The BBC is going into one of its regular self examining spasms about Musky Elon calling it government funded media on twitter. I see George Galloway is still sub titled ‘Russia state-affiliated media’ so the omens aren’t good for the hair transplanted one changing his mind.
You seem to be getting a tad wound up since The SNP became a laughing stock.
Without trying to white knight TUD, who doesn't need that, I can't say I've noticed a difference.
What unionists need to worry about is the SNP getting its act together. Salmond and Sturgeon were formidable operators who got complacent. Sure, the new leader seems sub optimal, but I think the SNP will regroup and come back stronger. The unionists won't be laughing then.
Worth noting that it's not like SNP or Sindy support has collapsed exactly, though some polls are better. That makes me nervous, but I retain some hope
An SNP MP has called for the party’s leadership race to be rerun because the timing of Peter Murrell’s arrest last week raised doubts about the “legitimacy” of Humza Yousaf’s win.
Angus MacNeil said that the detention of Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and the former SNP chief executive, meant there were “clearly questions to answer” about the six-week leadership campaign which led to the narrow victory of Yousaf, the “continuity candidate”, over Kate Forbes.
It is alleged that Murrell, who quit his post last month after 20 years, personally intervened to shorten the duration of the contest after his wife’s resignation in mid-February as first minister and party leader.
You should check out SNP MSP James Dornan's reaction to the same story in the Daily Record on twitter where he brands Angus MacNeil the 'Eejit fae the Isles' in the latest example of SNP party unity collapsing...
Good. Every party should have their Bridgen or Corbyn, the outsider derided by the rest.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Its always offended me that Macdonalds serves breakfast util so late - Breakfast should only be available to those who can get their asses out of bed by 9 imho
Discriminatory against night workers and night owls!
Though being serious for a moment it's weird that surprising numbers can still be weirdly judgy about such a thing. I mean, if someone goes to bed 3 hours after another person of course they're likely to get up later, why wouldn't we, I mean they?
#D-FensWasRight
I've only had a McDonalds breakfast once (I think it was classed as a 'big breakfast'), and I think it was one of the worst breakfasts I can remember having. It was awful. Ever since, I've avoided McDonalds before midday.
The Labour posters are a bit like the £350m on the side of the Brexit bus. Everyone who didn't like the bus moaning about the ethics and accuracy, whilst average voter in the Labour posters case will just see that 4000+ nonces have got off prison on the Tories watch.
And there is the problem
As even those in the labour party concede this is a personal attack on Sunak indicting he is the friend of paedophiles which clearly is outrageous and the message is consequently lost
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
Starmer was DPP from Nov 2009 to Nov 2013, so served most of his term under the coalition government of 2010 to 2015.
It didn't bother me (the books were still being used so I knew anyway) but I remember mentioning here to avoid the BBC as a headline gave away a Game of Thrones spoiler.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Its always offended me that Macdonalds serves breakfast util so late - Breakfast should only be available to those who can get their asses out of bed by 9 imho
Discriminatory against night workers and night owls!
Though being serious for a moment it's weird that surprising numbers can still be weirdly judgy about such a thing. I mean, if someone goes to bed 3 hours after another person of course they're likely to get up later, why wouldn't we, I mean they?
#D-FensWasRight
I've only had a McDonalds breakfast once (I think it was classed as a 'big breakfast'), and I think it was one of the worst breakfasts I can remember having. It was awful. Ever since, I've avoided McDonalds before midday.
You absolute arse! I've yet to watch the new season!!! My one TV show I was waiting to watch when it came on a platform I can access, and my anticipation shattered.😔😔
Apologies.
I'll let you off. It's only TV. I'll get over it👍
In my defence, given national media are happy with printing such spoilers, I thought it must be pretty common knowledge anyway. There’s usually something of a consensus around the avoidance of publishing spoilers.
Thank fuck I watched this episode at 6am or I would have exiled you to ConHome for spoiling my favourite show.
Please, not that ! I shall be more careful in future.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Its always offended me that Macdonalds serves breakfast util so late - Breakfast should only be available to those who can get their asses out of bed by 9 imho
Discriminatory against night workers and night owls!
Though being serious for a moment it's weird that surprising numbers can still be weirdly judgy about such a thing. I mean, if someone goes to bed 3 hours after another person of course they're likely to get up later, why wouldn't we, I mean they?
#D-FensWasRight
I've only had a McDonalds breakfast once (I think it was classed as a 'big breakfast'), and I think it was one of the worst breakfasts I can remember having. It was awful. Ever since, I've avoided McDonalds before midday.
I don't think there is all that much to see here. We all know people vote tactically. We all know that party discipline requires the pretence at the official top level that supporters should always vote for the party. We all know that parties want some but not all tactical voting. We all know the unionist vote is split in Scotland much more than the independence vote - fatal in FPTP.
What has happened is that a relevant person in the party has said you should, and the top level has said you shouldn't. That is essential to making the point while being able to deny it.
But public point is still made whatever the denials: In Scotland vote for the party that can beat the SNP. Good.
You absolute arse! I've yet to watch the new season!!! My one TV show I was waiting to watch when it came on a platform I can access, and my anticipation shattered.😔😔
Apologies.
I'll let you off. It's only TV. I'll get over it👍
In my defence, given national media are happy with printing such spoilers, I thought it must be pretty common knowledge anyway. There’s usually something of a consensus around the avoidance of publishing spoilers.
Thank fuck I watched this episode at 6am or I would have exiled you to ConHome for spoiling my favourite show.
Please, not that ! I shall be more careful in future.
Roman, in the process of raising his arm to vote in the No Confidence motion against Logan is pure gold. Logan looks sideways at him and snarls "Ya better be sniffing yer fucking armpit, Romulus" Roman lowers his arm. That quote pops up in my head all the time.
You absolute arse! I've yet to watch the new season!!! My one TV show I was waiting to watch when it came on a platform I can access, and my anticipation shattered.😔😔
Apologies.
I'll let you off. It's only TV. I'll get over it👍
In my defence, given national media are happy with printing such spoilers, I thought it must be pretty common knowledge anyway. There’s usually something of a consensus around the avoidance of publishing spoilers.
Thank fuck I watched this episode at 6am or I would have exiled you to ConHome for spoiling my favourite show.
Please, not that ! I shall be more careful in future.
We virtually never watch anything at the hour it is broadcast most especially if its on commercial television. We are going to watch the Why didn't they ask Evans tgat was broadcast on ITV. But we will wait 3 weeks and then watch the whole thing in one go @2 hrs after scrolling by the reams of adverts and trailers. Much more enjoyable that way.
For those who disapprove of Labour's campaign, how would they suggest that Labour rebuts the Tory accusation that they are "soft on crime", which already exists and is an electorally powerful message? Would it be something like this:
Tories/Sunak: Labour's soft on crime. Weak, weak, weak. Labour/Starmer: No we're not. Tough, tough, tough. Tories/Sunak: Oh, sorry, our mistake. That's fine. Just for a minute we thought you were.
I'm not sure that would work. I'm not a fan of the early ads in this campaign, but it's all part of the methodical way in which Starmer/Labour are seeking to reduce Tory attack points. This week it's 'soft on crime', that's all.
Tell you what, if Sunak/Braverman stop claiming that Labour is soft on crime, criminals and sentencing, Labour will pull this campaign. Deal?
If it were me, I’d highlight closed courts, delays to cases, and use especially heart-rending examples. That would resonate.
I wouldn’t go for Sunak is either a paedo or a friend of paedos. That’s just idiotic.
It’s not the adverts being offensive that interests me. It’s their being inept that’s the issue.
The real issue for Labour is the sentencing guidelines committee. There will be a pile of minutes, detailing the discussions about the guidelines. Including Starmer’s views. It seems unlikely that he was in the hang-em-and-flog-em group ..
An SNP MP has called for the party’s leadership race to be rerun because the timing of Peter Murrell’s arrest last week raised doubts about the “legitimacy” of Humza Yousaf’s win.
Angus MacNeil said that the detention of Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and the former SNP chief executive, meant there were “clearly questions to answer” about the six-week leadership campaign which led to the narrow victory of Yousaf, the “continuity candidate”, over Kate Forbes.
It is alleged that Murrell, who quit his post last month after 20 years, personally intervened to shorten the duration of the contest after his wife’s resignation in mid-February as first minister and party leader.
You should check out SNP MSP James Dornan's reaction to the same story in the Daily Record on twitter where he brands Angus MacNeil the 'Eejit fae the Isles' in the latest example of SNP party unity collapsing...
Good. Every party should have their Bridgen or Corbyn, the outsider derided by the rest.
Question is though: does the SNP now have any insiders?
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
Starmer was DPP from Nov 2009 to Nov 2013, so served most of his term under the coalition government of 2010 to 2015.
Stand corrected.
I think we should both get @Sandpit to review both our posts before we make them or get him to just write both sides of the discussion and cut us out of it. At least it would be accurate and save on posts, particularly the ones where we both have to acknowledge we made a mistake.
Super-rich abandoning Norway at record rate as wealth tax rises slightly https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-record-rate-as-wealth-tax-rises-slightly More than 30 Norwegian billionaires and multimillionaires left Norway in 2022, according to research by the newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv. This was more than the total number of super-rich people who left the country during the previous 13 years, it added. Even more super-rich individuals are expected to leave this year because of the increase in wealth tax in November, costing the government tens of millions lost tax receipts.
Many have moved to Switzerland, where taxes are much lower. They include billionaire fisher turned industrial tycoon Kjell Inge Røkke who moved to the Italian-speaking canton of Lugano, close to his favoured hangout Lake Como and fashion capital Milan.
Røkke, 64, is the fourth-richest Norwegian, with an estimated fortune of about NOK 19.6bn (£1.5bn). In an open letter, he said: “I’ve chosen Lugano as my new residence – it is neither the cheapest nor has the lowest taxes – but in return, it is a great place with a central location in Europe … For those close to the company and to me, I am just a click away.”
His relocation will cost Norway about NOK 175m in lost tax revenue a year. Last year, Røkke was the country’s highest taxed individual. Dagens Næringsliv calculated that he has paid about NOK 1.5bn in tax since 2008.
His move to Switzerland follows a relatively small increase in tax aimed at the country’s super-rich, who face wealth taxes at both the local and state level. That includes a municipal tax of 0.7% on assets in excess of NOK 1.7m for individuals, or NOK 3.4m for couples. There is also a state wealth tax rate of 0.3% on assets above NOK 1.7m. In November, the government raised the state rate to 0.4% for assets above NOK 20m for individuals, and NOK 40m couples, taking the maximum wealth tax rate to 1.1%.
Ole Gjems-Onstad, a professor emeritus at the Norwegian Business School, said he estimated that those who had left the country had a combined fortune of at least NOK 600bn…
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Most voters don't have a clue what the DPP does, Or did, whilst it was Starmer. They will now discover that he was responsible for prosecuting nonces. Or not. And for those that were prosecuted and found guilty, Starmer sat on the sentencing committee.
If you don't think there's a bit Red Wall perception problem coming down the line... Because they really love a liberal lefty lawyer. Getting them off their arses to vote for one is the challenge.
You are unhappy with the posters unfairly portraying Sunak as the nonce's friend, and quite right too. Nonetheless you have been keen for some months now to promote the Starmer-Savile link in your posts. If one slur is unacceptable, so is the other.
I merely point out the political risk to Labour. Starmer is unloved and still largely unknown. He is very exposed to the potential voters - especially in Red Wall seats - being at the very least underwhelmed and quite possibly antagonised when they start paying attention to the liberal lefty lawyer asking to be their PM.
Yes it was foolish, and best avoided, including for the reason you have cited. I am not sure the lefty- lawyer element would be too worrysome, but inviting the Conservative party and their media shills to go (unfairly) full-frontal Savile will. But they were going to do that anyway.
And Labour will whine about. But now they will look that little bit more hypocritical.
And if there is one thing Labour can do without, it is more hypocrisy.
You absolute arse! I've yet to watch the new season!!! My one TV show I was waiting to watch when it came on a platform I can access, and my anticipation shattered.😔😔
Apologies.
I'll let you off. It's only TV. I'll get over it👍
In my defence, given national media are happy with printing such spoilers, I thought it must be pretty common knowledge anyway. There’s usually something of a consensus around the avoidance of publishing spoilers.
Thank fuck I watched this episode at 6am or I would have exiled you to ConHome for spoiling my favourite show.
Please, not that ! I shall be more careful in future.
Conversely, I only heard of this programme yesterday, and now I don't have to watch it. Thanks!
You absolute arse! I've yet to watch the new season!!! My one TV show I was waiting to watch when it came on a platform I can access, and my anticipation shattered.😔😔
Apologies.
I'll let you off. It's only TV. I'll get over it👍
In my defence, given national media are happy with printing such spoilers, I thought it must be pretty common knowledge anyway. There’s usually something of a consensus around the avoidance of publishing spoilers.
Thank fuck I watched this episode at 6am or I would have exiled you to ConHome for spoiling my favourite show.
Please, not that ! I shall be more careful in future.
Conversely, I only heard of this programme yesterday, and now I don't have to watch it. Thanks!
We don't watch any current, broadcast TV, but Succession is definitely something you should watch if you have access to it.
On topic, I think there are too many variables in Scottish politics to be able to see where this one goes:
1. Boundary changes make for some interesting new constituencies. Using mine as an example, I go from being forced to vote SNP Corruption Party to remove Tory Corruption Party from Banff and Buchan, to actually being able to campaign and vote for the LDs as hopefully competitive in the new Aberdeenshire Central seat. 2. So who needs to be tactically voted for is still rooted in the existing constituencies. Until the new ones are implemented and get their head around them, its hard to tell how people will vote to remove x. They don't even know who x is yet! 3. The piling up of party problems. The SNP are corrupt and lead a poor government. The Tories are massively corrupt and lead a terrible government. Tactically voting for either of these two would be madness. Think about it (as I did), realise it's a step too far, then think again. 4. The antipathy of tribal voters. With the SNP sinking fast the threat of independence once again feels way off. So the threat to the union isn't really there. So unionists having to vote for the unpalatable to avoid the unthinkable isn't needed. Lets put it this way, I think it would be a very big assumption for ScotCons to think Labour voters will tactically vote Tory because the SNP are incompetent and corrupt...
The SConservatives don't need the votes of those on the left who have previously tactically voted for the SNP, they just need them to switch back to SLabour or the SLibdems in key seats in the North East and elsewhere in Scotland. I also really think you underestimate the antipathy towards the SNP and Independence of SLabour or SLibdems voters who have already in the recent past tactically voted for the SConservatives in key SConservative/SNP marginal seats, especially when you consider the current policy direction of the SNP/SGreen Government that Humza Yousaf seems determined to continue...
I couldn't see the original FT story behind the payroll. The business is registered to a terraced house in north London. What is the regulation around business addresses? Any chance of regulators popping around for a cup of tea. Who are the directors?
According to Companies House, it doesn't have any!
I'm going to report it to Companies House. Nothing will happen, they're a chocolate teapot.........
Seems I was wrong. The 'firm' in question is an LLP. Unlike Companies, which have to have a natural person, LLPs do not (seems like a loophole here) and it appears both 'members' are BVI companies meaning (as always) that the structure is entirely opaque. The Companies Act 2006 was supposed to do away with this sort of thing, but in reality there are always loopholes. I suspect often done deliberately..........
I do see their accounts are overdue, leading me to HOPE that the accountants in office has discovered their little game and resigned, leaving them with no professional advisers.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
Starmer was DPP from Nov 2009 to Nov 2013, so served most of his term under the coalition government of 2010 to 2015.
Stand corrected.
I think we should both get @Sandpit to review both our posts before we make them or get him to just write both sides of the discussion and cut us out of it. At least it would be accurate and save on posts, particularly the ones where we both have to acknowledge we made a mistake.
Ha ha I was bored enough yesterday to be reading Starmer’s CV, as his first ad made a point of chasing the Tory record on crime back to 2010, when SKS himself was in charge of prosecutions.
The weird thing is that there’s plenty to attack the government on law & order, he’s just chosen a very weird way to go about it. Sunak wasn’t even an MP until 2015.
Labour’s starting point might be long waiting times in criminal courts, leading to more offences from those on bail who later end up in prison. There will definitely be a handful of rapes and murders he could attempt to pin on the government, with some sympathetic victims or families.
In terms of shock TV deaths that was up there with Mrs Landingham in The West Wing and Will in The Good Wife.
Away to ConHome with you!
Those deaths happened in 2001 and 2014.
Look, I'm working my way through a zillion boxsets!
By the time you get round to Succession, I’m hoping you’ll have forgotten the spoiler, then.
I've seen all the previous seasons. Was waiting to buy access to this current one when they all became available. I'm just going to pretend I didn't visit PB this morning, and this conversation never happened!
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
Starmer was DPP from Nov 2009 to Nov 2013, so served most of his term under the coalition government of 2010 to 2015.
Stand corrected.
I think we should both get @Sandpit to review both our posts before we make them or get him to just write both sides of the discussion and cut us out of it. At least it would be accurate and save on posts, particularly the ones where we both have to acknowledge we made a mistake.
Ha ha I was bored enough yesterday to be reading Starmer’s CV, as his first ad made a point of chasing the Tory record on crime back to 2010, when SKS himself was in charge of prosecutions.
The weird thing is that there’s plenty to attack the government on law & order, he’s just chosen a very weird way to go about it. Sunak wasn’t even an MP until 2015.
Labour’s starting point might be long waiting times in criminal courts, leading to more offences from those on bail who later end up in prison. There will definitely be a handful of rapes and murders he could attempt to pin on the government, with some sympathetic victims or families.
Indeed. Instead he has given a hostage to fortune in terms of the recommendations of the guidelines committee. There will be a stack of minutes, somewhere. Either
1) Starmer called for tougher sentencing 2) Stayed silent all the time 3) Argued for less prison.
Given his back ground and politics, we can probably rule out 1)
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don’t know how the numbers actually stack up, but recent reporting would suggest that a woman is more likely to be assaulted by a police officer than by a trans individual.
Male officers are not allowed into womens safe places are they?
The BBC is going into one of its regular self examining spasms about Musky Elon calling it government funded media on twitter. I see George Galloway is still sub titled ‘Russia state-affiliated media’ so the omens aren’t good for the hair transplanted one changing his mind.
You seem to be getting a tad wound up since The SNP became a laughing stock.
Without trying to white knight TUD, who doesn't need that, I can't say I've noticed a difference.
What unionists need to worry about is the SNP getting its act together. Salmond and Sturgeon were formidable operators who got complacent. Sure, the new leader seems sub optimal, but I think the SNP will regroup and come back stronger. The unionists won't be laughing then.
A thing pretty much everyone is guilty of (including me) is an inability to understand how quickly things can change, and more specifically when there's a sudden change in one's favour that it can suddenly change again to a poke in the eye. Who would have thought 3 years ago that the Johnsonian hegemony would become a soiled memory, or that 6 months ago Sturgeon would not be the the ruler of all she surveyed? In a year's time regular 25pt leads for Labour may be remembered as a blip, or not as the case may be.
The question for the SNP is whether the upheavals of the last 2 months is enough to give them a boot up the arse or they need a period in opposition to revitalise. Part of me thinks a period of the dross of Unionist parties (literally in the SCons' case) trying to govern would be the biggest boost the SNP could have, but there is of course the price of being governed by dross to be paid.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
Starmer was DPP from Nov 2009 to Nov 2013, so served most of his term under the coalition government of 2010 to 2015.
Stand corrected.
I think we should both get @Sandpit to review both our posts before we make them or get him to just write both sides of the discussion and cut us out of it. At least it would be accurate and save on posts, particularly the ones where we both have to acknowledge we made a mistake.
Ha ha I was bored enough yesterday to be reading Starmer’s CV, as his first ad made a point of chasing the Tory record on crime back to 2010, when SKS himself was in charge of prosecutions.
The weird thing is that there’s plenty to attack the government on law & order, he’s just chosen a very weird way to go about it. Sunak wasn’t even an MP until 2015…
That’s when everything really started to go downhill.
I couldn't see the original FT story behind the payroll. The business is registered to a terraced house in north London. What is the regulation around business addresses? Any chance of regulators popping around for a cup of tea. Who are the directors?
According to Companies House, it doesn't have any!
I'm going to report it to Companies House. Nothing will happen, they're a chocolate teapot.........
Seems I was wrong. The 'firm' in question is an LLP. Unlike Companies, which have to have a natural person, LLPs do not (seems like a loophole here) and it appears both 'members' are BVI companies meaning (as always) that the structure is entirely opaque. The Companies Act 2006 was supposed to do away with this sort of thing, but in reality there are always loopholes. I suspect often done deliberately..........
I do see their accounts are overdue, leading me to HOPE that the accountants in office has discovered their little game and resigned, leaving them with no professional advisers.
I went to see the original Super Mario Bros film back at the cinema when it came out. I've no idea why, as I wasn't into Nintendo gaming.
The cinema I saw it out was obviously expecting a hit, as they were showing it every half hour. It was like most illumination films - serviceable, probably wouldn't see again.
But cinemas need hits like this, no question, so good news.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Its always offended me that Macdonalds serves breakfast util so late - Breakfast should only be available to those who can get their asses out of bed by 9 imho
Discriminatory against night workers and night owls!
Though being serious for a moment it's weird that surprising numbers can still be weirdly judgy about such a thing. I mean, if someone goes to bed 3 hours after another person of course they're likely to get up later, why wouldn't we, I mean they?
#D-FensWasRight
I've only had a McDonalds breakfast once (I think it was classed as a 'big breakfast'), and I think it was one of the worst breakfasts I can remember having. It was awful. Ever since, I've avoided McDonalds before midday.
I like them myself. The problem is the big binary choice. If you go with a bacon egg macmuffin you don't get the sausage egg macmuffin, and vice versa. Given I only do this about once a quarter that's a very consequential decision to have to make.
Also worth noting that these days the standard side options include things other than hash browns (good news since I'm not keen). As someone who worries about my health I tend to order the 'carrot bag'. This is just what it says on the tin - a little bag of carrots.
The BBC is going into one of its regular self examining spasms about Musky Elon calling it government funded media on twitter. I see George Galloway is still sub titled ‘Russia state-affiliated media’ so the omens aren’t good for the hair transplanted one changing his mind.
You seem to be getting a tad wound up since The SNP became a laughing stock.
Without trying to white knight TUD, who doesn't need that, I can't say I've noticed a difference.
What unionists need to worry about is the SNP getting its act together. Salmond and Sturgeon were formidable operators who got complacent. Sure, the new leader seems sub optimal, but I think the SNP will regroup and come back stronger. The unionists won't be laughing then.
A thing pretty much everyone is guilty of (including me) is an inability to understand how quickly things can change, and more specifically when there's a sudden change in one's favour that it can suddenly change again to a poke in the eye. Who would have thought 3 years ago that the Johnsonian hegemony would become a soiled memory, or that 6 months ago Sturgeon would not be the the ruler of all she surveyed? In a year's time regular 25pt leads for Labour may be remembered as a blip, or not as the case may be.
The question for the SNP is whether the upheavals of the last 2 months is enough to give them a boot up the arse or they need a period in opposition to revitalise. Part of me thinks a period of the dross of Unionist parties (literally in the SCons' case) trying to govern would be the biggest boost the SNP could have, but there is of course the price of being governed by dross to be paid.
Dross? Us down south can only fantasise about dross after the shitshow we've endured the past decade!
And also, because I enjoyed yesterday's discussion around 1992 and the exit poll (and them since) but never got around to adding my own thoughts:
The 1992 exit poll was not as wrong as people like to think. Indeed, at 2019 I distinctly remember a talking head on the BBC always loves to downplay the exit poll by saying "Remember 1992 - it predicted a Labour landslide but the Tories won."
The 1992 Exit poll did no such thing. It predicted a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. Because they always give a twenty seat margin of error, the door was left open to a slender Conservative majority of about 7 (or a Labour largest party the other way) but in the event the Conservatives won with a majority of about 30.
Since then the Exit poll has always been right, to within its 20 seat margin of error. Somewhere or another, I did an Excel file monitoring it but basically:
1992 - Exit poll said Hung Parliament - Con largest party; but leave open Con majority - Result was a Con majority. 1997 & 2001 - Exit poll said Labour landslide and result was the same. 2005 - Exit poll said Labour win, and same result. 2010 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and result was the same (indeed, I think the seat totals were EXACTLY right in this one). 2015 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, but again leave a Con majority open. In the event, the result was a Conservative majority, but within the 20 seat margin of error. 2017 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and this was the result. 2019 - Said Conservative win, and same result.
As noted, the obvious conclusion to draw from the above is that 1992 got it wrong, but it was the first time ever done, and since then the result of the exit poll has always predicted the result virtually accurately, with the exception of 2015. However, the allowed margin of error still had the exit poll broadly right.
Basically, at 10pm on election night, unless the exit poll has the largest party on 305-345, you can basically take the result and go to bed. Indeed, to be fair, you could take the exit poll and go to bed. The result will only be a few seats different, so unless it says something like 'Con 315' (or Labour 315) you can go to bed, knowing the result won't be so different that the result will change.
Of course, saying that doesn't get bums in front of the telly watching the result, so talking heads always say, "Oh, it was wrong in 1992... and it was wrong all the other times... better stay up all night and watch the actual results."
Interesting thread with an alternate take on Macron’s comments in China. Having no knowledge myself of French diplomatic discourse, I’ve no idea how valid are its arguments,
So POLITICO has tried to pull a fast one on Macron's comments, as per usual.
I'm a translator with 25 years' experience too, and I think he overstates it a bit. But he's right that it's a nuanced speech. which essentially defends dialogue with China, observes that they are not that interested in Ukraine (this is where he exagerrates), and urges them to back off. I've not seen the POLITICO piece - what did they say?
The BBC is going into one of its regular self examining spasms about Musky Elon calling it government funded media on twitter. I see George Galloway is still sub titled ‘Russia state-affiliated media’ so the omens aren’t good for the hair transplanted one changing his mind.
You seem to be getting a tad wound up since The SNP became a laughing stock.
Without trying to white knight TUD, who doesn't need that, I can't say I've noticed a difference.
What unionists need to worry about is the SNP getting its act together. Salmond and Sturgeon were formidable operators who got complacent. Sure, the new leader seems sub optimal, but I think the SNP will regroup and come back stronger. The unionists won't be laughing then.
A thing pretty much everyone is guilty of (including me) is an inability to understand how quickly things can change, and more specifically when there's a sudden change in one's favour that it can suddenly change again to a poke in the eye. Who would have thought 3 years ago that the Johnsonian hegemony would become a soiled memory, or that 6 months ago Sturgeon would not be the the ruler of all she surveyed? In a year's time regular 25pt leads for Labour may be remembered as a blip, or not as the case may be.
The question for the SNP is whether the upheavals of the last 2 months is enough to give them a boot up the arse or they need a period in opposition to revitalise. Part of me thinks a period of the dross of Unionist parties (literally in the SCons' case) trying to govern would be the biggest boost the SNP could have, but there is of course the price of being governed by dross to be paid.
Dross? Us down south can only fantasise about dross after the shitshow we've endured the past decade!
Well, Douglas Ross was entirely supportive of the shitshow you endured. Then he wasn't. Then he was again...
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
Starmer was DPP from Nov 2009 to Nov 2013, so served most of his term under the coalition government of 2010 to 2015.
Stand corrected.
I think we should both get @Sandpit to review both our posts before we make them or get him to just write both sides of the discussion and cut us out of it. At least it would be accurate and save on posts, particularly the ones where we both have to acknowledge we made a mistake.
Ha ha I was bored enough yesterday to be reading Starmer’s CV, as his first ad made a point of chasing the Tory record on crime back to 2010, when SKS himself was in charge of prosecutions.
The weird thing is that there’s plenty to attack the government on law & order, he’s just chosen a very weird way to go about it. Sunak wasn’t even an MP until 2015.
Labour’s starting point might be long waiting times in criminal courts, leading to more offences from those on bail who later end up in prison. There will definitely be a handful of rapes and murders he could attempt to pin on the government, with some sympathetic victims or families.
Indeed. Instead he has given a hostage to fortune in terms of the recommendations of the guidelines committee. There will be a stack of minutes, somewhere. Either
1) Starmer called for tougher sentencing 2) Stayed silent all the time 3) Argued for less prison.
Given his back ground and politics, we can probably rule out 1)
3 is usually the best option, once people have been in prison once I believe they are more likely to return there.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
Starmer was DPP from Nov 2009 to Nov 2013, so served most of his term under the coalition government of 2010 to 2015.
Indeed. If he was so unsatisfactory why wasn't he replaced?
Interesting thread with an alternate take on Macron’s comments in China. Having no knowledge myself of French diplomatic discourse, I’ve no idea how valid are its arguments,
So POLITICO has tried to pull a fast one on Macron's comments, as per usual.
I'm a translator with 25 years' experience too, and I think he overstates it a bit. But he's right that it's a nuanced speech. which essentially defends dialogue with China, observes that they are not that interested in Ukraine (this is where he exagerrates), and urges them to back off. I've not seen the POLITICO piece - what did they say?
I narrowly avoided Blake's 7 spoilers a little while before I got the box set.
I do like Avon.
I met the blond girl in Blakes 7 in a pub in Notting hill in the late 70s. I think it might have been called The Castle but not sure since its 45 odd yrs ago . She was just as gorgeous off screen as on. Sally Kynvette was her name iirc....
Isn’t this the argument I’ve repeated for years, people are most likely to vote for the lest worst party able to win the seat.
Which means Scottish sears are SNP or X, northern seats are Labour or Tory and southern seats are where it gets awkward and you need clear information as to whether the fight is Tory v Lib Dem or Tory v Labour.
I couldn't see the original FT story behind the payroll. The business is registered to a terraced house in north London. What is the regulation around business addresses? Any chance of regulators popping around for a cup of tea. Who are the directors?
According to Companies House, it doesn't have any!
I'm going to report it to Companies House. Nothing will happen, they're a chocolate teapot.........
Seems I was wrong. The 'firm' in question is an LLP. Unlike Companies, which have to have a natural person, LLPs do not (seems like a loophole here) and it appears both 'members' are BVI companies meaning (as always) that the structure is entirely opaque. The Companies Act 2006 was supposed to do away with this sort of thing, but in reality there are always loopholes. I suspect often done deliberately..........
I do see their accounts are overdue, leading me to HOPE that the accountants in office has discovered their little game and resigned, leaving them with no professional advisers.
If you click through the controlling companies, resolves to the same address…
I don't see the problem? The correspondence address isn't the residential address, even for PSC's. You are allowed to name the company's registered office as the correspondence address for both directors/members/PSCs. You can hide the residential address for all entities since the directors of Huntingdon Life Sciences started getting letter bombs through their front doors.......
I went to see the original Super Mario Bros film back at the cinema when it came out. I've no idea why, as I wasn't into Nintendo gaming.
I'd take my little one along to it but she's a bit young to concentrate for 90 minutes. My guess is it's going to do very well due to two factors. 1. It's an obvious kids movie and there's been a bit of a desert for those recently. I know the little mermaid was out recently but plenty of parents won't have bothered with that as they'd have had fond memories of the original Disney cartoon so might not have bothered with the new one. Also its live action so less appealing to young kids 2. Nostalgia brings in a whole heap of gen xers and older millennials who had super Mario and Nintendo as part of their upbringing. The original Mario live action movie wasn't great so there's not much to ruin nostalgia wise at the big screen. So all in its going to appeal to a wide range of ages and obviously those with kids can watch it as a double hit of nostalgia and a pleasant kids movie
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
Starmer was DPP from Nov 2009 to Nov 2013, so served most of his term under the coalition government of 2010 to 2015.
Stand corrected.
I think we should both get @Sandpit to review both our posts before we make them or get him to just write both sides of the discussion and cut us out of it. At least it would be accurate and save on posts, particularly the ones where we both have to acknowledge we made a mistake.
Ha ha I was bored enough yesterday to be reading Starmer’s CV, as his first ad made a point of chasing the Tory record on crime back to 2010, when SKS himself was in charge of prosecutions.
The weird thing is that there’s plenty to attack the government on law & order, he’s just chosen a very weird way to go about it. Sunak wasn’t even an MP until 2015.
Labour’s starting point might be long waiting times in criminal courts, leading to more offences from those on bail who later end up in prison. There will definitely be a handful of rapes and murders he could attempt to pin on the government, with some sympathetic victims or families.
Indeed. Instead he has given a hostage to fortune in terms of the recommendations of the guidelines committee. There will be a stack of minutes, somewhere. Either
1) Starmer called for tougher sentencing 2) Stayed silent all the time 3) Argued for less prison.
Given his back ground and politics, we can probably rule out 1)
3 is usually the best option, once people have been in prison once I believe they are more likely to return there.
The trick is filtering out the first timers, from the habitual criminals.
Warehousing the later causes dramatic drops in some crimes - in one instance, one chap was doing a double digit percentage of all burglaries in Wiltshire.
What about non custodial sentences for rape, though?
You absolute arse! I've yet to watch the new season!!! My one TV show I was waiting to watch when it came on a platform I can access, and my anticipation shattered.😔😔
Apologies.
I'll let you off. It's only TV. I'll get over it👍
In my defence, given national media are happy with printing such spoilers, I thought it must be pretty common knowledge anyway. There’s usually something of a consensus around the avoidance of publishing spoilers.
Thank fuck I watched this episode at 6am or I would have exiled you to ConHome for spoiling my favourite show.
Please, not that ! I shall be more careful in future.
Conversely, I only heard of this programme yesterday, and now I don't have to watch it. Thanks!
We don't watch any current, broadcast TV, but Succession is definitely something you should watch if you have access to it.
isn't it just a bunch of filthy rich folk squabbling over the family inheritance.
I couldn't see the original FT story behind the payroll. The business is registered to a terraced house in north London. What is the regulation around business addresses? Any chance of regulators popping around for a cup of tea. Who are the directors?
According to Companies House, it doesn't have any!
I'm going to report it to Companies House. Nothing will happen, they're a chocolate teapot.........
Seems I was wrong. The 'firm' in question is an LLP. Unlike Companies, which have to have a natural person, LLPs do not (seems like a loophole here) and it appears both 'members' are BVI companies meaning (as always) that the structure is entirely opaque. The Companies Act 2006 was supposed to do away with this sort of thing, but in reality there are always loopholes. I suspect often done deliberately..........
I do see their accounts are overdue, leading me to HOPE that the accountants in office has discovered their little game and resigned, leaving them with no professional advisers.
If you click through the controlling companies, resolves to the same address…
I don't see the problem? The correspondence address isn't the residential address, even for PSC's. You are allowed to name the company's registered office as the correspondence address for both directors/members/PSCs. You can hide the residential address for all entities since the directors of Huntingdon Life Sciences started getting letter bombs through their front doors.......
What I mean is that this quickly resolves to a couple of people who are going to be asked some serious questions. They haven’t managed to hide very much. Their residential address is used all over the place, in this.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
Starmer was DPP from Nov 2009 to Nov 2013, so served most of his term under the coalition government of 2010 to 2015.
Stand corrected.
I think we should both get @Sandpit to review both our posts before we make them or get him to just write both sides of the discussion and cut us out of it. At least it would be accurate and save on posts, particularly the ones where we both have to acknowledge we made a mistake.
Ha ha I was bored enough yesterday to be reading Starmer’s CV, as his first ad made a point of chasing the Tory record on crime back to 2010, when SKS himself was in charge of prosecutions.
The weird thing is that there’s plenty to attack the government on law & order, he’s just chosen a very weird way to go about it. Sunak wasn’t even an MP until 2015.
Labour’s starting point might be long waiting times in criminal courts, leading to more offences from those on bail who later end up in prison. There will definitely be a handful of rapes and murders he could attempt to pin on the government, with some sympathetic victims or families.
Indeed. Instead he has given a hostage to fortune in terms of the recommendations of the guidelines committee. There will be a stack of minutes, somewhere. Either
1) Starmer called for tougher sentencing 2) Stayed silent all the time 3) Argued for less prison.
Given his back ground and politics, we can probably rule out 1)
3 is usually the best option, once people have been in prison once I believe they are more likely to return there.
Would the minutes give that much detail? They're not a transcript, after all. Turning once again to Sir Humphrey,
Ah, Prime Minister... It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them and that every member's recollection of them differs violently from every other member's recollection. Consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, from which it emerges with an elegant inevitability that any decision which has been officially reached will have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials and any decision which is not recorded in the minutes has not been officially reached even if one or more members believe they can recollect it, so in this particular case if the decision had been officially reached it would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials. And it isn't so it wasn't.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
I was told yesterday, when I asked a similar question, that his wife was a vicar, and therefore he’ll be busy over Easter. I assume, since the information was supplied by a fellow PB-er, that is true!
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
Starmer was DPP from Nov 2009 to Nov 2013, so served most of his term under the coalition government of 2010 to 2015.
Stand corrected.
I think we should both get @Sandpit to review both our posts before we make them or get him to just write both sides of the discussion and cut us out of it. At least it would be accurate and save on posts, particularly the ones where we both have to acknowledge we made a mistake.
Ha ha I was bored enough yesterday to be reading Starmer’s CV, as his first ad made a point of chasing the Tory record on crime back to 2010, when SKS himself was in charge of prosecutions.
The weird thing is that there’s plenty to attack the government on law & order, he’s just chosen a very weird way to go about it. Sunak wasn’t even an MP until 2015.
Labour’s starting point might be long waiting times in criminal courts, leading to more offences from those on bail who later end up in prison. There will definitely be a handful of rapes and murders he could attempt to pin on the government, with some sympathetic victims or families.
Indeed. Instead he has given a hostage to fortune in terms of the recommendations of the guidelines committee. There will be a stack of minutes, somewhere. Either
1) Starmer called for tougher sentencing 2) Stayed silent all the time 3) Argued for less prison.
Given his back ground and politics, we can probably rule out 1)
3 is usually the best option, once people have been in prison once I believe they are more likely to return there.
Would the minutes give that much detail? They're not a transcript, after all. Turning once again to Sir Humphrey,
Ah, Prime Minister... It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them and that every member's recollection of them differs violently from every other member's recollection. Consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, from which it emerges with an elegant inevitability that any decision which has been officially reached will have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials and any decision which is not recorded in the minutes has not been officially reached even if one or more members believe they can recollect it, so in this particular case if the decision had been officially reached it would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials. And it isn't so it wasn't.
It depends which credentials someone was looking to polish at the time…
The Labour posters are a bit like the £350m on the side of the Brexit bus. Everyone who didn't like the bus moaning about the ethics and accuracy, whilst average voter in the Labour posters case will just see that 4000+ nonces have got off prison on the Tories watch.
And there is the problem
As even those in the labour party concede this is a personal attack on Sunak indicting he is the friend of paedophiles which clearly is outrageous and the message is consequently lost
It hasn't been lost. You may not like the posters but they are entirely in keeping with the electoral strategy that has won several elections for the Cons not to mention Brexit. The posters are calling out a failure of government policy and I think Labour have correctly identified that some voters are rightly concerned that for some serious crimes people don't go to prison, or don't go to prison for long enough. The poster is tugging at that concern in a very effective way by focussing on crimes against children. As far as I can see no-one is actually disputing the number in the poster.
Or maybe the bunch of cowards could just call him out for the crook and liar that he is ? Defending him is a losing proposition for them anyway,
As Trump dominates the airwaves, ‘it feels like f--king 2016’ Trump’s opponents are struggling to find a spotlight of their own in the 2024 campaign. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/10/trump-2024-2016-gop-00091097 …To Republicans who saw Trump steamroll through the primary in 2016, it’s all beginning to look like a rerun. And largely helpless to do anything about Trump on their own, they have been venting frustrations increasingly at the media.
“What’s frustrating to me is we didn’t learn a damn thing from 2015 and 2016 when it comes to just giving him absolute, roadblock media coverage,” said David Kochel, a veteran of six Republican presidential campaigns. “I get it, it’s a big story. But this was getting covered like … the opening of the war in Iraq or the O.J. chase. You couldn’t escape it.”
He said upcoming debates, cattle calls and other events during the campaign will “give everybody an equal footing, an opportunity” to drive their own coverage. But for now, he said, there isn’t much any Trump rival can do.
“I don’t know that there’s a strategy anybody could employ,” he said. “Maybe try shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue.”..
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
Ah, so that’s why that black girl wouldn’t go out with me all those years ago. I was sure she really fancied me! Memories, memories!
As the topic has come up, perhaps we can remind ourselves how well regarded the Paedophile Information Exchange was among some of the great and good of the Labour Party.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Its always offended me that Macdonalds serves breakfast util so late - Breakfast should only be available to those who can get their asses out of bed by 9 imho
Discriminatory against night workers and night owls!
Though being serious for a moment it's weird that surprising numbers can still be weirdly judgy about such a thing. I mean, if someone goes to bed 3 hours after another person of course they're likely to get up later, why wouldn't we, I mean they?
#D-FensWasRight
I've only had a McDonalds breakfast once (I think it was classed as a 'big breakfast'), and I think it was one of the worst breakfasts I can remember having. It was awful. Ever since, I've avoided McDonalds before midday.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Its always offended me that Macdonalds serves breakfast util so late - Breakfast should only be available to those who can get their asses out of bed by 9 imho
Discriminatory against night workers and night owls!
Though being serious for a moment it's weird that surprising numbers can still be weirdly judgy about such a thing. I mean, if someone goes to bed 3 hours after another person of course they're likely to get up later, why wouldn't we, I mean they?
#D-FensWasRight
I've only had a McDonalds breakfast once (I think it was classed as a 'big breakfast'), and I think it was one of the worst breakfasts I can remember having. It was awful. Ever since, I've avoided McDonalds before midday.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
Bit of lazy stereotyping of Guardian readers there.
And also, because I enjoyed yesterday's discussion around 1992 and the exit poll (and them since) but never got around to adding my own thoughts:
The 1992 exit poll was not as wrong as people like to think. Indeed, at 2019 I distinctly remember a talking head on the BBC always loves to downplay the exit poll by saying "Remember 1992 - it predicted a Labour landslide but the Tories won."
The 1992 Exit poll did no such thing. It predicted a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. Because they always give a twenty seat margin of error, the door was left open to a slender Conservative majority of about 7 (or a Labour largest party the other way) but in the event the Conservatives won with a majority of about 30.
Since then the Exit poll has always been right, to within its 20 seat margin of error. Somewhere or another, I did an Excel file monitoring it but basically:
1992 - Exit poll said Hung Parliament - Con largest party; but leave open Con majority - Result was a Con majority. 1997 & 2001 - Exit poll said Labour landslide and result was the same. 2005 - Exit poll said Labour win, and same result. 2010 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and result was the same (indeed, I think the seat totals were EXACTLY right in this one). 2015 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, but again leave a Con majority open. In the event, the result was a Conservative majority, but within the 20 seat margin of error. 2017 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and this was the result. 2019 - Said Conservative win, and same result.
As noted, the obvious conclusion to draw from the above is that 1992 got it wrong, but it was the first time ever done, and since then the result of the exit poll has always predicted the result virtually accurately, with the exception of 2015. However, the allowed margin of error still had the exit poll broadly right.
Basically, at 10pm on election night, unless the exit poll has the largest party on 305-345, you can basically take the result and go to bed. Indeed, to be fair, you could take the exit poll and go to bed. The result will only be a few seats different, so unless it says something like 'Con 315' (or Labour 315) you can go to bed, knowing the result won't be so different that the result will change.
Of course, saying that doesn't get bums in front of the telly watching the result, so talking heads always say, "Oh, it was wrong in 1992... and it was wrong all the other times... better stay up all night and watch the actual results."
The BBC's exit poll in 1987 predicted a Conservative majority of only 26:
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
I think the issue Burchill misses is that this isn't a function of class. It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society... In CITIES, and certain other towns. A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV. Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide. It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up. A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991. More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
As the topic has come up, perhaps we can remind ourselves how well regarded the Paedophile Information Exchange was among some of the great and good of the Labour Party.
thanks for reminding us that the tories are perfectly happy to give it out but can't take it when it's done to them.
And also, because I enjoyed yesterday's discussion around 1992 and the exit poll (and them since) but never got around to adding my own thoughts:
The 1992 exit poll was not as wrong as people like to think. Indeed, at 2019 I distinctly remember a talking head on the BBC always loves to downplay the exit poll by saying "Remember 1992 - it predicted a Labour landslide but the Tories won."
The 1992 Exit poll did no such thing. It predicted a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. Because they always give a twenty seat margin of error, the door was left open to a slender Conservative majority of about 7 (or a Labour largest party the other way) but in the event the Conservatives won with a majority of about 30.
Since then the Exit poll has always been right, to within its 20 seat margin of error. Somewhere or another, I did an Excel file monitoring it but basically:
1992 - Exit poll said Hung Parliament - Con largest party; but leave open Con majority - Result was a Con majority. 1997 & 2001 - Exit poll said Labour landslide and result was the same. 2005 - Exit poll said Labour win, and same result. 2010 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and result was the same (indeed, I think the seat totals were EXACTLY right in this one). 2015 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, but again leave a Con majority open. In the event, the result was a Conservative majority, but within the 20 seat margin of error. 2017 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and this was the result. 2019 - Said Conservative win, and same result.
As noted, the obvious conclusion to draw from the above is that 1992 got it wrong, but it was the first time ever done, and since then the result of the exit poll has always predicted the result virtually accurately, with the exception of 2015. However, the allowed margin of error still had the exit poll broadly right.
Basically, at 10pm on election night, unless the exit poll has the largest party on 305-345, you can basically take the result and go to bed. Indeed, to be fair, you could take the exit poll and go to bed. The result will only be a few seats different, so unless it says something like 'Con 315' (or Labour 315) you can go to bed, knowing the result won't be so different that the result will change.
Of course, saying that doesn't get bums in front of the telly watching the result, so talking heads always say, "Oh, it was wrong in 1992... and it was wrong all the other times... better stay up all night and watch the actual results."
The BBC's exit poll in 1987 predicted a Conservative majority of only 26:
As the topic has come up, perhaps we can remind ourselves how well regarded the Paedophile Information Exchange was among some of the great and good of the Labour Party.
thanks for reminding us that the tories are perfectly happy to give it out but can't take it when it's done to them.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
I was told yesterday, when I asked a similar question, that his wife was a vicar, and therefore he’ll be busy over Easter. I assume, since the information was supplied by a fellow PB-er, that is true!
If you are Anglicans fairly high up on the candle (ie High Church not Low Church / Evangelical), it can be quite all-consuming.
Here, for example, is the Holy Week programme from one London Church, with more than 15 events from Sunday to Sunday: https://asms.uk/holyweek/
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
And also, because I enjoyed yesterday's discussion around 1992 and the exit poll (and them since) but never got around to adding my own thoughts:
The 1992 exit poll was not as wrong as people like to think. Indeed, at 2019 I distinctly remember a talking head on the BBC always loves to downplay the exit poll by saying "Remember 1992 - it predicted a Labour landslide but the Tories won."
The 1992 Exit poll did no such thing. It predicted a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. Because they always give a twenty seat margin of error, the door was left open to a slender Conservative majority of about 7 (or a Labour largest party the other way) but in the event the Conservatives won with a majority of about 30.
Since then the Exit poll has always been right, to within its 20 seat margin of error. Somewhere or another, I did an Excel file monitoring it but basically:
1992 - Exit poll said Hung Parliament - Con largest party; but leave open Con majority - Result was a Con majority. 1997 & 2001 - Exit poll said Labour landslide and result was the same. 2005 - Exit poll said Labour win, and same result. 2010 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and result was the same (indeed, I think the seat totals were EXACTLY right in this one). 2015 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, but again leave a Con majority open. In the event, the result was a Conservative majority, but within the 20 seat margin of error. 2017 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and this was the result. 2019 - Said Conservative win, and same result.
As noted, the obvious conclusion to draw from the above is that 1992 got it wrong, but it was the first time ever done, and since then the result of the exit poll has always predicted the result virtually accurately, with the exception of 2015. However, the allowed margin of error still had the exit poll broadly right.
Basically, at 10pm on election night, unless the exit poll has the largest party on 305-345, you can basically take the result and go to bed. Indeed, to be fair, you could take the exit poll and go to bed. The result will only be a few seats different, so unless it says something like 'Con 315' (or Labour 315) you can go to bed, knowing the result won't be so different that the result will change.
Of course, saying that doesn't get bums in front of the telly watching the result, so talking heads always say, "Oh, it was wrong in 1992... and it was wrong all the other times... better stay up all night and watch the actual results."
The BBC's exit poll in 1987 predicted a Conservative majority of only 26:
A bigger mistake than in 1992 but because it still predicted a Conservative majority it isn't remembered as 1992 is.
I couldn't find it at first, but the 1987 'exit' poll wasn't an exit poll. It was just a normal 'poll'. 1992 revolutionised the way exit polls happened in that they asked people AFTER they'd voted, rather than before.
And I was wrong. The 1992 exit poll was firmly in the 'hung parliament' territory, no matter what (Con short by 25 to Con short by 10 was the range). So that was a completely wrong result (although really, like I say, Con largest party to Con majority isn't that much of a shift).
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
Ah, so that’s why that black girl wouldn’t go out with me all those years ago. I was sure she really fancied me! Memories, memories!
It was startling in the nastiness of it - I overheard some of the abuse. She admitted, eventually, that this happened nearly every time we out.
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
I find the the 'not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims' thing a strange one, because afaics the police record on racism and offending Pakistani Musiims is a wee bit spotty.
o/t but some light relief - some interesting UK candidates for UNESCO World Heritage status - some in the usual vein (Mousa Broch, York city) but Birkhenhead park is a nice idea and the East Atlantic bird migration route is certainly unusual.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
I was told yesterday, when I asked a similar question, that his wife was a vicar, and therefore he’ll be busy over Easter. I assume, since the information was supplied by a fellow PB-er, that is true!
If you are Anglicans fairly high up on the candle (ie High Church not Low Church / Evangelical), it can be quite all-consuming.
Here, for example, is the Holy Week programme from one London Church, with more than 15 events from Sunday to Sunday: https://asms.uk/holyweek/
I absolutely hated church when I was a kid. Now, I almost feel I need a bit of it.
I actually turn off a bit when I get lectured about 'Jesus' (and, yes, I do see the irony in that) but sitting in a holy place that's been there for over 1,000 years and listening to sublime hymns and songs?
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
The political Right are utterly shameless when it comes to class vs race.
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
Why does race only ever matter to the Left when it's minorities being victimised/persecuted/disadvantaged by the evil right-wing White people?
Lot of truth in her analysis. Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
Even ignoring the “wonderful working class” stuff, in the real world there is vastly more social integration at all levels than the Guardian type analyses would have you believe.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
I think the issue Burchill misses is that this isn't a function of class. It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society... In CITIES, and certain other towns. A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV. Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide. It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up. A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991. More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
In the medium to long term, it’s a function of how the different groups regard each other. Integration requires two (or more) groups to be willing to integrate.
And also, because I enjoyed yesterday's discussion around 1992 and the exit poll (and them since) but never got around to adding my own thoughts:
The 1992 exit poll was not as wrong as people like to think. Indeed, at 2019 I distinctly remember a talking head on the BBC always loves to downplay the exit poll by saying "Remember 1992 - it predicted a Labour landslide but the Tories won."
The 1992 Exit poll did no such thing. It predicted a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. Because they always give a twenty seat margin of error, the door was left open to a slender Conservative majority of about 7 (or a Labour largest party the other way) but in the event the Conservatives won with a majority of about 30.
Since then the Exit poll has always been right, to within its 20 seat margin of error. Somewhere or another, I did an Excel file monitoring it but basically:
1992 - Exit poll said Hung Parliament - Con largest party; but leave open Con majority - Result was a Con majority. 1997 & 2001 - Exit poll said Labour landslide and result was the same. 2005 - Exit poll said Labour win, and same result. 2010 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and result was the same (indeed, I think the seat totals were EXACTLY right in this one). 2015 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, but again leave a Con majority open. In the event, the result was a Conservative majority, but within the 20 seat margin of error. 2017 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and this was the result. 2019 - Said Conservative win, and same result.
As noted, the obvious conclusion to draw from the above is that 1992 got it wrong, but it was the first time ever done, and since then the result of the exit poll has always predicted the result virtually accurately, with the exception of 2015. However, the allowed margin of error still had the exit poll broadly right.
Basically, at 10pm on election night, unless the exit poll has the largest party on 305-345, you can basically take the result and go to bed. Indeed, to be fair, you could take the exit poll and go to bed. The result will only be a few seats different, so unless it says something like 'Con 315' (or Labour 315) you can go to bed, knowing the result won't be so different that the result will change.
Of course, saying that doesn't get bums in front of the telly watching the result, so talking heads always say, "Oh, it was wrong in 1992... and it was wrong all the other times... better stay up all night and watch the actual results."
The BBC's exit poll in 1987 predicted a Conservative majority of only 26:
A bigger mistake than in 1992 but because it still predicted a Conservative majority it isn't remembered as 1992 is.
I couldn't find it at first, but the 1987 'exit' poll wasn't an exit poll. It was just a normal 'poll'. 1992 revolutionised the way exit polls happened in that they asked people AFTER they'd voted, rather than before.
And I was wrong. The 1992 exit poll was firmly in the 'hung parliament' territory, no matter what (Con short by 25 to Con short by 10 was the range). So that was a completely wrong result (although really, like I say, Con largest party to Con majority isn't that much of a shift).
Is it that wrong though? The MoE in predicting a seat count out by 30 or so is tiny.
The remarkable thing is just how John Curtice gets it so right, time after time. And that's after you take into account that he undercooked the Tory seat count by 14 in 2015, and Labour by 12 in 2019.
I went to see the original Super Mario Bros film back at the cinema when it came out. I've no idea why, as I wasn't into Nintendo gaming.
Last Monday, I went to the cinema for the first time since Boxing Day 2019 (the debacle that was The Rise of Skywalker!). The film I saw? John Wick 4! It was OK
And also, because I enjoyed yesterday's discussion around 1992 and the exit poll (and them since) but never got around to adding my own thoughts:
The 1992 exit poll was not as wrong as people like to think. Indeed, at 2019 I distinctly remember a talking head on the BBC always loves to downplay the exit poll by saying "Remember 1992 - it predicted a Labour landslide but the Tories won."
The 1992 Exit poll did no such thing. It predicted a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. Because they always give a twenty seat margin of error, the door was left open to a slender Conservative majority of about 7 (or a Labour largest party the other way) but in the event the Conservatives won with a majority of about 30.
Since then the Exit poll has always been right, to within its 20 seat margin of error. Somewhere or another, I did an Excel file monitoring it but basically:
1992 - Exit poll said Hung Parliament - Con largest party; but leave open Con majority - Result was a Con majority. 1997 & 2001 - Exit poll said Labour landslide and result was the same. 2005 - Exit poll said Labour win, and same result. 2010 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and result was the same (indeed, I think the seat totals were EXACTLY right in this one). 2015 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, but again leave a Con majority open. In the event, the result was a Conservative majority, but within the 20 seat margin of error. 2017 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and this was the result. 2019 - Said Conservative win, and same result.
As noted, the obvious conclusion to draw from the above is that 1992 got it wrong, but it was the first time ever done, and since then the result of the exit poll has always predicted the result virtually accurately, with the exception of 2015. However, the allowed margin of error still had the exit poll broadly right.
Basically, at 10pm on election night, unless the exit poll has the largest party on 305-345, you can basically take the result and go to bed. Indeed, to be fair, you could take the exit poll and go to bed. The result will only be a few seats different, so unless it says something like 'Con 315' (or Labour 315) you can go to bed, knowing the result won't be so different that the result will change.
Of course, saying that doesn't get bums in front of the telly watching the result, so talking heads always say, "Oh, it was wrong in 1992... and it was wrong all the other times... better stay up all night and watch the actual results."
The BBC's exit poll in 1987 predicted a Conservative majority of only 26:
A bigger mistake than in 1992 but because it still predicted a Conservative majority it isn't remembered as 1992 is.
I couldn't find it at first, but the 1987 'exit' poll wasn't an exit poll. It was just a normal 'poll'. 1992 revolutionised the way exit polls happened in that they asked people AFTER they'd voted, rather than before.
And I was wrong. The 1992 exit poll was firmly in the 'hung parliament' territory, no matter what (Con short by 25 to Con short by 10 was the range). So that was a completely wrong result (although really, like I say, Con largest party to Con majority isn't that much of a shift).
And also, because I enjoyed yesterday's discussion around 1992 and the exit poll (and them since) but never got around to adding my own thoughts:
The 1992 exit poll was not as wrong as people like to think. Indeed, at 2019 I distinctly remember a talking head on the BBC always loves to downplay the exit poll by saying "Remember 1992 - it predicted a Labour landslide but the Tories won."
The 1992 Exit poll did no such thing. It predicted a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. Because they always give a twenty seat margin of error, the door was left open to a slender Conservative majority of about 7 (or a Labour largest party the other way) but in the event the Conservatives won with a majority of about 30.
Since then the Exit poll has always been right, to within its 20 seat margin of error. Somewhere or another, I did an Excel file monitoring it but basically:
1992 - Exit poll said Hung Parliament - Con largest party; but leave open Con majority - Result was a Con majority. 1997 & 2001 - Exit poll said Labour landslide and result was the same. 2005 - Exit poll said Labour win, and same result. 2010 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and result was the same (indeed, I think the seat totals were EXACTLY right in this one). 2015 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, but again leave a Con majority open. In the event, the result was a Conservative majority, but within the 20 seat margin of error. 2017 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and this was the result. 2019 - Said Conservative win, and same result.
As noted, the obvious conclusion to draw from the above is that 1992 got it wrong, but it was the first time ever done, and since then the result of the exit poll has always predicted the result virtually accurately, with the exception of 2015. However, the allowed margin of error still had the exit poll broadly right.
Basically, at 10pm on election night, unless the exit poll has the largest party on 305-345, you can basically take the result and go to bed. Indeed, to be fair, you could take the exit poll and go to bed. The result will only be a few seats different, so unless it says something like 'Con 315' (or Labour 315) you can go to bed, knowing the result won't be so different that the result will change.
Of course, saying that doesn't get bums in front of the telly watching the result, so talking heads always say, "Oh, it was wrong in 1992... and it was wrong all the other times... better stay up all night and watch the actual results."
The BBC's exit poll in 1987 predicted a Conservative majority of only 26:
A bigger mistake than in 1992 but because it still predicted a Conservative majority it isn't remembered as 1992 is.
I couldn't find it at first, but the 1987 'exit' poll wasn't an exit poll. It was just a normal 'poll'. 1992 revolutionised the way exit polls happened in that they asked people AFTER they'd voted, rather than before.
And I was wrong. The 1992 exit poll was firmly in the 'hung parliament' territory, no matter what (Con short by 25 to Con short by 10 was the range). So that was a completely wrong result (although really, like I say, Con largest party to Con majority isn't that much of a shift).
Is it that wrong though? The MoE in predicting a seat count out by 30 or so is tiny.
The remarkable thing is just how John Curtice gets it so right, time after time. And that's after you take into account that he undercooked the Tory seat count by 14 in 2015, and Labour by 12 in 2019.
Stand to be corrected, but I think the first exit poll as devised by John Curtice and his team was 2005.
Comments
Why firms do that is beyond me.
I shall be more careful in future.
I’d prefer a Big Mac.
What has happened is that a relevant person in the party has said you should, and the top level has said you shouldn't. That is essential to making the point while being able to deny it.
But public point is still made whatever the denials: In Scotland vote for the party that can beat the SNP. Good.
Logan looks sideways at him and snarls
"Ya better be sniffing yer fucking armpit, Romulus"
Roman lowers his arm.
That quote pops up in my head all the time.
Super-rich abandoning Norway at record rate as wealth tax rises slightly
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-record-rate-as-wealth-tax-rises-slightly
More than 30 Norwegian billionaires and multimillionaires left Norway in 2022, according to research by the newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv. This was more than the total number of super-rich people who left the country during the previous 13 years, it added. Even more super-rich individuals are expected to leave this year because of the increase in wealth tax in November, costing the government tens of millions lost tax receipts.
Many have moved to Switzerland, where taxes are much lower. They include billionaire fisher turned industrial tycoon Kjell Inge Røkke who moved to the Italian-speaking canton of Lugano, close to his favoured hangout Lake Como and fashion capital Milan.
Røkke, 64, is the fourth-richest Norwegian, with an estimated fortune of about NOK 19.6bn (£1.5bn). In an open letter, he said: “I’ve chosen Lugano as my new residence – it is neither the cheapest nor has the lowest taxes – but in return, it is a great place with a central location in Europe … For those close to the company and to me, I am just a click away.”
His relocation will cost Norway about NOK 175m in lost tax revenue a year. Last year, Røkke was the country’s highest taxed individual. Dagens Næringsliv calculated that he has paid about NOK 1.5bn in tax since 2008.
His move to Switzerland follows a relatively small increase in tax aimed at the country’s super-rich, who face wealth taxes at both the local and state level. That includes a municipal tax of 0.7% on assets in excess of NOK 1.7m for individuals, or NOK 3.4m for couples. There is also a state wealth tax rate of 0.3% on assets above NOK 1.7m. In November, the government raised the state rate to 0.4% for assets above NOK 20m for individuals, and NOK 40m couples, taking the maximum wealth tax rate to 1.1%.
Ole Gjems-Onstad, a professor emeritus at the Norwegian Business School, said he estimated that those who had left the country had a combined fortune of at least NOK 600bn…
And if there is one thing Labour can do without, it is more hypocrisy.
The Companies Act 2006 was supposed to do away with this sort of thing, but in reality there are always loopholes. I suspect often done deliberately..........
I do see their accounts are overdue, leading me to HOPE that the accountants in office has discovered their little game and resigned, leaving them with no professional advisers.
And death of a (surrogate) mother is a drama staple.
Still had me blubbing, of course.
The weird thing is that there’s plenty to attack the government on law & order, he’s just chosen a very weird way to go about it. Sunak wasn’t even an MP until 2015.
Labour’s starting point might be long waiting times in criminal courts, leading to more offences from those on bail who later end up in prison. There will definitely be a handful of rapes and murders he could attempt to pin on the government, with some sympathetic victims or families.
1) Starmer called for tougher sentencing
2) Stayed silent all the time
3) Argued for less prison.
Given his back ground and politics, we can probably rule out 1)
Anyone seen BBC's Blue Lights? Top notch I think.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/mar/27/blue-lights-review-dont-sleep-on-this-fantastically-tense-belfast-cop-show
"Super Mario Movie's 'sensational' box office takings defy poor reviews"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65230431
I went to see the original Super Mario Bros film back at the cinema when it came out. I've no idea why, as I wasn't into Nintendo gaming.
I narrowly avoided Blake's 7 spoilers a little while before I got the box set.
I do like Avon.
The question for the SNP is whether the upheavals of the last 2 months is enough to give them a boot up the arse or they need a period in opposition to revitalise. Part of me thinks a period of the dross of Unionist parties (literally in the SCons' case) trying to govern would be the biggest boost the SNP could have, but there is of course the price of being governed by dross to be paid.
Note the address
If you click through the controlling companies, resolves to the same address…
But cinemas need hits like this, no question, so good news.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/04/02/the-british-working-class-is-what-real-anti-racism-looks-like/
Also worth noting that these days the standard side options include things other than hash browns (good news since I'm not keen). As someone who worries about my health I tend to order the 'carrot bag'. This is just what it says on the tin - a little bag of carrots.
The 1992 exit poll was not as wrong as people like to think. Indeed, at 2019 I distinctly remember a talking head on the BBC always loves to downplay the exit poll by saying "Remember 1992 - it predicted a Labour landslide but the Tories won."
The 1992 Exit poll did no such thing. It predicted a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. Because they always give a twenty seat margin of error, the door was left open to a slender Conservative majority of about 7 (or a Labour largest party the other way) but in the event the Conservatives won with a majority of about 30.
Since then the Exit poll has always been right, to within its 20 seat margin of error. Somewhere or another, I did an Excel file monitoring it but basically:
1992 - Exit poll said Hung Parliament - Con largest party; but leave open Con majority - Result was a Con majority.
1997 & 2001 - Exit poll said Labour landslide and result was the same.
2005 - Exit poll said Labour win, and same result.
2010 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and result was the same (indeed, I think the seat totals were EXACTLY right in this one).
2015 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, but again leave a Con majority open. In the event, the result was a Conservative majority, but within the 20 seat margin of error.
2017 - Said Conservative largest party in a hung parliament, and this was the result.
2019 - Said Conservative win, and same result.
As noted, the obvious conclusion to draw from the above is that 1992 got it wrong, but it was the first time ever done, and since then the result of the exit poll has always predicted the result virtually accurately, with the exception of 2015. However, the allowed margin of error still had the exit poll broadly right.
Basically, at 10pm on election night, unless the exit poll has the largest party on 305-345, you can basically take the result and go to bed. Indeed, to be fair, you could take the exit poll and go to bed. The result will only be a few seats different, so unless it says something like 'Con 315' (or Labour 315) you can go to bed, knowing the result won't be so different that the result will change.
Of course, saying that doesn't get bums in front of the telly watching the result, so talking heads always say, "Oh, it was wrong in 1992... and it was wrong all the other times... better stay up all night and watch the actual results."
Repeat until dizzy.
If he was so unsatisfactory why wasn't he replaced?
TBF, it sounds like one of those speeches into which it’s possible to read several different meanings.
Isn’t this the argument I’ve repeated for years, people are most likely to vote for the lest worst party able to win the seat.
Which means Scottish sears are SNP or X, northern seats are Labour or Tory and southern seats are where it gets awkward and you need clear information as to whether the fight is Tory v Lib Dem or Tory v Labour.
Didn't pick you for a Marxist, mind.
My guess is it's going to do very well due to two factors.
1. It's an obvious kids movie and there's been a bit of a desert for those recently. I know the little mermaid was out recently but plenty of parents won't have bothered with that as they'd have had fond memories of the original Disney cartoon so might not have bothered with the new one. Also its live action so less appealing to young kids
2. Nostalgia brings in a whole heap of gen xers and older millennials who had super Mario and Nintendo as part of their upbringing.
The original Mario live action movie wasn't great so there's not much to ruin nostalgia wise at the big screen.
So all in its going to appeal to a wide range of ages and obviously those with kids can watch it as a double hit of nostalgia and a pleasant kids movie
Warehousing the later causes dramatic drops in some crimes - in one instance, one chap was doing a double digit percentage of all burglaries in Wiltshire.
What about non custodial sentences for rape, though?
Ross is right to suggest it, and Sunak is right to tell him off for suggesting it.
It's important both that the idea is got out there, and that it is clear that the idea cannot possibly be official Conservative party policy.
Edit: Oh, and the last two paragraphs of the header are mutually exclusive.
GOP embraces a new foreign policy: Bomb Mexico to stop fentanyl
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/10/gop-bomb-mexico-fentanyl-00091132
Ah, Prime Minister... It is characteristic of all committee discussions and decisions that every member has a vivid recollection of them and that every member's recollection of them differs violently from every other member's recollection. Consequently we accept the convention that the official decisions are those and only those which have officially recorded in the minutes by the officials, from which it emerges with an elegant inevitability that any decision which has been officially reached will have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials and any decision which is not recorded in the minutes has not been officially reached even if one or more members believe they can recollect it, so in this particular case if the decision had been officially reached it would have been officially recorded in the minutes by the officials. And it isn't so it wasn't.
At my local schools, for example, you nearly never see the tidy, American style grouping of parents by race/culture. I can’t think of any parents who are both from the same country/ethnicity, pretty much.
The flip side of this is, for instance, the savage abuse that some black women get from some other black women, for going out with a non-black man.
An ex, years back, had to endure some nasty shit of this kind.
France 24 programme on 'Cambridge the most unequal city in the UK:
https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-51/20230407-a-tale-of-one-city-women-and-the-uk-cost-of-living-crisis',
The whole enchilada.
We would have misseed Lily Tomlin as Debbie Fiderer though.
Perhaps shooting a few Guardian reading class enemies is the answer.
Defending him is a losing proposition for them anyway,
As Trump dominates the airwaves, ‘it feels like f--king 2016’
Trump’s opponents are struggling to find a spotlight of their own in the 2024 campaign.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/10/trump-2024-2016-gop-00091097
…To Republicans who saw Trump steamroll through the primary in 2016, it’s all beginning to look like a rerun. And largely helpless to do anything about Trump on their own, they have been venting frustrations increasingly at the media.
“What’s frustrating to me is we didn’t learn a damn thing from 2015 and 2016 when it comes to just giving him absolute, roadblock media coverage,” said David Kochel, a veteran of six Republican presidential campaigns. “I get it, it’s a big story. But this was getting covered like … the opening of the war in Iraq or the O.J. chase. You couldn’t escape it.”
He said upcoming debates, cattle calls and other events during the campaign will “give everybody an equal footing, an opportunity” to drive their own coverage. But for now, he said, there isn’t much any Trump rival can do.
“I don’t know that there’s a strategy anybody could employ,” he said. “Maybe try shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue.”..
Memories, memories!
https://youtu.be/bVahD8xWoxo?t=130
Actual result a majority of over 100.
A bigger mistake than in 1992 but because it still predicted a Conservative majority it isn't remembered as 1992 is.
It's true. Lots of folk our age grew up in a multi-racial society...
In CITIES, and certain other towns.
A heck of a lot outside these places rarely saw a non-white face outside of TV.
Which points again to the urban/small town cultural divide.
It makes little odds what class you were. Far more where you grew up.
A Uni friend of mine took his extremely posh Nigerian heritage girlfriend back to Wigan c 1991.
More than once they were asked if she was Ellery Hanley's sister. Not through racism. But because that was the only black person within their cultural orbit.
So ideal for the modern Tory Party.
Here, for example, is the Holy Week programme from one London Church, with more than 15 events from Sunday to Sunday:
https://asms.uk/holyweek/
They go on and on about the Left being obsessed with race when it's class that should be focussed on. Yet whenever policies are proposed - by the Left naturally since such policies never come from anywhere else - to actually do something serious about eradicating class privilege they scream blue murder about 'politics of envy' and 'marxist madness' and all the rest of it.
Or how about this one? The grooming gangs. People on the Left will make the point that class and misogyny was right there in the mix on why it happened, the police not taking the socially and economically disadvantaged young female victims seriously. And the typical response on the Right? Oh no no no. It was all about 'political correctness' and not wanting to look racist or offend Pakistani Muslims. Very telling. Let's make things all about race so long as it plays to our agenda of targeting blame for our ills on foreigners and minorities.
And I was wrong. The 1992 exit poll was firmly in the 'hung parliament' territory, no matter what (Con short by 25 to Con short by 10 was the range). So that was a completely wrong result (although really, like I say, Con largest party to Con majority isn't that much of a shift).
The first ten minutes is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4YY7KWJAtA
o/t but some light relief - some interesting UK candidates for UNESCO World Heritage status - some in the usual vein (Mousa Broch, York city) but Birkhenhead park is a nice idea and the East Atlantic bird migration route is certainly unusual.
I actually turn off a bit when I get lectured about 'Jesus' (and, yes, I do see the irony in that) but sitting in a holy place that's been there for over 1,000 years and listening to sublime hymns and songs?
I need that.
The remarkable thing is just how John Curtice gets it so right, time after time. And that's after you take into account that he undercooked the Tory seat count by 14 in 2015, and Labour by 12 in 2019.
When you have such blatant lies being spouted it suggests the whole program is worthless.
How is one now supposed to get any work done for the rest of the day?