Democrats are up in arms after a so-called polling firm that projected far-left candidates as strong contenders in several primaries admitted that it had fabricated its polling data.
Wedgewood Polling, which billed itself as an election survey company, released a statement Tuesday night admitting it used "fabricated numbers" for an "experimental project to demonstrate the vulnerabilities, lack of oversight, and overall low barrier to entry in the modern political polling industry."
The group's polls were cited by Abdul El-Sayed's campaign amid a high-profile primary race against Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich. The nonpartisan polling aggregator Political Polls also cited Wedgewood in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race, showing socialist Francesca Hong having an edge over Republican candidate Rep. Tom Tiffany, R-Wis.
McMorrow said Wedgewood's numbers led to her donations drying up and reporters having "hounded" her with calls to drop out of the race.
JONATHAN TURLEY: FAKE POLLSTER'S STUNT WAS A RECKLESS GAME WITH REAL RACES
"Sure, a point was proven. Polling is broken. But tens of thousands of people poured their hearts, time, energy, hard-earned money into something they believed in - for a year-and-a-half, and it was treated like a game," she said in a statement on X. "Trust is already at an all-time low. We don't get out of this mess without rebuilding trust. And media - who loves to ride the drama of a pollercoaster - needs to take a hard look at what's legitimate and what's not."
Unlike El-Sayed, who advanced from Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, Hong lost Wisconsin’s Democratic gubernatorial primary to the establishment-backed candidate. El-Sayed, a former Michigan public health official, is currently locked in a tight race against former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., for Michigan's open Senate seat.
Democrat strategist Jennifer Holdsworth said she ran a super PAC that raised money for McMorrow and that "this poll was used by several donors to pull back funding at a time we were being outspent by $80 million."
MORNING GLORY: THE POLLS GOT MICHIGAN BADLY WRONG. NOW DEMOCRATS MAY FACE A BIGGER RECKONING
Wedgewood's numbers were cited by high-profile outlets like The New York Times and Decision Desk HQ, which both said they have since removed them from their projections.
The Times said it removed 15 polls released by Wedgewood between June and October after it admitted to fabricating data. The outlet said Wedgewood had "answered a series of questions regarding the identities of the pollsters; the methods they were using to draw their sample, contact respondents and weight their polls; and the source of their funding" during its vetting process.
Decision Desk HQ said it removed 17 Wedgewood polls from its projections but that it "has not changed the projected seat totals or chamber control probabilities in the Senate or House."
Wedgewood Polling's statement said it "was never intended to sway an election" but rather was aimed as a "wake-up call" about data integrity and vetting standards.
MYSTERIOUS POLLING FIRM BEHIND FAKE ELECTION SURVEYS CLOSES AFTER ADMITTING ‘SOCIAL EXPERIMENT’
"These people are absolute scumbags," veteran Democratic strategist and former Kamala Harris advisor Mike Nellis told Fox News Digital. "They can try to claim that they have some moral high ground here, but they lied about their polling data, got caught, and are freaking out because they've committed fraud."
"The people responsible for this should be run out of American politics, and if they can be, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law," Nellis said. He added that both Democrats and Republicans, as well as the media, should reflect on how polling is verified "because there's likely other people that are doing things like this."
TOP ELECTION SCHEMES ROILING KEY MIDTERM RACES AS BOTH PARTIES ACCUSE RIVALS OF TRICKERY
Independent outlet FiftyPlusOne said it was investigating Wedgewood when it had released its statement. Co-founder G. Elliott Morris wrote on X, "We were investigating Wedgewood for faking their data and emailed them for comment this morning, ahead of publishing the findings tomorrow. They are trying to cover up their fraud with the 'we were doing a social experiment' excuse."
Former Obama staffer Tommy Vietor said on X that Wedgewood's actions amounted to "lying and fraud."
A group called "Wedgewood Polls" had also previously created a GoFundMe to raise money for polling in Nebraska's gubernatorial and Senate races. It raised $500 of its intended $5,000.
"I know they crowdfunded, I believe, a good chunk of their polls," Nellis told Fox News Digital. "Are they going to return that money? And if not, are they going to be prosecuted?"
FOX NEWS POLL: IT’S A LONE STAR SENATE SHOWDOWN BETWEEN TALARICO AND PAXTON
Other Wedgewood surveys showed Democrats with significant edges over Republicans in states like Texas, where a July Wedgewood poll showed James Talarico leading state Attorney General Ken Paxton among Hispanics by 64% to 30%.
Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have long heaped doubt on the veracity of polls.
Polls notably showed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with an edge over Trump in 2016 — far from the actual result.
And with the fight for control of Congress coming to a head in November, every data point is being scrutinized as political tea leaves.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital reached out to McMorrow's state Senate office, Stevens' campaign and strategist Lis Smith for further comment.
Wedgewood Polls said project was designed to highlight lack of scrutiny over polling sector by mainstream media
A polling firm has admitted to using fabricated data in surveys that were picked up by national media outlets in the US, claiming the project was a “social experiment” designed to expose the lack of scrutiny over the sector.
Wedgewood Polls released a statement on Tuesday on social media, after the polling and election analysis site FiftyPlusOne reached out for comment on an investigation it had conducted into their surveys and data.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images
© Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images
© Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images
Four in 10 college students believe people should face criminal prosecution for expressing opinions they find offensive, according to a new poll that raises questions about the next generation's attitudes toward free speech and the First Amendment.
"Four in ten (40%) agree that offensive speech should be subject to criminal prosecution, while 52% disagree. Agreement is up seven points from last year and is the highest in the three years this question has been asked," a recent survey from the Buckley Institute found.
The survey also found that 45% of students believe violence is acceptable to stop offensive speech.
"Forty-five percent (45%) agree that physical violence can be justified to prevent a person from using hate speech or making racially charged comments, while 50% disagree," the survey states. "Agreement is up six points from last year and ties the all-time high of 45% set in 2023. In 2017, the first year this question was asked, agreement was 30%."
I’M A UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT. OUR PROFESSION SHOULD FINISH WHAT CHARLIE KIRK STARTED
The survey also found that 42% agree that political comments they disagree with can be harmful to their mental health, while 53% disagree, up four points from last year and is the highest reading in the five years this question has been asked.
The survey polled 803 undergrads at four-year colleges across the country in mid-September.
The survey included full-time undergraduate students under the age of 25 attending four-year public or private colleges and universities. It excluded part-time students, those 25 and older, and students enrolled in community colleges, technical schools or trade schools.
UNIVERSITY PAYS PROFESSOR $600K AFTER BEING PUNISHED FOR PARODYING LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Lauren Noble, the executive director of the Buckley Institute, told Fox News Digital in a statement Tuesday that the support among undergraduates for prosecuting free speech is a red flag for the country.
"The high levels of undergraduate support for censorship should serve as a warning to America," Noble said. "The 40% of undergraduates who support criminalizing offensive speech will bring that perspective into their communities and workplaces after they graduate. Two hundred fifty years after America’s founding, defenders of the First Amendment should be worried about what the future holds when these censorious students assume positions of leadership."
LIBERAL FACULTY STILL HUGELY OUTNUMBER CONSERVATIVES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: REPORT
She added that institutions of higher learning have dropped the ball when it comes to educating students on why the First Amendment is a crucial right.
"The survey data shows that America’s colleges and universities are clearly not doing enough to impress upon their students why free speech is so critical to a free society," Noble added. "When significant numbers of college students accept violence and shout downs as appropriate responses to speech they disagree with, alarm bells should be ringing for Americans across the political spectrum."
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
DES MOINES, Iowa — House Republicans are pinning hopes of keeping their majority on a state that President Donald Trump won by roughly 13 points in November 2024.
And while Iowa has leaned red in recent years, Republicans are now finding themselves defending three of its four congressional districts as polls give Democrats more hope by the day that the key to a blue wave runs through the Midwest.
But Republicans are dismissing public perception surveys as a political cudgel used by the media and the left to discourage GOP voters, while insisting the results will come down to one thing.
"Nobody knows what's going to happen on November 3. But I'm here to tell you, if our people show up, we win. If our people don't show up … then we're going to be scratching and clawing to hang on to every inch that we've got," House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., told a room of GOP supporters in Dubuque, Iowa, on Thursday.
Fox News Digital joined Emmer and several other House Republicans on a two-district swing in Iowa late last week. The No. 3 House GOP leader spent his afternoon at an event for congressional candidate Joe Mitchell in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District, followed by a fundraiser for Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, in Des Moines in the evening.
At both events, he argued that polling showing Democrats with a growing advantage was incorrect, but he and others are still warning that getting Republicans out to vote will be key to the party’s success.
"Republicans do not like to participate in surveys," Emmer told people Thursday evening in Des Moines. "We are very suspicious of the people who are giving the information to and the databases they’re putting us in. By the way, there are Republicans who answer these surveys who may tell exactly the opposite of what they actually stand on, because again, we don’t trust them."
Fox News Power Rankings show all but one of Iowa’s four congressional districts are in play. Nunn’s district and the one represented by Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, both "lean Democrat." The seat Mitchell is vying to take over from retiring Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, is ranked a "toss-up."
Republicans across the country are privately worrying that Trump’s low approval numbers coupled with some of his more unpopular policies could drag down the GOP. Add in the overall high cost of living and gas prices, some on the right are bracing for a 2018-style blue wave.
TRUMP’S BEEF IMPORT SCHEME WREAKS HAVOC ON FED-UP RED STATE CATTLE RANCHERS
Two of the policies that could sandbag Republican candidates in Iowa in particular are Trump’s tariffs and his decision to import foreign beef. The agriculture-heavy state has been hit particularly hard so far, with tariffs making farm equipment and other materials more expensive, while Trump's trade war with China has hit American farmers hard with Beijing's retaliation.
Trump has sought to mitigate the impact of his steel tariffs in particular, announcing plans last month for a $15 billion steel plant in Lee County, Iowa.
But both Nunn and Mitchell are confident in the races they are running.
TRUMP-LINKED SUPER PAC PULLS FUNDING FROM 2 HOUSE REPUBLICANS AS GOP FIGHTS TO KEEP MAJORITY
"We feel very confident about the race. And that's because we've talked to every voter we can, asked for their vote on November 3, and we've been traveling the district for the last 13 months — all 22 counties, rural and suburban and urban, telling people, this is an election of common sense versus crazy," Mitchell told Fox News Digital. "We have the hardest workers on the ballot."
Nunn told attendees at his event, "Not only is Iowa at the front line of the entire country when it comes to making sure we've got three competitive House seats, Des Moines, Iowa, the third district, our proud district, is now one of the most competitive in the country."
"So not only are we on the front line, we get to be at the tip of the spear," Nunn said, weeks after he led a bipartisan bill aimed at curbing Trump's imports of foreign beef.
And despite the national-level outlook on Trump, turning out the president’s supporters could be the difference between narrowly keeping the GOP majority and losing control of the House.
Trump, for his part, is doing what he can to motivate the base.
Nunn kicked off his Thursday evening event shortly after a phone call with Trump, during which the president said he "is committed to making sure we remain here in Iowa," the congressman said.
Trump is also set to descend on the state later this week for a rally in Sioux City, though it’s taking place in the only safe district for Republicans in the state.
"I'm always competing. I don't care if it's Iowa, I don't care if it's Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada, Texas, Florida, they're all important to this midterm," Emmer told Fox News Digital. "This midterm, to me, will come down to about 10 seats. Everybody talks about 20-plus. No. It's going to be a very narrow end, and for Republicans, Iowa is a great example. If the Republicans come out to vote, we're going to be just fine."
If the fate of the House majority did come down to the results of just 10 seats, that would mean Iowa would be responsible for roughly one-third of that success.
And while not all Republicans are as confident in the GOP’s chances in Iowa, they do agree that the final results will come down to turnout.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
"This goes one of two ways — and both aren’t great for Republicans. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Joe Mitchell, and Zach Nunn either win by the skin of their teeth or it’s complete and total obliteration on November 3," a GOP operative familiar with campaigns in Iowa told Fox News Digital. "There is no in-between. If Republican voters turn out to the polls, there’s hope. If not, it’s going to be bad."
An ActiVote poll finds Republican Jon Husted leading Democrat Sherrod Brown 50.2 percent to 49.8 percent in Ohio, bucking recent surveys.
The post Polls: Jon Husted Edges Sherrod Brown in Ohio Senate Race appeared first on Breitbart.
Lula Flávio Bolsonaro debate begins Sunday on Band as both candidates clash over Brazil’s future one week before the October 25 runoff.
Related: Lula Signs Constitutional Amendment Reducing Brazil’s Workweek to 40 Hours
The Lula Flávio Bolsonaro debate takes place Sunday in São Paulo as Brazil’s presidential runoff enters its final week.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Senator Flávio Bolsonaro will meet for the first time in a televised debate promoted by the Band television network.
The encounter is considered a crucial moment in the campaign, which will conclude with the runoff election on October 25.
The debate will be broadcast live from Band’s studios in São Paulo beginning at 8:00 p.m. Brasília time. It is expected to last approximately two hours.
The program will be transmitted through a media pool that includes Band, TV Gazeta, TV Cultura, Jovem Pan and the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo.
The debate will also be available through BandNews TV, BandNews FM, Bandeirantes radio, Band’s YouTube channel, Band’s website and the BandPlay platform.
The two candidates have avoided a direct confrontation throughout the first round. Their decision to participate in Sunday’s debate therefore marks a significant change in campaign strategy.
During the first round, Lula chose not to participate in televised debates. Instead, he gave interviews to TV Record and the Flow podcast at times that coincided with other candidates’ debate appearances.
Flávio Bolsonaro, meanwhile, had conditioned his participation on Lula’s presence. As a result, the two candidates avoided facing each other directly during the first-round campaign.
The situation changed after both candidates advanced to the runoff. Lula said that debates had become more important because the contest is now one-on-one.
“Now it is important to have television debates, because now it is face to face, now it is one against one,” Lula said.
Flávio Bolsonaro also changed his position after Lula confirmed his attendance. The senator had initially rejected the invitation but later said he would participate.
He publicly challenged Lula on social media, saying that the president had agreed to attend only after Bolsonaro said he would not participate.
“Lula, you are so predictable, aren’t you? As soon as I said I would not go to the debate, the next minute you said you would go. Of course I’m going, I just wanted you to confirm it,” Bolsonaro wrote.
The exchange reflects the high level of tension between the two campaigns as Brazil approaches a closely contested runoff.
Band presidential debate rules | Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court
The Lula Flávio Bolsonaro debate will include three main blocks.
The first and third blocks will begin with questions from journalists. The candidates will then have time for direct exchanges, allowing them to question one another, respond to criticism and offer rebuttals.
The second block will also include direct confrontation between the two candidates.
The format gives each candidate freedom to manage their speaking time during the direct exchanges. They may move around the studio, ask questions and respond to their opponent without following a fixed timetable for every intervention.
The format is designed to encourage direct confrontation rather than limiting the candidates to short scripted responses.
Band’s anchors Eduardo Oinegue and Adriana Araújo will moderate the debate and ask questions on behalf of the network.
The questions are expected to cover major policy issues, including the economy, health care, education, public security and social programs.
The candidates will also deliver opening statements and closing remarks. Those moments will allow them to present their main proposals and make direct appeals for votes.
A draw determined the order of responses and the candidates’ positions on stage. Flávio Bolsonaro will stand on the left side of the studio, while Lula will occupy the right side.
The debate will provide the first opportunity for viewers to compare the candidates’ personalities, arguments and responses under pressure.
The encounter is especially important because recent polls have shown a narrowing gap between the two candidates.
A Datafolha survey published on October 10 gave Lula 50 percent of valid votes in a runoff scenario, compared with 50 percent for Flávio Bolsonaro. The result indicated a technical tie.
A Quaest poll published on October 15 showed a similar result, with Lula receiving 49 percent and Bolsonaro 51 percent among valid votes. The difference was within the survey’s margin of error.
Those figures mean that the debate could influence undecided voters and those who may still change their minds.
The candidates will seek to define the terms of the campaign. Lula is expected to defend his government’s economic record, social programs and international diplomacy.
Flávio Bolsonaro is expected to criticize inflation, crime, public spending and the performance of the Workers’ Party government.
The debate may also address Brazil’s international relations, including its position on the war in the Middle East, relations with the United States and cooperation with Latin American countries.
The candidates’ contrasting visions of Brazil are likely to become a central issue. Lula represents a progressive project based on social inclusion, public investment and multilateral diplomacy.
Flávio Bolsonaro represents a conservative project that emphasizes public security, lower taxes, reduced state intervention and closer alignment with right-wing forces.
TV Globo election coverage | Reuters coverage of Brazil’s election
Attention will quickly turn to the second Lula Flávio Bolsonaro debate, scheduled for October 23 on TV Globo.
The final debate will take place in Rio de Janeiro, two days before the runoff vote.
TV Globo is Brazil’s largest television network, and the debate is expected to reach a much larger audience than the Band encounter.
The program will be moderated by journalist César Tralli and broadcast after the network’s main evening news program, Jornal Nacional.
The debate will also be transmitted simultaneously by GloboNews and the G1 news portal. Viewers will be able to follow the event through TV Globo, GloboNews, G1 and Globoplay.
The Globo debate is expected to be the last major televised confrontation before Brazilians vote on October 25.
Both campaigns are still evaluating their final participation, although the event has been formally scheduled by the network.
The debate could be decisive if the race remains close. Candidates may use the final encounter to address undecided voters and reinforce their core messages.
The runoff campaign has been marked by intense mobilization in the streets, social media disputes and accusations between the two camps.
Lula’s supporters have accused Meta platforms of censoring accounts linked to the president, while Bolsonaro’s campaign has promoted claims of government bias and economic mismanagement.
The accusations have increased tensions and made the debates even more important as a space for direct confrontation.
The first-round campaign was marked by a lack of direct debates among the leading candidates. The runoff has changed that dynamic because the election is now limited to two contenders.
The debates give voters a clearer opportunity to evaluate each candidate’s proposals and responses to criticism.
They also allow candidates to correct false statements, challenge their opponents’ records and present their plans for government.
The outcome of the runoff will determine Brazil’s political direction for the next four years. It will also influence the country’s economic policy, environmental agenda and international relations.
The Lula Flávio Bolsonaro debate has implications beyond Brazil because the country is Latin America’s largest economy and a major global agricultural producer.
The election will affect Brazil’s approach to climate policy, the Amazon, trade, regional integration and relations with China, the United States and the European Union.
Lula has promoted a more active role for Brazil in multilateral institutions and has sought closer ties with countries in the Global South.
His government has emphasized cooperation with China, support for regional integration and a diplomatic approach to international conflicts.
Flávio Bolsonaro’s campaign is associated with a more conservative foreign-policy orientation and closer alignment with right-wing governments and movements.
The election will therefore influence debates over Brazil’s role in the world and its relationship with the United States.
The runoff is also taking place amid heightened political polarization. The two campaigns represent competing visions of Brazil’s democracy, economy and social model.
Lula’s supporters see the election as an opportunity to preserve social programs and protect democratic institutions.
Flávio Bolsonaro’s supporters argue that Brazil needs a change in direction to address crime, inflation and economic stagnation.
The debates will provide voters with a final opportunity to compare those visions before casting their ballots.
The first debate on Band and the final encounter on TV Globo could play a decisive role in determining who will govern Brazil after October 25.
As Andy Burnham talks up closer alignment with the EU and a poll suggests half in UK would rejoin, the B-word is back on the agenda
In February 2016, days after David Cameron announced the UK would hold a referendum on leaving the EU, he told workers in Slough not to imagine they could change their minds a few years down the line if they did not like how things panned out. Voting to stay in or leave was a once in a generation thing, he said. “This is a decision that lasts for life.”
Well times change, as the last prime minister but five could testify. A decade after Britain told Brussels where to go, Brexit is back on the political agenda. After years in which many politicians avoided any mention of the B-word, Andy Burnham broke the omertà in his party conference speech last month, saying he would look again at Britain’s relationship with Europe.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: Toby Melville/AFP/Getty Images
© Photograph: Toby Melville/AFP/Getty Images
© Photograph: Toby Melville/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump promised that his tariffs would usher in a "golden age" by prioritizing the interests of American workers.
Those workers, however, are now turning against Trump's tariffs.
Support for the Trump administration's tariff policies has fallen by 25 percentage points among blue-collar workers over the past year, according to new polling data from Echelon Insights and the Economic Innovation Group (EIG).
A poll conducted by the two groups in August 2025 found that blue-collar workers supported the tariffs by a narrow margin. Now, that same segment of the population has turned decisively against Trump's tariffs: 58 percent oppose them, compared to just 36 percent who support them.
Overall, support for the tariffs has declined from about 43 percent last year to only 34 percent. Opposition to the tariffs has grown from 50 percent to 59 percent. Elsewhere in the same survey, 68 percent of respondents said the tariffs have made the cost of living higher.
It's not hard to figure out why people have turned against the tariffs: They have contributed to rising prices across the economy.
The annualized inflation rate ticked upward to 3.7 percent in September, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). More BLS data released Thursday morning shows that the producer price index, which often operates as a precursor to inflation, is up 6.3 percent over the past year.
America's war with Iran has been a major factor in rising inflation, but the tariffs have played a significant role as well. In a study released last week, the New York Federal Reserve concluded that consumer prices would have declined slightly over the past year if not for the economic effects of the tariffs.
The tariffs have become so unpopular that not even partisanship can save them. "Among GOP-voting workers, only 3 percent select tariffs as their top priority," note Jordan McGillis and John Lettieri, policy experts from the EIG, in their write-up of the poll.
Other parts of Trump's economic agenda are not faring much better. The Trump administration has bought or seized shares of more than 30 private businesses over the past two years—ranging from major firms such as U.S. Steel to small mining companies with few customers. "The federal government's state corporatism is unprecedented," reports the Cato Institute in a new analysis of those deals.
Large majorities of workers across both major parties and all generations said they opposed the federal government taking equity stakes in American companies in the Echelon/EIG poll.
In short: This economic populism sure isn't very popular.
All of this is likely to be a major factor in next month's midterm elections. Regardless of how that shakes out, however, there are lessons to be drawn from this poll for both sides of the political divide.
For conservatives, these polling data should end the tariff experiment. It has proven economically damaging, and it is no longer a political winner (if it ever was).
Remember, the idea to hike tariffs and start trade wars with all of America's biggest trading partners was not some grand plan backed by careful study and thoughtful analysis. It sprung, half-baked, from the head of one man. Yes, there have been various attempts to support, in a post hoc way, Trump's desire for tariffs. All of that can, and should, be easily discarded. There is no reason to allow a lame duck president to continue to set such a politically and economically destructive path for the country.
Undoing the tariffs might also put a meaningful dent in rising prices. That should be a no-brainer after the midterms, no matter which party controls Congress.
On the left, this poll should be a reminder that Americans do not look favorably on the mixing of government and business. Democrats should promise to unwind the "equity stakes" that the federal government has taken under Trump's watch. Heading toward the 2028 presidential cycle, Democrats might want to borrow some old Republican talking points about how government shouldn't be picking winners and losers—they may find that message is still quite popular.
Yes, it's probably right to be skeptical that those things will happen. Trump's efforts to centralize economic power in the executive branch are likely to outlive his presidency—that's how these things always seem to go.
But there is a glimmer of hope here. Americans are soundly rejecting the Trump administration's big government policies.
The post Even Blue-Collar Workers Have Turned Against Trump's Unpopular Tariffs appeared first on Reason Magazine.
The Conservatives have jumped three points in the latest poll following Kemi Badenoch's conference tax pledges, leapfrogging Reform and coming within a point of Labour as Burnham sees his lead slip by three points.
The post Badenoch Bounce: Tories Leapfrog Reform in Latest Poll to Move Within a Point of Labour appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
For eight decades, the Israeli political and security establishment has operated on a premise so deeply embedded that it is rarely stated as a premise at all: that American support is not a policy but a condition of nature, as fixed as the Mediterranean coastline. Administrations would come and go, presidents would hector and cajole, […]
The post Time’s no longer on Israel’s side in America appeared first on Asia Times.
Andy Burnham today moved to quell mounting speculation he is plotting an early General Election, telling journalists there will be "no election anytime soon" and the next vote will be "in 2029".
The post Burnham Says There Will Be “No Election Anytime Soon” and the Next Vote Will Be “in 2029” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Login