Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Facebook takes down Trump ads for violating policy against org

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited June 18 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Facebook takes down Trump ads for violating policy against organised hate

In a move that seems unprecedented Facebook has taken down Trump ads infringing the sites policies against organized hate. This looks like a big pointer to how it will operate at WH2020 where the giant social media site was expected to play a huge role.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,797
    First.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,083
    It's all starting to feel very fin de régime. Even Trump allies like Zuck are seeing which way the wind's blowing and trying to ingratiate themselves with whatever comes next.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,566
    edited June 18
    Anglesey and Wrexham Covid 19 outbreaks in food processing plants.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53091149
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 5,278
    About bloody time they start to do something
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,627
    edited June 18
    It’s working out exactly as predicted - an absolute sh!t-show of fake news and misinformation, with social media companies sitting in the middle making profit from the division.

    Genuine cross-party support now in the US for taking Facebook, Twitter and Google down a peg or two.

    Facebook are even considering allowing users in marginal states to opt out of all political advertising, because they know they’ll lose people from their platform completely if they’re subjected to the next five months of non-stop politics.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,627
    dr_spyn said:

    Anglesey and Wrexham Covid 19 outbreaks in food processing plants.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53091149

    How many meat factories now?

    Hope they’re doing some forensic investigation into how these places are spreading things around.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,566
    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Anglesey and Wrexham Covid 19 outbreaks in food processing plants.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53091149

    How many meat factories now?

    Hope they’re doing some forensic investigation into how these places are spreading things around.
    I read about the Anglesey plant outbreak, earlier on today. I didn't know about the Wrexham factory outbreak. It remains to be seem if there are similar outbreaks elsewhere in the UK.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030
    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,128
    Meatpacking. Just how unhygienic are these places?
    How much other disease is being spread by them?
  • isamisam Posts: 32,714
    edited June 18
    I watched this for the first time in a few years yesterday. For better or worse, the UK's chattering classes have fully accepted a lot of the ideas of the 1980s GLC and ILEA. In the early 2010s I watched this and saw it as a reminder of strange times in the past, but I would say now it is becoming the consensus.

    BLM protestors views are not much different to the material the schools were teaching the kids then. Whether the everyday people's/parents attitudes remain privately as opposed as they were publicly here would be interesting to know

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Anglesey and Wrexham Covid 19 outbreaks in food processing plants.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53091149

    How many meat factories now?

    Hope they’re doing some forensic investigation into how these places are spreading things around.
    People working in close quarters with loud machinery over which they need to shout.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,365
    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Anglesey and Wrexham Covid 19 outbreaks in food processing plants.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53091149

    How many meat factories now?

    Hope they’re doing some forensic investigation into how these places are spreading things around.
    Noise, meaning staff shout, cold moist surfaces that the virus can flourish on, and cutting carcasses generates aerosols. A poorly paid transient workforce, often living in overcrowded conditions.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Anglesey and Wrexham Covid 19 outbreaks in food processing plants.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53091149

    How many meat factories now?

    Hope they’re doing some forensic investigation into how these places are spreading things around.
    People working in close quarters with loud machinery over which they need to shout.
    Plus people who work in those factories are not well off, and will likely come to work unless they're really sick.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,797
    Newsnight leads on the "world beating" app.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,365
    dixiedean said:

    Meatpacking. Just how unhygienic are these places?
    How much other disease is being spread by them?

    Well, it is how it all started in Wuhan...

    The Beijing outbreak is centered on a wholesale meat and seafood market.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,094

    It's all starting to feel very fin de régime. Even Trump allies like Zuck are seeing which way the wind's blowing and trying to ingratiate themselves with whatever comes next.

    The only ally of Zuck is the dollar, he will back whoever wins
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    I know it's a really tough one.

    Imagine if Biden ran a campaign claiming: "Convicted paedophile XXX"

    Now, you can argue that the courts can (later) sort it out. But the courts are slow moving. Especially if Section 230 is repealed (ironically), then Facebook is responsible for the content of advertisers on its site.

  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 466
    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Meatpacking. Just how unhygienic are these places?
    How much other disease is being spread by them?

    Well, it is how it all started in Wuhan...

    The Beijing outbreak is centered on a wholesale meat and seafood market.
    There is def7a common thread here.
    Thank god I'm vegetarian.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,037

    Newsnight leads on the "world beating" app.

    Utterly predictable that it wouldn't work.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 3,643
    It looks likely that we have a super-spreader culprit.

    Too many examples to be a coincidence.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,365
    edited June 18

    Newsnight leads on the "world beating" app.

    Ooh, Allyson Pollock. Always good value...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 14,083
    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Facebook also has its terms of service, you have a right to publish whatever you like but you don't have a right to publish it on their platform.

    Worrying too much about post-election "narratives" are what got Trump elected in the first place. Comey gave him a huge free gift and Hillary spent money trying to win the popular vote instead of swing states. It's nice if everyone feels fairly treated, but the Trump people are going to make up a betrayal story regardless. What really matters is who has the actual power.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    I know it's a really tough one.

    Imagine if Biden ran a campaign claiming: "Convicted paedophile XXX"

    Now, you can argue that the courts can (later) sort it out. But the courts are slow moving. Especially if Section 230 is repealed (ironically), then Facebook is responsible for the content of advertisers on its site.

    Your example doesn’t work though - you’d get an injunction almost immediately and so it would be pulled. Plus anyone who subsequently tweeted it would be liable

    (Of course the Grey Lady could happily write lots of articles stating “Biden was forced to withdraw claims that XXX was a paedophile”... because that’s fair comment)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 20,580
    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,037
    edited June 18
    HYUFD said:
    The 2016 result was Clinton 48%, Trump 46%, so he's only a 2% swing away from how he won last time.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Facebook also has its terms of service, you have a right to publish whatever you like but you don't have a right to publish it on their platform.

    Worrying too much about post-election "narratives" are what got Trump elected in the first place. Comey gave him a huge free gift and Hillary spent money trying to win the popular vote instead of swing states. It's nice if everyone feels fairly treated, but the Trump people are going to make up a betrayal story regardless. What really matters is who has the actual power.
    I don’t like Facebook being able to restrict the ability of one candidate to compete as they see fit.

    In many ways the likes of Facebook and Google have become public utilities and should be regulated as such.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,289
    HYUFD said:
    Trump still seems dangerously close nationally. In many swing states Trump is often only slightly south of MOE.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,797
    Foxy said:

    Newsnight leads on the "world beating" app.

    Ooh, Allyson Pollock. Always good value...
    No government minister available.

    Pathetic.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 11,764

    It's all starting to feel very fin de régime. Even Trump allies like Zuck are seeing which way the wind's blowing and trying to ingratiate themselves with whatever comes next.

    Yes - all the doors are being closed off now.

    Bye Donald. You get yourself some treatment.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 3,643

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Lots of those on here.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030
    edited June 18

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,922
    A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.”
    That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412.
    Why show such ignorance of readily available information?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,933
    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Massively obvious first amendment violation on free association.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 33,797

    HYUFD said:
    Trump still seems dangerously close nationally. In many swing states Trump is often only slightly south of MOE.
    In no way is this over. Not by a long way. The brutality is about to begin.

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 11,764

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    I'm flipping this one.

    I am no fan of ad suppression but ...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030
    Alistair said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Massively obvious first amendment violation on free association.
    I thought the first amendment only restricted congress?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 5,278
    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Anglesey and Wrexham Covid 19 outbreaks in food processing plants.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53091149

    How many meat factories now?

    Hope they’re doing some forensic investigation into how these places are spreading things around.
    Quite easily...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    For the record, in my case it would depend on the size of the payment.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 3,643
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 20,580
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    A private company can't decide what it publishes? Ok.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.

    If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.

    (Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,034
    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    I have no issue with this. Just as long as Trump loses.
    Media platforms are free to do whatever they like providing it is legal.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,933
    Charles said:

    Alistair said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Massively obvious first amendment violation on free association.
    I thought the first amendment only restricted congress?
    And Congress couldn't pass a law to force Facebook to carry messages that were against its values.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,128

    HYUFD said:
    Trump still seems dangerously close nationally. In many swing states Trump is often only slightly south of MOE.
    In no way is this over. Not by a long way. The brutality is about to begin.

    Somehow, someway the Dems seem to have lucked on the best candidate for right here, right now.
    The most boring after a year of pandemic panic. The least Socialist in economic turmoil. The least "woke" in a turbulent, divided society.
    And the one most likely to respond to a slap in the face with a well placed head butt.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,289

    HYUFD said:
    Trump still seems dangerously close nationally. In many swing states Trump is often only slightly south of MOE.
    In no way is this over. Not by a long way. The brutality is about to begin.

    A little voter suppression in certain wards in certain swing states could make a big difference. I probably wouldn't bother to vote if David Duke's buddies are "monitoring" polling stations.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 11,764

    HYUFD said:
    Trump still seems dangerously close nationally. In many swing states Trump is often only slightly south of MOE.
    In no way is this over. Not by a long way. The brutality is about to begin.
    Yes - you stay worried as agreed and leave the strident certainty to me. ☺
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,037
    justin124 said:

    A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.”
    That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412.
    Why show such ignorance of readily available information?

    Maybe they were restricting it to elections from the last 65 years.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 2,971
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Facebook also has its terms of service, you have a right to publish whatever you like but you don't have a right to publish it on their platform.

    Worrying too much about post-election "narratives" are what got Trump elected in the first place. Comey gave him a huge free gift and Hillary spent money trying to win the popular vote instead of swing states. It's nice if everyone feels fairly treated, but the Trump people are going to make up a betrayal story regardless. What really matters is who has the actual power.
    I don’t like Facebook being able to restrict the ability of one candidate to compete as they see fit.

    In many ways the likes of Facebook and Google have become public utilities and should be regulated as such.
    But they are not restricting one candidate. They are removing one ad that they consider oversteps their redlines. If Trump's team upload an acceptable ad it will be published. Most of media works this way.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 3,643
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Trump still seems dangerously close nationally. In many swing states Trump is often only slightly south of MOE.
    In no way is this over. Not by a long way. The brutality is about to begin.

    Somehow, someway the Dems seem to have lucked on the best candidate for right here, right now.
    The most boring after a year of pandemic panic. The least Socialist in economic turmoil. The least "woke" in a turbulent, divided society.
    And the one most likely to respond to a slap in the face with a well placed head butt.
    I suspect what has turned the markets has been the Florida situation. Trumpton hasn’t led there since March.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_biden-6841.html



  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,930
    Trump wants to increase the liability of Facebook and so forth for what they publish I think ?
    So hoisted by his own petard here. might be a way for him to rethink that policy, but then again he thinks Finland is part of Russia o_O !
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
    They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 17,386
    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Anglesey and Wrexham Covid 19 outbreaks in food processing plants.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53091149

    How many meat factories now?

    Hope they’re doing some forensic investigation into how these places are spreading things around.
    Perhaps some chlorine spraying would help :wink:
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    A private company can't decide what it publishes? Ok.
    It claims not to be a publisher.

    But, for example, ITV has to carry party political broadcasts in the U.K.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,289
    Andy_JS said:

    justin124 said:

    A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.”
    That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412.
    Why show such ignorance of readily available information?

    Maybe they were restricting it to elections from the last 65 years.
    I never bought the 'one more heave' notion after 1992. Once an opposition party was seen to be competent with a compent leader aligned with an incompetent government and an incompetent leader, the dominoes just fell.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    Andy_JS said:

    justin124 said:

    A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.”
    That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412.
    Why show such ignorance of readily available information?

    Maybe they were restricting it to elections from the last 65 years.
    The Alliance / LibDems increased their seats by more than 100% in 1997. (On, ironically, a diminished vote share.)
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,922
    Andy_JS said:

    justin124 said:

    A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.”
    That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412.
    Why show such ignorance of readily available information?

    Maybe they were restricting it to elections from the last 65 years.
    Or even the last 75 years . In which case say so! Why use the word 'ever' when it clearly is not true?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,517
    Damn, missed the new thread so will repost here.

    I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? :) )

    I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.

    But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.

    As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.

    So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 448
    edited June 18
    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Anglesey and Wrexham Covid 19 outbreaks in food processing plants.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53091149

    How many meat factories now?

    Hope they’re doing some forensic investigation into how these places are spreading things around.
    My brother-in-law works in one and caught it, thankfully he was asymptomatic.

    Supposedly the cold conditions allow the virus to survive longer.
  • Keir just needs to stay quiet for a while.

    @DMReporter: TOMORROW: “How strange” remarked the editor “we backed an charlatan for Prime Minister because it was politically expedient for our owners and now tens of thousands of people are dying because of his incompetence. What *is* going on?”
    #TomorrowsPapersToday
    #MailFrontPages
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,517
    Alistair said:
    He doesn't want to join the Resistance. He thinks the Resistance are a bunch of fecking idiots. He just wants to make sure his voice is heard. I have no doubt what he claims is true - or most of it anyway. But he is not doing it to 'bring down Trump' just to make sure his version of events gets told.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,037
    edited June 18
    It's a pity Kirsty Wark doesn't present Newsnight every night. She's head and shoulders above the other presenters IMO.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,128
    The economy will be key. And the dead cat supply is finite.
    The most interesting thing of the day for me was the 2 million non-voters the Tories reportedly got in 2019.
    Take them away and the lead has already been halved.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 339
    Andy_JS said:

    justin124 said:

    A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.”
    That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412.
    Why show such ignorance of readily available information?

    Maybe they were restricting it to elections from the last 65 years.
    To be fair, 3 of those 4 elections mentioned had unusual circumstances - 1945 was 10 years after the last election when it was still the days of the National Government. You were literally talking about two different worlds. In 1931, it was because of the impact of the Great Depression and in 1924 because of the collapse of the first Labour Government.

    But, yes, it can be done.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 3,643
    eristdoof said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Facebook also has its terms of service, you have a right to publish whatever you like but you don't have a right to publish it on their platform.

    Worrying too much about post-election "narratives" are what got Trump elected in the first place. Comey gave him a huge free gift and Hillary spent money trying to win the popular vote instead of swing states. It's nice if everyone feels fairly treated, but the Trump people are going to make up a betrayal story regardless. What really matters is who has the actual power.
    I don’t like Facebook being able to restrict the ability of one candidate to compete as they see fit.

    In many ways the likes of Facebook and Google have become public utilities and should be regulated as such.
    But they are not restricting one candidate. They are removing one ad that they consider oversteps their redlines. If Trump's team upload an acceptable ad it will be published. Most of media works this way.
    Indeed. Bizarre argument really.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 339

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Trump still seems dangerously close nationally. In many swing states Trump is often only slightly south of MOE.
    In no way is this over. Not by a long way. The brutality is about to begin.

    Somehow, someway the Dems seem to have lucked on the best candidate for right here, right now.
    The most boring after a year of pandemic panic. The least Socialist in economic turmoil. The least "woke" in a turbulent, divided society.
    And the one most likely to respond to a slap in the face with a well placed head butt.
    I suspect what has turned the markets has been the Florida situation. Trumpton hasn’t led there since March.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_biden-6841.html



    The weird thing is though that there is a fair bit of evidence suggesting Trump is up a fair bit with Hispanics, which are influential in Florida.

    To get there, you have to assume he is losing masses of support in Florida in the white population. Possible but..

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,094

    Damn, missed the new thread so will repost here.

    I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? :) )

    I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.

    But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.

    As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.

    So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.

    It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!

    Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.

  • For me, nobody seems to be terrified of a Starmer premiership which presumably means more voters just not bothering
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,289

    Damn, missed the new thread so will repost here.

    I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? :) )

    I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.

    But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.

    As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.

    So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.

    Johnson reaches parts other Tories do not reach. I don't know why, perhaps people like bumbling incompetence. But whether you or I like it or not, a vast swathe of blue collar Britain love the guy. They will not feel the same about Sunak or Raab.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,094
    Andy_JS said:

    justin124 said:

    A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.”
    That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412.
    Why show such ignorance of readily available information?

    Maybe they were restricting it to elections from the last 65 years.
    Don't forget Justin remembers Wellington's defeat in 1832 as if it was yesterday!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,128
    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    justin124 said:

    A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.”
    That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412.
    Why show such ignorance of readily available information?

    Maybe they were restricting it to elections from the last 65 years.
    To be fair, 3 of those 4 elections mentioned had unusual circumstances - 1945 was 10 years after the last election when it was still the days of the National Government. You were literally talking about two different worlds. In 1931, it was because of the impact of the Great Depression and in 1924 because of the collapse of the first Labour Government.

    But, yes, it can be done.
    Indeed. However, the next election may well also have unusual circumstances.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,984
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.

    If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.

    (Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
    What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,517
    HYUFD said:

    Damn, missed the new thread so will repost here.

    I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? :) )

    I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.

    But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.

    As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.

    So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.

    It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!

    Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.

    It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.

    Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378
    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    justin124 said:

    A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.”
    That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412.
    Why show such ignorance of readily available information?

    Maybe they were restricting it to elections from the last 65 years.
    To be fair, 3 of those 4 elections mentioned had unusual circumstances - 1945 was 10 years after the last election when it was still the days of the National Government. You were literally talking about two different worlds. In 1931, it was because of the impact of the Great Depression and in 1924 because of the collapse of the first Labour Government.

    But, yes, it can be done.
    I think 2024 is going to be in unusual circumstances: the first post-Brexit, post-Coronavirus election.

    I can't tell you who it will benefit, mind.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 339
    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    justin124 said:

    A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.”
    That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412.
    Why show such ignorance of readily available information?

    Maybe they were restricting it to elections from the last 65 years.
    To be fair, 3 of those 4 elections mentioned had unusual circumstances - 1945 was 10 years after the last election when it was still the days of the National Government. You were literally talking about two different worlds. In 1931, it was because of the impact of the Great Depression and in 1924 because of the collapse of the first Labour Government.

    But, yes, it can be done.
    Indeed. However, the next election may well also have unusual circumstances.
    And that is very true.
    My gut feel is that Labour will continue to struggle but who knows.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 3,643
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
    They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
    It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030

    eristdoof said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Facebook also has its terms of service, you have a right to publish whatever you like but you don't have a right to publish it on their platform.

    Worrying too much about post-election "narratives" are what got Trump elected in the first place. Comey gave him a huge free gift and Hillary spent money trying to win the popular vote instead of swing states. It's nice if everyone feels fairly treated, but the Trump people are going to make up a betrayal story regardless. What really matters is who has the actual power.
    I don’t like Facebook being able to restrict the ability of one candidate to compete as they see fit.

    In many ways the likes of Facebook and Google have become public utilities and should be regulated as such.
    But they are not restricting one candidate. They are removing one ad that they consider oversteps their redlines. If Trump's team upload an acceptable ad it will be published. Most of media works this way.
    Indeed. Bizarre argument really.
    No. The redlines should be “is it legal” and “is it within the electoral rules”

    Facebook has no right to decide to take down political advertising based on its own subjective criteria.

    I would say that’s as bad as the Koch brothers pouring money into SuperPACs to try and distort the political landscape
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 339

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.

    If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.

    (Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
    What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
    Not sure what is the legal position but it might make things complicated for Facebook. Remember, not all cases go to the Supreme Court and Trump has weighted the appeals courts more towards Republicans (although the 9th still has a liberal majority if I remember correctly).

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 28,030

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
    They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
    It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
    A private entity is having a significant influence on the ability of one candidate to campaign as they see fit. That’s a distortion of democracy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,094

    HYUFD said:

    Damn, missed the new thread so will repost here.

    I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? :) )

    I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.

    But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.

    As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.

    So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.

    It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!

    Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.

    It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.

    Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
    Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,037
    Would anyone be sorry to see Hancock resign over the app fiasco?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,365

    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Anglesey and Wrexham Covid 19 outbreaks in food processing plants.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53091149

    How many meat factories now?

    Hope they’re doing some forensic investigation into how these places are spreading things around.
    Perhaps some chlorine spraying would help :wink:
    One of the worst was in South Dakota...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52311877
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,577
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    A private company can't decide what it publishes? Ok.
    It claims not to be a publisher.

    But, for example, ITV has to carry party political broadcasts in the U.K.
    I share your reservations to an extent, but in a system which allows people with money to take infinite amounts of advertising, the beneficiaries cannot reasonably complain if a rich channel decides to take a partisan decision. The parallel in not ITV but the British media. It would be far better if the American system required balanced broadcasting - sure, we argue about whether the British channels succeed in that, but we can see they make an effort.
  • SurreySurrey Posts: 190
    edited June 18
    So this time Trump looks to be on the wrong side of Twitter, Fox, and now Facebook. It's not going well.

    How on earth does any campaign come to do something as idiotic as using a point-down coloured equilateral triangle to represent a political danger that it is calling on "all Americans" to come together to stamp out?

    This is the image that CNN have published of one of the Trump ads. Practically anybody who knows anything about politics could have told Trump what it looks like. This is so stupid that one has to wonder whether the campaign was set up.

    When I read today that one of the allegations in the Bolton book is that Trump helped Erdogan breach sanctions against Iran the idea fleetingly occurred to me that Trump may shift to full-on anti-Semitism.

    Let's see how much of his foot he can stuff in his mouth at Saturday's superspreader disgrace rally.

    image

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    Trump just issued an Executive Order "repealing" Section 230 which makes on-line service (like Facebook or politicalbetting) responsible for things posted on them, which complicates this further.

    If a candidate were to defame someone on Facebook, then Facebook could potentially be responsible.

    (Albeit, the Supreme Court is likely to throw Trump's EO out.)
    What's the legal position in the meantime? Is Trump's Executive Order valid and enforceable until it is thrown out?
    It's a good question.

    The FCC is in charge of enforcement of the Communications Decency Act, and ultimately the question is whether they will choose to enforce it pending legal challenge.

    Of the five governing members of the FCC, one has come out strongly in favour (a Republican appointee), while the two Democrats have come out against. Ajit Pai, the Trump appointee who heads the FCC, has been quite circumspect. My guess is that - rather than repudiate it - they'll quietly ignore it.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 339

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
    They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
    It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
    The argument Facebook has always made as to why it should not be covered by media regulations and should be treated as a tech company is that it is only a conduit and does not operate any editorial control. If it is operating an editorial policy, it is not a neutral platform and therefore gets covered by the media regulations. That is the basic jist.

    Facebook itself claims to be a tech company but goes after advertising money which is the preserve of Media companies.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,562

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    I have an issue with this.

    Trump is a spiteful despicable hate monger.

    But a major media platform should not be preventing one of two serious candidates in an election from advertising as they see fit. Provided the ads are legal and within the electoral rules they should be permitted.

    Otherwise - at best - You create a narrative of “he would have won but”

    Ooh, an 'I'm no fan of Trump but' by any other name.
    Nope. I wouldn’t vote for Trump if you paid me.

    But I am concerned about process and electoral fairness. If something is legal and within the rules it’s not fit a private company to decide to prevent it being published

    Edit: hmm, of course if you paid me to influence my vote that would be a breach of electoral law...
    Surely it’s a free media and it can decide what it wants to publish?
    They claim not to have editorial control. If they are just a conduit they are a conduit. If they are a media channel they are a media channel.
    It’s an ad. Are you proposing they are forced to run all and every ad sent their way, regardless of its content? I really don’t see your argument here.
    Facebook, Twitter etc have a carve out protecting them from liability in what they put on their site because they are merely a conduit, not a publisher. Once they start deciding what to put on the site, you are de facto a publisher and the carve out protection goes away.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,176
    Andy_JS said:

    Would anyone be sorry to see Hancock resign over the app fiasco?

    Mrs. Hancock?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,517
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Damn, missed the new thread so will repost here.

    I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? :) )

    I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.

    But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.

    As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.

    So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.

    It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!

    Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.

    It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.

    Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
    Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
    I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.

    And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 9,922

    Damn, missed the new thread so will repost here.

    I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? :) )

    I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.

    But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.

    As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.

    So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.

    Johnson reaches parts other Tories do not reach. I don't know why, perhaps people like bumbling incompetence. But whether you or I like it or not, a vast swathe of blue collar Britain love the guy. They will not feel the same about Sunak or Raab.
    But I suspect the truth of Johnson being a compulsive - and incompetent - liar will become so obvious that only the most ignorant or partisan will be able to deny it. The scales are already falling away from the eyes of many who voted for him.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,128
    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    justin124 said:

    A comment in the Labour 2019 post mortem -'“No major party has ever increased their number of MPs by over 60%, which is what Labour would need to do to win in 2024.”
    That is simply not true. In 1945 Labour went from 154 seats to 393.In 1929 the party went from 151 seats to 287. In 1931 the Tories went from 260 seats to 475 - and in 1924 from 258 seats to 412.
    Why show such ignorance of readily available information?

    Maybe they were restricting it to elections from the last 65 years.
    To be fair, 3 of those 4 elections mentioned had unusual circumstances - 1945 was 10 years after the last election when it was still the days of the National Government. You were literally talking about two different worlds. In 1931, it was because of the impact of the Great Depression and in 1924 because of the collapse of the first Labour Government.

    But, yes, it can be done.
    Indeed. However, the next election may well also have unusual circumstances.
    And that is very true.
    My gut feel is that Labour will continue to struggle but who knows.
    Frankly I have no idea.
    There is much space for events in the next four years. Or maybe we've exhausted our karma and 2021-4 will be dreadfully dreary.
    Hope so.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 339

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Damn, missed the new thread so will repost here.

    I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? :) )

    I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.

    But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.

    As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.

    So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.

    It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!

    Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.

    It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.

    Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
    Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
    I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.

    And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
    Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 3,643
    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:
    Trump still seems dangerously close nationally. In many swing states Trump is often only slightly south of MOE.
    In no way is this over. Not by a long way. The brutality is about to begin.

    Somehow, someway the Dems seem to have lucked on the best candidate for right here, right now.
    The most boring after a year of pandemic panic. The least Socialist in economic turmoil. The least "woke" in a turbulent, divided society.
    And the one most likely to respond to a slap in the face with a well placed head butt.
    I suspect what has turned the markets has been the Florida situation. Trumpton hasn’t led there since March.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_biden-6841.html



    The weird thing is though that there is a fair bit of evidence suggesting Trump is up a fair bit with Hispanics, which are influential in Florida.

    To get there, you have to assume he is losing masses of support in Florida in the white population. Possible but..

    Is this evidence today’s subsample? Or do you have other data I’ve not seen?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 21,517
    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Damn, missed the new thread so will repost here.

    I will perhaps be a bit controversial here. (who me?? :) )

    I think Labour under Starmer has an excellent chance of winning the next election. I certainly don't want them to as personally I am not a fan and don't believe they will be good for the country. But Starmer is portraying himself (and may well be for all know) as a reasonable, centre left politician who can offer a real alternative to the Tories. Johnson is not a great leader or PM. I don't think he is even a very good leader or PM although I certainly don't think he is as bad as some make out.

    But in the end I think his problem is that he is just not that bright. At least politically. He can't recognise the things that reflect badly on his party. He has handled Covid poorly. If he had just been mediocre he would probably have come out of it well but he has made some really basic errors that were warned about and which have subsequently happened. Blind optimism and a harkening to a core vote will get you so far but it won't get you through 4 years of tough times if you lack the ability and determination to make things work.

    As I said before I want Cummings to succeed in his attempts to reshape our institutions. I thin given the chance a lot of that reshaping might even be in ways that those on the left might like, breaking the power of the old elites. But he won't succeed in it with Johnson as his figurehead.

    So I am already kind of resigned to Starmer winning in 2024. I know a lot can happen in 4 years - 'events dear boy' and all that - but I think you have to have the right person in place to take advantage of those 'events'. I just don't think that person is Johnson.

    It was Boris who won you the referendum in 2016 and then got the majority you needed to deliver Brexit in 2019, theirs gratitude for you!

    Starmer may become PM, I cannot see him winning a majority.

    It was Cummings that won us the referendum. I will admit Johnson got us the majority to see it through but he was also part of the problem preventing it from passing far earlier under May.

    Besides why should we show gratitude to politicians? They show none to us.
    Cummings without Boris would not have won the referendum or the election, he was Rove to Boris' Dubya, both needed the other to win
    I disagree. Yes Boris helped of course but he was not vital - not in the way Cummings was.

    And as I said that is all immaterial. I owe no gratitude to politicians and the public at large are fickle and have short memories. Based on present performance Johnson is toast if he is facing even a moderately competent LOTO
    Depending on whether BJ is there for the GE. I suspect he won't be.
    Fair point.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,365
    rcs1000 said:
    its how policing riots works nowadays. Take lots of photos, and pick people up a couple of weeks later.
Sign In or Register to comment.