I'm not a tribalist in the sense of Labour Good Tory Bad - I've liked some Tory politicians and polices in the past, disliked some Labour ones, was not exactly mortified by GE 2010 - but the way these Tories have carried on the last few years merits a pasting and my enthusiasm is two thirds for that, one third for its necessary consequence - Labour landslide.Well I'm very 'enthusiastic' about a big Labour win.Quelle surprise. You are a tribalist which is a blind spot for you that belies the fact that you are otherwise reasonably intelligent.
I have sympathy for the PO peopleAlong with repeated claims that they were "trying to get to the bottom of it", but that "the technical issues" weren't their responsibility.Off-topic and on the Post Office.God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
Golly, if the professional Scotch experts cannae get it right, what hope for the amateurs?Arguable. The Agreement included formal alignment on most policy, participation of the junior partner in government as ministers as well as confidence and supply. There's no constitutional definition of coalition in Scotland as far as I know, but the SNP/Green partnership looked very much like one.
Starmer seems to me to be what in Germany is called a Realo like the Green Ministers Annalena Baerbock (foreign secretary) and Robert Habeck (Economy Miinister).I would suggest that it would be more with a 200 seat majority because the chance of Labour losing office at a subsequent GE is massively lower. I quite like Starmer, but I am not convinced he is a moderate, I think it very likely he will move sharply to the left if he has that type of majority because he will know he is unassailable. I also find it disturbing that he was prepared to proactively support the idea of Corbyn as PM, particularly when he must have been aware of Corbyn's alleged anti-Semitism.Do the Corbynites hold more power if Starmer has a 30 majority or 200 majority?I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
The ‘unaligned’ PB Tories are some of my favourites.Yet you didn't vote Tory when Labour actually was the party of Corbyn?I will be voting Tory for the first time in three GEs because I fear the idea of a huge Labour majority when such a large part of that party was, until comparatively recently, the party of Corbyn.How much are elections about voting for the thing we like and are enthusiastic about, and how much are they about voting against the thing we dislike, hate or fear?In 1997, lots of Tories could see the change was happening - and wanted to be part of what Blair was offering.It isn't. But I'd suggest that the incumbent government is held in lower esteem than in 1997.
That level of enthusiasm isn't there for Starmer in 2024.
Which difference is the larger and more important? That's a trickier question.
I suspect that there's a lot more of the second than we might like to think. From an academic point of view, it's quite kind of the big two parties to put someone bland against someone hopeless so that we can probe what happens in that bit of the graph.
They were generalists. Knowing something about the business would have contaminated their minds with "technical issues" rather than maintaining their "10,000 foot view".Along with repeated claims that they were "trying to get to the bottom of it", but that "the technical issues" weren't their responsibility.Off-topic and on the Post Office.God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?
FPTI did it in 40 minutes in July last year, but my baggage didn't!Question to regular travellers - is 65 minutes sufficient time to go UK > Schengen on a connection at Schiphol?Had a bad experience at Schiphol a few years ago. Was ensured by the company making the booking that 45 mins was enough to make a connection. It wasn't, and to make matters worse the airline didn't offload our bags, which I think is against regulations. Only time I've ever missed a plane.
Last time I connected there the passport queue was loooong - but supposedly there is a bypass line for tight connections?
The said apology being a pro-forma non-apology. "I am really sorry that bad stuff happened to an NPC. It was nothing to do with me or any responsibility of mine..."Off-topic and on the Post Office.God knows. The evidence so far from those involved seems to be fulsome apology, usually read from script, and then failure to remember anything damning.
What are disclosure requirements for such a statutory enquiry (assuming I have the correct phrase)? Do witnesses get to see the evidence before the public display, as in a Court Case?
Is "Angela van den Bogerd shown letter blaming PO for sub-postmaster's death" a potential Perry Mason moment in a forum such as this enquiry, or are they impossible?