Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A UK recession in 2022? – politicalbetting.com

12346»

Comments

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,717
    This Miami GP is gloriously tacky. You get a real sense of place. Compelling, F1 fan or not.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 3,979
    edited May 8
    franklyn said:

    Have I missed something, but have the election results from Tower Hamlets been discussed. Hardly mentioned in the papers

    Labour standing still in London isn't the narrative. Harrow, Tower Hamlets and Croydon will disappear from the news quicker than Keir necks a crate of beer at necessary work dinners
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,661
    Taz said:

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I’m still in the nothing to see with this story camp but in that case who would lead the party into an election. Would the PLP elect a leader.

    The economy is in a mess and it is a global problem but this, lot don’t have a clue about mitigating it. They need to act quickly.
    I've been saying "nothing to see" since the start and the "revelations" still haven't added anything of substance. But - and its a big but - Starmer and Rayner having to quit is now a viable proposition. So for all the reasons you list were I an unprincipled cnut like Johnson that is exactly why I would call an election.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,009
    edited May 8

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    Surely a proportionate response would be 60% of their population, so about 87 million?

    Are you going soft in your old age?
    Hah

    But there is a serious point here. DETERRENCE

    If Russia did a first strike on Britain killing 40m people and destroying our entire culture then the same needs to happen to them, so no one is ever tempted to do such an evil thing again. Wipe out their culture. Moscow, St Petersburg, all their cultural joys, and kill tens of millions

    Just rapping their knuckles by hitting a few military bases is not enough. It would be our last offering to humanity as the entire British Isles is consumed by death
    No chance of that massive a strike, they'd need to retain the bulk of their arsenal for the Americsn response, even in the early 80s when there were 30,000 active warheads a full strike scenario modelled about 27 million deaths in the UK. There are 10% of that active now and most of them are probably useless or not properly maintained
    The tritium in each warhead is worth north of $100K - and theft would be hard to detect. Without it, each bomb would yield, probably, 300 tons of TNT.

    Yes, that is 300 tons*, not kilotons. Without the boost, all you would get is minimal fission from the primary.

    In Putin's Russia, how much hasn't been stolen?

    *Much of that would be radiation, not blast. Probably more than half.
    Doesn't tritium have a half-life of circa 12 years? How likely is it that it's been replaced regularly since (or even before) the collapse of the Soviet Union 32 years ago?
    Russian weapons maintenance is handled by Rosatom - which also sells numbers of reactors abroad etc. So supposedly self funded, through the profits from such activities.

    In the American warhead designs, the tritium is in small gas canisters, which can be replaced quite easily. U.K. designs are assumed to follow the same pattern. As are most others.

    The main issue is not so much the decay of Tritium as the fact that it decays into He3 - which is a reaction “poison”. American warhead use a palladium filter (an educated guess) to ensure that the He3 is filtered out before it gets to the warhead. No information on that for Russian warheads.

    That gives a number of months before enough tritium has decayed that you need to replace the capsule(s). 6 months is sometimes quoted….

    Rosatom is supposed to have been doing this. But, who knows?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,127
    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Legislators voted for the laws and they were negotiated between the government and Labour.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,030

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    Surely a proportionate response would be 60% of their population, so about 87 million?

    Are you going soft in your old age?
    Hah

    But there is a serious point here. DETERRENCE

    If Russia did a first strike on Britain killing 40m people and destroying our entire culture then the same needs to happen to them, so no one is ever tempted to do such an evil thing again. Wipe out their culture. Moscow, St Petersburg, all their cultural joys, and kill tens of millions

    Just rapping their knuckles by hitting a few military bases is not enough. It would be our last offering to humanity as the entire British Isles is consumed by death
    No chance of that massive a strike, they'd need to retain the bulk of their arsenal for the Americsn response, even in the early 80s when there were 30,000 active warheads a full strike scenario modelled about 27 million deaths in the UK. There are 10% of that active now and most of them are probably useless or not properly maintained
    The tritium in each warhead is worth north of $100K - and theft would be hard to detect. Without it, each bomb would yield, probably, 300 tons of TNT.

    Yes, that is 300 tons*, not kilotons. Without the boost, all you would get is minimal fission from the primary.

    In Putin's Russia, how much hasn't been stolen?

    *Much of that would be radiation, not blast. Probably more than half.
    Doesn't tritium have a half-life of circa 12 years? How likely is it that it's been replaced regularly since (or even before) the collapse of the Soviet Union 32 years ago?
    yes, 12.3 years.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 3,979
    Guido reports Starmer has canceled a speaking engagement tomorrow without explanation.
    Incoming!
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,515
    franklyn said:

    Have I missed something, but have the election results from Tower Hamlets been discussed. Hardly mentioned in the papers

    Long-term, potentially the major story from the night. If Rahman makes Aspire into a national party, then that is going to have major implications for Labour given their reliance on Bangladeshi / Pakistani voters in many of their seats.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 29,717

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I agree. People will hold their nose and vote Tory for fear of the Corbyn under the bed. I wouldn't even be surprised to see him promise to stand down 'in a year' to make way for a new broom to steady the horses then reverse ferret it later. He's an absolute toss pot
    Well the last sentence works anyway.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,696

    Taz said:

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I’m still in the nothing to see with this story camp but in that case who would lead the party into an election. Would the PLP elect a leader.

    The economy is in a mess and it is a global problem but this, lot don’t have a clue about mitigating it. They need to act quickly.
    I've been saying "nothing to see" since the start and the "revelations" still haven't added anything of substance. But - and its a big but - Starmer and Rayner having to quit is now a viable proposition. So for all the reasons you list were I an unprincipled cnut like Johnson that is exactly why I would call an election.
    Would Johnson have the gall to call an election while Labour were holding a leadership contest . I wouldn’t put anything past him!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,313
    edited May 8
    Final Labour councils gains in England = 22 seats out of 146 councils.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2022/england/results
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,515

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It very much does make a difference. How do we feel if we substitute a beer and a curry for a Tesco's sandwich meal deal at 10pm. The principle is the same, the question is did Starmer do anything that could constitute work during or immediately after the meal? Texts, phonecalls, emails. Starmer at least has a chance at some sort of redemption. Now an Abba karaoke work event at home, or a photo opportunity in a Hartlepool pub look more obvious breaches to me ? But I am not the Daily Mail so my opinion doesn't matter.
    Even that route causes issues though. Most people view lawyers as willing to exploit any old loophole to get their client off. And that is how people will see it with Starmer - another lawyer using legal tricks, sleights of hand and tortuous language and definitions to get himself out of trouble. It will be a Phyrric victory.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981
    franklyn said:

    Have I missed something, but have the election results from Tower Hamlets been discussed. Hardly mentioned in the papers

    Too depressing to dwell on.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 3,979
    edited May 8
    If Keir goes......

    Labour's problem is those with little interest in the day to day news who vote, probably 25% of voters - they just hear the labour guy quit and think it's a Labour are bad thing. 'Boris didn't have to quit' - is that outweighed by those nuanced enough to switch to the party of the quitter in outrage at the bunter who stays??
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 18,999

    Guido reports Starmer has canceled a speaking engagement tomorrow without explanation.
    Incoming!

    Outgoing!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,313

    Andy_JS said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    This is one of the best places for the latest news from Croydon.

    https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/15487/croydon?page=21&scrollTo=1238771
    I note they are calling themselves “Local Conservatives”. Seems odd that their stats are even added to the official Conservative and Unionist Party tally.
    Loads of Conservative candidates were using that description all over the country.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 3,979
    edited May 8
    kinabalu said:

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I agree. People will hold their nose and vote Tory for fear of the Corbyn under the bed. I wouldn't even be surprised to see him promise to stand down 'in a year' to make way for a new broom to steady the horses then reverse ferret it later. He's an absolute toss pot
    Well the last sentence works anyway.
    He just got within 2% in a protest local election mid term after 6 months of relentless bad news, bad behaviour and economic pain. Labour are f*****
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,654
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    I find I very rapidly switch to another country's culture if I holiday there. And many (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria etc.) are far more relaxed than here where you are always 'on' and have to grind.

    That said, they are also quite poor and limiting. I love all their cuisines, but I get bored of the food after about 5-6 days and it gets repetitive with not much alternative choice. Italian, and that's about it.
    In the provinces of Greece, Turkey, etc, the food can be a bit limited. And you do yearn for a curry, a Thai, sushi, tapas

    Tho I love fish and it is ALWAYS hard to beat fresh grilled fish, caught from the sea where you eat it. With chips, slice of lemon, cold white wine

    OTOH the food in Athens now is often superb. They are going through a food Revolution, a bit like the UK since 1990
    This is where Italy holds an advantage over the rest of the Med. The food in small towns is far and away the best of the beach countries. It's a shame they've gone down the COVID rules forever route, hopefully by September when the baby is old enough for us to travel they'll have seen the light, would love for Italy to be the baby's first overseas holiday!
    Isn’t your baby due super soon? Or has it arrived?

    You described yourself calmly making home made naan bread just now, so I doubt you have a 3 day old bambino in the house…
    Yeah just 4 weeks left but really could come at any point. Given our history of miscarriages we've been extra careful about not buying anything for the baby or doing the nursery in case we jinx it so we've got a lot of last minute work to do.

    Also in other news my wife has finally come around to not going to Switzerland for at least 3-4 years until the kid needs to start school. We've also decided that our household will be dual language, English and Italian which we both speak and if we move to Switzerland I think we'd go to Lugano or Ticino and we'd just work remotely.
    Good luck

    Just think of it being “a bit like Brexit” and you’ll be fine

    ;)

    Good choice on Ticino. Switzerland has many great virtues but it is a tiny bit dull. The Italian speaking slice is by far the most vivacious, and it has the best weather and food. If you’re on good Swiss wages it is a wonderful place to live, I imagine. If you get bored you can cross the lake to Italy and have all the fun you need, and it will be as cheap as chips

    I sometimes ask myself where I would live if I had a billion quid. Ticino would be in the top 10
    It is also in the Top 10 (Top 5, really) of places grown fat on money laundering. Doing it, advising on it and, inevitably, answering questions (eventually) from those investigating it. The hours, no, months of fun I have had doing investigations into Italian and other miscreants where all roads led to Ticino ......
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 3,979
    nico679 said:

    Taz said:

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I’m still in the nothing to see with this story camp but in that case who would lead the party into an election. Would the PLP elect a leader.

    The economy is in a mess and it is a global problem but this, lot don’t have a clue about mitigating it. They need to act quickly.
    I've been saying "nothing to see" since the start and the "revelations" still haven't added anything of substance. But - and its a big but - Starmer and Rayner having to quit is now a viable proposition. So for all the reasons you list were I an unprincipled cnut like Johnson that is exactly why I would call an election.
    Would Johnson have the gall to call an election while Labour were holding a leadership contest . I wouldn’t put anything past him!
    It's a Cummings style maneuvere. Yes.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,515

    Guido reports Starmer has canceled a speaking engagement tomorrow without explanation.
    Incoming!

    Outgoing!
    Ordered your champagne yet BJO?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,136

    nico679 said:

    Taz said:

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I’m still in the nothing to see with this story camp but in that case who would lead the party into an election. Would the PLP elect a leader.

    The economy is in a mess and it is a global problem but this, lot don’t have a clue about mitigating it. They need to act quickly.
    I've been saying "nothing to see" since the start and the "revelations" still haven't added anything of substance. But - and its a big but - Starmer and Rayner having to quit is now a viable proposition. So for all the reasons you list were I an unprincipled cnut like Johnson that is exactly why I would call an election.
    Would Johnson have the gall to call an election while Labour were holding a leadership contest . I wouldn’t put anything past him!
    It's a Cummings style maneuvere. Yes.
    I agree, it would be a very stupid idea. Imagine reminding everyone that he'd done what Starmer did, more often, and hadn't resigned because he's amoral as well as grossly incompetent.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,305
    Drone video of damage caused by Ukrainian artillery on a Russian forward base at Zabavne. The fact that this location and another base at Vesele, both north of Iziyum on the main supply road (M03), have been hit is significant as it means that Russia's supply route for the entire Iziyum salient is now less than secure.

    https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1523352207760011265
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 322

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    Surely a proportionate response would be 60% of their population, so about 87 million?

    Are you going soft in your old age?
    Hah

    But there is a serious point here. DETERRENCE

    If Russia did a first strike on Britain killing 40m people and destroying our entire culture then the same needs to happen to them, so no one is ever tempted to do such an evil thing again. Wipe out their culture. Moscow, St Petersburg, all their cultural joys, and kill tens of millions

    Just rapping their knuckles by hitting a few military bases is not enough. It would be our last offering to humanity as the entire British Isles is consumed by death
    No chance of that massive a strike, they'd need to retain the bulk of their arsenal for the Americsn response, even in the early 80s when there were 30,000 active warheads a full strike scenario modelled about 27 million deaths in the UK. There are 10% of that active now and most of them are probably useless or not properly maintained
    The tritium in each warhead is worth north of $100K - and theft would be hard to detect. Without it, each bomb would yield, probably, 300 tons of TNT.

    Yes, that is 300 tons*, not kilotons. Without the boost, all you would get is minimal fission from the primary.

    In Putin's Russia, how much hasn't been stolen?

    *Much of that would be radiation, not blast. Probably more than half.
    Doesn't tritium have a half-life of circa 12 years? How likely is it that it's been replaced regularly since (or even before) the collapse of the Soviet Union 32 years ago?
    I'm sure it's been paid for multiple times. What that means in practice is a different story.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 9,070
    Betting Question - How many PBer are wondering today, was the 2022 Kentucky Derby entirely kosher?

    Know I am. But then, what do I know?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981
    edited May 8

    MaxPB said:



    From the Times, which is all UK and slightly different to the BBC. The NEV is horrible for Labour and the England only seat gains are similar to the BBC numbers.

    Honestly that NEV should be the cause of very loud alarm bells at Labour HQ, 35-33 is shocking at this stage. A 2 point lead is nothing, it reinforces my view that the Tories are on course for a slim majority even if they keep Boris.

    2 point lead against basically Duck House flipping in a recession meets Profumo, Jonathan Aitken and Archer is lamentable
    How crap are labour?!
    Lutfur Rahman owned them and dhowed everyone how to do it. Just offer anything at all program of government wise and their support disintegrares
    I really don't think the Lutfur Rahman model is one anyone would want expanded. Bad enough it's contain within Tower Hamlets.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,580
    If BoZo calls a snap election, what's the manifesto?

    Get Brexit Done

    Stop Immigration.

    Beat inflation.


  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 21,795
    Scott_xP said:

    If BoZo calls a snap election, what's the manifesto?

    Get Brexit Done

    Stop Immigration.

    Beat inflation.


    Re-elect me.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981
    Scott_xP said:

    If BoZo calls a snap election, what's the manifesto?

    Get Brexit Done

    Stop Immigration.

    Beat inflation.


    Save Big Dog?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,071
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    This is one of the best places for the latest news from Croydon.

    https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/15487/croydon?page=21&scrollTo=1238771
    I note they are calling themselves “Local Conservatives”. Seems odd that their stats are even added to the official Conservative and Unionist Party tally.
    Loads of Conservative candidates were using that description all over the country.
    And "Independent" included rather a lot of tulchan Tories in Scotland.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,904

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Legislators voted for the laws and they were negotiated between the government and Labour.
    Yeah, I do get that, but I can't find it in myself to get any more annoyed by Starmer's curry than for my neighbour having a few people round that broke "the rule of six". Boris on the other hand was at the heart of government, making those laws. For that I am angry - and I get more angry the further away it all is, at the sheer pointlessness of it all (and how much we are suffering from it now in terms of not being able to get doctors appointments, inflation going through the roof etc).

    To my other point, I really do struggle to understand how this kills off Starmer, when his opponent is just as bad in terms of breaking a pointless petty law. Is anyone who was going to vote Labour a week ago going to vote Conservative today because of all of this?

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,654

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Legislators voted for the laws and they were negotiated between the government and Labour.
    Given how quickly they were passed and repeatedly amended and the sheer number of them (see here - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ne4zhPYAZK8G867D1Iz0Gg2ZJFLGmF2K/edit), how many MPs do you think actually read them or understood them before voting for them? Or, indeed, at all?
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,128
    Tories are desperate for Starmer to be fined.

    Yet he will resign, BoJo won’t and Streeting will then appear and win a landslide
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It is absolutely necessary. If you have a group of workers working on location into the evening you are obliged to supply them with food. In my profession it is written into the rules and that applies to every country I've worked in which is about 40.
    That's a different profession with different rules (laid down by Equity/SAG/etc depending on the country, I expect).

    But in any case, these people by all accounts didn't "work into the evening" - they worked, then they had a curry together, and then they went back to their hotels. That being the case, there's no logical reason they couldn't have eaten the curry in their hotel rooms. Therefore not reasonably necessary for work.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,009
    TimT said:

    Drone video of damage caused by Ukrainian artillery on a Russian forward base at Zabavne. The fact that this location and another base at Vesele, both north of Iziyum on the main supply road (M03), have been hit is significant as it means that Russia's supply route for the entire Iziyum salient is now less than secure.

    https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1523352207760011265

    Soviet vehicle designs do seem to burn awfully well, don't they?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,071
    edited May 8
    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    As part of an ongoing meeting? I'm astounded at the number of PBTories who suddenly pretend to be ignorant of working life. Iv'e had to work late into the night after a quick takeaway meal on site with the team.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,071
    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It is absolutely necessary. If you have a group of workers working on location into the evening you are obliged to supply them with food. In my profession it is written into the rules and that applies to every country I've worked in which is about 40.
    That's a different profession with different rules (laid down by Equity/SAG/etc depending on the country, I expect).

    But in any case, these people by all accounts didn't "work into the evening" - they worked, then they had a curry together, and then they went back to their hotels. That being the case, there's no logical reason they couldn't have eaten the curry in their hotel rooms. Therefore not reasonably necessary for work.
    Not all accounts.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 3,979
    edited May 8
    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:



    From the Times, which is all UK and slightly different to the BBC. The NEV is horrible for Labour and the England only seat gains are similar to the BBC numbers.

    Honestly that NEV should be the cause of very loud alarm bells at Labour HQ, 35-33 is shocking at this stage. A 2 point lead is nothing, it reinforces my view that the Tories are on course for a slim majority even if they keep Boris.

    2 point lead against basically Duck House flipping in a recession meets Profumo, Jonathan Aitken and Archer is lamentable
    How crap are labour?!
    Lutfur Rahman owned them and dhowed everyone how to do it. Just offer anything at all program of government wise and their support disintegrares
    I really don't think the Lutfur Rahman model is one anyone would want expanded. Bad enough it's contain within Tower Hamlets.
    It was wildly popular with the Electorate there and, as such, is a template for parts of inner London. It being from such a person is irrelevant as is not wanting it repeated or to work- it will be and it does. As this country grows and diversifies, the old goods on offer are insufficient. Aspire is what the future of inner London may look like. Labour need to recognize and counter that as merely bemoaning it will see them overwhelmed. Scotland 2010 to 2015 outcomes beckons always for the coalition of the not Tories.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,071

    MaxPB said:



    From the Times, which is all UK and slightly different to the BBC. The NEV is horrible for Labour and the England only seat gains are similar to the BBC numbers.

    Honestly that NEV should be the cause of very loud alarm bells at Labour HQ, 35-33 is shocking at this stage. A 2 point lead is nothing, it reinforces my view that the Tories are on course for a slim majority even if they keep Boris.

    2 point lead against basically Duck House flipping in a recession meets Profumo, Jonathan Aitken and Archer is lamentable
    How crap are labour?!
    Lutfur Rahman owned them and dhowed everyone how to do it. Just offer anything at all program of government wise and their support disintegrares
    Plus those Lab Gain numbers are outdated and overstated

    Its 22 England, 20 Scotland and 67 Wales ie 109 in total.
    Depends which criterion you are using. You're just picking the one ypu prefer.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It very much does make a difference. How do we feel if we substitute a beer and a curry for a Tesco's sandwich meal deal at 10pm. The principle is the same, the question is did Starmer do anything that could constitute work during or immediately after the meal? Texts, phonecalls, emails. Starmer at least has a chance at some sort of redemption. Now an Abba karaoke work event at home, or a photo opportunity in a Hartlepool pub look more obvious breaches to me ? But I am not the Daily Mail so my opinion doesn't matter.
    No, that's not the legal test.

    The legal test is whether the gathering was reasonably necessary for work.

    If your question were the legal test then there wouldn't have been any FPNs for the "birthday party" - at least for the politicians in attendance.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 3,979
    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    As part of an ongoing meeting? I'm astounded at the number of PBTories who suddenly pretend to be ignorant of working life. Iv'e had to work late into the night after a quick takeaway meal on site with the team.
    Was it advertised in advance and have 80 minutes set aside for it and involve booze? That sort of quick takeaway?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,882
    nico679 said:

    Taz said:

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I’m still in the nothing to see with this story camp but in that case who would lead the party into an election. Would the PLP elect a leader.

    The economy is in a mess and it is a global problem but this, lot don’t have a clue about mitigating it. They need to act quickly.
    I've been saying "nothing to see" since the start and the "revelations" still haven't added anything of substance. But - and its a big but - Starmer and Rayner having to quit is now a viable proposition. So for all the reasons you list were I an unprincipled cnut like Johnson that is exactly why I would call an election.
    Would Johnson have the gall to call an election while Labour were holding a leadership contest . I wouldn’t put anything past him!
    Yes he could; but no he won't. It would be a bigger risk than TM took in 2017. The risks are twofold: a massive move in Labour target seats to Labour and ditto in seats where LDs are second to LDs. It is not a situation where the Tories could control the narrative.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 23,734
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Legislators voted for the laws and they were negotiated between the government and Labour.
    Yeah, I do get that, but I can't find it in myself to get any more annoyed by Starmer's curry than for my neighbour having a few people round that broke "the rule of six". Boris on the other hand was at the heart of government, making those laws. For that I am angry - and I get more angry the further away it all is, at the sheer pointlessness of it all (and how much we are suffering from it now in terms of not being able to get doctors appointments, inflation going through the roof etc).

    To my other point, I really do struggle to understand how this kills off Starmer, when his opponent is just as bad in terms of breaking a pointless petty law. Is anyone who was going to vote Labour a week ago going to vote Conservative today because of all of this?

    But Starmer isn’t just like yer neighbour having a barbecue with his mates

    Remember Christmas 2021, Labour were REALLY pushing for another massive lockdown, and they were hoping to crucify Boris and the Tories for not imposing one. Starmer wanted us - you, me, my family, everyone - to go even more insane as we were locked inside YET AGAIN. In the depths of winter. AGAIN

    Yet Boris did a good thing, for once, he told Labour and SAGE to go take a hike and the country stayed open and Labour and SAGE were proved badly wrong

    Starmer must pay for that, if he then broke the rules he wanted hardened and extended. Just as Boris should pay for his risible, wretched parties



  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    MaxPB said:

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It is absolutely necessary. If you have a group of workers working on location into the evening you are obliged to supply them with food. In my profession it is written into the rules and that applies to every country I've worked in which is about 40.
    But they aren't workers Rog, they're volunteers and they aren't on location, they're local to the area. Plus these weren't normal times, Starmer voted for the laws to make socialising like this impossible.

    I think it's trivial bullshit but it's his fucking party and decisions that meant the laws were in place. He should have thought about these things before blindly going along with the bullshit laws the government was coming up with.
    Agree with all of this except the last bit - he wasn't blindly going along with it, he was actively demanding more restrictions for longer.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,696
    edited May 8
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Legislators voted for the laws and they were negotiated between the government and Labour.
    Yeah, I do get that, but I can't find it in myself to get any more annoyed by Starmer's curry than for my neighbour having a few people round that broke "the rule of six". Boris on the other hand was at the heart of government, making those laws. For that I am angry - and I get more angry the further away it all is, at the sheer pointlessness of it all (and how much we are suffering from it now in terms of not being able to get doctors appointments, inflation going through the roof etc).

    To my other point, I really do struggle to understand how this kills off Starmer, when his opponent is just as bad in terms of breaking a pointless petty law. Is anyone who was going to vote Labour a week ago going to vote Conservative today because of all of this?

    Good point . I think Starmer should resign if given a FPN but if he doesn’t I would still vote Labour .
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,071

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    As part of an ongoing meeting? I'm astounded at the number of PBTories who suddenly pretend to be ignorant of working life. Iv'e had to work late into the night after a quick takeaway meal on site with the team.
    Was it advertised in advance and have 80 minutes set aside for it and involve booze? That sort of quick takeaway?
    If it constitued a meeting to duscuss things, it would certainly have been timetabled.

    I'd rather have a bottle of lager than be made to drink coke or soft drinks (teeth, sugar rush) or tea/coffee late at night.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,392
    NEW THREAD
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 21,795

    Betting Question - How many PBer are wondering today, was the 2022 Kentucky Derby entirely kosher?

    Know I am. But then, what do I know?


    Come on, where's your sense of romance? That was the stuff of dreams, of legends:

    https://twitter.com/NBCSports/status/1523104042427334660?s=20&t=kml_1oY8uGBJAYXC9Fe8_A
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Taz said:

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I’m still in the nothing to see with this story camp but in that case who would lead the party into an election. Would the PLP elect a leader.

    The economy is in a mess and it is a global problem but this, lot don’t have a clue about mitigating it. They need to act quickly.
    I've been saying "nothing to see" since the start and the "revelations" still haven't added anything of substance. But - and its a big but - Starmer and Rayner having to quit is now a viable proposition. So for all the reasons you list were I an unprincipled cnut like Johnson that is exactly why I would call an election.
    I can't see HMQ granting a dissolution in such circumstances. The Lascelles Principles are still valid, aren't they?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 3,979
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    As part of an ongoing meeting? I'm astounded at the number of PBTories who suddenly pretend to be ignorant of working life. Iv'e had to work late into the night after a quick takeaway meal on site with the team.
    Was it advertised in advance and have 80 minutes set aside for it and involve booze? That sort of quick takeaway?
    If it constitued a meeting to duscuss things, it would certainly have been timetabled.

    I'd rather have a bottle of lager than be made to drink coke or soft drinks (teeth, sugar rush) or tea/coffee late at night.
    It would be advertised as a meeting (which should be over zoom) not 'dinner with Mary Foy MP'
    The primary purpose of dinner is dinner. You can't just say 'let's get more votes this time' over a poppadom and call it essential for work
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    This is one of the best places for the latest news from Croydon.

    https://vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/15487/croydon?page=21&scrollTo=1238771
    I note they are calling themselves “Local Conservatives”. Seems odd that their stats are even added to the official Conservative and Unionist Party tally.
    Loads of Conservative candidates were using that description all over the country.
    Not really any different from "Liberal Democrats Focus Team".
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,753
    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    Eating is.

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It very much does make a difference. How do we feel if we substitute a beer and a curry for a Tesco's sandwich meal deal at 10pm. The principle is the same, the question is did Starmer do anything that could constitute work during or immediately after the meal? Texts, phonecalls, emails. Starmer at least has a chance at some sort of redemption. Now an Abba karaoke work event at home, or a photo opportunity in a Hartlepool pub look more obvious breaches to me ? But I am not the Daily Mail so my opinion doesn't matter.
    Your opinion matters to me Pete

    Don't go backing out of our Starmer must go alliance
    I can't see any other way. FPN or no FPN, Rayner goes too mind. Oh, and no King of the North, he is unavailable.

    I do think it unfortunate and immoral that the "power without responsibility" print media can hijack opposition parties to save a corrupt Government.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 9,070
    Cyclefree said:

    OK - both on and off topic: on May 17th in London I am giving a TED-style talk and then participating in a panel on ..... drum roll ....

    "Protecting Your Culture by Rooting Out Bad Actors".

    For people In Compliance generally in a range of sectors - not just banks but also pharma etc. Anyway it's a day long thing with other stuff going on & registration is free so if anyone is professionally interested VM please and I can pass on details.

    Will you be citing Josef Stalin's policies along those lines circa 1929-39?

    Some mixed results, but overall effective from Kremlin vantage point. With Stalin's latest heir & successor doing his damnedest (in more ways than one) to root out the bad actors of "Little Russia".

    Am of course making some smart-aleck fun (as is my wont) at your expense. BUT Stalin's purges still an interesting if extreme example of your topic, and perhaps worth mentioning just for that?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,071
    edited May 8
    Applicant said:

    Taz said:

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I’m still in the nothing to see with this story camp but in that case who would lead the party into an election. Would the PLP elect a leader.

    The economy is in a mess and it is a global problem but this, lot don’t have a clue about mitigating it. They need to act quickly.
    I've been saying "nothing to see" since the start and the "revelations" still haven't added anything of substance. But - and its a big but - Starmer and Rayner having to quit is now a viable proposition. So for all the reasons you list were I an unprincipled cnut like Johnson that is exactly why I would call an election.
    I can't see HMQ granting a dissolution in such circumstances. The Lascelles Principles are still valid, aren't they?
    Notdhing about the LOTO in the principles, and you are [edit] dealing with Mr J, someone who loves to disgregard the so-called constitution and close down Parliament with the eagerness of Charles Stuart.



    if the existing Parliament was still "vital, viable, and capable of doing its job",
    if a general election would be "detrimental to the national economy", and
    if the Sovereign could "rely on finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons".
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It is absolutely necessary. If you have a group of workers working on location into the evening you are obliged to supply them with food. In my profession it is written into the rules and that applies to every country I've worked in which is about 40.
    That's a different profession with different rules (laid down by Equity/SAG/etc depending on the country, I expect).

    But in any case, these people by all accounts didn't "work into the evening" - they worked, then they had a curry together, and then they went back to their hotels. That being the case, there's no logical reason they couldn't have eaten the curry in their hotel rooms. Therefore not reasonably necessary for work.
    Not all accounts.
    Ah, yes. Someone dug up an SKS tweet sent at 10.13pm that day and hilariously used it to claim that he was definitely working after the meal.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,071
    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It is absolutely necessary. If you have a group of workers working on location into the evening you are obliged to supply them with food. In my profession it is written into the rules and that applies to every country I've worked in which is about 40.
    That's a different profession with different rules (laid down by Equity/SAG/etc depending on the country, I expect).

    But in any case, these people by all accounts didn't "work into the evening" - they worked, then they had a curry together, and then they went back to their hotels. That being the case, there's no logical reason they couldn't have eaten the curry in their hotel rooms. Therefore not reasonably necessary for work.
    Not all accounts.
    Ah, yes. Someone dug up an SKS tweet sent at 10.13pm that day and hilariously used it to claim that he was definitely working after the meal.
    Why not? THose things need a fair bit of discussion and approval. It's, on balance, evidence that he was.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 41,131
    Have the Russian armed forces retained Chris Grayling as a logistics consultant ?
    https://mobile.twitter.com/muh_cvs_e/status/1523362225502662656
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    edited May 8
    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It is absolutely necessary. If you have a group of workers working on location into the evening you are obliged to supply them with food. In my profession it is written into the rules and that applies to every country I've worked in which is about 40.
    That's a different profession with different rules (laid down by Equity/SAG/etc depending on the country, I expect).

    But in any case, these people by all accounts didn't "work into the evening" - they worked, then they had a curry together, and then they went back to their hotels. That being the case, there's no logical reason they couldn't have eaten the curry in their hotel rooms. Therefore not reasonably necessary for work.
    Not all accounts.
    Ah, yes. Someone dug up an SKS tweet sent at 10.13pm that day and hilariously used it to claim that he was definitely working after the meal.
    Why not? THose things need a fair bit of discussion and approval. It's, on balance, evidence that he was.
    Because scheduled tweets exist - as do underlings who have the job of tweeting on their boss's account.

    Decamping to the new thread now.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,753
    edited May 8

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    It could work, but it could backfire terribly if Johnson gets a slew of FPNs and the Gray Report is as damning as claimed. Or do we get an immediate purdah from the moment he blows the whistle tomorrow.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,904
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Legislators voted for the laws and they were negotiated between the government and Labour.
    Yeah, I do get that, but I can't find it in myself to get any more annoyed by Starmer's curry than for my neighbour having a few people round that broke "the rule of six". Boris on the other hand was at the heart of government, making those laws. For that I am angry - and I get more angry the further away it all is, at the sheer pointlessness of it all (and how much we are suffering from it now in terms of not being able to get doctors appointments, inflation going through the roof etc).

    To my other point, I really do struggle to understand how this kills off Starmer, when his opponent is just as bad in terms of breaking a pointless petty law. Is anyone who was going to vote Labour a week ago going to vote Conservative today because of all of this?

    But Starmer isn’t just like yer neighbour having a barbecue with his mates

    Remember Christmas 2021, Labour were REALLY pushing for another massive lockdown, and they were hoping to crucify Boris and the Tories for not imposing one. Starmer wanted us - you, me, my family, everyone - to go even more insane as we were locked inside YET AGAIN. In the depths of winter. AGAIN

    Yet Boris did a good thing, for once, he told Labour and SAGE to go take a hike and the country stayed open and Labour and SAGE were proved badly wrong

    Starmer must pay for that, if he then broke the rules he wanted hardened and extended. Just as Boris should pay for his risible, wretched parties



    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    Legislators voted for the laws and they were negotiated between the government and Labour.
    Yeah, I do get that, but I can't find it in myself to get any more annoyed by Starmer's curry than for my neighbour having a few people round that broke "the rule of six". Boris on the other hand was at the heart of government, making those laws. For that I am angry - and I get more angry the further away it all is, at the sheer pointlessness of it all (and how much we are suffering from it now in terms of not being able to get doctors appointments, inflation going through the roof etc).

    To my other point, I really do struggle to understand how this kills off Starmer, when his opponent is just as bad in terms of breaking a pointless petty law. Is anyone who was going to vote Labour a week ago going to vote Conservative today because of all of this?

    But Starmer isn’t just like yer neighbour having a barbecue with his mates

    Remember Christmas 2021, Labour were REALLY pushing for another massive lockdown, and they were hoping to crucify Boris and the Tories for not imposing one. Starmer wanted us - you, me, my family, everyone - to go even more insane as we were locked inside YET AGAIN. In the depths of winter. AGAIN

    Yet Boris did a good thing, for once, he told Labour and SAGE to go take a hike and the country stayed open and Labour and SAGE were proved badly wrong

    Starmer must pay for that, if he then broke the rules he wanted hardened and extended. Just as Boris should pay for his risible, wretched parties



    Rationally, I do see your point. Starmer voted for lockdowns and was pushing for them to be harder. All the while ignoring the rules himself. But I see him in the same category as the lockdown boosters, the cheerleaders, the busybodies and curtain twitchers reporting other people for having house guests, the lunatics wearing two masks alone in their own cars, the nutjobs going round with sticks prodding anyone who got closer than 2m. Boris on the other hand was head of government and with him the buck stops for me. Half - probably well over half - the country supported lockdowns, to the detriment of all of those of us who've suffered as a result.

    I get that I'm angry about lockdowns and the way my health has suffered as a result, and I'm looking for someone to blame. But for me that's Boris, rather than Starmer, and the other 600 MPs who voted for it, or the 60,000 police who enforced it etc.

    And as I say, I just can't see many people switching their vote as a result of all of this, which is why it feels like such an odd non story. Starmer ate a curry, so what, good for him.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,889
    edited May 8
    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    It is absolutely necessary. If you have a group of workers working on location into the evening you are obliged to supply them with food. In my profession it is written into the rules and that applies to every country I've worked in which is about 40.
    That's a different profession with different rules (laid down by Equity/SAG/etc depending on the country, I expect).

    But in any case, these people by all accounts didn't "work into the evening" - they worked, then they had a curry together, and then they went back to their hotels. That being the case, there's no logical reason they couldn't have eaten the curry in their hotel rooms. Therefore not reasonably necessary for work.
    The person organising the shoot or 'event' in this case is responsible for the well being of their crew. As you say the union rules are strict and the producer is responsible for everything including making sure that no one goes more than six hours without a meal and in practice that snacks are served throughout the day and into the evening. It is also forbidden to go beyond 9pm without an evening meal which can be a take out.

    This applies from the lead actor to the most junior runner. I hear Max's point that the people at this event are volunteers so it's quite different but I can't see that. There was a photographer there. Is he being paid? Who is responsible for him? Surely there were agents drivers organisers? Who is responsible for them? Who paid to hire the hall?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 9,070
    Scott_xP said:

    If BoZo calls a snap election, what's the manifesto?

    Get Brexit Done

    Stop Immigration.

    Beat inflation.


    "Curry no favour - chill more wine"
    > almost as catchy as "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too"

    "Party like it's 2021"

    "Go-tell Rwanda"

    "Karma over Korma"
    > though on 2nd thought . . .
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,547
    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Taz said:

    So all the seats are finally counted in England

    192 Gains LDs - excellent job

    63 Gains Greens - excellent work from a low base

    27 Gains Independents decent performance

    22 Gains Labour - pathetic performance for the main opposition party SKS must go

    You may be about to get your wish. Both the removal of Starmer and the re-election of Johnson who surely would go straight for an election.
    Risky strategy unless ahead in the Polls
    Sure. But its downhill all the way from here. The economy is shagged and getting worse, and they have no ideas how to fix it, and they don't care about peons anyway. So if Starmer and Rayner both say "I resign" isn't that the obvious time to spin the dice?

    "I'm calling an election". Who is representing Labour? On what platform? Its something that no respectable politician of any party has done, but happily Johnson and his fans have no respect or morals to worry about.

    I'm serious. If Starmer and Rayner quit, its the perfect opportunity for that snap election people have been musing about.
    I’m still in the nothing to see with this story camp but in that case who would lead the party into an election. Would the PLP elect a leader.

    The economy is in a mess and it is a global problem but this, lot don’t have a clue about mitigating it. They need to act quickly.
    I've been saying "nothing to see" since the start and the "revelations" still haven't added anything of substance. But - and its a big but - Starmer and Rayner having to quit is now a viable proposition. So for all the reasons you list were I an unprincipled cnut like Johnson that is exactly why I would call an election.
    I can't see HMQ granting a dissolution in such circumstances. The Lascelles Principles are still valid, aren't they?
    Notdhing about the LOTO in the principles, and you are [edit] dealing with Mr J, someone who loves to disgregard the so-called constitution and close down Parliament with the eagerness of Charles Stuart.



    if the existing Parliament was still "vital, viable, and capable of doing its job",
    if a general election would be "detrimental to the national economy", and
    if the Sovereign could "rely on finding another prime minister who could govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons".
    I doubt the Queen would refuse a dissolution in these circumstances because if she did and Johnson really wanted one, he could resign his government and no other could be found as no one else has the numbers, so there would be an election.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 41,609

    This thread has just lost its overall majority

  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,687
    TimT said:

    Drone video of damage caused by Ukrainian artillery on a Russian forward base at Zabavne. The fact that this location and another base at Vesele, both north of Iziyum on the main supply road (M03), have been hit is significant as it means that Russia's supply route for the entire Iziyum salient is now less than secure.

    https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1523352207760011265

    There will be a big military target in Moscow tomorrow. Do Ukraine have the capability of reaching it?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,305
    Nigelb said:

    Have the Russian armed forces retained Chris Grayling as a logistics consultant ?
    https://mobile.twitter.com/muh_cvs_e/status/1523362225502662656

    LOL. We have a low railway bridge like that near where we live, which is less than a mile from a huge Costco distribution warehouse. I can't recall how many trucks have got stuck under it. Usually, it is just a matter of letting the air out of the tires and reversing.

    But one guy must have been going too fast as he took it out: it was months before it was rebuilt and the road reopened.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 76,981

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    Applicant said:

    Carnyx said:

    MattW said:

    Some interesting straws in the wind here, as the Conservatives realise what happens if Starmer goes;

    JRM not freelancing here. This implicit call for a truce, I’m told, is the line the chief whip is desperate for Tory MPs to take on Beergate.

    They’ve been warned that Starmer’s resignation would cause serious problems for the Tories in the country.


    https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire/status/1523350692345245696?

    Trouble is, even if the Conservatives decide a truce is in their interests, how do they call off their semi-housetrained rottweilers in the press, let alone opportunistic freelancers on the Labour left and libertarian right?

    If it gets rid of BoJo, I'll support the defenestration of Sir Starmer.

    Sir Keir, the human torpedo.
    That's an interestding thread because of the collective brown trousers of some of the Tories.

    I also noticed this citing of a formal exception for political campaigning in an election:

    https://twitter.com/scouts_uk/status/1523353355241680898
    Going for a curry isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning".
    They didn't go for a curry. It was delivered to ther work place. I know the Tories are trying to spin, but that is a spin too far.
    Semantics.

    It doesn't help SKS anyway. Having a delivery curry all together isn't "reasonably necessary for campaigning" either.
    As part of an ongoing meeting? I'm astounded at the number of PBTories who suddenly pretend to be ignorant of working life. Iv'e had to work late into the night after a quick takeaway meal on site with the team.
    Was it advertised in advance and have 80 minutes set aside for it and involve booze? That sort of quick takeaway?
    If it constitued a meeting to duscuss things, it would certainly have been timetabled.

    I'd rather have a bottle of lager than be made to drink coke or soft drinks (teeth, sugar rush) or tea/coffee late at night.
    It would be advertised as a meeting (which should be over zoom) not 'dinner with Mary Foy MP'
    The primary purpose of dinner is dinner. You can't just say 'let's get more votes this time' over a poppadom and call it essential for work
    It's how they do fundraising in the USA I think.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,729
    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Have the Russian armed forces retained Chris Grayling as a logistics consultant ?
    https://mobile.twitter.com/muh_cvs_e/status/1523362225502662656

    LOL. We have a low railway bridge like that near where we live, which is less than a mile from a huge Costco distribution warehouse. I can't recall how many trucks have got stuck under it. Usually, it is just a matter of letting the air out of the tires and reversing.

    But one guy must have been going too fast as he took it out: it was months before it was rebuilt and the road reopened.
    A few years back I went to our local Mozzies petrol station. Most of the pumps were out of use, as a lorry was firmly stuck under the canopy. A man in a yellow high-viz jacket was sat by the pumps, looking disconsolate.

    I filled up and went to pay. I knew the cashier well, and she said the guy sitting down was the driver. He had phoned his company up, and they had told him he had to wait for a replacement driver to come, after which he was out of a job.

    Letting the air out of the tyre didn't apparently work in this case. I've no idea how they got it out. Let the air fully out and go out on the rims?

    Being kind-of a git, I took photos...
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,127

    If Starmer resigns then Bozza has to resign too.

    Not sure the breathless fan boys on here have quite grasped this yet.

    And @Mexicanpete needs a cold shower.

    If Starmer stays he cannot call Johnson out for more FPNs or the full Gray Report, he would be laughed out of the HoC.

    Do you not see that?
    Sure. However…

    Bozza will also have to resign if Starmer does. It really is that simple.
    Which is why Starmer must go.
    I agree that he will have to resign if he gets an FPN. And that will also mean Bozza has to resign.

    Which is probably a good thing. If Boris is replaced by someone decent then that is great. If he is not but Starmer is

    kyf_100 said:

    Mostly just lurking at the moment, but I wanted to drop in to say...

    I could not give a toss how many kormas or beers Keir Starmer devoured, nor would I care how many wines and cheeses Boris Johnson devoured if he was a private citizen. I think the lockdown laws were petty, unjust and damaging to people's mental and physical health.

    I care about Boris breaking the law, because he made the stupid law in the first place, and he deserves to be hung by his own petard. I do not care about Starmer breaking the law, in the same way I do not care about the fact that I broke the law, my neighbours broke the law, my friends broke the law, etc - because most people recognised they were ridiculous.

    Boris is a special case - he was responsible for the laws, therefore he deserves to be hung by them.

    nearly agree but Starmer voted for them as well as seemingly wanted to prolong them so he should F off as well as a lesson to not impose stupid laws on people
    Well said both of you. My family is still suffering from the effects of the spiteful restrictions. I have a son (now 4) who has to change school (i.e. not allowed to progress from preschool to reception) because they don't want him any more as he has fallen behind in communication skills due to the restrictions, and we can't get hardly any therapy either public or private as there is no availability as so many children affected. Of course it may be that his issues are independent of the covid stuff and it is just a coincidence but they certainly started at the exact time of the first lockdown and there are certainly a lot in his cohort who are badly affected. On a brighter note I don't think home schooling has done any long term harm to our eldest.
    Sorry to hear that. Fingers crossed.
This discussion has been closed.