debate

A proposed gubernatorial forum hastily cobbled together in the hours after USC canceled its Tuesday debate fell apart because the candidates of color who were excluded from the previously planned event were unable to show up in person at KNBC-TV’s studio in Universal City, according to multiple sources.

Facing mounting pressure that its debate selection criteria excluded every candidate of color, the university canceled its debate late Monday. On Tuesday morning, billionaire Tom Steyer — a Democrat — proposed holding an alternative face-off, with KNBC moderating. But the candidates who had not been invited to the USC debate had already made other commitments.

“A lot of this came out of nowhere — there’s a debate and you’re not invited, followed by there’s no debate, and then maybe we should all hang out and have a conversation,” said Kyle Layman, a strategist advising former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

USC officials declined to comment on Tuesday’s developments — as did KABC-TV, one of the broadcast partners of the canceled debate. KNBC did not respond to a request for comment, but someone involved with planning a potential debate there said pulling together such an event in just a few hours was impossible, and also unfair to the candidates who had made other plans after initially being excluded from the USC debate.

“We looked into the possibility of doing something. It just wasn’t possible because of the last-minute logistics. It was not feasible,” said the person, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “We couldn’t get everybody here.”

The fact that the candidates excluded from the USC debate couldn’t find a way to participate in Tuesday evening’s alternative forum irritated some people involved in the planning, however. Becerra, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former state Controller Betty Yee had loudly protested not being invited to the USC event.

“This is like probably one of the last opportunities they have to be with other leading contenders of the race, so why not take this opportunity?” said someone who took part in conversations about the proposed last-minute debate, who asked for anonymity to speak openly. “If the whole thing is about bringing your message to the voters, making sure voters have as much information as possible, talking about the issues that matter, wouldn’t you want to take every opportunity to do that?

“If you’re going to talk a big game about taking your message to voters, the importance of debates, why not do it?” this person said.

Becerra, Thurmond, Villaraigosa and Yee have reportedly formed an informal pact not to participate in any debate that does not include all of them, which Yee referenced in a Tuesday afternoon news conference.

“The idea that none of the candidates of color are going to be joining a debate is just inappropriate for a state like California,” Yee said. “We also need to have a commitment from all of the debate sponsors that they will include all of us going forward.”

Yee and Thurmond were not invited to the next major televised debate, which will take place April 1 at Fresno State University. Becerra and Villaraigosa had previously confirmed their attendance, according to a news release from the Western Growers Assn., one of the event’s sponsors.

And all four candidates of color, along with San José Mayor Matt Mahan, were not invited to a debate on April 22 in San Francisco that will be hosted by KRON-TV and broadcast on Nexstar Media Group stations throughout California.

“We don’t need gatekeepers,” Mahan said in a statement Tuesday evening. “I’m calling on my fellow candidates to work together to organize our own debates — so we can take our ideas for a better California to every corner of California. Let’s let the voters truly decide.”

The scrapped USC debate was going to be hosted by the institution’s Dornsife Center for the Political Future and co-sponsored by KABC and Univision. Six candidates had been invited to participate: Democrats Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, Mahan and Steyer; along with the leading Republicans, conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

Candidates and elected officials called the criteria used to determine participation in the debate biased because it included Mahan, a white candidate who is polling near the bottom of the pack but is supported by notable names in the USC community. Hours after the debate was canceled, Steyer’s campaign sought to create an alternate event that would include all of the candidates.

“We were trying to do the right thing upon learning that the debate was canceled at USC,” said a member of Steyer’s campaign who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “Tom immediately was like, ‘We can do something alternative.’ People want to hear from the gubernatorial candidates. It was on the table. It was offered.

“NBC couldn’t get all the candidates here, but we tried,” this person said. “Given the short amount of time we were trying to put this together, it ultimately could not happen because not all the candidates could get to the studio.”

Thurmond, who was in Sacramento and Richmond on Tuesday, joined a political influencer on YouTube Tuesday evening, while Yee attended previously scheduled events with the East Area Progressive Democrats and a women’s group in the L.A. area. Villaraigosa had lined up other interviews at his Wilshire campaign office, Becerra was traveling, and Porter was scheduled to host a livestream on her Instagram account Tuesday evening.

Democratic legislative leaders on Monday called on voters to boycott USC’s upcoming gubernatorial debate if the university does not invite candidates who were excluded from participating.

The unsparing letter adds another layer of controversy to Tuesday’s forum, which as a result of the university’s selection criteria would not include any of the leading candidates of color.

“We are writing to demand you open the March 24 gubernatorial debate to all leading candidates,” said the letter sent Monday evening to USC President Beong-Soo Kim by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and the leaders of the legislative Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, LGBTQ, Jewish and women’s caucuses. “The outcry over this debate is deafening and includes legal demands from the excluded candidates’ attorneys, public calls by elected leaders across the state, concerns from the included candidates’ own campaigns, and growing alarm from California voters. Instead of responding to these valid concerns by expanding the debate, USC has doubled down.”

USC officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. Tuesday’s debate is scheduled less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters’ mailboxes.

The university has been embroiled in controversy over the criteria it used to select the candidates it invited to participate in Tuesday’s debate, which is co-sponsored by KABC-TV Los Angeles and Univision.

Specifically, critics have pointed out the methodology allowed San José Mayor Matt Mahan — a white candidate who recently entered the race and is polling poorly — to vault above former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee.

“The university’s selection process — built on a formula never before used for a debate of this scale, has delivered a result that is biased,” the letter says. “When a methodology produces this outcome — one that elevates a candidate with notable ties to USC’s donor community and the co-director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future — the burden falls on USC to explain itself, not on everyone else to accept it. If USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate.”

Mike Murphy, a co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, has been voluntarily advising an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist previously said he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and that he has asked for unpaid leave at the university through the June 2 primary if he takes a paid role in the campaign.

USC has also received tens of millions of dollars in donations from billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and his wife. Caruso, a USC alumnus who served as a trustee for years, is also a Mahan supporter.

“I had no conversations with the debate hosts or organizers,” Caruso said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “This is the most important election for California in a generation, and I encourage everyone to be engaged, learn as much as possible about each candidate, then form an opinion who can move California forward in the most positive of ways. Watching debates is a part of that process. That is why I believe debates should include all the credible candidates.”

The debate sponsors released a joint statement on Friday defending their decision.

“We want to be clear that we categorically, unequivocally deny any allegations that the debate criteria was in any way biased in favor or against any candidate and want to clarify the facts,” said the statement by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and its broadcast partners. “The methodology was based on well-established metrics consistent with formulas widely used to set debate participation nationwide — a combination of polling and fundraising — and developed without regard to any particular candidate.”

Hours later, the four prominent Democrats who were excluded from the debate called on their rivals to boycott the event, reiterating their concerns that the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate resulted in every prominent candidate of color being excluded from the forum.

The four Democrats who are participating in the debate — Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer and Mahan — all issued statements criticizing USC’s selection criteria, but did not pull out of the debate.

“It is a shame that USC has decided to elevate one candidate at the expense of others,” Swalwell wrote on X on Sunday. “USC, and every host of a gubernatorial debate, should employ fair, objective, and honest criteria for all candidates. I remain hopeful they will do so Tuesday night.”

Porter expressed similar thoughts.

“Criteria used to determine which candidates qualify to participate in a debate must be transparent, fair, and objective,” she wrote on X. “I’m disappointed by how USC handled the process for Tuesday’s debate. Candidates and Californians deserve answers.”

Some of the most impressive performances at UFC London came on the undercard.

Nathaniel Wood overcame the odds yet again to beat Losene Keita, while Mason Jones overwhelmed Axel Sola in a bruising back and forth fight of the year encounter.

Jones and Sola were covered in blood and breathing heavily by the end of their contest, with both fighters swinging until the final bell, using every last drop of energy.

Jones’ performance was the type that can have a lasting effect on a fighter’s career but he and Wood roused the fans on a night when the atmosphere was sometimes flat at the O2 Arena.

Fighters on the prelims like Wood and Jones don’t get as much media attention or promotion from the UFC – and strikingly less money than their headlining peers.

But in a sport that demands so much from the flesh and mind, there are arguments the athletes should be better looked after amid a changing landscape in combat sports.

Fighter pay has been questioned by athletes and the media recently after boxer Conor Benn secured a reported £11m one-fight deal with Zuffa Boxing.

Zuffa Boxing is owned by UFC president Dana White, so critics have asked why the 56-year-old isn’t paying similar amounts to his MMA fighters under contract.

The UFC gives about 20% of revenue to fighter pay, compared with boxers who get about 60% of revenue from their events.

London’s Wood, who has won 11 of 14 fights in the UFC, says he hopes the Benn deal will spark a change because he was “heartbroken” when he saw how much he would be earning.

“When you think I’ve been in the UFC for eight years, but I’m not on that, I”m not even on 1% of that,” Wood told BBC Sport before UFC London.

“Especially when I believe MMA is the tougher sport as well, but again I just try and control what’s in my hands and it’s got nothing to do with me.

“It was definitely heartbreaking to see someone is getting paid that much.”

Four Democrats running for governor called on their fellow candidates to boycott an upcoming debate at USC, reiterating concerns that the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate resulted in every prominent candidate of color being excluded from the forum.

“We ask each and every candidate who is in this race to recognize that if we can’t have a fair process for a debate, then we should all not participate,” said Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary. “We call on them to withdraw from this biased forum.”

Becerra’s call was echoed by former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee during a Friday afternoon news conference.

The candidate’s request comes a week after some of them raised concerns about the criteria for Tuesday’s debate, arguing that it was engineered to allow the inclusion of San José Mayor Matt Mahan, who entered the race in late January and quickly raised millions of dollars from Silicon Valley executives.

“The rules initially were polling and money. Matt Mahan is [polling] lower than some of us, period,” Villaraigosa said, adding that the debate organizers “then added time in the race,” which resulted in Mahan’s invitation.

Mahan’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Friday, but when Becerra raised such concerns last week, Mahan said the former Biden administration official ought to be included in the debate.

The matter is further complicated by Mahan supporters who have notable ties to the university.

Mike Murphy, a co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, has been voluntarily advising an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist said last week that he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and that he has asked for unpaid leave at the university through the June 2 primary if he takes a paid role in the campaign.

USC has also received tens of millions of dollars in donations from billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and his wife. Caruso, a USC alumnus who served as a trustee for years, is also a Mahan supporter.

A representative for Caruso did not respond to a request for comment.

The debate, hosted by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future, KABC-TV Los Angeles and Univision, is scheduled to take place on campus at 5 p.m. Tuesday — less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters’ mailboxes. The forum will be streamed and broadcast on ABC and Univision affiliates across the state.

USC and the television stations put out a joint statement Friday morning, prior to the candidates’ news conference, justifying the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate and saying none of the debate partners had any influence on the methodology.

“We want to be clear that we categorically, unequivocally deny any allegations that the debate criteria was in any way biased in favor or against any candidate and want to clarify the facts,” they said in a statement, adding that Christian Grose, a USC political science professor, was asked to develop “data-driven” benchmarks to determine which candidates were invited.

“The methodology was based on well-established metrics consistent with formulas widely used to set debate participation nationwide — a combination of polling and fundraising — and developed without regard to any particular candidate.”

After the Democratic candidates called for their competitors to not participate, USC and KABC declined to comment further. Univision did not respond to a request for comment.

Grose defended the methodology he crafted as “objective” in an interview Friday, and said he met with Becerra as well as the staff of other candidates to explain it.

“The idea that it was biased or designed to create some sort of outcome to disfavor the candidates who spoke at the press conference is just not correct,” Grose said, adding that attacks on the methodology have a “chilling effect” on universities and media outlets who sponsor debates.

“I’m not worried about the optics,” he said. “The optics are we are having a debate at USC to inform voters and educate students.”

Jarred Cuellar, a political science assistant professor at Cal Poly Pomona, described Grose’s methodology as “thoughtful” and “empirically grounded,” and characterized the concerns raised by candidates not included in the debate as unfounded and not credible.

“The formula is methodologically sound and represents a clear improvement over how debate participation has often been determined,” he said. “Rather than relying on a single metric such as polling, it takes a multidimensional approach to evaluating candidate viability. That approach better reflects how political scientists measure complex phenomena like electoral competitiveness.”

But the controversy has caused consternation among USC professors past and present.

“It seems like an unforced error that is casting the entire event in a bad light,” said a current USC professor who closely follows politics but is not involved in the debate, and who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “It’s super important that if the debate happens, it happens correctly.”

Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist who taught election and environmental law at USC for 19 years, said that while he believes the large field of Democratic candidates needs to be winnowed, that’s not the job of a university or media outlets.

“Every one of these eight [Democratic candidates] is capable of running the state of California,” he said. “ It would certainly be my advice to USC and to Univision and to ABC to allow all the candidates to take part, or to cancel the debate.”

The four Democratic candidates not invited to the debate argued that voters are just starting to pay attention to the thus-far sleepy race and that diverse candidates should be represented.

“We are a minority-majority state, and the idea that the four candidates of color are not going to be on the stage to bring those perspectives, to really speak to those communities, is really not doing right by the voters,” Yee said.

Becerra said some of the candidates had requested to speak with top university leadership, including President Beong-Soo Kim. In other conversations, he said university officials raised the possibility of “either canceling this debate or incorporating more of the candidates in it. Evidently they could not agree to do that. … I think they recognize that there were problems with the way this debate had been organized.”

Becerra said he reviewed the formula and has “never seen” debate criteria like it before during his decades of serving in elected office.

“Your fundraising numbers are divided by the number of days you’ve been out there campaigning in front of voters,” he said. “So you could have raised millions of dollars, but if you’ve been in longer than someone else who just raised millions of dollars very quickly, you get penalized.”

Campaigns for the invited candidates — Democrats Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, climate activist Tom Steyer and Mahan; as well as Republicans Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County, and former Fox News host Steve Hilton — did not respond to requests for comment on the call to boycott the debate.

MIAMI — The chants started in a purple-and-gold-clad cluster in the upper deck at Kaseya Center. As Luka Doncic’s scoring total crept up with each step-back three, free throw or fadeaway shot, the cheers grew louder, coming from every corner by fans dressed in every color.

“M-V-P! M-V-P!”

“That’s what I think every player wants to hear,” Doncic said.

Doncic’s season-high 60 points — the first 60-point game for a Lakers player since Kobe Bryant’s swan song in 2016 — led the Lakers to a 134-126 win over the Miami Heat on Thursday. It was another exceptional feat in Doncic’s late-season campaign for the NBA’s most valuable player.

The NBA’s leading scorer poured in 100 points in less than 24 hours, helping the Lakers extend their winning streak to eight games. Doncic is averaging 40.9 points per game over the streak, shooting 42.2% from three-point range. He became just the seventh Laker to record a 60-point game, joining franchise legends Bryant, Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain, George Mikan, Jerry West and Shaquille O’Neal.

“It was a superhero performance,” Lakers coach JJ Redick said.

Doncic’s dominance has rescued the Lakers, propelling them to a season-best winning streak. The team’s previous best winning streak was built by taking down bottom-feeding teams including New Orleans, Utah and Dallas. This streak is against some of the league’s best: Six wins are against teams with a .500 record or better and five were against .600 teams. The Lakers have climbed from sixth to third in the Western Conference in two weeks, netting critical tiebreakers against rivals Minnesota, Denver and Houston.

Lakers star Luka Doncic, left, controls the ball in front of Miami’s Bam Adebayo during the first quarter Thursday.

(Rich Storry / Getty Images)

Doncic, in his first full season with the Lakers, began the season as one of the betting favorites to win MVP. But the Lakers went through December doldrums, losing four out of five. He missed two games while traveling to Slovenia to be present for the birth of his second daughter, Olivia. When he returned, Doncic shot 24.5% from three over the next five games.

Doncic’s defense was criticized, along with his consistent complaining to referees. Reigning MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, who leads the Western Conference-leading Oklahoma City Thunder with 31.5 points, 4.5 rebounds and 6.6 assists, figures to still be the favorite in the MVP race, especially with the Thunder on a conference-best 10-game winning streak.

Doncic’s production never dipped — he has maintained the league’s top scoring average for most of the season — but his play still lacked the same zip that made him a must-watch star in Dallas.

Lakers star Luka Doncic reacts after making a three-pointer in the third quarter Thursday against the Miami Heat.

(Rich Storry / Getty Images)

The Lakers embodied some of their star’s struggles. The team was sorting through injuries while trying to integrate new pieces. The chemistry “wasn’t there,” guard Marcus Smart said.

Finally, it all clicked, starting with Doncic.

“Just trusting my game,” Doncic said of how he’s reached this level at this stage of the season. “I know some games I won’t have it. … I’ve been there, so you just got to trust in yourself. I got all the support from my teammates, which helps me a lot.”

Teammates cheered, jumped and raised their fists from the Lakers bench when Doncic made his final free throw to finish off his 60-point night. On a night when LeBron James tied the NBA’s regular-season games played record, appearing in his 1,611th game and notching a 19-point, 15-rebound, 10-assist night, it was Doncic’s final points that seemed to make James smile the widest.

Doncic, who said the crowd’s chants gave him goosebumps, added it “makes my heart happy” seeing the reaction from all of his teammates.

Lakers star LeBron James reacts to a free throw by teammate Luka Doncic in the fourth quarter against the Miami Heat on Thursday.

(Rich Storry / Getty Images)

“We all know the talent that Luka is,” Smart said. “And when he gets in those modes, man, it’s definitely a sight to see, and you don’t want to miss it.”

Before the game, Redick sarcastically wouldn’t even utter the name of the award Doncic has positioned himself for, only saying he believed Doncic should be in the “M-word conversation.”

If it’s not the cheers from the crowd, Doncic doesn’t care about the chatter either.

“It’s you guys, the media,” Doncic said. “I ain’t got nothing to do with it.”

It was no surprise when Joe Kent showed up on Tucker Carlson’s podcast a day after quitting his counterterrorism job in President Trump’s administration. Here was a top official who resigned to protest the war with Iran turning to right-wing media’s leading critic of the conflict.

“The Israelis drove the decision to take this action,” Kent said in Wednesday’s interview.

But before long, the conversation moved in a different direction as Kent nodded to conspiracy theories that pro-Israel forces were behind the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

“I’m saying there are unanswered questions,” Kent said.

The conversation encapsulated two schisms within the Republican Party and the right-wing media system, both of which have reached high into the national security establishment of the Trump administration.

There’s a foreign policy debate over the wisdom of Trump’s war with Iran and the future of the United States’ longstanding alliance with Israel.

But there also are fears that the focus on Israel is the leading edge of an antisemitic fringe that has gained ground by portraying Jews as shadowy manipulators, echoing some of history’s most hateful tropes.

Tucker Carlson is playing a central role

At the center of both issues is Carlson, a former Fox News host who remains influential among conservatives. He was previously denounced for hosting Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist and antisemite, on his podcast last year. During the interview, Fuentes complained about “organized Jewry in America.”

On Wednesday, Carlson was sharply critical about Israel, saying “its lobbying in the United States pressured the president.”

Matt Brooks, president of the Republican Jewish Coalition, described Kent’s appearance on Carlson’s podcast as “part of an ongoing problem.”

He noted that his group opposed Kent’s nomination as director of the National Counterterrorism Center because of ties to right-wing extremism. Trump ignored those concerns even though, as he said after Kent’s resignation, “I always thought he was weak on security” and “I didn’t know him well.”

Kent’s resignation letter trafficked in antisemitic conspiracy theories while raising concerns about the war with Iran.

He blamed “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” for encouraging conflict. Indeed, Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu encouraged Trump to join forces in an attack on Iran.

But Kent also went further, saying it’s “the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war.” He also said his wife, a Navy cryptologist who was killed by a suicide bomber in Syria, died “in a war manufactured by Israel.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, described the letter as “virulent antisemitism.” Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat, said “scapegoating Israel isn’t just a tired antisemitic trope — it’s anti-American.”

Kent has previously rejected all forms of “racism and bigotry.”

Trump has said nothing about Kent’s remarks on Israel. He previously disputed the idea that Israel pushed him toward war, saying, “I might have forced their hand.”

Unified Republican support for Israel has fractured

Questions about Israeli influence are not unique to right-wing circles. Progressives have also faced accusations of antisemitism for their response to the war in Gaza, which began with an attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023.

But it’s been a widening fault line within the Republican Party, which has been a bedrock of support for Israel over the years. Conservatives are still reckoning with the fallout from Carlson’s interview with Fuentes.

For example, board members and other staff members resigned from the Heritage Foundation after the think tank’s president defended Carlson.

Trump tried to sidestep the issue, declining to criticize Fuentes and praising Carlson for having “said good things about me over the years.” The president previously dined with Fuentes at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., between his two terms, and Carlson has continued to visit the White House.

Mort Klein, president of the conservative Jewish group the Zionist Organization of America, said Wednesday that he supports Trump but “I’d like him to do more” about antisemitism.

“I want him to be stronger on those issues,” Klein said.

Carlson has said that he is not antisemitic. But he has said that anti-Jewish hate is less pervasive in society than bias against white people and that some Christian politicians who were fervent supporters of Israel were guilty of heresy.

The Iran war is poised to continue fracturing right-wing media.

Ben Shapiro, co-founder of The Daily Wire, called Carlson’s Fuentes interview “an act of moral imbecility” and accused the host of misleading his audience with falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

He’s also feuded with Candace Owens, who has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. Dennis Prager, a conservative commentator, wrote in an open letter to Owens that “I cannot think of anyone in public life engendering as much suspicion of Jews, Zionism and Israel as you.”

Megyn Kelly, like Carlson a former Fox News Channel anchor now helming her own independent media empire, said the war was sold to the American people by “Israel firsters, like Mark Levin.” Levin, a radio and Fox personality, has been among Trump’s most fervent supporters of the war.

Levin, for his part, called Kelly an “emotionally unhinged, lewd and petulant wreck.”

It promises to continue.

Levin posted on social media an invitation to Kent to appear on his show in the coming days.

“Sure,” Kent replied. “Let’s go.”

Beaumont and Bauder write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Republicans launched an unprecedented effort on Tuesday to hold the Senate floor and talk for days about a bill that they know won’t pass — an attempt to capture public attention on legislation requiring stricter voter registration rules as President Trump pressures Congress to act before November’s midterm elections.

The talkathon could last a week or longer, potentially through the weekend, as Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) tries to navigate Trump’s insistence on the issue and Democrats’ united opposition. Trump has urged Thune to scrap the legislative filibuster, which triggers a 60-vote threshold in the 100-member Senate, or find another workaround to pass the bill, but Thune has repeatedly said he doesn’t have the votes to do that.

Instead, Republicans intend to make a long, noisy show of support for the legislation, which would require Americans to prove they are U.S. citizens before they register to vote and to show identification at the polls, among other things. It’s a risky strategy, with no guarantee it will be enough for Trump, who has said he won’t sign other bills until the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act — also known as the SAVE America Act or the SAVE Act — is passed.

The floor debate is expected to eventually end with a failed vote. Republicans need 60 votes to advance the bill to a final vote, but they hold 53 seats, and all 45 Democrats and both independents, who caucus with the Democrats, oppose it.

The debate will “put Democrats on the record,” Thune said. He added that “how it ends remains to be seen.”

The Senate voted 51 to 48 Tuesday to begin the debate, with Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski the only Republican voting against moving forward on the bill.

In a social media post on Tuesday morning, Trump issued a warning to any Republican who doesn’t support the bill: “I WILL NEVER (EVER!) ENDORSE ANYONE WHO VOTES AGAINST ‘SAVE AMERICA!!!’”

Creating strict voter registration rules

Trump says, without evidence, that Democrats can only win in the midterms if they cheat and explicitly said Republicans need the SAVE America Act to win in November. The House passed the legislation earlier this year, but the Senate turned to other issues as it became evident that Republicans didn’t have the votes to pass it.

But Trump made clear he wasn’t satisfied and pushed the Senate to act. The Republican president has said he won’t sign other legislation, including a bipartisan housing bill backed by the White House, until the voting bill passes.

The bill contains a slew of provisions that Trump and his most loyal supporters have pushed as part of a broad effort to assert federal control over elections. It would require voters nationwide to provide proof of citizenship when they register and to show accepted voter identification when casting a ballot.

It would also create new penalties for election workers who register voters without proof of citizenship and require states to hand voter data over to the Department of Homeland Security so federal officials could screen for voters who are in the country illegally.

Trump also wants new provisions added to the bill, including a ban on most mail-in ballots.

“It’ll guarantee the midterms,” Trump said of the bill last week. “If you don’t get it, big trouble.”

Democratic opposition to the bill is firm

Democrats and many groups that champion voter access say there is little evidence of noncitizens voting and say the bill would disenfranchise millions of voters — including Republicans — by creating new burdens to prove citizenship.

It is already illegal to vote if you are not a U.S. citizen, but the bill would lay out strict new rules for paperwork that most people would have to present in person to register to vote. Opponents of the measure say those documents are not always readily available for many people and argue that it would kill voter registration efforts and unfairly penalize young people who are registering to vote for the first time, married women who change their last name and people who cannot travel to present their documents, among other groups.

While Republicans have focused on the bill’s new requirements to show identification when they show up to vote, Democrats say they are most concerned that the legislation would allow the federal government to take voters off the rolls.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that Democrats are not opposed to voter identification but “this is about purging the voter rolls in a massive way, so you never even get the chance to show a voter ID when you showed up to vote.”

Expect a show on the Senate floor

Trump, backed by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, has pushed for a talking filibuster, which would force Democrats to talk for days or weeks to delay passage of the bill. But Thune and the larger GOP conference rejected that idea, arguing that it would end in failure after giving Democrats a stage and the opportunity to offer endless amendments, potentially adding their priorities to the bill.

Republicans are instead taking over the floor with their own speeches, proceeding under regular order but operating outside the normal time limits that are customary when debating legislation. Democrats are expected to answer with their own procedural hijinks, potentially forcing Republicans to come to the floor at all hours for votes, meaning they will need to stay close to the Senate for the duration.

Lee said last week that it’s unclear how it will all play out. He said he thinks Trump “understands that we need to put in an aggressive effort here.”

“And a lot of that,” he said, “is going to have to be determined in real time as we go about it.”

The extent of Trump’s satisfaction with the process, Lee said, “will depend on whether, in his view, we gave it everything we have.”

On Monday night, Lee was rallying voters in Trump’s base on X.

“Once we’re on this bill,” he wrote, “we must stay on it until it’s passed into law.”

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

March 16 (UPI) — Senate Republicans are trying to pass the SAVE America Act this week, as both the GOP and Democrats are gearing up to fight over the election reform bill that would require those registering to vote to show proof of citizenship with passports or birth certificates.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act already has broad public support, but Democrats are strongly against it. Republicans and President Donald Trump want a prolonged fight, forcing Democrats to defend their opposition.

Republicans say it will make elections safer, but Democrats call it a “voter suppression act.”

The bill would force people registering to vote to show proof of citizenship with a passport or certified birth certificate. People who have legally changed their name, including transgender people and most married women, would have a more difficult time.

According to State Department statistics, around half of Americans have a valid passport, and a first-time applicant would have to pay $165 to get one. The University of Maryland’s Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement said that 2.6 million Americans do not have a government-issued photo ID.

A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showed that 71% of voters support the SAVE Act.

House Republicans passed a version of the bill along party lines in February. But the Senate needs 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. Right now, Republicans have a 53-47 majority, and Sen. John Fetterman, I-Pa., who usually votes with the GOP, has said he’s against the bill.

On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he wants to bring the bill to a vote to “put Democrats on the record.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told The Hill that Trump wants to see an epic fight, similar to the two-month battle to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“What I want to do is try to maximize the period of time in which we debate it,” Lee said.

“They faced a 32-vote cloture deficit at the time it came over from the House in March of ’64,” Lee told The Hill. “They were able to close a 32-vote cloture deficit. It took them 60 days, but they got there.”

He said taking a longer time gives lawmakers clarity.

“Debating a bill that continues to get more popular even as people are trying to slow it down and stop it and obstruct it sometimes sharpens the minds of individual lawmakers and makes them more amenable in the end to negotiation,” Lee added. “That’s what we’re looking at here.”

Trump and other conservative Senators want to force Democrats to do a talking filibuster, but Thune has said there just aren’t enough votes to do so. He said the Republicans aren’t unified enough to table potential Democratic amendments.

“The votes aren’t there, one, to nuke the filibuster and the votes aren’t there for a talking filibuster. It’s just a reality,” The Hill reported Thune said last week. “I’m the person who has to deliver sometimes the not-so-good news that the math doesn’t add up but those are the facts and there’s no getting around it.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Democrats are prepared for the battle.

“We don’t yet know what Thune is doing … but we’re prepared for every possible scenario,” Schumer told reporters Sunday.

“My caucus really feels strongly that this would be a horror … one of the worst things that’s happened in the history of this country in terms of allowing people to vote,” he said.

Trump has said he will not sign any legislation until the act passes the Senate.

Caracas, March 14, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan workers, activists, and trade union organizers held marches in several cities on Thursday to demand wage increases and respect for labor rights.

A coalition of labor organizations staged protests in Caracas and over 25 other cities across the country. In the Venezuelan capital, around 1,000 demonstrators marched from Plaza Morelos and broke through a police cordon to reach the National Assembly in the city center.

“Mobilizations like the one we had today will continue and grow until the government changes its salary policies,” José Gregorio Afonso, president of the Central University of Venezuela (UCV) professors’ association, stated. “We believe the economic conditions allow for the establishment of a minimum wage as determined by the Constitution and the Labor Law.”

Afonso added that the Constitution mandates the government adjust the minimum wage at least once a year to keep up with inflation, but the last increase was in 2022. He likewise pointed to recent official figures of economic growth and prospects of increased oil revenues.

Thursday’s rally consisted largely of education sector trade unions, as well as public sector retirees. A commission met with a group of legislators at the end of the march to deliver a list of 17 demands signed by over 200 trade unions. 

A similar document was delivered to the Labor Ministry following prior nationwide rallies on February 26. The labor organizations’ demands include raising the minimum wage in accordance with the Constitution and labor legislation, the release of workers and trade unionists allegedly arrested for defending labor rights, and the repeal of statutes such as the 2792 Memorandum that suspended several collective bargaining rights.

Activists have also voiced opposition to plans to implement a pro-business reform of the country’s Organic Law of Labor and Workers (LOTTT) that would cut benefits, social security contributions, and other employer responsibilities. 

The historic 2012 law, approved by former President Hugo Chávez, prohibits unfair dismissal and outsourcing, enshrines the world’s third-longest maternity leave, guarantees the right to work for both women and people with disabilities, and extends retirement pensions to all workers, including full-time mothers and the self-employed.

Later on Thursday, the ruling Socialist Party (PSUV) held its own march in Caracas along the same route, with spokespeople urging the defense of the country’s peace and sovereignty, as well as calling for the release of kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores.

Labor Minister Eduardo Piñate told reporters that the rally was in “firm backing” of the Maduro and Rodríguez government’s labor policies.

Gov’t increases bonus amid salary debates

On Friday, unofficial channels reported that the acting Rodríguez administration had raised the monthly “economic war bonus” by 25 percent, from US $120 to $150. Coupled with a $40 food bonus, the move brings the monthly income floor for public sector workers to $190. The amount is paid in bolívars at the official exchange rate.

Venezuelan government officials have not commented on the increase. It is not presently known whether public sector retirees and pensioners, who receive $70 and $50 economic war bonuses, respectively, will benefit from similar hikes.

Venezuela’s monthly minimum wage was set at 130 bolívars (BsD) in March 2022 and has not been adjusted since. At the time, 130 BsD amounted to around US $30, but with the Venezuelan currency’s devaluation, it is now equivalent to $0.29. With the Venezuelan economy heavily battered by US sanctions, the Nicolás Maduro government prioritized non-wage bonuses as the main income source for workers and pensioners.

Trade unions and leftist organizations have criticized the policy for violating the country’s labor laws and favoring business sector interests by reducing labor costs and making dismissals more flexible.

In recent weeks, trade union coalitions have put forward proposals for a minimum wage adjustment. Center-right and right-wing alliances such as the Independent Union Alliance (ASI) and the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) have urged authorities to set the monthly minimum salary at $200 before pegging it to a cost-of-living index.

For its part, the government-aligned Bolivarian Socialist Union of Workers (CBST) proposed that the minimum wage be raised by $50 each quarter, though it did not specify a time frame. The CBST added that, should the government deem the salary increase unfeasible, it should implement a similar increase in non-wage bonuses.

Liberal economists, including Asdrúbal Oliveros and José Guerra, have argued that minimum wage increases beyond $100 and $150 a month, respectively, might place too high a burden on the state’s budget. At the same time, business sector representatives have called for a flexibilization of labor protections and benefits.

Leftist economists, including former PSUV congressman Tony Boza, Pasqualina Curcio, and Juan Carlos Valdez, have proposed raising wages and pegging them to inflation as is currently done by private banks with interest rates.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has earned a rare rebuke by the Senate for — believe it or not — quoting Coretta Scott King on the Senate floor.

The Massachusetts Democrat ran afoul of the chamber’s arcane rules by reading a 30-year-old letter from Dr. Martin Luther King’s widow that dated to Sen. Jeff Sessions’ failed judicial nomination three decades ago.

The chamber is debating the Alabama Republican’s nomination for attorney general, with Democrats dropping senatorial niceties to oppose Sessions and Republicans sticking up for him.

King wrote that when acting as a federal prosecutor, Sessions used his power to “chill the free exercise of the vote by black citizens.”

Quoting King technically put Warren in violation of Senate rules for “impugning the motives” of Sessions, though senators have said far worse stuff. And Warren was reading from a letter that was written 10 years before Sessions was even elected to the Senate.

Still, top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell invoked the rules. After a few parliamentary moves, the GOP-controlled Senate voted to back him up.

Now, Warren is forbidden from speaking again on Sessions’ nomination. A vote on Sessions is expected Wednesday evening.

Democrats pointed out that McConnell didn’t object when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called him a liar in a 2015 dustup.

“I’m reading a letter from Coretta Scott King to the Judiciary Committee from 1986 that was admitted into the record. I’m simply reading what she wrote about what the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be a federal court judge meant and what it would mean in history for her,” Warren said.

Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, one of the top Democrats running for California governor, on Friday blasted USC and the ABC affiliate in Los Angeles for hosting a debate that he argues purposely excludes all candidates of color.

Becerra said he and the other candidates were excluded from the televised debate unfairly, a decision that he said “smells of election rigging” in a hotly contested race less than three months before the June primary.

“My father used to tell me of the days when he would encounter signs posted outside establishments that read ‘No Dogs, Negroes or Mexicans Allowed,’” Becerra wrote in a public letter to USC President Beong-Soo Kim. “USC’s actions may not seem so transparent. But, you have deliberately chosen to selectively filter the voters’ view of the field of gubernatorial candidates in what all observers characterize as a wide-open race.”

The university said in a statement that it authorized a political expert to create the formula to determine who would be included in the debate.

“At the request of the Center for the Political Future, Dr. Christian Grose, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, independently established the methodology that determined eligibility for the debate,” according to a statement from the center. “No one in the USC administration had any role in developing, reviewing or approving those criteria.”

The center later said in a statement on Friday that it reiterated the criteria that determined which candidates were invited to participate in the debate, and that nothing had changed since the forum was first planned.

The criteria for gubernatorial candidates to participate considered opinion polling and campaign fund raising. Six candidates were asked to participate in the March 24 debate, which is cosponsored by ABC7 Los Angeles and Univision.

There was conflicting information about USC’s stated criteria, however. The methodology says that the fundraising totals considered were based on semi-annual reports campaigns filed with the California Secretary of State’s office. However, the document later says that the fundraising figures also includes large donations that campaigns are required to immediately report.

This is a critical difference, because San José Mayor Matt Mahan did not enter the race until late January, and thus far has not been required to file any semi-annual fundraising disclosures with the state. However, he has received significant donations since he entered the race.

Mahan agreed with Becerra, saying that he ought to be part of public forums about who will lead the state.

“The former Secretary is absolutely correct, he should be included in the debate,” Mahan said in a statement. “His long record of service to California has earned him a place on every debate stage in this campaign for Governor.”

USC officials said they are clarifying how they selected candidates to participate in the race.

“We are reissuing the criteria to make clear that they include current fundraising totals, including semi-annual and late reports, which were always part of the formula,” the Center for the Political Future said in a statement. “We are not changing the criteria. We have updated even as of today and the rank order includes the same top 6 candidates.”

Grose said that the selection of candidates was based upon polling and fundraising numbers, and that the sentence about semi-annual fundraising reports was inaccurate.

“It was just a wording issue. It’s not a methodology issue,” he said.

Six candidates are scheduled to appear at the debate: Republicans Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton; and Democrats Northern California Rep. Eric Swalwell, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer and Mahan.

The kerfuffle occurs after Democratic candidates of color accused state party leaders of trying to oust them from the race in favor of white candidates, who have more support in opinion polls.

In addition to Becerra, other prominent Democratic candidates excluded from the debate include former state Controller Betty Yee, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who also condemned the candidate-selection formula.

“Californians deserve a fair process, and voters deserve to hear from all qualified voices,” Villaraigosa, who taught public policy at USC for three years after leaving office, said in a statement. “But this biased and bigoted action by USC to manipulate the data to exclude every qualified Black, Latino, and API candidate in favor of a less qualified white candidate is shameful.”

Becerra said USC went to great lengths to justify the candidates that were excluded, but the bias was clear.

“You can’t escape the detestable outcome: you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating while you invited a white candidate who has NEVER polled higher than some of the candidates of color, including me,” he said.

Becerra was clearly referring to Mahan, who recently entered the race and has received millions of dollars of support from Silicon Valley leaders. Becerra noted that veteran GOP strategist Mike Murphy, co-director of the USC Center for the Political Future, which is a sponsor of the debate, is assisting an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan.

Murphy said he had recused himself from anything involved in the debate, and that he was a volunteer for the outside group backing Mahan. If he becomes a paid advisor to the independent expenditure committee, he said he has requested unpaid leave from the university through the June 2 primary.

“I’ve been transparent that I’m personally a Mahan supporter,” Murphy said. “I’ve had zero to do with the debate.”

Universal Pictures will now keep its new films in theaters for at least five weekends, a reversal from the studio’s previous policy of at least 17 days that was set during the pandemic.

The change takes place immediately, the studio said Thursday. That means it will apply to its newest film, the Colleen Hoover romance “Reminders of Him,” which is out in theaters this weekend. Other upcoming films include Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” which will be released in July.

“Our windowing strategy has always been designed to evolve with the marketplace, but we firmly believe in the primacy of theatrical exclusivity and working closely with our exhibition partners to support a healthy, sustainable theatrical ecosystem,” Donna Langley, chair of NBCUniversal Entertainment, said in an email to the New York Times, which first reported the news.

Focus Features, Universal Pictures’ specialty film arm, will keep its existing theatrical exclusivity policies, which vary on a case-by-case basis. Chloé Zhao’s “Hamnet,” for instance, was in theaters for 99 days, while 2024’s “Nosferatu” played for 58 days. The minimum is 17 days.

The amount of time films are available exclusively in theaters — known as “windowing” in industry jargon — has become a contentious topic of conversation in Hollywood.

That debate ramped up during the pandemic, when some studios shortened theatrical exclusivity periods in order to move films to release for video on demand or streaming.

Prior to the pandemic, those windows could be as long as 90 days. Now, the average is around 30 days.

Theater owners have argued that shorter windows cut into box office profits and train audiences to wait to watch a movie at home. Distributors have countered that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t necessarily work for smaller or mid-budget films, which may find a bigger audience via at-home viewing.

At last year’s CinemaCon trade conference, top theater lobbyist Michael O’Leary called on distributors to establish a minimum 45-day window, arguing there needed to be a “clear, consistent starting point” to set moviegoers’ expectations and affirm commitment to theatrical exclusivity.

The debate has become even more fierce as box office profits still have not recovered from the pandemic. Last year, theatrical revenue in the U.S. and Canada totaled about $8.87 billion, just 1.5% above 2024’s disappointing $8.74-billion tally.

March 8 (Asia Today) — Gasoline prices in South Korea are approaching 2,000 won per liter as rising global oil prices linked to tensions in the Middle East push fuel costs higher, prompting debate over additional government tax cuts.

According to the oil price monitoring system operated by the Korea National Oil Corporation, the nationwide average gasoline price stood at 1,889.40 won ($1.41) per liter as of Friday.

In Seoul, the average price reached 1,941.71 won ($1.45) per liter, nearing the psychologically significant 2,000 won ($1.49) level and increasing pressure on consumers.

Fuel prices typically reflect international oil market changes with a delay of about two to three weeks. However, the recent sharp increase has raised expectations that the government may expand existing fuel tax reductions.

The government has already extended temporary tax cuts through the end of April. Gasoline currently benefits from a 7% fuel tax reduction, while diesel and liquefied petroleum gas butane receive 10% reductions.

Fuel taxes are one of the government’s most direct tools to ease inflation, as adjustments can quickly influence consumer prices.

South Korea previously expanded fuel tax cuts during earlier energy price surges. In 2022, when oil prices spiked following the Russia-Ukraine war, the government increased the reduction rate from about 30% to the legal maximum of 37%.

Officials are reportedly reviewing whether additional tax reductions are needed. Because fuel tax rates are set by enforcement decree, the government can implement changes relatively quickly after approval at a Cabinet meeting.

Bae Jun-young of the conservative People Power Party said fuel tax cuts should be expanded to provide meaningful relief for consumers.

“If tensions in the Middle East persist, the government should also consider raising the ceiling on the flexible fuel tax rate,” Bae said.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260309010002111

March 4 (Asia Today) — A series of legislative proposals by South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party has sparked debate over judicial independence, as critics argue the measures could affect ongoing criminal cases involving President Lee Jae-myung.

The legislation includes proposals to expand the Supreme Court, introduce constitutional review of court rulings and abolish the crime of breach of trust. Legal experts say the bills, combined with calls to drop certain prosecutions, raise concerns that lawmakers could influence judicial proceedings.

Five criminal cases involving Lee are currently paused while he serves as president. As the National Assembly moves forward with legal revisions, some members of the legal community warn the changes could intersect with those trials.

National Assembly inquiry targets prosecution investigations

According to political sources, the Democratic Party has launched a parliamentary committee seeking a national investigation into what it calls politically motivated prosecutions under the previous administration.

The committee plans to examine several high-profile cases involving political figures, including the Daejang-dong development case and allegations involving transfers of funds to North Korea.

Party officials have also urged prosecutors to withdraw indictments in cases involving Lee.

The move has prompted criticism from legal observers who say the National Assembly should not interfere in criminal proceedings.

Judicial reform bills move quickly through parliament

The Democratic Party has advanced three major judicial reform bills in recent weeks.

The legislation would expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 14 to 26, allow the Constitutional Court to review final court rulings through a judicial complaint system and introduce a new criminal offense for officials who deliberately misapply the law in judicial decisions or investigations.

Supporters say the reforms are aimed at addressing structural issues within the judiciary.

However, some legal analysts say the proposals could alter the balance of power within the court system and influence the legal environment surrounding ongoing cases.

Breach of trust law could affect corruption cases

Another proposal under discussion involves abolishing the criminal offense of breach of trust, which has been used in several major corruption investigations.

If the law were repealed, legal experts say it could affect cases related to development projects in Daejang-dong and Baekhyeon-dong as well as allegations involving misuse of a provincial government corporate credit card.

Under South Korean law, when a criminal statute is repealed after an alleged offense, courts may dismiss charges related to that statute.

Concerns raised over separation of powers

Some lawyers say the pace and scope of the legislative initiatives raise broader concerns about the balance between the legislative and judicial branches.

“The outcome of trials should be determined in court,” one attorney who previously served as a senior prosecutor said. “If lawmakers change laws in ways that directly affect ongoing cases, it raises questions about the separation of powers.”

Supporters of the legislation argue the reforms are necessary to improve accountability within the justice system.

Debate over the proposals is expected to continue as the National Assembly reviews the measures during the current parliamentary session.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260305010001168

ITV stars Susanna Reid and Ed Balls caused mixed reactions from Good Morning Britain viewers.

Good Morning Britain viewers were less than impressed with the ITV show during Wednesday’s episode (March 4)

During the programme, presenter Ed Balls informed his co-star Susanna Reid, who recently addressed a mistake on the show, that he had made a Shepherd’s Pie for dinner on Tuesday night with beef mince.

He replied: “That’s what proper Shepherd’s Pie is-” Cutting him off, Susanna replied: “No, Shepherd’s Pie is with lamb mince. You made a cottage pie!”

Ed added: “If we did a poll of our viewers, in their lives, was Shepherd’s Pie made with beef or lamb’, 70% of people would say beef.”

Wanting to settle the debate, Good Morning Britain’s official X account asked their viewers in a poll.

They asked: “@edballs has revealed that he made a shepherd’s pie with beef mince last night, but @susannareid100, @Kevin_Maguire and Kwasi Kwarteng say Ed made a cottage pie. Help us settle the debate: Is it OK to make shepherd’s pie with beef mince?”

However, it was clear people weren’t thrilled with the question, as many flocked to comment on the topic.

For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website.

One person said: “What utter garbage for a news or even a current affairs programme.” Another reeled: “Is this even a newsworthy debate: how or what Balls cooks for dinner?”

Someone else commented: “That’s your take on world news.” As another shared: “This is taking up airtime. Wtf.”

However, some fans were thrilled to take part in the debate, as one person commented: “Morning, I’m with Ed. I don’t eat Lamb, but I’ve had many tasty Shepherds pies, made with beef.”

Later on in the show, Susanna remarked: “We are losing sleep this morning on whether a pie topped with potato and mince is a Shepherd’s Pie, if it’s made with beef mince.

“My view is that it’s clearly a cottage pie, your view is that it’s clearly a Shepherd’s Pie, despite the fact that Shepherds don’t look after cows.”

While Ed insisted that he was correct, there are some people who are a ‘bit fussy’ over what is correct.

Speaking about the poll, Susanna added: “Obviously, we’re in the middle of conflict, and there are, as we understand, more important things to talk about. But, we’re on air for three and a half hours every morning, so real life does go on, doesn’t it?

“We put a Twitter poll up, help us settle the debate: is it OK to make Shepherd’s Pie with beef mince? No, 63.4%, of course it isn’t.”

Good Morning Britain is available to watch weekdays on ITV from 6am.

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source.** Click here to activate**** or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.**