Howdy, Stranger!

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

Next election: LAB now a 75% betting chance to win most seats – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 22 in General
imageNext election: LAB now a 75% betting chance to win most seats – politicalbetting.com

The Smarkets chart above shows how the next general election most seats betting has been moving since the last contest.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,473
    So how many are Spurs going to lose by......
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676
    I backed Lab Maj at 5/1 and cashed out at evens.

    I remain a master strategist.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 73,473
    edited January 19
    Hottingham Totspurs really are LOL team to watch....

    Right lads, good first half, 2-0, keep it tight second half....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited January 19
    Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.

    Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.

    Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: Lancashire Police looking into Prime Minister’s failure to wear a seat belt while filming video earlier t… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616185271694802955
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    Who the hell does the Tories' media?
    Obey the law whilst filming a publicity piece.
    This is nursery school stuff.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682
    FPT:

    Eabhal said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Carnyx said:

    Omnium said:

    malcolmg said:

    Selebian said:

    kinabalu said:

    Selebian said:

    carnforth said:

    Have we done this? Gummer and the burger redux

    Lee Anderson MP
    @LeeAndersonMP_
    Katy works for me. She is single & earns less than 30k, rents a room for £775pcm in Central London, has student debt, £120 a month on travelling to work saves money every month, goes on foreign holidays & does not need to use a foodbank.

    Katy makes my point really well.

    https://twitter.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1616005190036987906

    Tbf Katy looks good on Lee Anderson's prescribed diet of 30p meals and value brand Weetabix.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ranting-tory-mp-lee-anderson-28846047.amp

    I sometimes wonder what old school Tory nasties like Chope make of social climber 30p Lee?
    I eat my share of value brand products, but I draw the line at fake Weetabix. Not even close to the real thing.
    We switched to own-brand all-bran a while back (it's among my kids' favourites because it looks like sticks - have managed to convince the younger eater that it isprocessed sticks, I think, athough she also refers to it, quite descriptively, as "all brown"). They do taste different; took a while to realise (comparing two packets' ingredients/nutrition) that the main difference is that the 'real' one is stuffed with a lot more salt. Having got used to the own-brand one, I think I now prefer it.

    Weetabix - can any variation be worse than the real thing? Although I must admit I'm the only non-eater in my family.
    The issue with Weetabix is with the milk. Too much or too little renders it soggy/dry respectively and the landing zone between the two is very narrow (compared to say Cornflakes). I gave up long ago. Life's too short.
    Dunno, I'm pretty sure the issue with Weetabix is the Weetabix. It's horrible with or without milk in whatever quantity. Milk is fine without Weetabix :smile:
    Heretic, Weetabix is second only to Porridge, Oat Chruchies and Corn flakes
    That's fourth then.
    Wot, no Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?

    Fifth....
    No breakfast is even getting started until it has bacon and/or/both eggs. Honourable mention to kippers though. (That's a PB first!)
    Alternatively an Arbroath smoked haddock with a poached egg (or finnan haddock will also do).
    That gets in with having eggs. Breakfast rule #1 - pass!
    My favourite breakfast. Smoked Haddock with a fat golden-yolk poached egg on top. Crunchy toast and butter. Strong tea. Mmmmmmm


    It’s one of the best things about staying in quality British hotels. I’ve never found it anywhere outside the UK
    The best possible breakfasts in my view are;


    Bacon sandwich (I'm nearly persuaded that an egg topping should be involved, but then a little cheese, and you run away)

    Kedgeree - I've no idea why people can't cook it well, admittedly I can't.
    Bacon sandwich with white sliced bread and (in my opinion) ketchup, not brown sauce. Brown sauce for sausages.

    As for egg, runny scrambled and with the absolute must have ingredient of half a level teaspoon of MSG. Transforms egg into something eggier.
    The bread should not be presliced but still hot from the bakery
    Presliced at the bakery. Best of all worlds. We get ours from Nunhead’s finest.
    Nun head is the best. Fnarr.
    My mother in law had a Mini with the reg NUN 69.....
    On top of things:


    What joy to know it was never scrapped!
    At the risk of spoiling your evening that reg is now on a Merc.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756
    dixiedean said:

    Who the hell does the Tories' media?
    Obey the law whilst filming a publicity piece.
    This is nursery school stuff.

    Bit worrying the PM himself didn't think of it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 24,682
    dixiedean said:

    Who the hell does the Tories' media?
    Obey the law whilst filming a publicity piece.
    This is nursery school stuff.

    Alastair Campbell?
  • dixiedean said:

    Who the hell does the Tories' media?
    Obey the law whilst filming a publicity piece.
    This is nursery school stuff.

    Sunak thinks he is above the law, he has form breaking the rules.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020
    What if Hannibal had taken Rome?
  • What if Hannibal had taken Rome?

    I love it when a plan comes together?
  • Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: Lancashire Police looking into Prime Minister’s failure to wear a seat belt while filming video earlier t… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616185271694802955

    How long before the Mail rustle up a "Starmer crossed the road without looking left and right" yebbut story?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    So let me get this straight - Thiel was calling Warren Buffett a “sociopathic Grandpa” for shunning Bitcoin he was dumping billions on his unwitting fans. This is what psychologists call”projection”
    https://twitter.com/Spencerjakab/status/1616065657820385280
  • This is why I detest Brexiteers, absolutely no acceptance of the mess they've bequeathed us.





    https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1616187471905099805
  • stodgestodge Posts: 11,244
    HYUFD said:

    Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.

    Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.

    Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway

    The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.

    The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.

    I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    What if Hannibal had taken Rome?

    I was thinking about this the other day actually. Presumably Rome would have become part of the Carthaginian empire. So what would the effect of that be? First of all, would Carthage have been interested in conquering to the far north? I'm guessing not. So on a purely parochial level presumably Britannia would have remained a fully tribal society like Scandinavia for many more centuries.

    And then, Latin would not have spread as it did to become the basis of Spanish, French, Portuguese, Romanian and Roman. Perhaps Spain would speak a language akin to Maltese instead. Maybe the French would all be speaking dialects of what is now Breton. Presumably Italian would have survived, but maybe it would have been a bit like Welsh, clinging on at the margins while the elites spoke something else?

    And of course, would Carthage have lasted as long as Rome? Possibly not. Or maybe it would have lasted longer and Islam would have been baulked by Carthage in a way Persia and Byzantium did not. Would Christianity have spread as rapidly if it hadn't had the imperial structures to piggyback on? Perhaps not.

    Certainly the world would have been rather different.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,264
    @christopherhope: RT @sgfmann: Bradford Telegraph and Argus: 'Thanks for Nothing' #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/sgfmann/status/1616176312917557248/photo/1
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322

    Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: Lancashire Police looking into Prime Minister’s failure to wear a seat belt while filming video earlier t… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616185271694802955

    How long before the Mail rustle up a "Starmer crossed the road without looking left and right" yebbut story?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54701336
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 49,020
    ydoethur said:

    What if Hannibal had taken Rome?

    I was thinking about this the other day actually. Presumably Rome would have become part of the Carthaginian empire. So what would the effect of that be? First of all, would Carthage have been interested in conquering to the far north? I'm guessing not. So on a purely parochial level presumably Britannia would have remained a fully tribal society like Scandinavia for many more centuries.

    And then, Latin would not have spread as it did to become the basis of Spanish, French, Portuguese, Romanian and Roman. Perhaps Spain would speak a language akin to Maltese instead. Maybe the French would all be speaking dialects of what is now Breton. Presumably Italian would have survived, but maybe it would have been a bit like Welsh, clinging on at the margins while the elites spoke something else?

    And of course, would Carthage have lasted as long as Rome? Possibly not. Or maybe it would have lasted longer and Islam would have been baulked by Carthage in a way Persia and Byzantium did not. Would Christianity have spread as rapidly if it hadn't had the imperial structures to piggyback on? Perhaps not.

    Certainly the world would have been rather different.
    Love this chat. Interesting thoughts!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Strange - the new German defense minister Pistorius just said on German TV that “a linkage between German and US tanks is not something that I am aware of” while media reports say this is exactly what Scholz is saying in Davos. The saga continues.
    https://twitter.com/LianaFix/status/1616159430113902614
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 28,187
    ydoethur said:

    What if Hannibal had taken Rome?

    I was thinking about this the other day actually. Presumably Rome would have become part of the Carthaginian empire. So what would the effect of that be? First of all, would Carthage have been interested in conquering to the far north? I'm guessing not. So on a purely parochial level presumably Britannia would have remained a fully tribal society like Scandinavia for many more centuries.

    And then, Latin would not have spread as it did to become the basis of Spanish, French, Portuguese, Romanian and Roman. Perhaps Spain would speak a language akin to Maltese instead. Maybe the French would all be speaking dialects of what is now Breton. Presumably Italian would have survived, but maybe it would have been a bit like Welsh, clinging on at the margins while the elites spoke something else?

    And of course, would Carthage have lasted as long as Rome? Possibly not. Or maybe it would have lasted longer and Islam would have been baulked by Carthage in a way Persia and Byzantium did not. Would Christianity have spread as rapidly if it hadn't had the imperial structures to piggyback on? Perhaps not.

    Certainly the world would have been rather different.
    I presume that Spanish at least would have evolved from Punic given that at the time of the Punic wars Spain was a Carthaginian stronghold. I wonder if perhaps Greek might have been a more prominent language as well.
  • ydoethur said:

    What if Hannibal had taken Rome?

    I was thinking about this the other day actually. Presumably Rome would have become part of the Carthaginian empire. So what would the effect of that be? First of all, would Carthage have been interested in conquering to the far north? I'm guessing not. So on a purely parochial level presumably Britannia would have remained a fully tribal society like Scandinavia for many more centuries.

    And then, Latin would not have spread as it did to become the basis of Spanish, French, Portuguese, Romanian and Roman. Perhaps Spain would speak a language akin to Maltese instead. Maybe the French would all be speaking dialects of what is now Breton. Presumably Italian would have survived, but maybe it would have been a bit like Welsh, clinging on at the margins while the elites spoke something else?

    And of course, would Carthage have lasted as long as Rome? Possibly not. Or maybe it would have lasted longer and Islam would have been baulked by Carthage in a way Persia and Byzantium did not. Would Christianity have spread as rapidly if it hadn't had the imperial structures to piggyback on? Perhaps not.

    Certainly the world would have been rather different.
    I don't think Carthage had the resources to control the whole of Rome?

    They would have overextended and lost what they already held?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    "Mary Harrington & Elise Bohan: The transhumanism debate"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9HIe9NXdyA
  • Oh, and on topic...

    The starting point is C365 L202 on the old boundaries. Put unchanged shares and new boundaries into Electoral Calculus gives C405 L165, which seems toppy.

    For Labour to have most seats by their own efforts, they need to shift the dial to about 285 each. A Lib Dem revival pushes that number down a bit.

    That seems optimistic for the blue team.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    dixiedean said:

    Who the hell does the Tories' media?
    Obey the law whilst filming a publicity piece.
    This is nursery school stuff.

    Many years ago, was talking with wise old political operative, a Boston Wise Guy as they say (or used to). For some reason, one of us mentioned the attack ad versus Mike Dukakis in 1988, that featured film of him riding around on top of a tank (at a tank factory) wearing a ridiculous-looking helmet. Film that for some reason had been taken either by, or else without objection, from his camaign.

    "What a dumb thing to do!" I exclaimed to my friend.

    "I know," he replied, "that's what I thought - and I was there, with Dukakis."
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676
    ydoethur said:

    What if Hannibal had taken Rome?

    I was thinking about this the other day actually. Presumably Rome would have become part of the Carthaginian empire. So what would the effect of that be? First of all, would Carthage have been interested in conquering to the far north? I'm guessing not. So on a purely parochial level presumably Britannia would have remained a fully tribal society like Scandinavia for many more centuries.

    And then, Latin would not have spread as it did to become the basis of Spanish, French, Portuguese, Romanian and Roman. Perhaps Spain would speak a language akin to Maltese instead. Maybe the French would all be speaking dialects of what is now Breton. Presumably Italian would have survived, but maybe it would have been a bit like Welsh, clinging on at the margins while the elites spoke something else?

    And of course, would Carthage have lasted as long as Rome? Possibly not. Or maybe it would have lasted longer and Islam would have been baulked by Carthage in a way Persia and Byzantium did not. Would Christianity have spread as rapidly if it hadn't had the imperial structures to piggyback on? Perhaps not.

    Certainly the world would have been rather different.
    What if Alexander had headed West? is the great question.

    Why Latin caught on and Greek did not is also a conundrum. I don't think the Ottomans adequately explain it, because mother tongues are not determined at the invading conqueror level.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,962
    Scott_xP said:

    @christopherhope: RT @sgfmann: Bradford Telegraph and Argus: 'Thanks for Nothing' #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/sgfmann/status/1616176312917557248/photo/1

    The BBC local news lead headline at lunchtime was "Most local areas miss out on levelling up funding", which was a fairly forthright way of putting things.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 18,056

    FPT

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    algarkirk said:

    algarkirk said:

    Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    “Bold prediction:

    50% of university enrollment will disappear in the next 10 years.”

    https://twitter.com/chrisboettcher9/status/1615711362466078722?s=46&t=yIBjpkurM1GU7Z9F67jOmw

    He’s probably right

    He probably isn't.
    Why would a doc/runner apparently turned quack personal motivator not be right about this?
    He could be. The elephant in the room for the past 30 years has been, wtf are the humanities actually for? Now that GPT has made them into a perfect closed loop, why borrow 50k to "study" them?
    Those things called 'humanities' in academia are, for me basically those things that make life interesting and worthwhile. History, philosophy, literature, music, ideas, anthropology, politics and so on.

    The though of 'doing' them at HE level for some other ulterior reason like getting better jobs is just meaningless and repellent.

    If people want to read King Lear or the Eumenides because they want a better HR job in a widget factory and not because they love the stuff, then close the institution and open the library to the public.

    BTW let us all know when AI produces something as worthwhile as Emma, Barnaby Rudge, Kant's first critique, the Summa contra Gentiles, Einstein's 1905 papers or the Origin of Species.
    Roughly Michael Gove's position, iirc, on the value of a humanities or liberal arts education. A right wing position here but left wing in America.
    Rather than right wing or left wing maybe the words needed are more like 'humanist'. Humanities are the weapons with and from which people can evaluate and appraise all political posturing.

    Humaities students are the twats that gift us things like cultural appropriation frankly they can go die in a fire they have no use whatsoever
    As a former humanities student, can I just say f*ck off.
    What big advance has humanity studies ever given us? Please tell. Now do some humanities students do well and enhance the place yes....generally not through the humanities studies they did. You are a case in point....you studied humanites...your contributions to society however are not humanity based
    What an ignorant and philistine statement? Where would our historians, archaeologists and philosophers come from if not for humanities? You don't just need to teach and research it either, plenty of museum curators, journalists, actors, authors and poets and senior civil servants studied humanities today.

    As did a few PMs and top politicians, Harold Wilson and Gordon Brown and George Osborne read History and Boris Johnson read classics and Andy Burnham read English. It probably made them more rounded than doing a social science degree like PPE or Politics.

    The King read History too of course and the Princess of Wales read History of Art
    Point of order: archeology is a science, surely?

    Point of puzzlement: aren't you rather demolishing your argument with your last sentence?
    It can be considered a humanities subject or a social science

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology
    From your link:

    "Archaeology or archeology is the scientific study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture."

    "The science of archaeology (from Greek ἀρχαιολογία, archaiologia from ἀρχαῖος, arkhaios, "ancient" and -λογία, -logia, "-logy") grew out of the older multi-disciplinary study known as antiquarianism."
    Line 6 'Archaeology can be considered both a social science and a branch of humanities'
    Archaeology in its practice is a science. Archaeology in its teaching is a humanities (or arts) course.

    When I did archaeology at university back in the 80s only two establishments did a science degree in archaeology - the Institute of Archaeology in London, which was part of the University of London, and University College Cardiff. And both of those were more concerned with conservation than straight archaeology. Hence the reason I chose Cardiff.

    One of the great failings of archaeology courses - certainly until quite recently, and from what I hear up to today - is that they don't teach practical archaeology. They teach ancient history, prehistory, stratigraphy and some conservation. But they don't, as a rule, teach people how to survey, how to lay out and run a site and how to actually dig holes (which is an art in itself). All this practical knowledge is expected to be gained by volunteering on digs during the holidays.
    Geophysics is definitely science. And that's what tells them where to dig.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576
    On Sunak and #seatbeltgate, Inthink this is one of the reasons no one sane wants to go into politics. He made a mistake. It was dumb. Does it need the Police to waste time ‘investigating’ an offence that likely would have been a verbal warning, or three points on a licence (for the driver?). Have the police nothing else to do? No rapists and misogynists in the force to root out? No? Really? Odds would say otherwise.

    And this is similarly true of the Starmer farago too. Utter waste of time.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,012
    Didn't Rishi also attend private school?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 18,056
    Scott_xP said:

    @christopherhope: RT @sgfmann: Bradford Telegraph and Argus: 'Thanks for Nothing' #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/sgfmann/status/1616176312917557248/photo/1

    Yep, we've been fucked over by the government.

    Maybe they think Ilkley is representative of the whole borough, so places in the home counties are more worthy.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298

    On Sunak and #seatbeltgate, Inthink this is one of the reasons no one sane wants to go into politics. He made a mistake. It was dumb. Does it need the Police to waste time ‘investigating’ an offence that likely would have been a verbal warning, or three points on a licence (for the driver?). Have the police nothing else to do? No rapists and misogynists in the force to root out? No? Really? Odds would say otherwise.

    And this is similarly true of the Starmer farago too. Utter waste of time.

    Police have a duty to investigate complaints.
    Don't want to be investigated?
    Don't be a complete idiot without the most basic political instincts.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,012

    What if Hannibal had taken Rome?

    "A Roman general once tested me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti!"
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,356
    Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread

    "CorrectHorseBattery3 said:
    Culture wars are killing the Tories.

    They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"


    Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.

    So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?

    And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if anything?"
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    @theProle was right.

    People on here discussing Carthage and Rome. What a waste!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: Lancashire Police looking into Prime Minister’s failure to wear a seat belt while filming video earlier t… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616185271694802955

    I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    My suspicious hack brain just had this wicked thought - that Rishi Sunak's alleged breach of the seat-belt law, was deliberately contrived at by at least one of his hench-people.

    For purpose of contrasting what the Great British Public will see as one act of madness (due to bad advice NOT natural badness) in a life of habitual law abidance in general, and seat-belt wearing in particular.

    In contrast to Boris Johnson. Whose own personal seat-belt law compliance rate is FAR more doubtful. Less than zero being theoretically impossible, but hardly implausible.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 18,056
    Cyclefree said:

    Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread

    "CorrectHorseBattery3 said:
    Culture wars are killing the Tories.

    They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"


    Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.

    So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?

    And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if anything?"

    It tells us that the SNP can get away with any old shite as long as they wrap it in a Saltire.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298

    My suspicious hack brain just had this wicked thought - that Rishi Sunak's alleged breach of the seat-belt law, was deliberately contrived at by at least one of his hench-people.

    For purpose of contrasting what the Great British Public will see as one act of madness (due to bad advice NOT natural badness) in a life of habitual law abidance in general, and seat-belt wearing in particular.

    In contrast to Boris Johnson. Whose own personal seat-belt law compliance rate is FAR more doubtful. Less than zero being theoretically impossible, but hardly implausible.

    Did occur that it was so egregious a mistake it had to be deliberate.
    Bloody health and safety?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576
    dixiedean said:

    On Sunak and #seatbeltgate, Inthink this is one of the reasons no one sane wants to go into politics. He made a mistake. It was dumb. Does it need the Police to waste time ‘investigating’ an offence that likely would have been a verbal warning, or three points on a licence (for the driver?). Have the police nothing else to do? No rapists and misogynists in the force to root out? No? Really? Odds would say otherwise.

    And this is similarly true of the Starmer farago too. Utter waste of time.

    Police have a duty to investigate complaints.
    Don't want to be investigated?
    Don't be a complete idiot without the most basic political instincts.
    There’s complaints and then there are complaints though. Bike gets nicked, they will do fuck all. And seemingly if you complain about a police officer raping you they do fuck all too.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    Pro_Rata said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @christopherhope: RT @sgfmann: Bradford Telegraph and Argus: 'Thanks for Nothing' #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/sgfmann/status/1616176312917557248/photo/1

    The BBC local news lead headline at lunchtime was "Most local areas miss out on levelling up funding", which was a fairly forthright way of putting things.
    The phrase should be banned. You can't 'level up'. It's cakeist drivel.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,962
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.

    Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.

    Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway

    The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.

    The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.

    I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
    I went through the 21 Lab / Con by-elections for the last 2 months and calculated that they on average were defending an NEV position of Con 32 Lab 31, and showed an average of just shy of 7% Con -> Lab swing to a Lab 38 Con 25 NEV position.

    Suggests a similar Con -> Lab swing in May from 28/28, and the Con 25 position might suggest slight swing to LD as well if one assumes no move in LD vote share.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576
    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: Lancashire Police looking into Prime Minister’s failure to wear a seat belt while filming video earlier t… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616185271694802955

    I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
    Really? Since about 30 years ago!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,239

    On Sunak and #seatbeltgate, Inthink this is one of the reasons no one sane wants to go into politics. He made a mistake. It was dumb. Does it need the Police to waste time ‘investigating’ an offence that likely would have been a verbal warning, or three points on a licence (for the driver?). Have the police nothing else to do? No rapists and misogynists in the force to root out? No? Really? Odds would say otherwise.

    And this is similarly true of the Starmer farago too. Utter waste of time.

    What's there to investigate? He posted the video on his Instagram. Just send him the FPN in the post.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited January 19
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.

    Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.

    Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway

    The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.

    The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.

    I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
    The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.

    So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975

    Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: Lancashire Police looking into Prime Minister’s failure to wear a seat belt while filming video earlier t… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616185271694802955

    How long before the Mail rustle up a "Starmer crossed the road without looking left and right" yebbut story?
    Delingpole jnr will be on the case.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 11,082
    rcs1000 said:

    @theProle was right.

    People on here discussing Carthage and Rome. What a waste!

    Also much talk re: Athens, Sparta, Utica, Syracuse, Damascus, Alexandria, Palmyria.

    Ditto Austerlitz and Waterloo. All cities and towns in New York State.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    HYUFD said:

    Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.

    Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.

    Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway

    Things ... can only get bedder
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298

    rcs1000 said:

    @theProle was right.

    People on here discussing Carthage and Rome. What a waste!

    Also much talk re: Athens, Sparta, Utica, Syracuse, Damascus, Alexandria, Palmyria.

    Ditto Austerlitz and Waterloo. All cities and towns in New York State.
    And New York itself is, of course, a village near Whitley Bay.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,947

    Scott_xP said:

    @christopherhope: RT @sgfmann: Bradford Telegraph and Argus: 'Thanks for Nothing' #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/sgfmann/status/1616176312917557248/photo/1

    Yep, we've been fucked over by the government.

    Maybe they think Ilkley is representative of the whole borough, so places in the home counties are more worthy.
    If you look at it in isolation maybe. But that's just a political rant. Not everyone coukd win.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298

    Scott_xP said:

    @christopherhope: RT @sgfmann: Bradford Telegraph and Argus: 'Thanks for Nothing' #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/sgfmann/status/1616176312917557248/photo/1

    Yep, we've been fucked over by the government.

    Maybe they think Ilkley is representative of the whole borough, so places in the home counties are more worthy.
    If you look at it in isolation maybe. But that's just a political rant. Not everyone coukd win.
    Although, spookily, Tory marginals won.
    How strange.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,012
    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @theProle was right.

    People on here discussing Carthage and Rome. What a waste!

    Also much talk re: Athens, Sparta, Utica, Syracuse, Damascus, Alexandria, Palmyria.

    Ditto Austerlitz and Waterloo. All cities and towns in New York State.
    And New York itself is, of course, a village near Whitley Bay.
    I've been to Denver, Colorado and its namesake Denver, Norfolk.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: Lancashire Police looking into Prime Minister’s failure to wear a seat belt while filming video earlier t… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616185271694802955

    I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
    Really? Since about 30 years ago!
    Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    The Supreme Court's Marshal's Report says (pp. 5 & 8-9), correctly, that the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion might have been a federal crime. But #SCOTUS kept the investigation in-house. Did it tell @FBI not to investigate? On what basis? And why did FBI, apparently, stand down?
    https://twitter.com/JohnQBarrett/status/1616185664264880128
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,239
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.

    Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.

    Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway

    The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.

    The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.

    I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
    The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.

    So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
    Worth remembering that despite a poor showing in 2019, because the councils contested are mainly in strong Tory areas, they still won by far the most seats in 2019, 3564, and so they still have most to lose.

    If Starmer was a leader with a better connection with the public then the potential for a massive loss of Conservative council seats to Labour would look more likely to be realised.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,962
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.

    Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.

    Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway

    The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.

    The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.

    I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
    The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.

    So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
    It was before the trough of the Tory / Labour polling collapse by the Euros a month later, and in fact LD averaged only 8.8% in the 5 polls leading up to LE19.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: Lancashire Police looking into Prime Minister’s failure to wear a seat belt while filming video earlier t… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616185271694802955

    I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
    Really? Since about 30 years ago!
    Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
    Ending of slavery perhaps?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: Lancashire Police looking into Prime Minister’s failure to wear a seat belt while filming video earlier t… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616185271694802955

    I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
    Really? Since about 30 years ago!
    Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
    The plod just about to knock on your door will let you know.
  • Scott_xP said:

    @christopherhope: RT @sgfmann: Bradford Telegraph and Argus: 'Thanks for Nothing' #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/sgfmann/status/1616176312917557248/photo/1

    Yep, we've been fucked over by the government.

    Maybe they think Ilkley is representative of the whole borough, so places in the home counties are more worthy.
    If you look at it in isolation maybe. But that's just a political rant. Not everyone coukd win.
    And politically that's a problem. This model creates winners and losers, and the losers will always be visibly cross.

    Plus, a non-trivial amount of work goes into putting in bids that get rejected.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142
    Cyclefree said:

    Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread

    "CorrectHorseBattery3 said:
    Culture wars are killing the Tories.

    They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"


    Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.

    So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?

    And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if anything?"

    And why doesn't it apply to the opposition? Why is Lisa Nandy trying to get 13 year olds to change sex? Surely voters have other things they're concerned about?


  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 25,298
    edited January 19

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @theProle was right.

    People on here discussing Carthage and Rome. What a waste!

    Also much talk re: Athens, Sparta, Utica, Syracuse, Damascus, Alexandria, Palmyria.

    Ditto Austerlitz and Waterloo. All cities and towns in New York State.
    And New York itself is, of course, a village near Whitley Bay.
    I've been to Denver, Colorado and its namesake Denver, Norfolk.
    I've been to Bellingham, WA many times.
    But never to Bellingham, Northumberland, despite being about 30 miles away.
  • beinndeargbeinndearg Posts: 676

    What if Hannibal had taken Rome?

    "A Roman general once tested me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti!"
    With a big Amarone. Dumbed down for the film.

    Anyway amarone is valpolicella, the chianti version is called goberno.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,239
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @theProle was right.

    People on here discussing Carthage and Rome. What a waste!

    Also much talk re: Athens, Sparta, Utica, Syracuse, Damascus, Alexandria, Palmyria.

    Ditto Austerlitz and Waterloo. All cities and towns in New York State.
    And New York itself is, of course, a village near Whitley Bay.
    I've been to Denver, Colorado and its namesake Denver, Norfolk.
    I've been to Bellingham, WA many times.
    But never to Bellingham, Northumberland, despite being about 30 miles away.
    The first and last brewery might be worth a visit.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 3,962

    Scott_xP said:

    @christopherhope: RT @sgfmann: Bradford Telegraph and Argus: 'Thanks for Nothing' #TomorrowsPapersToday https://twitter.com/sgfmann/status/1616176312917557248/photo/1

    Yep, we've been fucked over by the government.

    Maybe they think Ilkley is representative of the whole borough, so places in the home counties are more worthy.
    Rishi says:



  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.

    Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.

    Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway

    The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.

    The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.

    I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
    The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.

    So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
    I'm sure there are some and all govt, no matter at what level become unpopular eventually, but the LD councils and coalitions around here aren't unpopular yet.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 32,308
    Cyclefree said:

    Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread

    "CorrectHorseBattery3 said:
    Culture wars are killing the Tories.

    They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"


    Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.

    So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?

    And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if
    anything?"

    Politicians can multi-task.

    One can both try to tackle inflation, and block a pernicious piece of legislation.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Nigelb said:

    The Supreme Court's Marshal's Report says (pp. 5 & 8-9), correctly, that the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion might have been a federal crime. But #SCOTUS kept the investigation in-house. Did it tell @FBI not to investigate? On what basis? And why did FBI, apparently, stand down?
    https://twitter.com/JohnQBarrett/status/1616185664264880128

    Meanwhile, from the head of the Trump crime family, let’s criminalise journalism.

    Trump calls for jailing journalists who broke Supreme Court’s draft abortion decision
    https://thehill.com/homenews/3820172-trump-calls-for-jailing-journalists-who-broke-supreme-courts-draft-abortion-decision/
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread

    "CorrectHorseBattery3 said:
    Culture wars are killing the Tories.

    They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"


    Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.

    So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?

    And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if
    anything?"

    Politicians can multi-task.

    The history of Brexit strongly suggests otherwise.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    dixiedean said:

    My suspicious hack brain just had this wicked thought - that Rishi Sunak's alleged breach of the seat-belt law, was deliberately contrived at by at least one of his hench-people.

    For purpose of contrasting what the Great British Public will see as one act of madness (due to bad advice NOT natural badness) in a life of habitual law abidance in general, and seat-belt wearing in particular.

    In contrast to Boris Johnson. Whose own personal seat-belt law compliance rate is FAR more doubtful. Less than zero being theoretically impossible, but hardly implausible.

    Did occur that it was so egregious a mistake it had to be deliberate.
    Bloody health and safety?
    Could be, yes. An attempt to loosen up his image. Also a trap for Starmer in that if he goes on this at PMQs he risks looking like the humourless roundhead to Sunak's cavalier.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited January 19

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.

    Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.

    Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway

    The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.

    The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.

    I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
    The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.

    So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
    Worth remembering that despite a poor showing in 2019, because the councils contested are mainly in strong Tory areas, they still won by far the most seats in 2019, 3564, and so they still have most to lose.

    If Starmer was a leader with a better connection with the public then the potential for a massive loss of Conservative council seats to Labour would look more likely to be realised.
    Labour and the LDs combined won more councillors and councils in the 2019 local elections than the Tories despite the fact most seats up were in the Tory English shires. Labour London and Birmingham and Wales and SNP Scotland were not up.

    That was how bad it was for the Tories, their worst local elections since 1995 so they have little further to fall this May

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_local_elections
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,317
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread

    "CorrectHorseBattery3 said:
    Culture wars are killing the Tories.

    They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"


    Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.

    So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?

    And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if
    anything?"

    Politicians can multi-task.

    One can both try to tackle inflation, and block a pernicious piece of legislation.

    It's a bit odd to accuse them of culture wars when all they are doing is reacting to legislation being introduced by the Scottish government.

    I think Europe has something like 2000 Leopard tanks (including Turkey?). The vast majority are not German. I hope many of those countries decide to send their tanks to Ukraine and dare the Germans to object. Scholz's behaviour is inexplicable.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Coming late to this, so interested in the response of @CorrectHorseBattery3 (or indeed any of our Scottish posters) to his point on the previous thread

    "CorrectHorseBattery3 said:
    Culture wars are killing the Tories.

    They've had plenty of warning from me about this, I said people will say "I can't afford to eat why on Earth are you telling me about trans rights"


    Why does your argument not apply to the SNP then? There are plenty of issues for Scot Gov to deal with, which are far more important to most people than this and yet the SNP have been focused on it despite its unpopularity, according to polls.

    So using your analysis - which I agree will be the response of a lot of voters - why has this not affected the SNP in the same way?

    And if it hasn't, what does this tell us, if
    anything?"

    Politicians can multi-task.

    One can both try to tackle inflation, and block a pernicious piece of legislation.
    Or implement a brave and progressive social reform whilst fire-fighting the crisis in the Scottish NHS.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,682

    I backed Lab Maj at 5/1 and cashed out at evens.

    I remain a master strategist.

    Only if said maj doesn’t come in …
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    kjh said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: Lancashire Police looking into Prime Minister’s failure to wear a seat belt while filming video earlier t… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616185271694802955

    I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
    Really? Since about 30 years ago!
    Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
    The plod just about to knock on your door will let you know.
    Yep - "ignorance is not a defence"

    Goes both ways though. I bet there are things I think are a crime that aren't. Eg taping off the radio.

    (I'm frozen in the 70s)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,863

    Seatbeltgate is hilarious. But the idea that the police should 'investigate' is ludicrous.

    What's most telling is that neither Sunak nor any of the numerous aides/SPADs involved saw the obvious danger of making a film in which the PM is breaking the law. It smacks of gross incompetence, not just naivety.

    I don't think it needs much investigation.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    dixiedean said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @PaulBrandITV: BREAKING: Lancashire Police looking into Prime Minister’s failure to wear a seat belt while filming video earlier t… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616185271694802955

    I didn't think you had to in the back seat. Live and learn.
    Really? Since about 30 years ago!
    Thought it only applied to children. Wonder what other laws have escaped my attention?
    Ending of slavery perhaps?
    Frozen in the NINETEEN 70s, I mean!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643
    Rishi needs to pay his fine and move on.
    He is hapless; a total waste of space.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,344
    Can the police prosecute historical offenses?

    image
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    edited January 19
    David Crosby, Byrds and Crosby, Stills & Nash Co-Founder, Dies at 81.
    https://twitter.com/davewiner/status/1616195791764201478
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,759
    Pulpstar said:

    Seatbeltgate is hilarious. But the idea that the police should 'investigate' is ludicrous.

    What's most telling is that neither Sunak nor any of the numerous aides/SPADs involved saw the obvious danger of making a film in which the PM is breaking the law. It smacks of gross incompetence, not just naivety.

    I don't think it needs much investigation.
    Well, that was my point. He's bang to rights - worse than being caught on CCTV or by a speed camera. It's like a burglar posting a video of themselves burgling. But I still wouldn't bother fining him. It's the incompetence of his operation that's striking.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316

    Can the police prosecute historical offenses?

    image

    That’s a photo - how do you know the car’s moving ?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    Labour will still likely win most seats, the question is can Starmer win a majority as say Cameron failed to do in 2010 after 13 years in opposition.

    Sunak has also got about a 5% bounce relative to Truss in most polls, even if he still trails what Boris was on last summer.

    Given the Tories only got 28% in the 2019 local elections and lost over 1000 seats and 44 councils, they are nearly at rock bottom in the seats up in May anyway

    The problem the Conservatives have is 2019 was also a poor election for Corbyn's Labour Party winning about 28% of the vote and making a net loss as well.

    The current polling would suggest Labour will make big gains presumably primarily if not exclusively at the expense of the Conservatives with the Con-LD/Residents/Independents battle more of a side show.

    I'd be looking at councils like Bracknell Forest to see if there is any sign of significant Labour progress in the south.
    The LDs however got 19% in the 2019 locals, far more than they are polling now.

    So the Tories might even regain a few seats back from the LDs even if they also lose some to Labour, especially where LD led councils are unpopular
    Worth remembering that despite a poor showing in 2019, because the councils contested are mainly in strong Tory areas, they still won by far the most seats in 2019, 3564, and so they still have most to lose.

    If Starmer was a leader with a better connection with the public then the potential for a massive loss of Conservative council seats to Labour would look more likely to be realised.
    Labour and the LDs combined won more councillors and councils in the 2019 local elections than the Tories despite the fact most seats up were in the Tory English shires. Labour London and Birmingham and Wales and SNP Scotland were not up.

    That was how bad it was for the Tories, their worst local elections since 1995 so they have little further to fall this May

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_local_elections
    Wait.

    Tories won 3,564 councillors, control of 93 councils 30 more than Labour, and got 2,985,959 votes. You are spinning it as a nadir? Little further they can fall this time? a floor they would be hard pressed to fall below? No chance of a terrible night?

    Which is exactly how Labour and Lib Dems and Farage would want the Tory’s to be spinning it, isn’t it, ahead of putting those 3,564 councillors, 93 councils, 2,985,959 votes on the line?

    WTF are you doing?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643
    I hadn’t realised (per Dan Hodges) that Rishi had made his levelling up announcement (also known as the effective end of levelling up in favour of pork for Tory marginals) from the back seat of his chauffeur driven limo.

    He is beyond useless. A total tosser.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,759

    Can the police prosecute historical offenses?

    image

    Not in this country; offenses are presumably under USA jurisdiction.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 17,643

    Pulpstar said:

    Seatbeltgate is hilarious. But the idea that the police should 'investigate' is ludicrous.

    What's most telling is that neither Sunak nor any of the numerous aides/SPADs involved saw the obvious danger of making a film in which the PM is breaking the law. It smacks of gross incompetence, not just naivety.

    I don't think it needs much investigation.
    Well, that was my point. He's bang to rights - worse than being caught on CCTV or by a speed camera. It's like a burglar posting a video of themselves burgling. But I still wouldn't bother fining him. It's the incompetence of his operation that's striking.
    Why not fine him?
    Or do you think it should be one law for him and another for the rest of us?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975

    Can the police prosecute historical offenses?

    image

    Stationary. He probably belted up when it got moving.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,423
    When is the next Canadian election likely to be?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 43,344

    Can the police prosecute historical offenses?

    image

    Not in this country; offenses are presumably under USA jurisdiction.
    I need to change my autocorrect to a UK dictionary... :(
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,316
    kinabalu said:

    Can the police prosecute historical offenses?

    image

    Stationary. He probably belted up when it got moving.
    In any event, the Sunak case probably represents the outer limits of the current police capacity for successful investigation.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,759
    We watched seatbeltgate on the BBC news. What really pissed off my much better half was Sunak approaching his big car and, rather than opening the door himself, waiting briefly for an aide to open it for him. Privilege or what?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,825

    I hadn’t realised (per Dan Hodges) that Rishi had made his levelling up announcement (also known as the effective end of levelling up in favour of pork for Tory marginals) from the back seat of his chauffeur driven limo.

    He is beyond useless. A total tosser.

    Having flown there in his private jet.

    Oh, how lucky we are to have these Masters of the Universe looking after us plebs.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,214

    I hadn’t realised (per Dan Hodges) that Rishi had made his levelling up announcement (also known as the effective end of levelling up in favour of pork for Tory marginals) from the back seat of his chauffeur driven limo.

    He is beyond useless. A total tosser.

    He got trouble for taking the plane. A fine when in the car. Why didn’t he just take the train?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,759

    Pulpstar said:

    Seatbeltgate is hilarious. But the idea that the police should 'investigate' is ludicrous.

    What's most telling is that neither Sunak nor any of the numerous aides/SPADs involved saw the obvious danger of making a film in which the PM is breaking the law. It smacks of gross incompetence, not just naivety.

    I don't think it needs much investigation.
    Well, that was my point. He's bang to rights - worse than being caught on CCTV or by a speed camera. It's like a burglar posting a video of themselves burgling. But I still wouldn't bother fining him. It's the incompetence of his operation that's striking.
    Why not fine him?
    Or do you think it should be one law for him and another for the rest of us?
    Sunak's already got a criminal record from partygate. It would do the reputation of our country immeasurable harm for this to be extended via seatbeltgate. A criminal as PM?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975

    Pulpstar said:

    Seatbeltgate is hilarious. But the idea that the police should 'investigate' is ludicrous.

    What's most telling is that neither Sunak nor any of the numerous aides/SPADs involved saw the obvious danger of making a film in which the PM is breaking the law. It smacks of gross incompetence, not just naivety.

    I don't think it needs much investigation.
    Well, that was my point. He's bang to rights - worse than being caught on CCTV or by a speed camera. It's like a burglar posting a video of themselves burgling. But I still wouldn't bother fining him. It's the incompetence of his operation that's striking.
    Why not fine him?
    Or do you think it should be one law for him and another for the rest of us?
    If somebody sent a film to the cops showing me in the back seat of a moving car sans belt, would I be issued with a fine?

    If so, he should be. If not, he shouldn't. That would seem fair to me. Otherwise he's getting undue leniency or harshness because of who he is.
This discussion has been closed.