Best Of

Is this Labour’s pitch for the @BartholomewRoberts vote?

“See these nice fields. Wouldn’t it be better to concrete over them?”

https://x.com/uklabour/status/1917553268882039148

It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?

They're not proposing to change anything, they're warning tourists that rural areas don't have the best contactless payment setup, so you need to bring change to Britain.

After the greyed out photo of Starmer next to the word change that was on the 2024 manifesto perhaps they just wanted a bit more colour (I loved too how the next page was the word 'Change' written a thousand times - solid messaging)

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf

Is this Labour’s pitch for the @BartholomewRoberts vote?

“See these nice fields. Wouldn’t it be better to concrete over them?”

https://x.com/uklabour/status/1917553268882039148

It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?

They're not proposing to change anything, they're warning tourists that rural areas don't have the best contactless payment setup, so you need to bring change to Britain.

After the greyed out photo of Starmer next to the word change that was on the 2024 manifesto perhaps they just wanted a bit more colour (I loved too how the next page was the word 'Change' written a thousand times - solid messaging)

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf

He looks like one of the Kray Twins . What a dreadful photo .

Curious too as there's 30+ photos of him in the manifesto, some of which will be better. I assume they were trying to go for a message of change, but don't worry he's not radical, so grey image and neutral expression was chosen.

He looks frightening. Not sure what Labour HQ were thinking .

"For too long, criticism of the leader's image has gone unpunished. That ends now.

My government will use the latest AI technology to track down devices used to send such messages. And then crush them."

Really hard to support any party at the minute. For the first time, possibly ever, I went into the voting booth today having no idea whom I was going to vote for.

In the end was swayed by the fact that the only person outside the booth with a badge on was for Reform and I saw multiple people today campaigning for Reform and nobody else. That made me vote Lib Dem.

Logic being that had to vote for whomever would beat the racists, and the incumbent Councillor is a Lib Dem, so vote for them to beat the racists. Feels like as good a logic as any possible.

OK, I'm no Reformer but they're not the BNP or the National Front.

So I find the logic hyperbolic, simplistic and childish. If I'd read it and hadn't voted yet in that constituency I'd now go out and vote Reform.

See how this works??

What's the discernible difference between the BNP and 'zero net migration' 'save our culture' Reform?

Zero net migration implies quite substantial inward migration will continue.

Should Stonewall be censured for saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling “is not law as yet”?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1917997893770006892

I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.

And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.

If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.

I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.

I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.

AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.

It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.

I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue.

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.
https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m