was that I recall - I may be wrong - that Cameron's ratings were also in the gutter and yet he was able to recover and win. A combination of Brown becoming unpopular, boredom of Labour and Cameron being liked.
These are all things that could conceivably happen to Starmer.
As soon as the public saw Cameron and Brown face up in the Commons, Cameron started to become more popular. Cameron’s ratings were in the gutter vs Blair. So yes, if the Tories replace Boris with Theresa May, Starmer might do a Cameron
Now Labour did lead in the summer of 2007 but that was little more than an ephemeral new leader poll bounce.
Didn't Gordon pull on his galoshes and whizz off to deal with some flooding somewhere? Unfortunately the tsunami of insolvencies just around the corner tarnished his image somewhat.
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
My point TSE, was that I recall - I may be wrong - that Cameron's ratings were also in the gutter and yet he was able to recover and win. A combination of Brown becoming unpopular, boredom of Labour and Cameron being liked.
These are all things that could conceivably happen to Starmer.
Amusingly, as part of an opus I'm writing you could argue that Starmer is following Thatcher's trajectory of LOTO but there were far too few polls in those days.
I hope you are well BTW - and I will be excited to read it.
How do you rate Starmer's chances now and what next for him?
I'm good thank you.
I think Starmer has some fundamental problems beyond his control, and some within his control, celebrating holding Batley and Spen is like Manchester United celebrating drawing with Doncaster Rovers or Everton.
One thing I've noticed, every LOTO that has become PM in the last 50 years has had a strong shadow cabinet, a government in waiting.
Cameron had Osborne, Hague, and Clarke to share the heavy lifting.
Blair had Brown, Straw, Cook, and Mowlam.
Thatcher had Howe, Whitelaw, Carrington, Joseph, Pym, and Heseltine.
Wilson had Healey, Jenkins, and Callaghan.
Starmer really doesn't have anyone in that category, the current shadow cabinet you wouldn't want them running a Job Centre Plus in Wolverhampton.
Although the current cabinet led by Boris Johnson isn't exactly Brobdingnagian in terms of competence or quality, so it might not be important.
Back home, Boris Johnson has hitherto been a lucky general. He may be about to ride the same luck with England at the Euros.
England looked pretty good last night but they've still not played a decent side. That might not happen until the final. If it's England v Italy then on neutral territory you'd back the Italians. On home turf? Well, they may do it. Johnson will saunter in and make it look like another triumph for St George.
I am not so sure. A few weeks ago, Johnson, Patel and various other Tory politicians were very happy to endorse the booing of England players because they thought it would play well in the country. They better hope that if the England team is victorious that is not brought up a fair bit - and is not mentioned at any Downing Street reception.
One of the biggest risks of an England victory is that it turbocharges the knee and BLM, and further accentuates divisions, rather than people recognising that a truce was basically called over it and the FA have quietly agreed an exit strategy for next season.
It won't be the Conservatives who try to exploit it for those ends - the usual suspects will find it simply irresistible - so when they do I'll look forward to hearing your condemnation of them trying to start an unnecessary culture war.
Ha, ha - Johnson and Patel decided there were votes in a culture war against the England team. People will remember that as they now seek to climb on board the bandwagon. I doubt it will hurt them very much but it will probably mean they don't reap the feelgood dividends that unequivocal support from the start may have done.
They were reflecting the fact that almost half of football fans and a bigger proportion in the country didn't like The Knee, that it was likely to divide rather than unite people and it was unnecessary. In the end, the fans and the country decided to call a truce (despite not liking it then and still not liking it now) because backing the team unequivocally is more important - everyone wants a win; no-one wants any distractions.
As usual, those objecting to a "culture war" are really objecting to anyone putting up resistance to their prosecution of it.
As usual, those who object to what the England players have made clear is a simple act of anti-racist solidarity decide that it is a declaration of war against them.
Not liking the knee is not the same as actively booing those who take the knee. It is very different. Like you, Johnson and Patel failed to make the distinction, so now look even more opportunistic as they jump on the England bandwagon than would otherwise have been the case.
If you'd spent more time on here (rather than Twitter, where you now reside) you'll know I repeatedly said I don't approve of booing.
I look forward to you withdrawing your remark.
Happy to withdraw. Johnson and Patel should have said the same. But they didn't because they thought there may be political opportunities.
divisive Woke troupes
Argh.
Have a good day everyone.
I read it as ‘divisive woke toupees’. Can’t see them taking off…
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
My point TSE, was that I recall - I may be wrong - that Cameron's ratings were also in the gutter and yet he was able to recover and win. A combination of Brown becoming unpopular, boredom of Labour and Cameron being liked.
These are all things that could conceivably happen to Starmer.
Amusingly, as part of an opus I'm writing you could argue that Starmer is following Thatcher's trajectory of LOTO but there were far too few polls in those days.
I hope you are well BTW - and I will be excited to read it.
How do you rate Starmer's chances now and what next for him?
I'm good thank you.
I think Starmer has some fundamental problems beyond his control, and some within his control, celebrating holding Batley and Spen is like Manchester United celebrating drawing with Doncaster Rovers or Everton.
One thing I've noticed, every LOTO that has become PM in the last 50 years has had a strong shadow cabinet, a government in waiting.
Cameron had Osborne, Hague, and Clarke to share the heavy lifting.
Blair had Brown, Straw, Cook, and Mowlam.
Thatcher had Howe, Whitelaw, Carrington, Joseph, Pym, and Heseltine.
Wilson had Healey, Jenkins, and Callaghan.
Starmer really doesn't have anyone in that category, the current shadow cabinet you wouldn't want them running a Job Centre Plus in Wolverhampton.
Although the current cabinet led by Boris Johnson isn't exactly Brobdingnagian in terms of competence or quality, so it might not be important.
I was just going to make this point that the Tories 97-2010 were precieved as having very poor team. Hague might have duffed up Blair at PMQs, but the Tories were still seen as having utter dross around him, where as Labour were thought by the public to have better top team.
It is also why Boris is very stupid not to have reshuffled the likes of Williamson away. Nobody thinks he isn't a massive incomponent.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
It was and it didn't.
I don't think it was. There was a highly adversarial legal process, where claims were made and as far as I recall, thrown out wholesale. The Sydney Powell lawsuit had a big dose of farce, but a few of the claims had some validity and could and should have been checked. Of course this is just as much the Republican/Trump administration's fault as it is the Democrats'. However, those who said at the time (as some did here) that extra investigations were a bad idea because they were an insult to democracy and opened the floodgates, were simply wrong. What the lack of rigour has actually achieved is what it was designed to prevent. You are a physics teacher (right?). There is no harm that can come from dispassionate investigation of the facts.
The Georgia results were recounted and seperatly hand verified.
Biden won every time.
They had the highest possible level of rigour applied.
That still didn't stop accusations that Trump won Georgia.
That would ensure that votes cast equalled votes counted, but not that those votes were cast by people who existed and were entitled to vote.
Ah, I see you are "just asking questions"
No, in that instance, I was making a factual statement about recounts. I am glad that recounts happened, I am glad that they validated Biden's victories in terms of votes counted. However by definition they do not eliminate all possibility of irregularities.
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
It was and it didn't.
I don't think it was. There was a highly adversarial legal process, where claims were made and as far as I recall, thrown out wholesale. The Sydney Powell lawsuit had a big dose of farce, but a few of the claims had some validity and could and should have been checked. Of course this is just as much the Republican/Trump administration's fault as it is the Democrats'. However, those who said at the time (as some did here) that extra investigations were a bad idea because they were an insult to democracy and opened the floodgates, were simply wrong. What the lack of rigour has actually achieved is what it was designed to prevent. You are a physics teacher (right?). There is no harm that can come from dispassionate investigation of the facts.
The Georgia results were recounted and seperatly hand verified.
Biden won every time.
They had the highest possible level of rigour applied.
That still didn't stop accusations that Trump won Georgia.
That would ensure that votes cast equalled votes counted, but not that those votes were cast by people who existed and were entitled to vote.
Ah, I see you are "just asking questions"
No, in that instance, I was making a factual statement about recounts. I am glad that recounts happened, I am glad that they validated Biden's victories in terms of votes counted. However by definition they do not eliminate all possibility of irregularities.
And yet Trump came up with no evidence of such “fake voters” that wasn’t pretty easily debunked. At least to any level that would have changed the election. Bear in mind that Trump continues to claim, with his supporters lapping it up, that there were literally millions of these votes!
The vile depredations of Covid have forced me into further squalor
Is there no end to the suffering
Vicious. Are they really expecting you to cope without some raspberry jam for your roll?
Would you really combine raspberry jam with a dry white wine?
My first job in the morning when we arrived on family holidays anywhere in the Med was to buy a jar of jam to have with our fresh morning rolls by the pool. The wine typically arrived a little later in the day but in the case of @Leon I thought an exception might be made.
The short answer is probably yes. Raspberry jam makes almost anything better.
This Diana statue with the random children. Did the sculptor misread the brief? If it was an order for a statue of Michael Jackson then perhaps add the kids.
You can't unsee it...
OH MY GOD
The real booklet...
I know - well aware of Protect and Survive as a nuclear war geek. Its just that the Diana statue fitted so beautifully on to the front! She's such a saint...
You have to get a fair way through this article before you discover that not only are all residents of this care home are double vaxxed, but virtually all care homes in Australia are completely double vaxxed. I don’t doubt that those affected are concerned. But the messaging in Australia about quite how effective vaccines are against serious illness and deaths is pitiful. Articles about risks posed by vaccines however abound.
You have to get a fair way through this article before you discover that not only are all residents of this care home are double vaxxed, but virtually all care homes in Australia are completely double vaxxed. I don’t doubt that those affected are concerned. But the messaging in Australia about quite how effective vaccines are against serious illness and deaths is pitiful. Articles about risks posed by vaccines however abound.
"Ms Sloane assured the three positive cases were “resting very comfortably” and none were displaying symptoms."
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
It was and it didn't.
I don't think it was. There was a highly adversarial legal process, where claims were made and as far as I recall, thrown out wholesale. The Sydney Powell lawsuit had a big dose of farce, but a few of the claims had some validity and could and should have been checked. Of course this is just as much the Republican/Trump administration's fault as it is the Democrats'. However, those who said at the time (as some did here) that extra investigations were a bad idea because they were an insult to democracy and opened the floodgates, were simply wrong. What the lack of rigour has actually achieved is what it was designed to prevent. You are a physics teacher (right?). There is no harm that can come from dispassionate investigation of the facts.
The Georgia results were recounted and seperatly hand verified.
Biden won every time.
They had the highest possible level of rigour applied.
That still didn't stop accusations that Trump won Georgia.
That would ensure that votes cast equalled votes counted, but not that those votes were cast by people who existed and were entitled to vote.
And there was more than enough publicly available information on who voted to be able to provide serious evidence of large numbers of ghost votes if people had looked for it. But if they did they couldn’t find it, and any such “lists” they did produce were pretty rapidly and easily debunked by the authorities. But once the lists were out there, the conspiracy theorists just accepted them as fact, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Whilst clinging to the bonkers “statistical analysis” at the same time.
As long as Trump continued to claim the election was stolen, a large part of his support believed it regardless of how ridiculous it was. Often it was a mutual feedback loop - a bonkers Trumpist supporter would produce a ridiculous theory and back it up with “evidence”. Trump would repeat it and retweet it to millions. And to his millions of supporters in then became established fact that the authorities were covering up and the courts were dismissing on “technicalities”.
I agree completely that Trump and the Republicans handled it dreadfully and were more interested in revving up their base than establishing the truth (which of course could have legitimised the result). However, it isn't true that the outcome was submitted to every possible rigour.
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
My point TSE, was that I recall - I may be wrong - that Cameron's ratings were also in the gutter and yet he was able to recover and win. A combination of Brown becoming unpopular, boredom of Labour and Cameron being liked.
These are all things that could conceivably happen to Starmer.
Amusingly, as part of an opus I'm writing you could argue that Starmer is following Thatcher's trajectory of LOTO but there were far too few polls in those days.
I hope you are well BTW - and I will be excited to read it.
How do you rate Starmer's chances now and what next for him?
I'm good thank you.
I think Starmer has some fundamental problems beyond his control, and some within his control, celebrating holding Batley and Spen is like Manchester United celebrating drawing with Doncaster Rovers or Everton.
One thing I've noticed, every LOTO that has become PM in the last 50 years has had a strong shadow cabinet, a government in waiting.
Cameron had Osborne, Hague, and Clarke to share the heavy lifting.
Blair had Brown, Straw, Cook, and Mowlam.
Thatcher had Howe, Whitelaw, Carrington, Joseph, Pym, and Heseltine.
Wilson had Healey, Jenkins, and Callaghan.
Starmer really doesn't have anyone in that category, the current shadow cabinet you wouldn't want them running a Job Centre Plus in Wolverhampton.
Although the current cabinet led by Boris Johnson isn't exactly Brobdingnagian in terms of competence or quality, so it might not be important.
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
On topic, presumably the GOP voter argument is that Biden was responsible because he "stole the election", and while the riots were perhaps regrettable it's time to move on from these "perfectly understandable expressions of outrage" and concentrate on the evils of the Democrats.
It has a certain insane logic, but it essentially means that they don't think the democratic process has worked. That's an extremely dangerous state of mind for even a third of the population to be in, and I can't think of any Western country that has had anything like it since WW2. Because if they don't think democracy works, they may start to think about what else they can do to get the "correct" result - anything from stocking up with guns to being ready to support a coup.
As I said at the time of the election, there was no harm to be done by subjecting the election result to unusual, even excessive rigour. It would have legitimised the result and silenced claims of a steal.
It was and it didn't.
I don't think it was. There was a highly adversarial legal process, where claims were made and as far as I recall, thrown out wholesale. The Sydney Powell lawsuit had a big dose of farce, but a few of the claims had some validity and could and should have been checked. Of course this is just as much the Republican/Trump administration's fault as it is the Democrats'. However, those who said at the time (as some did here) that extra investigations were a bad idea because they were an insult to democracy and opened the floodgates, were simply wrong. What the lack of rigour has actually achieved is what it was designed to prevent. You are a physics teacher (right?). There is no harm that can come from dispassionate investigation of the facts.
The Georgia results were recounted and seperatly hand verified.
Biden won every time.
They had the highest possible level of rigour applied.
That still didn't stop accusations that Trump won Georgia.
That would ensure that votes cast equalled votes counted, but not that those votes were cast by people who existed and were entitled to vote.
Ah, I see you are "just asking questions"
No, in that instance, I was making a factual statement about recounts. I am glad that recounts happened, I am glad that they validated Biden's victories in terms of votes counted. However by definition they do not eliminate all possibility of irregularities.
Nothing will. No matter how deep the investigation goes the dishonest actor can continually raise further objections.
The GOP led Michigan Senate investigation dismissed every single outstanding objection to the results in Michigan. All that has happened is new objections have been raised.
The vile depredations of Covid have forced me into further squalor
Is there no end to the suffering
Vicious. Are they really expecting you to cope without some raspberry jam for your roll?
Would you really combine raspberry jam with a dry white wine?
My first job in the morning when we arrived on family holidays anywhere in the Med was to buy a jar of jam to have with our fresh morning rolls by the pool. The wine typically arrived a little later in the day but in the case of @Leon I thought an exception might be made.
The short answer is probably yes. Raspberry jam makes almost anything better.
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
My point TSE, was that I recall - I may be wrong - that Cameron's ratings were also in the gutter and yet he was able to recover and win. A combination of Brown becoming unpopular, boredom of Labour and Cameron being liked.
These are all things that could conceivably happen to Starmer.
Amusingly, as part of an opus I'm writing you could argue that Starmer is following Thatcher's trajectory of LOTO but there were far too few polls in those days.
I hope you are well BTW - and I will be excited to read it.
How do you rate Starmer's chances now and what next for him?
I'm good thank you.
I think Starmer has some fundamental problems beyond his control, and some within his control, celebrating holding Batley and Spen is like Manchester United celebrating drawing with Doncaster Rovers or Everton.
One thing I've noticed, every LOTO that has become PM in the last 50 years has had a strong shadow cabinet, a government in waiting.
Cameron had Osborne, Hague, and Clarke to share the heavy lifting.
Blair had Brown, Straw, Cook, and Mowlam.
Thatcher had Howe, Whitelaw, Carrington, Joseph, Pym, and Heseltine.
Wilson had Healey, Jenkins, and Callaghan.
Starmer really doesn't have anyone in that category, the current shadow cabinet you wouldn't want them running a Job Centre Plus in Wolverhampton.
Although the current cabinet led by Boris Johnson isn't exactly Brobdingnagian in terms of competence or quality, so it might not be important.
Mowlam and Straw? Seriously?
Hugely rated by Norniron politicians for the way she disarmed all the bullshit during the Good Friday Agreement negotiations. Notorious for taking her wig off and dumping it on the table when things got wiggy (badum tish)
The vile depredations of Covid have forced me into further squalor
Is there no end to the suffering
Vicious. Are they really expecting you to cope without some raspberry jam for your roll?
Would you really combine raspberry jam with a dry white wine?
My first job in the morning when we arrived on family holidays anywhere in the Med was to buy a jar of jam to have with our fresh morning rolls by the pool. The wine typically arrived a little later in the day but in the case of @Leon I thought an exception might be made.
The short answer is probably yes. Raspberry jam makes almost anything better.
Blackcurrant for me David
Yes, blackcurrent is good too, even strawberry at a push. But oil and vinegar first thing in the morning? It's not natural.
The vile depredations of Covid have forced me into further squalor
Is there no end to the suffering
Vicious. Are they really expecting you to cope without some raspberry jam for your roll?
Would you really combine raspberry jam with a dry white wine?
My first job in the morning when we arrived on family holidays anywhere in the Med was to buy a jar of jam to have with our fresh morning rolls by the pool. The wine typically arrived a little later in the day but in the case of @Leon I thought an exception might be made.
The short answer is probably yes. Raspberry jam makes almost anything better.
Blackcurrant for me David
Yes, blackcurrent is good too, even strawberry at a push. But oil and vinegar first thing in the morning? It's not natural.
Definitely not. I agree with either of the 3 jams, especially with baguettes and some nice butter.
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
My point TSE, was that I recall - I may be wrong - that Cameron's ratings were also in the gutter and yet he was able to recover and win. A combination of Brown becoming unpopular, boredom of Labour and Cameron being liked.
These are all things that could conceivably happen to Starmer.
Amusingly, as part of an opus I'm writing you could argue that Starmer is following Thatcher's trajectory of LOTO but there were far too few polls in those days.
I hope you are well BTW - and I will be excited to read it.
How do you rate Starmer's chances now and what next for him?
I'm good thank you.
I think Starmer has some fundamental problems beyond his control, and some within his control, celebrating holding Batley and Spen is like Manchester United celebrating drawing with Doncaster Rovers or Everton.
One thing I've noticed, every LOTO that has become PM in the last 50 years has had a strong shadow cabinet, a government in waiting.
Cameron had Osborne, Hague, and Clarke to share the heavy lifting.
Blair had Brown, Straw, Cook, and Mowlam.
Thatcher had Howe, Whitelaw, Carrington, Joseph, Pym, and Heseltine.
Wilson had Healey, Jenkins, and Callaghan.
Starmer really doesn't have anyone in that category, the current shadow cabinet you wouldn't want them running a Job Centre Plus in Wolverhampton.
Although the current cabinet led by Boris Johnson isn't exactly Brobdingnagian in terms of competence or quality, so it might not be important.
Mowlam and Straw? Seriously?
Hugely rated by Norniron politicians for the way she disarmed all the bullshit during the Good Friday Agreement negotiations. Notorious for taking her wig off and dumping it on the table when things got wiggy (badum tish)
I didn't much rate Mowlam at NI. My view is that she yielded too much ground to the extremists on either side and marginalised the SDLP and UUP, leading us to where we are now. I thought Mandelson was much better. But there's no doubt Mowlam was a highly effective and recognisable opposition politician during the Major years. I'd add Blunkett to the list of mid 90s Labour heavyweights too. (And John Reid? Or did he come later?) I'm unusually interested in politics. But I don't think there's more than 2 current Labour crontbenchers I'd recognise I I saw them in the street.
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
I wonder if we should compare Starmer more with Cameron's route to number 10, than Blair's.
I recall Brown was rather popular during the GFC - and then three years later Cameron won over 100 seats.
Yes and no.
It is something I'm doing a piece on.
Fun fact, during the 2005 - 2010 parliament, Labour's last led in the opinion polls in January 2008, long before the GFC.
Brown's popularity was in the summer of 2007 when he replaced Blair, then fannied about with the election that never was, allowing Dave and George to change the narrative with the IHT cut at the Tory conference in 2007.
Labour were so arrogant, Labour MPs were so arrogant that they were writing pieces in September 2007 saying
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
My point TSE, was that I recall - I may be wrong - that Cameron's ratings were also in the gutter and yet he was able to recover and win. A combination of Brown becoming unpopular, boredom of Labour and Cameron being liked.
These are all things that could conceivably happen to Starmer.
Amusingly, as part of an opus I'm writing you could argue that Starmer is following Thatcher's trajectory of LOTO but there were far too few polls in those days.
I hope you are well BTW - and I will be excited to read it.
How do you rate Starmer's chances now and what next for him?
I'm good thank you.
I think Starmer has some fundamental problems beyond his control, and some within his control, celebrating holding Batley and Spen is like Manchester United celebrating drawing with Doncaster Rovers or Everton.
One thing I've noticed, every LOTO that has become PM in the last 50 years has had a strong shadow cabinet, a government in waiting.
Cameron had Osborne, Hague, and Clarke to share the heavy lifting.
Blair had Brown, Straw, Cook, and Mowlam.
Thatcher had Howe, Whitelaw, Carrington, Joseph, Pym, and Heseltine.
Wilson had Healey, Jenkins, and Callaghan.
Starmer really doesn't have anyone in that category, the current shadow cabinet you wouldn't want them running a Job Centre Plus in Wolverhampton.
Although the current cabinet led by Boris Johnson isn't exactly Brobdingnagian in terms of competence or quality, so it might not be important.
I think it fair to say the incoming cabinet in Blair 97 were not considered heavyweight talents either. They established those reputations in office, not beforehand. Indeed I remember it being argued that they were a bunch of inexperienced rookies, with only Meacher having previous ministerial experience.
Comments
I think Fox's issue is he tries too hard, after enjoying the mild praise/outrage from his initial burst onto the political scene a bit too much.
A previous occasion when Lozza was complaining about persons of pigment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51233734
https://twitter.com/benarty/status/1411579380128755712?s=21
What these people want is to say things without being challenged, that's the truth of it.
Fake, non-existent war that doesn't matter to the average voter. End of story.
How do you rate Starmer's chances now and what next for him?
€1.30 a bottle vinegar. Hope the wine is a bit more ambitious.
Your comments about whether claims were properly examined by the courts is accepting Trumpist propaganda. There were not “serious claims” rejected by courts on technicalities. Leaving aside the fantastical Powell stuff about Dominion etc, as well as mathematical illiterate statistical claims about how Mail in votes should closely correlate to votes cast and counted on the day, what there were were protests which were trying to throw out millions of vote on the back of claims that electoral authorities had put in place voting mechanisms that they shouldn’t have. Effectively that huge numbers of people who voted in good faith should have their votes rejected, not because they voted fraudulently, but for no other reason than they followed the guidance of the electoral administration authorities. Most of which was challenged before the election and rejected, or could have been challenged and wasn’t.
And as the Courts quite properly pointed out, you need a bit more than that to throw out hundreds of thousands/millions of votes to do that. Some sort of legitimate evidence that the guidance followed in good faith resulted in widespread fraud and unsafe electoral outcomes as a result. Essentially if an eligible voter cast a single vote in good faith believing that they were in compliance with the rules and with a legitimate expectation that their vote would be counted, and errors by administration authorities should not be grounds to not count that vote. times 1,000,000
https://bakeryandante.selz.com/
Though I see one of the first comments under that story is someone moaning about a 'butcher's apron', a sure sign they are a bot or mentally 14 years old and probably shouldn't be driving anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election
With Labour being on 24% in the 2008 local elections, 23% in the 2009 local elections and 15% in the 2009 EU elections:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_local_elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Kingdom_local_elections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Kingdom_local_elections
Now Labour did lead in the summer of 2007 but that was little more than an ephemeral new leader poll bounce.
As long as Trump continued to claim the election was stolen, a large part of his support believed it regardless of how ridiculous it was. Often it was a mutual feedback loop - a bonkers Trumpist supporter would produce a ridiculous theory and back it up with “evidence”. Trump would repeat it and retweet it to millions. And to his millions of supporters in then became established fact that the authorities were covering up and the courts were dismissing on “technicalities”.
I think Starmer has some fundamental problems beyond his control, and some within his control, celebrating holding Batley and Spen is like Manchester United celebrating drawing with Doncaster Rovers or Everton.
One thing I've noticed, every LOTO that has become PM in the last 50 years has had a strong shadow cabinet, a government in waiting.
Cameron had Osborne, Hague, and Clarke to share the heavy lifting.
Blair had Brown, Straw, Cook, and Mowlam.
Thatcher had Howe, Whitelaw, Carrington, Joseph, Pym, and Heseltine.
Wilson had Healey, Jenkins, and Callaghan.
Starmer really doesn't have anyone in that category, the current shadow cabinet you wouldn't want them running a Job Centre Plus in Wolverhampton.
Although the current cabinet led by Boris Johnson isn't exactly Brobdingnagian in terms of competence or quality, so it might not be important.
Can’t see them taking off…
It is also why Boris is very stupid not to have reshuffled the likes of Williamson away. Nobody thinks he isn't a massive incomponent.
A virtual basalt butt plug for anyone who can guess where I am. It’s not un-famous
I suppose they go with the low quality balsamic and the drab bread roll but it doesn't immediately entice.
Perhaps the 'hungry peasant' imagery has replaced eloi picnics among the Camden Town collective.
The short answer is probably yes. Raspberry jam makes almost anything better.
https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/australia/terrified-photos-from-inside-covid-crisis/news-story/4841e92723c12600fa74d96db1ee1e84
You have to get a fair way through this article before you discover that not only are all residents of this care home are double vaxxed, but virtually all care homes in Australia are completely double vaxxed. I don’t doubt that those affected are concerned. But the messaging in Australia about quite how effective vaccines are against serious illness and deaths is pitiful. Articles about risks posed by vaccines however abound.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx7jD7F38e0
Apart from a failed tilt at being West Midlands Metro Mayor, has he been heard of since?
The GOP led Michigan Senate investigation dismissed every single outstanding objection to the results in Michigan. All that has happened is new objections have been raised.
I'm unusually interested in politics. But I don't think there's more than 2 current Labour crontbenchers I'd recognise I I saw them in the street.
You're really doing things on the cheap and nasty.
But a better view though the tall tree unbalances it.
NEW THREAD
Is the England-Denmark game on BBC as well as ITV?
(Obviously if it's ITV only we lose ☹️)