Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
You are buggered if it's a ppty with summer-only appeal because 70 days eats up your own use of it. Otherwise you're laughing I'd have thought
Hang on: using it *yourself* counts towards the 70 days? That's just silly because how many properties are not used at all for even 70 days a year, and how do you prove the owner hasn't used it (except by poiting cctv at the front door)?
I think you can still get your 70 days let fairly easily these days. People like to take days away for a couple of nights by the seaside etc. You also rent out the weekends you aren't there. I think soon adds up to 70 days.
Also is it 70 days, or 70 nights....as 70 days even easier. You do a weekend let, most people will do Friday -> Sunday, thats 3 days.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
I maintain Keir is great. He’s done a superb job of marginalising the left and locking them out of power for good
Has he? What are the locks? The gorgeous Angela seems to have come back stronger than you could possibly imagine after his attempt to sideline her. What's preventing a proper leftie replacing SKS in the upcoming leadership election?
Maybe the time for Burgon is here. Rise of Richard.
That was a tricky Wordle today...nearly got it in 3, then...
Wordle 323 5/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜🟨🟩⬜ ⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩 ⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Wordle 324 3/6*
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩 ⬜🟩🟩🟨🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Disclaimer: I did indeed get it in 3 but did it on my phone, now tried to reproduce on computer but I think as I originally did it my second try was 4 greens and a blank (US sweet)
My take. England LD's. Big winners. I was more bullish on them than most, but I underestimated it. They are back as a serious force in certain counties. Greens did damn well. Also in specific places. Labour. Meh. SKS just isn't very good at politics. Be careful what Tories wish for. He hasn't cut through, and there is no chance of a Corbynite replacement. Tories was an off the scale disaster. They are facing an electoral pincer movement of tactical voting. I expected 200 losses UK wide. They've far exceeded that in England alone. Scotland. A bit meh all round really. Labour coming second is of symbolic importance mind. LD's did well. Wales. A super result for Llafur. Tories have chucked away a decade of hard graft. Dismal. NI. Could have been much worse
LDs need to be wary though. They were back as serious players under Swinson post Euro triumph 2019 and after Change UK blew it and became Twitter whiners. Then she got ideas of grandeur. Ed Davey will struggle to get airtime apart from a quick cheesy by election piece to camera with a load of grinning sandalistas holding lib dem diamonds and breaking a cardboard box blue wall with an orange magic lib dem hammer and the electorate will gradually forget his successes over the next 2 years. The extra feet on the ground with the gains will help but it's a long way back to anything over 20 seats I think. A first step but still in precarious territory.
They just need to seem generally likeable, and have a likeable leader. And for the Labour leader at the time to be unfrightening. That will be enough to score 13 or 14% in a GE and win multiple blue wall seats.
Davey is likeable. I'd certainly have a small lager and lime with him if he was buying.
A chunkier, more urban Lembit Opik. Norman Lamb with a seat.
I don't really see where the Lembit comparisons come in to it, Davey is, well, normal.
Lembit was everything you'd expect a Mid Welsh Liberal Democrat to be.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
I get your argument, but I'm not seeing it.
Even if you want to argue that some voters flipped to Starmer as he is more honest than Boris, which is fair enough, I don't see how you argue that they will flip back to Boris now.
Starmer is dull and boring and the worst thing he has done is have a curry. Boris meanwhile has shagged god knows who while mayor of london, done dodgy deals for the sake of getting new wallpaper in number 10, presided over and tolerated god knows how much more corruption in his own government. Weighed up, Starmer and his curry still look pretty honest in comparison.
As I say, to me it's a non story, and if by GE2024 you're voting on the basis of who had what for dinner during lockdown 2020 rather than "who can sort out the cost of living crisis?" or "who is palpably less likely to be corrupt and incompetent?" then, well, that's your right, but as I say, I think the people who consider it to be the biggest issue of GE2024 could fill a phone box.
I maintain Keir is great. He’s done a superb job of marginalising the left and locking them out of power for good
Has he? What are the locks? The gorgeous Angela seems to have come back stronger than you could possibly imagine after his attempt to sideline her. What's preventing a proper leftie replacing SKS in the upcoming leadership election?
Maybe the time for Burgon is here. Rise of Richard.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh.
Maybe it is not an attack on used 2nd homes but to bring back into circulation 2nd homes that are not really used, either as homes for locals or used 2nd homes that add to the local economy rather than staying vacant.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
My take. England LD's. Big winners. I was more bullish on them than most, but I underestimated it. They are back as a serious force in certain counties. Greens did damn well. Also in specific places. Labour. Meh. SKS just isn't very good at politics. Be careful what Tories wish for. He hasn't cut through, and there is no chance of a Corbynite replacement. Tories was an off the scale disaster. They are facing an electoral pincer movement of tactical voting. I expected 200 losses UK wide. They've far exceeded that in England alone. Scotland. A bit meh all round really. Labour coming second is of symbolic importance mind. LD's did well. Wales. A super result for Llafur. Tories have chucked away a decade of hard graft. Dismal. NI. Could have been much worse
LDs need to be wary though. They were back as serious players under Swinson post Euro triumph 2019 and after Change UK blew it and became Twitter whiners. Then she got ideas of grandeur. Ed Davey will struggle to get airtime apart from a quick cheesy by election piece to camera with a load of grinning sandalistas holding lib dem diamonds and breaking a cardboard box blue wall with an orange magic lib dem hammer and the electorate will gradually forget his successes over the next 2 years. The extra feet on the ground with the gains will help but it's a long way back to anything over 20 seats I think. A first step but still in precarious territory.
They just need to seem generally likeable, and have a likeable leader. And for the Labour leader at the time to be unfrightening. That will be enough to score 13 or 14% in a GE and win multiple blue wall seats.
Davey is likeable. I'd certainly have a small lager and lime with him if he was buying.
A chunkier, more urban Lembit Opik. Norman Lamb with a seat.
I don't really see where the Lembit comparisons come in to it, Davey is, well, normal.
Lembit was everything you'd expect a Mid Welsh Liberal Democrat to be.
Thesedays that appears to be 'non-existent'.
They even tried having the lovely Kirsty for a while but now she's gone too. They may well win back Brecon next time tbf but not Montgomery
I maintain Keir is great. He’s done a superb job of marginalising the left and locking them out of power for good
Has he? What are the locks? The gorgeous Angela seems to have come back stronger than you could possibly imagine after his attempt to sideline her. What's preventing a proper leftie replacing SKS in the upcoming leadership election?
Maybe the time for Burgon is here. Rise of Richard.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
Or who was that completely batshit crazy one? Umm lloyd-mole? Him. Edit - Lloyd Russell-Moyle. Epic.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
Cumulative effect.
Sure, but in reality 1. a cumulative effect in this context is a number of voters switching per incident, rather than each incident pushing individual voters 5% closer to switching, and 2. even if 1. is wrong, a given incident will push all the 95%ers over the edge, so it is still wrong to say that no one incident does that.
Bozos latest attempt to be the “ man of the people “ is an unworkable double council tax for second homes that aren’t rented .
I’m sure some low information voters might swallow this guff but really it’s just another desperate attempt by the lying clown to pretend he gives two hoots about the average Joe .
When will people wake up and realize he’s just laughing at you , he couldn’t give a damn about anything but himself .
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
What are you wittering about libelling him. Its absolute barrel scraping nonsense, but its no different to the ones we had about Boris not having his mask on all the time at the theatre etc.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh.
Maybe it is not an attack on used 2nd homes but to bring back into circulation 2nd homes that are not really used, either as homes for locals or used 2nd homes that add to the local economy rather than staying vacant.
If you only (or "only") have a second home, you use it as a spot for holidays or rental income. So this will hit third or fourth home owners, who should have the spare cash to pay anyway.
Renters - like myself - are hypersensitive these days anyway, The only thing that'll satisfy me are show trials and nationalizing Belgravia.
In Wales there were plenty of local factors in play - as it should be in local elections. But much of the votes were heavily influenced by choice of leaders.
I doubt if many people were influenced one way or the other by Kier Starmer but Mark Drakeford has a strong positive rating with the Welsh electorate. What will happen when he retires? Jeremy Miles??
The Conservatives could only look up to the bumbling Boris Johnson - the abysmal Andrew RT Davies - or the condescending Simon Hart. They desperately need a new Welsh leader but no obvious choices out there.
Meanwhile Plaid's Adam Price was neutral - didnt inspire many new voters outside of their heartlands but didnt scare the horses inside. Time for a change but not urgent.
Channel 4 has a documentary on John Stonehouse tonight.
Documentary about how John Stonehouse, an MP who faked his own death and was charged with fraud when found to be alive, also colluded with the Czech security service during the Cold War. The programme examines how Prime Ministers from Wilson to Thatcher chose not to investigate the allegations that Stonehouse was a spy. https://www.radiotimes.com/programme/b-7o46ir/the-spy-who-died-twice/episodes/
Has @Leon seen this GPT-3 story ? On one level it's pretty silly; it's also really very worrying indeed in its implications (assuming it's true, which seems quite likely).
I brought my childhood imaginary friend back to life using A.I. (#GPT3) and it was one of the scariest and most transformative experiences of my life.
That was a tricky Wordle today...nearly got it in 3, then...
Wordle 323 5/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜🟨🟩⬜ ⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩 ⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Wordle 324 3/6*
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩 ⬜🟩🟩🟨🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Disclaimer: I did indeed get it in 3 but did it on my phone, now tried to reproduce on computer but I think as I originally did it my second try was 4 greens and a blank (US sweet)
Never quite sure which number puzzle I've done until I post this. Also took 5 today: Wordle 323 5/6*
A series of strange deaths in the gas industry has spread to the oil industry.
In Mytishchi, after a session with local shamans, the former top manager of the Lukoil oil company, Alexander Subbotin, died. He was a member of the board of OOO Trading House Lukoil.
Subbotin may have died after an anti-hangover session with the shaman Magua and his wife. They received clients in their private home and offered treatment with poisonous toads, according to the telegram channel Mash.
During the procedure, shamans incise the skin and instill toad venom into the wound - after vomiting, the patient supposedly should feel better. Even shamans called spirits, sacrificed animals and bathed the lost in cock's blood.
Subbotin had known the Magua family for a long time and used their services regularly. But the last session didn't work. Getting rid of a hangover at the shamans, he felt unwell: his heart ached. Shaman Magua and his wife decided not to call an ambulance, but tried to cure Subbotin with Corvalol. After treatment, the oilman was put to sleep in the basement, where he died. The shamans told the arriving police that they were just friends with the deceased.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
My take. England LD's. Big winners. I was more bullish on them than most, but I underestimated it. They are back as a serious force in certain counties. Greens did damn well. Also in specific places. Labour. Meh. SKS just isn't very good at politics. Be careful what Tories wish for. He hasn't cut through, and there is no chance of a Corbynite replacement. Tories was an off the scale disaster. They are facing an electoral pincer movement of tactical voting. I expected 200 losses UK wide. They've far exceeded that in England alone. Scotland. A bit meh all round really. Labour coming second is of symbolic importance mind. LD's did well. Wales. A super result for Llafur. Tories have chucked away a decade of hard graft. Dismal. NI. Could have been much worse
LDs need to be wary though. They were back as serious players under Swinson post Euro triumph 2019 and after Change UK blew it and became Twitter whiners. Then she got ideas of grandeur. Ed Davey will struggle to get airtime apart from a quick cheesy by election piece to camera with a load of grinning sandalistas holding lib dem diamonds and breaking a cardboard box blue wall with an orange magic lib dem hammer and the electorate will gradually forget his successes over the next 2 years. The extra feet on the ground with the gains will help but it's a long way back to anything over 20 seats I think. A first step but still in precarious territory.
They just need to seem generally likeable, and have a likeable leader. And for the Labour leader at the time to be unfrightening. That will be enough to score 13 or 14% in a GE and win multiple blue wall seats.
Davey is likeable. I'd certainly have a small lager and lime with him if he was buying.
A chunkier, more urban Lembit Opik. Norman Lamb with a seat.
I don't really see where the Lembit comparisons come in to it, Davey is, well, normal.
Lembit was everything you'd expect a Mid Welsh Liberal Democrat to be.
Thesedays that appears to be 'non-existent'.
They even tried having the lovely Kirsty for a while but now she's gone too. They may well win back Brecon next time tbf but not Montgomery
The LDs decline pretty much coincides with Lembit's fall from prominence..... they need a bit of colour to get some interest (which Lembit provided in barrow loads) - its all a bit dull and safe from them at the moment
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Well it's more money for the state isn't it.
It's more money for the local authorities to spend on development for local people.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Well it's more money for the state isn't it.
It's a form of surrogate wealth tax.
A form which can't be avoided without the positive impact of releasing homes for locals. Sounds great.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Well it's more money for the state isn't it.
It's more money for the local authorities to spend on development for local people. big expensive cars and nice junkets for themselves.
As a reminder you can still get excellent odds on Rachel Reeves, Lisa Nandy and Yvette Cooper: all 100/1+ as next UK Prime Minister.
The betting markets are imho incorrectly skewed. The shortest odds for next UK PM are on tory hopefuls. That's entirely reliant on Boris Johnson stepping down before the next GE and I don't see that as particularly likely at the moment.
So, we come to a General Election and Boris Johnson loses his majority? Quite likely. As Mike has pointed out, Labour don't need to win outright for their leader to become PM.
So it's all down to whether or not you think Keir Starmer will lead Labour into the next General Election. He might but he might not. If he doesn't, the next Labour leader will be female and it won't be Angela Rayner (Beergate and anyway red rag to the bull). Jess Phillips is not up to it. The three most capable are Reeves, Nandy and Cooper with, in my opinion, Rachel Reeves the best option.
Those betting on Andy Burnham have lost their marbles. He was a failure last time around, does not gel with the blue wall electorate and isn't even an MP.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Well it's more money for the state isn't it.
It's more money for the local authorities to spend on development for local people. big expensive cars and nice junkets for themselves.
FTFY
So what percentage of the additional tax revenue do you predict will be spent on "nice junkets and expensive cars"?
It’s interesting. The Corbyn cult thinks Starmer being investigated is great, that better results than St Jeremy which they called fantastic are poor and that Johnson should be PM.
Almost like they’re not really Labour at all
They think if Starmer goes they'll get control of the party again. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have realised because of the changes to the leadership election rules they won't be able to get a candidate on the ballot.
In my case I think if Starmer goes Someone further to the right will become leader
Depends how competent they are whether Labours chances of winning increase or not.
If they genuinely want to unite the Party as SKS claimed then did the opposite they have a better chance of success IMO
CHB wants SKS to stay even though he Lost 330 seats compared to Corbyn in LE2021 so now is still over 200 seats worse than even Corbyn
Empty suit Streeting is the coming man. He is a pasty faced nobody. The Labour Cameron
Will lead them back to power and be PM for 6 years?
This is John Smith all over again.
The Tories have made a big error here. They must be praying Keir doesn’t resign
John Smith tragically died and was a legend. SKS is a twat. There is no comparison.
He tragically died and put into place Labour’s winning ability. Just as Keir has done.
Both are legends.
He's really not. He's so poor that Rayner looks credible next to him
He turned a 26 point deficit into a 6 point lead. He’s a legend
Performed worse than Corbyn in Elections though
LE 2021 was Labours worst performance since 1935.
What was your favourite Electoral success of the SKS era?
When he won councils that were Tory during Blair years.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Well it's more money for the state isn't it.
It's more money for the local authorities to spend on development for local people. big expensive cars and nice junkets for themselves.
FTFY
So what percentage of the additional tax revenue do you predict will be spent on "nice junkets and expensive cars"?
100%.
Edit - actually, that’s unfair. It’s probably 75% as the rest will be needed to service debts incurred for previous junkets and expensive cars.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Well it's more money for the state isn't it.
It's more money for the local authorities to spend on development for local people. big expensive cars and nice junkets for themselves.
FTFY
So what percentage of the additional tax revenue do you predict will be spent on "nice junkets and expensive cars"?
100%.
Edit - actually, that’s unfair. It’s probably 75% as the rest will be needed to service debts incurred for previous junkets and expensive cars.
75%. And what percentage do you think currently is?
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Well it's more money for the state isn't it.
It's more money for the local authorities to spend on development for local people. big expensive cars and nice junkets for themselves.
FTFY
So what percentage of the additional tax revenue do you predict will be spent on "nice junkets and expensive cars"?
100%.
Edit - actually, that’s unfair. It’s probably 75% as the rest will be needed to service debts incurred for previous junkets and expensive cars.
75%. And what percentage do you think currently is?
To be clear, I mean what percentage of the current tax revenue for local authorities is spent on those things.
Channel 4 has a documentary on John Stonehouse tonight.
Documentary about how John Stonehouse, an MP who faked his own death and was charged with fraud when found to be alive, also colluded with the Czech security service during the Cold War. The programme examines how Prime Ministers from Wilson to Thatcher chose not to investigate the allegations that Stonehouse was a spy. https://www.radiotimes.com/programme/b-7o46ir/the-spy-who-died-twice/episodes/
My take. England LD's. Big winners. I was more bullish on them than most, but I underestimated it. They are back as a serious force in certain counties. Greens did damn well. Also in specific places. Labour. Meh. SKS just isn't very good at politics. Be careful what Tories wish for. He hasn't cut through, and there is no chance of a Corbynite replacement. Tories was an off the scale disaster. They are facing an electoral pincer movement of tactical voting. I expected 200 losses UK wide. They've far exceeded that in England alone. Scotland. A bit meh all round really. Labour coming second is of symbolic importance mind. LD's did well. Wales. A super result for Llafur. Tories have chucked away a decade of hard graft. Dismal. NI. Could have been much worse
LDs need to be wary though. They were back as serious players under Swinson post Euro triumph 2019 and after Change UK blew it and became Twitter whiners. Then she got ideas of grandeur. Ed Davey will struggle to get airtime apart from a quick cheesy by election piece to camera with a load of grinning sandalistas holding lib dem diamonds and breaking a cardboard box blue wall with an orange magic lib dem hammer and the electorate will gradually forget his successes over the next 2 years. The extra feet on the ground with the gains will help but it's a long way back to anything over 20 seats I think. A first step but still in precarious territory.
They just need to seem generally likeable, and have a likeable leader. And for the Labour leader at the time to be unfrightening. That will be enough to score 13 or 14% in a GE and win multiple blue wall seats.
Davey is likeable. I'd certainly have a small lager and lime with him if he was buying.
A chunkier, more urban Lembit Opik. Norman Lamb with a seat.
I don't really see where the Lembit comparisons come in to it, Davey is, well, normal.
Lembit was everything you'd expect a Mid Welsh Liberal Democrat to be.
Thesedays that appears to be 'non-existent'.
They even tried having the lovely Kirsty for a while but now she's gone too. They may well win back Brecon next time tbf but not Montgomery
The LDs decline pretty much coincides with Lembit's fall from prominence..... they need a bit of colour to get some interest (which Lembit provided in barrow loads) - its all a bit dull and safe from them at the moment
The LDs decline coincided with Lembit and his prattishness.
He was a dreadful choice for a rural mid-Walian seat. He had no connection with it.
Lembit lost a safe seat that had been (with one short exception, 1979-1983) Liberal held for over a century.
Not merely did he lose it, he lost it so badly that he turned it into a Tory safe seat (58.5 % of the vote in 2019).
As a reminder you can still get excellent odds on Rachel Reeves, Lisa Nandy and Yvette Cooper: all 100/1+ as next UK Prime Minister.
The betting markets are imho incorrectly skewed. The shortest odds for next UK PM are on tory hopefuls. That's entirely reliant on Boris Johnson stepping down before the next GE and I don't see that as particularly likely at the moment.
So, we come to a General Election and Boris Johnson loses his majority? Quite likely. As Mike has pointed out, Labour don't need to win outright for their leader to become PM.
So it's all down to whether or not you think Keir Starmer will lead Labour into the next General Election. He might but he might not. If he doesn't, the next Labour leader will be female and it won't be Angela Rayner (Beergate and anyway red rag to the bull). Jess Phillips is not up to it. The three most capable are Reeves, Nandy and Cooper with, in my opinion, Rachel Reeves the best option.
Those betting on Andy Burnham have lost their marbles. He was a failure last time around, does not gel with the blue wall electorate and isn't even an MP.
The general thrust of your reasoning seems sound but it depends on what happens with beergate (or is it currygate?) up north. I am persuaded by Roger's argument that tacking food onto somewhere near the end of the working day is standard practice and within the rules but I'm not running the Durham Constabulary.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Well it's more money for the state isn't it.
It's more money for the local authorities to spend on development for local people. big expensive cars and nice junkets for themselves.
FTFY
So what percentage of the additional tax revenue do you predict will be spent on "nice junkets and expensive cars"?
100%.
Edit - actually, that’s unfair. It’s probably 75% as the rest will be needed to service debts incurred for previous junkets and expensive cars.
75%. And what percentage do you think currently is?
To be clear, I mean what percentage of the current tax revenue for local authorities is spent on those things.
Does 'too much' cover it?
I will admit I have a somewhat jaundiced view. I was once playing the organ for an event for the local council just after they had closed most of their libraries and made deep cuts to care services. Every single member of the cabinet arrived in a brand new Mercedes and four of them had chauffeurs.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Well it's more money for the state isn't it.
It's more money for the local authorities to spend on development for local people. big expensive cars and nice junkets for themselves.
FTFY
So what percentage of the additional tax revenue do you predict will be spent on "nice junkets and expensive cars"?
100%.
Edit - actually, that’s unfair. It’s probably 75% as the rest will be needed to service debts incurred for previous junkets and expensive cars.
75%. And what percentage do you think currently is?
To be clear, I mean what percentage of the current tax revenue for local authorities is spent on those things.
Does 'too much' cover it?
I will admit I have a somewhat jaundiced view. I was once playing the organ for an event for the local council just after they had closed most of their libraries and made deep cuts to care services. Every single member of the cabinet arrived in a brand new Mercedes and four of them had chauffeurs.
A former acquaintance, who became a local councillor and eventually, by a process of Buggins Turn, Chair resolved to, and did, leave the Chair's expense account completely empty.
Depressing set of headlines today, but it would appear that the Heil is rather out on a limb.
And what are all these EU laws that are supposed to be holding us back?
European Union Withdrawal Agreement Act.
LOL. Indeed. And our PM, and his NI sidekick, are going to get themselves in a terrible mess over their NI agreement.
with the NI marching season only a few weeks away, this could be a rather hot Summer in NI.. the protocol is certainly one of BJ's legacies he needs to own
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
You are buggered if it's a ppty with summer-only appeal because 70 days eats up your own use of it. Otherwise you're laughing I'd have thought
Hang on: using it *yourself* counts towards the 70 days? That's just silly because how many properties are not used at all for even 70 days a year, and how do you prove the owner hasn't used it (except by poiting cctv at the front door)?
I think you can still get your 70 days let fairly easily these days. People like to take days away for a couple of nights by the seaside etc. You also rent out the weekends you aren't there. I think soon adds up to 70 days.
Also is it 70 days, or 70 nights....as 70 days even easier. You do a weekend let, most people will do Friday -> Sunday, thats 3 days.
If that is the proposal it will achieve damn all.
Around here, a lot of properties are being let out via Air BnB. It makes it very hard to find anything to rent and prices are rising, making it difficult for first time buyers. It is a big issue in this area and the Lakes generally.
The letting needs to be for a continuous period, ideally, to local people.
The extent to which the Starmer Memo bolsters his Partygate defence - as claimed in the Guardian - is perfectly underlined by the fact he kept its existence secret for months, and has now pulled out of a major speaking event in the immediate aftermath of its publication...
President Putin must meet the same fate as Hitler, Ben Wallace will say today, after dozens of civilians were believed to have been killed in a Russian airstrike on a Ukrainian school being used as a shelter
President Putin must meet the same fate as Hitler, Ben Wallace will say today, after dozens of civilians were believed to have been killed in a Russian airstrike on a Ukrainian school being used as a shelter
The extent to which the Starmer Memo bolsters his Partygate defence - as claimed in the Guardian - is perfectly underlined by the fact he kept its existence secret for months, and has now pulled out of a major speaking event in the immediate aftermath of its publication...
#RUSSIA #May9th: TV systems have been hacked for May 9th. Message: "Your hands are covered in blood from deaths of thousands of Ukrainians and children."
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
The extent to which the Starmer Memo bolsters his Partygate defence - as claimed in the Guardian - is perfectly underlined by the fact he kept its existence secret for months, and has now pulled out of a major speaking event in the immediate aftermath of its publication...
Do you think Dan would be happier if we all sent him postcards saying "yes Dan, you're a really good investigate journalist"? This is the second week running that he's been nagging people to take his story seriously and it's not a good look.
Let's see what Durham police say. Though I wonder if not fining Starmer for his Dining would be enough to make The Mail shut up.
Heathener do you really think people would vote for Reeves as PM? She has a voice like a Nightingale having its wings pulled off. Quite important when choosing a PM. Probably more important than the fact that she has nothing to say about growth, tax,spending and many other areas of her job.
Tim Farron (remember him ?) with what's IMO good advice. https://mobile.twitter.com/timfarron/status/1523322615967862787 It’s high stakes now, so if I were Starmer I would outflank the PM, go public and say ‘I’m sure I did nothing wrong but if the police decide I did, I will resign’. He could pay a high price, but integrity in public life matters enough for him to show leadership by risking his.
If like me you believe that Starmer did nothing at all wrong and is being bullied by the nastiest of all right wing tabloids in support of what has become the 'Nasty Party' again then this is the moment to fight back.
He has to first of all be completely exonerated by the police. Then come out fighting..... First do a number on the two 'unnamed students' posing as photographers. Who are they and how much were they paid by the Mail? Then go all out on Partygate,.....Gloves off.
Reveal Johnson to be the nasty piece of work we all know him to be. (Where's Eddie Mair when you need him?) There's a back catalogue as long as your arm. It just needs presenting. It's time to get a high profile 'Alastair Campbell' in his corner who knows how you put the boot in.
Starmer's 'niceness' has allowed Johnson a free ride. The Mail are just his latest bag carriers. Lisa Nandy started to show the way yesterday but she's got her day job.
To have allowed Johnson to equate his decades of louche debauchery and indolence with having a curry after work is criminal. It should be making decent people angry.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
Of course,m that is politics for you. The sheer hypocrisy of it is not a surprise and is it any wonder people do think they are all the same.
Has @Leon seen this GPT-3 story ? On one level it's pretty silly; it's also really very worrying indeed in its implications (assuming it's true, which seems quite likely).
I brought my childhood imaginary friend back to life using A.I. (#GPT3) and it was one of the scariest and most transformative experiences of my life.
If like me you believe that Starmer did nothing at all wrong and is being bullied by the nastiest of all right wing tabloids in support of what has become the 'Nasty Party' again then this is the moment to fight back.
He has to first of all be completely exonerated by the police. Then come out fighting..... First do a number on the two 'unnamed students' posing as photographers. Who are they and how much were they paid by the Mail? Then go all out on Partygate,.....Gloves off.
Reveal Johnson to be the nasty piece of work we all know him to be. Where's Eddie Mair when you need him? There's a back catalogue as long as your arm. It just needs presenting. It's time to get a high profile 'Alastair Campbell' in his corner who knows how you put the boot in.
Starmer's 'niceness' has allowed Johnson a free ride. The Mail are just his latest bag carriers. Lisa Nandy started to show the way yesterday but she's got her day job.
To have allowed Johnson to equate his decades long history of louche debauchery and indolence with a decent man having a curry after work is criminal. It makes me really angry.
Now is the moment....No More Mr Nice Guy.
You can't make bricks without straw Rog. You print headlines like LABOUR LIES you are in the deepest shit imaginable unless Labour has actually lied. Which it has.
The authenticity of the video is unchallenged, and it looks shit enough quality to be genuine
Tim Farron (remember him ?) with what's IMO good advice. https://mobile.twitter.com/timfarron/status/1523322615967862787 It’s high stakes now, so if I were Starmer I would outflank the PM, go public and say ‘I’m sure I did nothing wrong but if the police decide I did, I will resign’. He could pay a high price, but integrity in public life matters enough for him to show leadership by risking his.
What are we arguing about here. How this augurs for the next GE? So. forget +22 from 2018, think where Labour were 12 months ago and look where Labour led in constituency wide vote counts often on huge 12 month swings:
Carlisle, Copeland. Hartlepool. Newcatle-under-Lyme, multiple West Brom and Wolves. across West Yorkshire, Leigh, many, many others. The red wall, whether you define that broadly as Con 19 gains in the North and Midlands, or narrowly as WWC ex-mining Con gains, swung back, the return to 2018 is a massive step and the Con 19 coalition is dead, gone - not going, but gone..
Yes, this is the point the BJO is spinning like mad to distract from. In 2019 his boi sent Labour voters fleeing to the Tories. In 2022 chunks of them have come back from the Tories. Is it conclusive yet? Of course not - when that much damage has been done it won't be. But there are clear signs of red wall Lab to Con switchers starting to come back. Even if in Hartlepool they chose to vote for the Tory wife-beater.
The extent to which the Starmer Memo bolsters his Partygate defence - as claimed in the Guardian - is perfectly underlined by the fact he kept its existence secret for months, and has now pulled out of a major speaking event in the immediate aftermath of its publication...
Given currygate was not being investigated "for months" why on earth does Hodges imagine Starmer would have dug out this memo?
Surely you try to control the narrative? You get your story straight and get it out there. Look at the cracks in the narrative and work out how to plaster them over. You ask yourselves a series of questions, such as What happened? What will people make of it? Were photos taken? Videos? Who was there? Why were they there? What was the law at the time? etc, etc.
What you don't do is deny someone was there, only for them to magically have been there, and let your opposition control the narrative by releasing real information in dribs and drabs.
Even if the information is bad for you, it can be better for you to release it all in one go - or at times of your choosing - rather than letting your opposition do it.
(This is true for both Labour and the Conservatives. Not the Lib Dems, as no-one in the media seems to care about them...)
Berlin has upset Kyiv (again) banning Ukrainian as well as Russian flags from parts of the city holding commemoration events marking the end of WW2. City officials say the ban is to ensure peaceful events. Kyiv says the directive puts Ukraine + invading Russia on same footing
Has @Leon seen this GPT-3 story ? On one level it's pretty silly; it's also really very worrying indeed in its implications (assuming it's true, which seems quite likely).
I brought my childhood imaginary friend back to life using A.I. (#GPT3) and it was one of the scariest and most transformative experiences of my life.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
If something is true how can it be a smear?
Because of the inference. Its true that Starmer didn't wear a mask. Its also true that Starmer didn't need to wear a mask. So the S*n are making a scandal out of someone obeying the law.
The problem we have with sections of the media is that their editorial teams are very skilled at churning out bullshit to gaslight people who they have made vulnerable to this kind of shit. Otherwise intelligent people rendered stupid by the newspapers they read.
The extent to which the Starmer Memo bolsters his Partygate defence - as claimed in the Guardian - is perfectly underlined by the fact he kept its existence secret for months, and has now pulled out of a major speaking event in the immediate aftermath of its publication...
Given currygate was not being investigated "for months" why on earth does Hodges imagine Starmer would have dug out this memo?
Surely you try to control the narrative? You get your story straight and get it out there. Look at the cracks in the narrative and work out how to plaster them over. You ask yourselves a series of questions, such as What happened? What will people make of it? Were photos taken? Videos? Who was there? Why were they there? What was the law at the time? etc, etc.
What you don't do is deny someone was there, only for them to magically have been there, and let your opposition control the narrative by releasing real information in dribs and drabs.
Even if the information is bad for you, it can be better for you to release it all in one go - or at times of your choosing - rather than letting your opposition do it.
(This is true for both Labour and the Conservatives. Not the Lib Dems, as no-one in the media seems to care about them...)
There was no narrative "for months". That's the point. The Durham rozzers cleared the event months ago and only in the past fortnight has it resurfaced.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
I get your argument, but I'm not seeing it.
Even if you want to argue that some voters flipped to Starmer as he is more honest than Boris, which is fair enough, I don't see how you argue that they will flip back to Boris now.
Starmer is dull and boring and the worst thing he has done is have a curry. Boris meanwhile has shagged god knows who while mayor of london, done dodgy deals for the sake of getting new wallpaper in number 10, presided over and tolerated god knows how much more corruption in his own government. Weighed up, Starmer and his curry still look pretty honest in comparison.
As I say, to me it's a non story, and if by GE2024 you're voting on the basis of who had what for dinner during lockdown 2020 rather than "who can sort out the cost of living crisis?" or "who is palpably less likely to be corrupt and incompetent?" then, well, that's your right, but as I say, I think the people who consider it to be the biggest issue of GE2024 could fill a phone box.
Yes. What has resonated with so many people is that whilst they were making massive sacrifices, Johnson and his Downing Street posse were on the razz more than they were sober. One curry whilst campaigning a full year later isn't going to somehow wipe away their visceral anger towards the PM.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Well it's more money for the state isn't it.
It all a bit pussyfooting.
Perhaps a straight annual charge of 2-3% of capital value per annum for second properties in areas of pressure.
On that though, one still has to deal with people who will manipulate their home addresses, Expenses scandal style.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
I have a financial interest in this. If it is properties not used or let for 70 non consecutive days it is effectively abandoned properties and I'm panicking less. How you prove this goodness knows.
It sounds like a poorly thought through policy tbh. The issue in places like Cornwall is that the whole market is too expensive for local people. People who own a second home there are going to just rent it out a bit more or suck up the cost. What's 100% council tax bill if you own a £2 million home in Cornwall. They are more than likely already paying £1000s per year for all sorts of other services to maintain their home while they aren't there.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
Well it's more money for the state isn't it.
It's more money for the local authorities to spend on development for local people.
No. You seem to fail to understand how local finance works. The Tories announce extra funding for councils from an external source of £100. And then cut the direct funding grant by £120. Which is why councils across the country are both forced to put Council tax up by 2% each year for the adult social care levy whilst having to cut adult social care.
Owners of second homes who do not rent out their properties will be hit with double council tax under plans to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech this week, as Boris Johnson attempts to reset his premiership by focusing on the “people’s priorities”.
Don't a large number of people who have second homes in holiday spots already rent them out as an easy way of covering the costs?
I am guessing it'll exclude airbnb ers by say stipulating a min 6 month term
Article says, "that are neither used nor let out by their owners for at least 70 days per year". That sounds perfect for holiday letters.
Unless 70 days in a row, but then if you were doing down that path you would be putting in rules for a lot longer than a couple of months, as you say something like 6 month terms.
You are buggered if it's a ppty with summer-only appeal because 70 days eats up your own use of it. Otherwise you're laughing I'd have thought
Hang on: using it *yourself* counts towards the 70 days? That's just silly because how many properties are not used at all for even 70 days a year, and how do you prove the owner hasn't used it (except by poiting cctv at the front door)?
I think you can still get your 70 days let fairly easily these days. People like to take days away for a couple of nights by the seaside etc. You also rent out the weekends you aren't there. I think soon adds up to 70 days.
Also is it 70 days, or 70 nights....as 70 days even easier. You do a weekend let, most people will do Friday -> Sunday, thats 3 days.
If that is the proposal it will achieve damn all.
Around here, a lot of properties are being let out via Air BnB. It makes it very hard to find anything to rent and prices are rising, making it difficult for first time buyers. It is a big issue in this area and the Lakes generally.
The letting needs to be for a continuous period, ideally, to local people.
.... says a second home owner. Oh no, I remember, the Cyclefrees own two first-homes, in your memorable phrase.
It is too difficult to decide what a second home is or isn't. And these complex rules make it easy to avoid. As soon as you have a whole bundle of exemptions, then the tax won't have the desired effect.
What is needed is a serious increase in the Council Tax for *all* high value properties.
For comparison, in parts of the US, there are serious property taxes -- in NJ it is 2.5 per cent of the home value.
So, a million pound house will pay £ 25,000 pa. That will soon have the desired effect.
Say you have a million pound house in London and half a million pound holiday home in Cornwall, then you are facing taxes of 37.5k a year. That will sort out the second home problem.
The UK is unique among Western countries in the ridiculously low taxes that high value property attracts. Hence, many of its problems.
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
I get your argument, but I'm not seeing it.
Even if you want to argue that some voters flipped to Starmer as he is more honest than Boris, which is fair enough, I don't see how you argue that they will flip back to Boris now.
Starmer is dull and boring and the worst thing he has done is have a curry. Boris meanwhile has shagged god knows who while mayor of london, done dodgy deals for the sake of getting new wallpaper in number 10, presided over and tolerated god knows how much more corruption in his own government. Weighed up, Starmer and his curry still look pretty honest in comparison.
As I say, to me it's a non story, and if by GE2024 you're voting on the basis of who had what for dinner during lockdown 2020 rather than "who can sort out the cost of living crisis?" or "who is palpably less likely to be corrupt and incompetent?" then, well, that's your right, but as I say, I think the people who consider it to be the biggest issue of GE2024 could fill a phone box.
Yes. What has resonated with so many people is that whilst they were making massive sacrifices, Johnson and his Downing Street posse were on the razz more than they were sober. One curry whilst campaigning a full year later isn't going to somehow wipe away their visceral anger towards the PM.
CCHQ's calculation will be that the growing impression that "they are all as bad as each other" will negate Boris's serial and routine dishonesty.
Andrew Neil taking no prisoners - "Jeremy Hunt, Theresa May without the charisma. Liz Truss, if she's the answer, what's the question?.....Labour's not exactly flush with alternatives to Keir Starmer either."
'We're in December, is Boris Johnson the leader of the Conservative party & is Keir Starter the leader of the Labour party?'
As a reminder you can still get excellent odds on Rachel Reeves, Lisa Nandy and Yvette Cooper: all 100/1+ as next UK Prime Minister.
The betting markets are imho incorrectly skewed. The shortest odds for next UK PM are on tory hopefuls. That's entirely reliant on Boris Johnson stepping down before the next GE and I don't see that as particularly likely at the moment.
So, we come to a General Election and Boris Johnson loses his majority? Quite likely. As Mike has pointed out, Labour don't need to win outright for their leader to become PM.
So it's all down to whether or not you think Keir Starmer will lead Labour into the next General Election. He might but he might not. If he doesn't, the next Labour leader will be female and it won't be Angela Rayner (Beergate and anyway red rag to the bull). Jess Phillips is not up to it. The three most capable are Reeves, Nandy and Cooper with, in my opinion, Rachel Reeves the best option.
Those betting on Andy Burnham have lost their marbles. He was a failure last time around, does not gel with the blue wall electorate and isn't even an MP.
You say that Tory hopefuls' odds are entirely reliant on Johnson stepping down before GE but you have to factor in the chance that Johnson remains PM after the next GE and, therefore, the next PM after Johnson is well down the tracks - this market doesn't necessarily settle at the next GE.
Depressing set of headlines today, but it would appear that the Heil is rather out on a limb.
And what are all these EU laws that are supposed to be holding us back?
European Union Withdrawal Agreement Act.
LOL. Indeed. And our PM, and his NI sidekick, are going to get themselves in a terrible mess over their NI agreement.
Why? Just invoke the NI Protocol's Article 16 which lest we forget is a perfectly legal and legitimate part of the agreement to use.
Fab! And after they trigger A16 what is the fix? You keep banging on about A16 as if it is the solution to the problem.
There is a fix to the NI issue and with it the "our oven-ready deal is an act of massive self harm" issue. Accept that we cannot impose the 3rd country checks we demanded. Accept that we have just handed full control over standards to the EU and that anyway we remain fully aligned to those standards. And negotiate an aligned market deal.
Not the Single Market - but we're an aligned partner. Not the customs union, not even a customs union. But as we're incapable of making customs checks we do a deal where the French drop their own customs checks. Huzzah says Rees-Mogg, I have cut all of the EU's red tape. VICTORY FOR BORIS proclaims the Express and we all get on with our lives.
If like me you believe that Starmer did nothing at all wrong and is being bullied by the nastiest of all right wing tabloids in support of what has become the 'Nasty Party' again then this is the moment to fight back.
He has to first of all be completely exonerated by the police. Then come out fighting..... First do a number on the two 'unnamed students' posing as photographers. Who are they and how much were they paid by the Mail? Then go all out on Partygate,.....Gloves off.
Reveal Johnson to be the nasty piece of work we all know him to be. (Where's Eddie Mair when you need him?) There's a back catalogue as long as your arm. It just needs presenting. It's time to get a high profile 'Alastair Campbell' in his corner who knows how you put the boot in.
Starmer's 'niceness' has allowed Johnson a free ride. The Mail are just his latest bag carriers. Lisa Nandy started to show the way yesterday but she's got her day job.
To have allowed Johnson to equate his decades of louche debauchery and indolence with having a curry after work is criminal. It should be making decent people angry.
Now is the moment....No More Mr Nice Guy.
Time to take your blinkers off and understand that this situation has arisen by attendees at the event making accusations of rule breaking and the independent Durham Councillor who lost his mother made the formal complaint to Durham Police which has prompted the police to undertake a MET style investigation into potential law breaking
This has all the hallmarks of disaffected left labourites making trouble for Starmer who has moved labour towards the centre
Dianne Abbott was out of the traps yesterday saying Starmer should consider his position if he receives a FPN and others followed
The Mail has been prominent in this story but it is not the conservatives who are the cause of this disaster for Starmer but those disaffected labourites who are using the Mail to further their cause
Starmer pulling out of an important pre Queen's Speech event tonight just looks terrible and goodness knows how he is going to fair in his response to the speech in the HOC tomorrow
Surely Keir will have to sue over this. They’re literally libelling him
Which bit is the libel?
They are careful to say “covid rules at the tip” rather than “the law”.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I'd say the headline is over the line. It's no good (imo) to make a false statement in the headline and walk it back in the article. Though the law may not work that way. And it's clear how a reasonable person would understand the headline.
I think they have written it beautifully if the objective is to make the offence seem significant but without libelling him
“Under fire Keir Starmer” - fair comment
“Caught on camera” - objectively true
Now the critical bit: is it “flouting [general / national] Covid rules” in a specified geographic location “at council tip”
Or:
“Flouting” - what’s he done - “Covid rules at council tip”.
Given the second is true (rules, not laws, at the tip was to wear a mask) and a natural reading (although possibly not the only natural reading) I think the court would struggle to reject a defence of objective truth.
The story is a smear. Starmer is already up S*** Creek without a paddle. This is a poor attempt to reconfirm without evidence he is a serial rule breaker. As I said earlier the tabloids accept their twisted reality that is, the more guilty Starmer, the less guilty Johnson.
And not a soul who was going to vote for Starmer will suddenly decide to vote for Boris on the grounds that Starmer had a beer and a curry during lockdown.
The "nothing makes any difference" fallacy which crops up with tedious regularity on PB. The counter is, How come we have changes of government then?
It's not "nothing makes a difference", it's a case of saying that I don't think that Starmer having a curry will make people who are currently planning to vote Labour vote for the Conservatives instead.
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
A restatement of the fallacy.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Well indeed. Many Tory voters expressed for months (before the FPN was issue) expressed their disgust, including myself.
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
You are lying about Labour voters on PB saying "nothing to see". I believe without exception all have called for his resignation on a receipt of an FPN, others, like myself have requested he goes now.
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
What ideas to the Lib Dems have for improving local government? As a recipient of their emails and after scouring their website I can't see any.
Not being the Tories / the SNP and so actually give a shit is a start. Being utterly focused on local issues and the resolution of people's problems is the bulk of it. Telling people how unlike the other parties our councillors have delivered is the end.
The media don't want to talk about us because we're not the Lab/Con war. But the LibDems had a sensational set of results last week.
The extent to which the Starmer Memo bolsters his Partygate defence - as claimed in the Guardian - is perfectly underlined by the fact he kept its existence secret for months, and has now pulled out of a major speaking event in the immediate aftermath of its publication...
Given currygate was not being investigated "for months" why on earth does Hodges imagine Starmer would have dug out this memo?
"I have just discovered this memo demonstrating how we organised a legal event. I am truly sorry and recognise I now look shifty for failing to tell people what they already know."
If Starmer was convinced that beer and bhaji bonanzas were absolutely legal because it was of course reasonably necessary for party workers outside his bubble to meet him face to face, why would this event have been a one-off?
Comments
Even if it was a big issue, even if it was current rather than two years ago, the fact that Boris has already been caught doing the same or similar means that it won't change many voter preferences.
I suspect you could fill a phone box with the number of people who will switch their votes as a result of Starmer being given a fixed penalty notice etc.
Also is it 70 days, or 70 nights....as 70 days even easier. You do a weekend let, most people will do Friday -> Sunday, thats 3 days.
It seems very credible to me that there are people who were Johnson voters, who thought I liked Boris but I can't be doing with liars so I'll go with SKS who for all his faults is plainly honest, who will now flip back because that argument is out of the window.
Plus loads of people have moved there out of places like London and aren't going to be moving away anytime soon.
⬜🟩⬜⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Disclaimer: I did indeed get it in 3 but did it on my phone, now tried to reproduce on computer but I think as I originally did it my second try was 4 greens and a blank (US sweet)
Even if you want to argue that some voters flipped to Starmer as he is more honest than Boris, which is fair enough, I don't see how you argue that they will flip back to Boris now.
Starmer is dull and boring and the worst thing he has done is have a curry. Boris meanwhile has shagged god knows who while mayor of london, done dodgy deals for the sake of getting new wallpaper in number 10, presided over and tolerated god knows how much more corruption in his own government. Weighed up, Starmer and his curry still look pretty honest in comparison.
As I say, to me it's a non story, and if by GE2024 you're voting on the basis of who had what for dinner during lockdown 2020 rather than "who can sort out the cost of living crisis?" or "who is palpably less likely to be corrupt and incompetent?" then, well, that's your right, but as I say, I think the people who consider it to be the biggest issue of GE2024 could fill a phone box.
They may well win back Brecon next time tbf but not Montgomery
Edit - Lloyd Russell-Moyle.
Epic.
I’m sure some low information voters might swallow this guff but really it’s just another desperate attempt by the lying clown to pretend he gives two hoots about the average Joe .
When will people wake up and realize he’s just laughing at you , he couldn’t give a damn about anything but himself .
Which I'm guessing, they don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Renters - like myself - are hypersensitive these days anyway, The only thing that'll satisfy me are show trials and nationalizing Belgravia.
I doubt if many people were influenced one way or the other by Kier Starmer but Mark Drakeford has a strong positive rating with the Welsh electorate. What will happen when he retires? Jeremy Miles??
The Conservatives could only look up to the bumbling Boris Johnson - the abysmal Andrew RT Davies - or the condescending Simon Hart. They desperately need a new Welsh leader but no obvious choices out there.
Meanwhile Plaid's Adam Price was neutral - didnt inspire many new voters outside of their heartlands but didnt scare the horses inside. Time for a change but not urgent.
Documentary about how John Stonehouse, an MP who faked his own death and was charged with fraud when found to be alive, also colluded with the Czech security service during the Cold War. The programme examines how Prime Ministers from Wilson to Thatcher chose not to investigate the allegations that Stonehouse was a spy.
https://www.radiotimes.com/programme/b-7o46ir/the-spy-who-died-twice/episodes/
On one level it's pretty silly; it's also really very worrying indeed in its implications (assuming it's true, which seems quite likely).
I brought my childhood imaginary friend back to life using A.I. (#GPT3) and it was one of the scariest and most transformative experiences of my life.
A thread 🤖 (1/23)
https://mobile.twitter.com/_LucasRizzotto/status/1516205625662836739
Wordle 323 5/6*
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
In Mytishchi, after a session with local shamans, the former top manager of the Lukoil oil company, Alexander Subbotin, died. He was a member of the board of OOO Trading House Lukoil.
Subbotin may have died after an anti-hangover session with the shaman Magua and his wife. They received clients in their private home and offered treatment with poisonous toads, according to the telegram channel Mash.
During the procedure, shamans incise the skin and instill toad venom into the wound - after vomiting, the patient supposedly should feel better. Even shamans called spirits, sacrificed animals and bathed the lost in cock's blood.
Subbotin had known the Magua family for a long time and used their services regularly. But the last session didn't work. Getting rid of a hangover at the shamans, he felt unwell: his heart ached. Shaman Magua and his wife decided not to call an ambulance, but tried to cure Subbotin with Corvalol. After treatment, the oilman was put to sleep in the basement, where he died. The shamans told the arriving police that they were just friends with the deceased.
https://www.moscowtimes.ru/2022/05/08/bivshii-top-menedzher-lukoila-umer-v-mitischah-ot-yada-zhabi-a20221
F1: ha, feel a shade hard done by as my Bottas bet was looking not certain but highly probable to come off, then the safety car buggered things up.
Hamilton bleating on the radio about strategy seems unreasonable.
As a reminder you can still get excellent odds on Rachel Reeves, Lisa Nandy and Yvette Cooper: all 100/1+ as next UK Prime Minister.
The betting markets are imho incorrectly skewed. The shortest odds for next UK PM are on tory hopefuls. That's entirely reliant on Boris Johnson stepping down before the next GE and I don't see that as particularly likely at the moment.
So, we come to a General Election and Boris Johnson loses his majority? Quite likely. As Mike has pointed out, Labour don't need to win outright for their leader to become PM.
So it's all down to whether or not you think Keir Starmer will lead Labour into the next General Election. He might but he might not. If he doesn't, the next Labour leader will be female and it won't be Angela Rayner (Beergate and anyway red rag to the bull). Jess Phillips is not up to it. The three most capable are Reeves, Nandy and Cooper with, in my opinion, Rachel Reeves the best option.
Those betting on Andy Burnham have lost their marbles. He was a failure last time around, does not gel with the blue wall electorate and isn't even an MP.
Edit - actually, that’s unfair. It’s probably 75% as the rest will be needed to service debts incurred for previous junkets and expensive cars.
Behind the £20,000 curtains in No.10 he will be laughing his head off.
He was a dreadful choice for a rural mid-Walian seat. He had no connection with it.
Lembit lost a safe seat that had been (with one short exception, 1979-1983) Liberal held for over a century.
Not merely did he lose it, he lost it so badly that he turned it into a Tory safe seat (58.5 % of the vote in 2019).
Depressing set of headlines today, but it would appear that the Heil is rather out on a limb.
And what are all these EU laws that are supposed to be holding us back?
...however, at least the sun is out!
PS Good morning friends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JqHyVLS1LI
I will admit I have a somewhat jaundiced view. I was once playing the organ for an event for the local council just after they had closed most of their libraries and made deep cuts to care services. Every single member of the cabinet arrived in a brand new Mercedes and four of them had chauffeurs.
Around here, a lot of properties are being let out via Air BnB. It makes it very hard to find anything to rent and prices are rising, making it difficult for first time buyers. It is a big issue in this area and the Lakes generally.
The letting needs to be for a continuous period, ideally, to local people.
Russia has gone full fascist.
https://mobile.twitter.com/The_IntelHub/status/1523305708451622912
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523548178947411969
President Putin must meet the same fate as Hitler, Ben Wallace will say today, after dozens of civilians were believed to have been killed in a Russian airstrike on a Ukrainian school being used as a shelter
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1523550988598185985
AM I right to assume that all those tanks just have a driver and commander, and the rest of the crew are back at the barracks?
#RUSSIA #May9th: TV systems have been hacked for May 9th. Message: "Your hands are covered in blood from deaths of thousands of Ukrainians and children."
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1523543444127248385?s=20&t=bBeiM7Ec52turMn_BP1Cbg
Seeing a parade of Labour voters here insist "nothing to see here" when the situation is just as bad as it was, for what disgusted me about Boris, is very interesting.
One difference perhaps though is that many of the disgusted ex-Tory voters like myself, Max, Topping and many more were vehemently opposed by the end to the restrictions being imposed, so seeing politicians imposing these restrictions on us while not respecting them themselves is an aggravating factor.
Many of those who insist now "nothing to see here" about Starmer, were at the time justifying restrictions, but seem to be OK with restrictions being broken so long as its done with a red rosette.
Let's see what Durham police say. Though I wonder if not fining Starmer for his Dining would be enough to make The Mail shut up.
https://mobile.twitter.com/timfarron/status/1523322615967862787
It’s high stakes now, so if I were Starmer I would outflank the PM, go public and say ‘I’m sure I did nothing wrong but if the police decide I did, I will resign’. He could pay a high price, but integrity in public life matters enough for him to show leadership by risking his.
He has to first of all be completely exonerated by the police. Then come out fighting..... First do a number on the two 'unnamed students' posing as photographers. Who are they and how much were they paid by the Mail? Then go all out on Partygate,.....Gloves off.
Reveal Johnson to be the nasty piece of work we all know him to be. (Where's Eddie Mair when you need him?) There's a back catalogue as long as your arm. It just needs presenting. It's time to get a high profile 'Alastair Campbell' in his corner who knows how you put the boot in.
Starmer's 'niceness' has allowed Johnson a free ride. The Mail are just his latest bag carriers. Lisa Nandy started to show the way yesterday but she's got her day job.
To have allowed Johnson to equate his decades of louche debauchery and indolence with having a curry after work is criminal. It should be making decent people angry.
Now is the moment....No More Mr Nice Guy.
The authenticity of the video is unchallenged, and it looks shit enough quality to be genuine
Starmer is to blame for his own predicament
What you don't do is deny someone was there, only for them to magically have been there, and let your opposition control the narrative by releasing real information in dribs and drabs.
Even if the information is bad for you, it can be better for you to release it all in one go - or at times of your choosing - rather than letting your opposition do it.
(This is true for both Labour and the Conservatives. Not the Lib Dems, as no-one in the media seems to care about them...)
Berlin has upset Kyiv (again) banning Ukrainian as well as Russian flags from parts of the city holding commemoration events marking the end of WW2. City officials say the ban is to ensure peaceful events. Kyiv says the directive puts Ukraine + invading Russia on same footing
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1523555725402075136
No one has yet figured out how to program empathy.
The problem we have with sections of the media is that their editorial teams are very skilled at churning out bullshit to gaslight people who they have made vulnerable to this kind of shit. Otherwise intelligent people rendered stupid by the newspapers they read.
£/$ 1.2268
Perhaps a straight annual charge of 2-3% of capital value per annum for second properties in areas of pressure.
On that though, one still has to deal with people who will manipulate their home addresses, Expenses scandal style.
It is too difficult to decide what a second home is or isn't. And these complex rules make it easy to avoid. As soon as you have a whole bundle of exemptions, then the tax won't have the desired effect.
What is needed is a serious increase in the Council Tax for *all* high value properties.
For comparison, in parts of the US, there are serious property taxes -- in NJ it is 2.5 per cent of the home value.
So, a million pound house will pay £ 25,000 pa. That will soon have the desired effect.
Say you have a million pound house in London and half a million pound holiday home in Cornwall, then you are facing taxes of 37.5k a year. That will sort out the second home problem.
The UK is unique among Western countries in the ridiculously low taxes that high value property attracts. Hence, many of its problems.
'We're in December, is Boris Johnson the leader of the Conservative party & is Keir Starter the leader of the Labour party?'
'Boris Johnson is more likely to be Prime Minister than Keir Starmer is to be leader of the opposition.' @afneil
Video:
https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1523555935272292352
IMO Starmer is the value currently.
There is a fix to the NI issue and with it the "our oven-ready deal is an act of massive self harm" issue. Accept that we cannot impose the 3rd country checks we demanded. Accept that we have just handed full control over standards to the EU and that anyway we remain fully aligned to those standards. And negotiate an aligned market deal.
Not the Single Market - but we're an aligned partner. Not the customs union, not even a customs union. But as we're incapable of making customs checks we do a deal where the French drop their own customs checks. Huzzah says Rees-Mogg, I have cut all of the EU's red tape. VICTORY FOR BORIS proclaims the Express and we all get on with our lives.
This has all the hallmarks of disaffected left labourites making trouble for Starmer who has moved labour towards the centre
Dianne Abbott was out of the traps yesterday saying Starmer should consider his position if he receives a FPN and others followed
The Mail has been prominent in this story but it is not the conservatives who are the cause of this disaster for Starmer but those disaffected labourites who are using the Mail to further their cause
Starmer pulling out of an important pre Queen's Speech event tonight just looks terrible and goodness knows how he is going to fair in his response to the speech in the HOC tomorrow
Nonetheless, the Starmer investigation is for one potential indiscretion, Johnson is under investigation for up to 12. For you that is an asymmetry in Johnson's favour. Up to a dozen is nowhere near as bad as one.
The media don't want to talk about us because we're not the Lab/Con war. But the LibDems had a sensational set of results last week.
Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told RIA that the air parade over #Moscow was cancelled due to the weather
https://twitter.com/michaelh992/status/1523559251171446784
Brownshorts everywhere!