O/t but my wife is Zooming with three old female friends and they’ve just been very critical of the Labour advertising campaign; the one most of us decried. At least two are regular Labour voters and I don’t think the other two vote Conservative.
They're exactly who Starmer wanted to annoy, so I'm told ("This will annoy all the right people")
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
No you can put me down as a fan of people complying with the law.
The border guard did nothing wrong (as far as we know). The band’s agent screwed up.
The materials required don’t seem particularly onerous to be honest
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
You have to read articles like this REALLY carefully.
They “Paid for expensive customs declarations”. Which are to do with goods, not people.
“Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.
“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.”
What’s not explicitly said, is that the appropriate invitation letter and payment proof was available to the immigration officers at the border. Which means it wasn’t, which was the reason their entry to the UK was refused.
The Guardian have a LOT of form, for such misleading articles on the subject.
"What’s not explicitly said, is that the appropriate invitation letter and payment proof was available to the immigration officers at the border. Which means it wasn’t . ."
What is your proof - if any - for the this assumption? OR is it just your opinion?
The assumption is - I think reasonably - that if they have complied with the requirements for the PPE they would have been allowed into the country
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Yes, lots to play for over the next 18 months...
I wonder how much of an effect there actually being a big election campaign being fought currently is having. A lot of people are getting leaflets and canvassing calls, while voting cards are also landing and postal votes are being organised.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
Keith still not exactly setting the world alight for LOTO
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Breaking our cultural ties with the rest of Europe is an explicit goal of Brexit. The Tory right has always felt threatened by the Continent - the way that the young were forming bonds, falling in love, travelling freely without borders terrified them. They need people to feel isolated and scared of the outside world in order to control them. See how the anti immigrant rhetoric, rather than being tamed by Brexit, has been amped up to new levels of obscenity. They want to create Britain in their image - angry, boring and afraid - and won't stop until they succeed.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
Keith still not exactly setting the world alight for LOTO
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
They complained because they weren't let in you dolt.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
I don't believe those polls.
Why not?
Unlike many on here I'm naturally skeptical of much of the polling and I don't feel in my gut that it is plausible that Starmer is liked more than Sunak at this stage let alone in the future when Sunak will grow differentially more than Starmer IMO. Starmer is just not likeable and the more the politically inactive see of him the less they like him. I'm going with my gut on this.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
R&W has Starmer on 39% (+1%) to Sunak 37% (+2) as best PM and they say this is the lowest lead since the 20th January for Starmer
Starmer's support of the posters is unwise and apparently Diane Abbott has called it racists in a tweet - no love lost there
Meanwhile, Sunak stands above it pleading with all parties in Northern Ireland to come together and reconvene Stormont, whilst preparing to meet Biden off Air Force One in Belfast
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
They complained because they weren't let in you dolt.
And the yanks didn't complain because they had the right paperwork
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
Keith still not exactly setting the world alight for LOTO
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
I don't believe those polls.
Why not?
Unlike many on here I'm naturally skeptical of much of the polling and I don't feel in my gut that it is plausible that Starmer is liked more than Sunak at this stage let alone in the future when Sunak will grow differentially more than Starmer IMO. Starmer is just not likeable and the more the politically inactive see of him the less they like him. I'm going with my gut on this.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
They complained because they weren't let in you dolt.
And the yanks didn't complain because they had the right paperwork
You dolt
They would have complained if there had been lots of it. After all they complained enough about US/Canadian border paperwork.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
Keith still not exactly setting the world alight for LOTO
At this moment, which of the following do Britons think would be the better Prime Minister for the UK? (9 April)
Keir Starmer 39% (+1) Rishi Sunak 37% (+2)
Changes +/- 2 April
Compared to previous LOTOs, he's doing OK. He is not going to set anything alight. But neither is Sunak. My guess is that they will float around each other with pretty much the same ratings from here until the election. I could be wrong, but I don't see any big gaps emerging.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
Keith still not exactly setting the world alight for LOTO
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
They complained because they weren't let in you dolt.
And the yanks didn't complain because they had the right paperwork
You dolt
They would have complained if there had been lots of it. After all they complained enough about US/Canadian border paperwork.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
The much bigger issue isn’t actually touring punk bands, playing paid gigs and with sufficient management - but travelling amateur musicians and orchestras, who tread a fine line of being charities and companies, don’t have professional tour managers and record label agents behind them, and travel in large groups who all need appropriate visas.
I know a little bit about the subject, because it also affects motorsport teams travelling to the Continent. While the F1 teams can obviously throw resources at the paperwork, smaller organisations and individuals entering events in Europe don’t have that luxury.
It’s a genuine negative issue with the UK leaving the EU, and would be a good subject for the next set of negotiations between the parties.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
Keith still not exactly setting the world alight for LOTO
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
Keith still not exactly setting the world alight for LOTO
At this moment, which of the following do Britons think would be the better Prime Minister for the UK? (9 April)
Keir Starmer 39% (+1) Rishi Sunak 37% (+2)
Changes +/- 2 April
Is the lettuce on 44%?
Cos reasons.
It's fair to say that Sunak hasn't hit an iceberg yet.
I'd like to think the reason his wife's non dom status hasn't been much of an issue is because he's the elected one and it's not relevant. But it may be back in a big way for the election.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
They complained because they weren't let in you dolt.
And the yanks didn't complain because they had the right paperwork
You dolt
They would have complained if there had been lots of it. After all they complained enough about US/Canadian border paperwork.
Don't be such a prick.
What a prickish way to judge visa paperwork
UK - Reams of unfair bullshit
EU - Exactly right and what you voted for
If I looked at it I might complain about EU visa paperwork, but that's not really the point.
I don't know why so many people are trying to make it into an EU Vs Britain issue. Britain is free to set its own rules and I criticised them for being shit. They're shit whether the EU's are shit or not.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
They complained because they weren't let in you dolt.
And the yanks didn't complain because they had the right paperwork
You dolt
They would have complained if there had been lots of it. After all they complained enough about US/Canadian border paperwork.
Don't be such a prick.
What a prickish way to judge visa paperwork
UK - Reams of unfair bullshit
EU - Exactly right and what you voted for
If I looked at it I might complain about EU visa paperwork, but that's not really the point.
I bet it’s not much more than one percent of a ream of paperwork to get a band into the UK
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
R&W has Starmer on 39% (+1%) to Sunak 37% (+2) as best PM and they say this is the lowest lead since the 20th January for Starmer
Starmer's support of the posters is unwise and apparently Diane Abbott has called it racists in a tweet - no love lost there
Meanwhile, Sunak stands above it pleading with all parties in Northern Ireland to come together and reconvene Stormont, whilst preparing to meet Biden off Air Force One in Belfast
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
They complained because they weren't let in you dolt.
And the yanks didn't complain because they had the right paperwork
You dolt
They would have complained if there had been lots of it. After all they complained enough about US/Canadian border paperwork.
Don't be such a prick.
What a prickish way to judge visa paperwork
UK - Reams of unfair bullshit
EU - Exactly right and what you voted for
If I looked at it I might complain about EU visa paperwork, but that's not really the point.
I bet it’s not much more than one percent of a ream of paperwork to get a band into the UK
England will not be happy till they stop all foreigners getting here.
I don't know why so many people are trying to make it into an EU Vs Britain issue. Britain is free to set its own rules and I criticised them for being shit. They're shit whether the EU's are shit or not.
You claimed reams of paperwork to get into the UK
You compared it to an American band getting into the EU, using the yardstick of how much they didn't complain
Which is a bit like comparing heights using a ruler and a snail shell
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
R&W has Starmer on 39% (+1%) to Sunak 37% (+2) as best PM and they say this is the lowest lead since the 20th January for Starmer
Starmer's support of the posters is unwise and apparently Diane Abbott has called it racists in a tweet - no love lost there
Meanwhile, Sunak stands above it pleading with all parties in Northern Ireland to come together and reconvene Stormont, whilst preparing to meet Biden off Air Force One in Belfast
He is the grown up competent politician here
They should just reconvene Stormont and empty chair any party (such as DUP) that refuses to take their seats.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
R&W has Starmer on 39% (+1%) to Sunak 37% (+2) as best PM and they say this is the lowest lead since the 20th January for Starmer
Starmer's support of the posters is unwise and apparently Diane Abbott has called it racists in a tweet - no love lost there
Meanwhile, Sunak stands above it pleading with all parties in Northern Ireland to come together and reconvene Stormont, whilst preparing to meet Biden off Air Force One in Belfast
He is the grown up competent politician here
Shame about his party.
He represents his party and change is coming from the Johnson/Truss periods
It will take time but Labour need to guard against complacency and hubris not least with Starmer leading them
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Sleazy, broken Labour, LDs and SNP on the slide!
Mostly Conservative inclined don't knowers returning to the fold. Where "sleazy, broken" should be inserted into that sentence I'll leave to your rapier wits.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
They complained because they weren't let in you dolt.
And the yanks didn't complain because they had the right paperwork
You dolt
They would have complained if there had been lots of it. After all they complained enough about US/Canadian border paperwork.
Don't be such a prick.
What a prickish way to judge visa paperwork
UK - Reams of unfair bullshit
EU - Exactly right and what you voted for
If I looked at it I might complain about EU visa paperwork, but that's not really the point.
I bet it’s not much more than one percent of a ream of paperwork to get a band into the UK
England will not be happy till they stop all foreigners getting here.
Don’t be silly, that means they would be stopped *in England* which would be counterproductive.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
R&W has Starmer on 39% (+1%) to Sunak 37% (+2) as best PM and they say this is the lowest lead since the 20th January for Starmer
Starmer's support of the posters is unwise and apparently Diane Abbott has called it racists in a tweet - no love lost there
Meanwhile, Sunak stands above it pleading with all parties in Northern Ireland to come together and reconvene Stormont, whilst preparing to meet Biden off Air Force One in Belfast
He is the grown up competent politician here
They should just reconvene Stormont and empty chair any party (such as DUP) that refuses to take their seats.
I expect new elections will be called if the DUP cannot see sense
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
No, the customs declarations would be for the equipment. It's the right to work which is at issue.
If the equipment is not staying in the UK, then the customs declarations are neither expensive nor difficult.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
The much bigger issue isn’t actually touring punk bands, playing paid gigs and with sufficient management - but travelling amateur musicians and orchestras, who tread a fine line of being charities and companies, don’t have professional tour managers and record label agents behind them, and travel in large groups who all need appropriate visas.
I know a little bit about the subject, because it also affects motorsport teams travelling to the Continent. While the F1 teams can obviously throw resources at the paperwork, smaller organisations and individuals entering events in Europe don’t have that luxury.
It’s a genuine negative issue with the UK leaving the EU, and would be a good subject for the next set of negotiations between the parties.
There is a difference between freedom of movement and freedom of settlement. With good will - and we finally seem to have some - there must be a way to let people come and go as they please, as long as they can support themselves, have health insurance and are not looking for residence.
So, he's complaining about people taking offence at things... while simultaneously taking offence at gays and the like.
The irony is strong with this one.
True, but he wasn't demanding police go and arrest gays was he?
I hardly think that is the point at issue, unless of course the dolls in the pub were [edit] dressed in pink or something.
That story is barmy on all levels. Six rozzers turn up to nick a bunch of golliwogs from a boozer owned by a couple who think they live in a 70s sitcom. The couple are clearly vile creatures, but 6 coppers? Couldn't they have just sent a pcso to find out what's going on and then clarify the situation and then take appropriate action, rather than make martyrs out of the bigoted tossers?
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
No, the customs declarations would be for the equipment. It's the right to work which is at issue.
They're punks, for heavens sake. You expect paperwork ?
I assume their agent trousered the cash and assumed he could blah his way through border control…
Thought they could just po-go through the green channel.....
So, he's complaining about people taking offence at things... while simultaneously taking offence at gays and the like.
The irony is strong with this one.
True, but he wasn't demanding police go and arrest gays was he?
I hardly think that is the point at issue, unless of course the dolls in the pub were [edit] dressed in pink or something.
That story is barmy on all levels. Six rozzers turn up to nick a bunch of golliwogs from a boozer owned by a couple who think they live in a 70s sitcom. The couple are clearly vile creatures, but 6 coppers? Couldn't they have just sent a pcso to find out what's going on and then clarify the situation?
But then they wouldn’t have had an excuse not to nick illegal motorcyclists.
I see the progressive erosion of Labour's lead and the creepback of the Conservatives is being steadily explained away on here, bit by bit, because it is happening over several months and incrementally.
Nevertheless, it is there.
It won't take much for the Conservatives to get back to the 33-35% bracket, and Labour descend to 37-39%, and then we have a whole different ballgame.
{Note there is zero space the way RDS spells his surname. Says guy who can't spell "Barack" right half the time!}
Word on the street is that both 2024 GOP hopefuls from the great Palmetto State of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, are REALLY running for Vice President. At least THIS cycle.
As for Florida's answer to Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis most definitely has a chance of beating out Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. PROVIDED he can play his cards correctly in a VERY high-stakes poker game.
For one thing, no doubt that majority of GOP politicos would much rather have RDS as their standard-bearer. Especially in swing states and districts. And that growing numbers of Republican voters are clearly coming to same conclusion.
Agree with Haley and Scott are really thinking about the VP side. Personally, I would prefer Scott but either is fine.
I'm not sure about RDS beating Trump which is why I have been beating the drum about RDS doing a deal with Trump and standing as his VP pick (and, yes, I know about the one state rule and it has been gotten round before / is easy to get round). This from the NY Magazine (via MSN):
As for Mike's argument, one counter-argument. If you look at the Republicans and Democrats, their score between March 30th and April 6th on whether he should be prosecuted have barely budged but the Independents showed a large swing towards yes. It could easily swing back. Even those who might be sympathetic to a Trump conviction say the case is not exactly strong.
The New York case is not strong. In fact, it should never have been filed. (But you know what, that's what happens when you have elected prosecutors.)
But there are two significantly more problematic legal cases coming up:
- The Georgia election interference case - Valuing building at one level for tax purposes, and at 3x that level in documentation with the bank: either it's tax fraud or mail fraud.
In addition to these, there's the documents case, where Trump instructed his lawyers to lie and to confirm everything had been returned. Again, this isn't as serious as the mail fraud/tax fraud or electoral interference once, but it's one where his lawyer appears to have effectively flipped, and which there is no meaningful defence.
It is entirely possible that we will not hear again from the New York case, but will hear a lot about the others.
So, he's complaining about people taking offence at things... while simultaneously taking offence at gays and the like.
The irony is strong with this one.
True, but he wasn't demanding police go and arrest gays was he?
I hardly think that is the point at issue, unless of course the dolls in the pub were [edit] dressed in pink or something.
That story is barmy on all levels. Six rozzers turn up to nick a bunch of golliwogs from a boozer owned by a couple who think they live in a 70s sitcom. The couple are clearly vile creatures, but 6 coppers? Couldn't they have just sent a pcso to find out what's going on and then clarify the situation and then take appropriate action, rather than make martyrs out of the bigoted tossers?
For once, I agree with you.
They could, but this is not about that. The police is a institution like any other where its employees need to credentialise themselves with each other, and play the internal politicking game like any other.
Having prioritised a "hate crime" incident like this will look superb at their end of year reviews.
I see the progressive erosion of Labour's lead and the creepback of the Conservatives is being steadily explained away on here, bit by bit, because it is happening over several months and incrementally.
Nevertheless, it is there.
It won't take much for the Conservatives to get back to the 33-35% bracket, and Labour descend to 37-39%, and then we have a whole different ballgame.
I would just comment the 10.1% rise in pensions, benefits and the living wage came in force today but as it is Easter Bank Holiday the new payments would have arrived in bank accounts last Thursday
Like every Guardian article on immigration, there is dissembling here. Reading between the lines, they turned up with no paperwork at all.
According to story cited, one of the Punks says they "paid for expensive customs declarations".
And according to their UK agent, the band was relying on “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption . . . allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey."
So clearly these Punks DID have "paperwork" - just reading what's ON the lines.
No, the customs declarations would be for the equipment. It's the right to work which is at issue.
If the equipment is not staying in the UK, then the customs declarations are neither expensive nor difficult.
The yardstick may be different for a German punk band vs a British financier with homes in London and California
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
R&W has Starmer on 39% (+1%) to Sunak 37% (+2) as best PM and they say this is the lowest lead since the 20th January for Starmer
Starmer's support of the posters is unwise and apparently Diane Abbott has called it racists in a tweet - no love lost there
Meanwhile, Sunak stands above it pleading with all parties in Northern Ireland to come together and reconvene Stormont, whilst preparing to meet Biden off Air Force One in Belfast
He is the grown up competent politician here
Shame about his party.
He represents his party and change is coming from the Johnson/Truss periods
It will take time but Labour need to guard against complacency and hubris not least with Starmer leading them
Not least with the giant political brains coming up with their election strategy.
I am coming round to the view that the political advisor class in this country is almost entirely populated by complete twats.
If this election is a rerun it feels all of a piece with the speedy decline of America, and the West in general
A 78 year old, narcissistic bully possibly awaiting criminal charges, facing an 80 year old in obvious cognitive decline
AGAIN
And all the time, American cities rot from the core, and American life expectancy plunges below that of Panama.
Fucksake America, SORT IT OUT
Nothing left to save when the response to the latest shooting in a school which had an armed guard is "more armed guards". And then the morons saying that keep getting elected.
True . Sad to say the US is fast turning into a failed state .
It is indeed
Read 'Why Nations Fail', The US' biggest problem at the moment is that neither side trusts the other. As a result, yes, the US is starting to take on the characteristics of other failed / dysfunctional states.
Good book, as is the other by the same authors 'The Narrow Corridor: How nations struggle for liberty'.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
The much bigger issue isn’t actually touring punk bands, playing paid gigs and with sufficient management - but travelling amateur musicians and orchestras, who tread a fine line of being charities and companies, don’t have professional tour managers and record label agents behind them, and travel in large groups who all need appropriate visas.
I know a little bit about the subject, because it also affects motorsport teams travelling to the Continent. While the F1 teams can obviously throw resources at the paperwork, smaller organisations and individuals entering events in Europe don’t have that luxury.
It’s a genuine negative issue with the UK leaving the EU, and would be a good subject for the next set of negotiations between the parties.
Excellent post, but I would say that as it is something I have been banging on about for awhile. Motor sport and musicians have a lot in common in this respect. Struggling to think of others that are similarly badly impacted, although I met someone who had a small company constructing bespoke stages, exhibition stands, etc , etc some quite grand and they had to give up on European contracts. Visas and lots of stuff going out, most coming back, but not necessarily in the same form and some lost, makes the red tape a nightmare.
I see the progressive erosion of Labour's lead and the creepback of the Conservatives is being steadily explained away on here, bit by bit, because it is happening over several months and incrementally.
Nevertheless, it is there.
It won't take much for the Conservatives to get back to the 33-35% bracket, and Labour descend to 37-39%, and then we have a whole different ballgame.
The Con revival does seem to be gathering pace. Biggest risk for Con is the ERG mob losing the plot again and blowing the revival out of the water.
However, after their humiliation on the Windsor Framework vote hopefully they've been put back in their box.
I see the progressive erosion of Labour's lead and the creepback of the Conservatives is being steadily explained away on here, bit by bit, because it is happening over several months and incrementally.
Nevertheless, it is there.
It won't take much for the Conservatives to get back to the 33-35% bracket, and Labour descend to 37-39%, and then we have a whole different ballgame.
Yup, and this Labour dirty tricks campaign seems designed to push current Tory undecideds and Tory to Labour switchers back to the Tories.
Labour are extremely panicked by Rishi and they look desperate, the current reaction from Rishi is entirely correct, just let Labour make fools of themselves. It's a bit like Corbyn's free broadband, that was the moment that voters decided the whole Labour offer was just ridiculous. Labour attempting to paint Rishi as a friend of paedos or soft on illegal immigrants or other various types of criminal is just too far removed from the truth that Labour ate losing credibility with voters right now. The more they push this narrative the worse it will get for them.
Sam Freedman @Samfr · 1h This lower lead is due to DKs coming back to the Tories. The number of Tory 2019s saying they'll vote Labour is the same as a few weeks ago when the topline lead was 21pts.
{Note there is zero space the way RDS spells his surname. Says guy who can't spell "Barack" right half the time!}
Word on the street is that both 2024 GOP hopefuls from the great Palmetto State of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, are REALLY running for Vice President. At least THIS cycle.
As for Florida's answer to Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis most definitely has a chance of beating out Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. PROVIDED he can play his cards correctly in a VERY high-stakes poker game.
For one thing, no doubt that majority of GOP politicos would much rather have RDS as their standard-bearer. Especially in swing states and districts. And that growing numbers of Republican voters are clearly coming to same conclusion.
Agree with Haley and Scott are really thinking about the VP side. Personally, I would prefer Scott but either is fine.
I'm not sure about RDS beating Trump which is why I have been beating the drum about RDS doing a deal with Trump and standing as his VP pick (and, yes, I know about the one state rule and it has been gotten round before / is easy to get round). This from the NY Magazine (via MSN):
As for Mike's argument, one counter-argument. If you look at the Republicans and Democrats, their score between March 30th and April 6th on whether he should be prosecuted have barely budged but the Independents showed a large swing towards yes. It could easily swing back. Even those who might be sympathetic to a Trump conviction say the case is not exactly strong.
The New York case is not strong. In fact, it should never have been filed. (But you know what, that's what happens when you have elected prosecutors.)
But there are two significantly more problematic legal cases coming up:
- The Georgia election interference case - Valuing building at one level for tax purposes, and at 3x that level in documentation with the bank: either it's tax fraud or mail fraud.
In addition to these, there's the documents case, where Trump instructed his lawyers to lie and to confirm everything had been returned. Again, this isn't as serious as the mail fraud/tax fraud or electoral interference once, but it's one where his lawyer appears to have effectively flipped, and which there is no meaningful defence.
It is entirely possible that we will not hear again from the New York case, but will hear a lot about the others.
Yes, Georgia seems to be the most problematic of the three. The documents case is definitely an issue but it is clouded by Biden's own mishaps (which seem to have slipped off the radar screen).
I think the problem here for those hoping Trump will be derailed is the order of the cases. For somebody looking to take out Trump, the NY case should not have been the first because it is baking in the idea that the cases against him are politically motivated and that will compromise - potentially - how people look at the other cases (plus the usual grounds for appeal etc). I see Bill Barr came out against it and a lot of vox pop Republican voters who don't want DJT to run again nevertheless say they think the case is BS.
The thing is that, despite all the talk about Trump being a liability, the polls still show a close race in a T v B election with neither looking to have entirely convinced the electorate.
A reply to @Stocky, minus the blockquotes as Vanilla is a pile of glitchy shite.
I still think a Labour minority is the most probable outcome, but we shouldn't dismiss the Tories out of hand.
Starmer isn't exactly setting the world on fire, is he? Other recent polling suggests that a lot of Labour voters are dissatisfied with him, and generating enthusiasm is far more important for Labour, which relies on average for a younger voter who is less likely to bother to turn out, than the Tories, who rely more heavily on old crocs who will traipse to the infants' school down the road regardless.
Labour's main selling point is being Not Tories - but is that sufficient? It's all very well saying that the public is ready for change, but a large fraction of the electorate is actually doing well out of the current dispensation - and what change is Labour offering for everyone else, exactly? Do they have anything to give their supporters to make them enthusiastic about turning out to vote, or are they just going to tax the young to buggery to pay for a handful of extra police and nurses, whilst leaving the better-off elderly to enjoy their ever-growing wealth undisturbed, because Starmer is petrified of upsetting wrinklies?
Covid deaths will have had an insignificant impact on overall electoral demography.
Scotland won't be of very much help to Starmer. The very large fraction of the Scottish electorate that is either fixated on independence, or thinks that the SNP is the only exclusively Scottish choice and the Westminster parties don't really care about Scotland, or both, won't turn out for anyone else. I don't see the SNP doing any worse than in 2017, regardless of how much of a pickle they get themselves into (after all, it feels like they've been the incumbent government in Edinburgh for about a hundred years and still most of their voters seem to be disinterested in change.)
I'm of the opinion that Sunak and Hunt will use any improvement in the economy over the next year to justify bribes in the Spring 2024 budget to try to create a feel good factor and buy off wavering voters. If I were in their place I'd abolish IHT to remind olds with big houses and the heirs who's on their side, and knock a couple of pence off the basic rate of income tax, then go to the King the same week. If rampant inflation has finally calmed down and the finances of better off voters at least are a bit less shit by then, it might stand a chance of working.
Beyond that, there's the usual warning that the total seat gain needed even for Labour to achieve a majority of one is huge, and unusual historically. I'm still expecting a Hung Parliament at this juncture, but I reckon that the probability of a Tory majority is greater than that of a Labour one.
I’ve just ordered my second pint of Strongbow at the High Orchard in Gloucester.
It’s not too bad at all as a pub although the peas I had with the scampi were maybe a bit over cooked. Comfortable, good service, friendly staff, lots of room. And the peas apart the food was good.
{Note there is zero space the way RDS spells his surname. Says guy who can't spell "Barack" right half the time!}
Word on the street is that both 2024 GOP hopefuls from the great Palmetto State of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, are REALLY running for Vice President. At least THIS cycle.
As for Florida's answer to Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis most definitely has a chance of beating out Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. PROVIDED he can play his cards correctly in a VERY high-stakes poker game.
For one thing, no doubt that majority of GOP politicos would much rather have RDS as their standard-bearer. Especially in swing states and districts. And that growing numbers of Republican voters are clearly coming to same conclusion.
Agree with Haley and Scott are really thinking about the VP side. Personally, I would prefer Scott but either is fine.
I'm not sure about RDS beating Trump which is why I have been beating the drum about RDS doing a deal with Trump and standing as his VP pick (and, yes, I know about the one state rule and it has been gotten round before / is easy to get round). This from the NY Magazine (via MSN):
As for Mike's argument, one counter-argument. If you look at the Republicans and Democrats, their score between March 30th and April 6th on whether he should be prosecuted have barely budged but the Independents showed a large swing towards yes. It could easily swing back. Even those who might be sympathetic to a Trump conviction say the case is not exactly strong.
The New York case is not strong. In fact, it should never have been filed. (But you know what, that's what happens when you have elected prosecutors.)
But there are two significantly more problematic legal cases coming up:
- The Georgia election interference case - Valuing building at one level for tax purposes, and at 3x that level in documentation with the bank: either it's tax fraud or mail fraud.
In addition to these, there's the documents case, where Trump instructed his lawyers to lie and to confirm everything had been returned. Again, this isn't as serious as the mail fraud/tax fraud or electoral interference once, but it's one where his lawyer appears to have effectively flipped, and which there is no meaningful defence.
It is entirely possible that we will not hear again from the New York case, but will hear a lot about the others.
Re: Trump's indictment by Manhattan DA, concerns among DEMOCRATS are what accounts for the DROP in Democratic support for actually (as opposed to theoretically) charging 45 with a crime.
We're certain to hear more about Trump's sleazy dealings with Stormy (and visa versa) as the legal process grinds on, and political process ditto.
However, your point re: Trump's legal (also political) jeopardy re: great Peach State of Georgia, is well taken. Though am more doubtful (but still hopeful!) re: other cases you cite.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
They complained because they weren't let in you dolt.
And the yanks didn't complain because they had the right paperwork
You dolt
They would have complained if there had been lots of it. After all they complained enough about US/Canadian border paperwork.
Don't be such a prick.
What a prickish way to judge visa paperwork
UK - Reams of unfair bullshit
EU - Exactly right and what you voted for
If I looked at it I might complain about EU visa paperwork, but that's not really the point.
Actually, it’s the almost the same point. The Brexiteers decided to introduce barriers which weren’t there before, which greatly restrict such cultural exchange with Europe. It’s a direct result of the crappy deal we ended up doing.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
R&W has Starmer on 39% (+1%) to Sunak 37% (+2) as best PM and they say this is the lowest lead since the 20th January for Starmer
Starmer's support of the posters is unwise and apparently Diane Abbott has called it racists in a tweet - no love lost there
Meanwhile, Sunak stands above it pleading with all parties in Northern Ireland to come together and reconvene Stormont, whilst preparing to meet Biden off Air Force One in Belfast
He is the grown up competent politician here
They should just reconvene Stormont and empty chair any party (such as DUP) that refuses to take their seats.
I expect new elections will be called if the DUP cannot see sense
I would be delighted if Sunak got agreement from Biden that if he sidelined the DUP, he would be supported by the USA.
So independents might affect the Republican nomination, as well as the general election.
(One thing that is difficult to judge at this point: Whether the major news organizations will be more, shall we say, professional, in their coverage. In 2016, they gave Trump incredible amounts of air time and newspaper space, compared to more qualified candidates. Les Moonves of CBS admitted they were doing it for commercial reasons, though he thought Trump would be bad for the nation.
That the coverage was negative actually helped Trump in the nomination fight, since many Republicans distrust our "mainstream" news organizations. Similarly, I wouldn't be suprised to learn that some Conservative voters in the UK might be more attracted to a candidate -- if they were attacked by the Guardian.)
{Note there is zero space the way RDS spells his surname. Says guy who can't spell "Barack" right half the time!}
Word on the street is that both 2024 GOP hopefuls from the great Palmetto State of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, are REALLY running for Vice President. At least THIS cycle.
As for Florida's answer to Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis most definitely has a chance of beating out Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. PROVIDED he can play his cards correctly in a VERY high-stakes poker game.
For one thing, no doubt that majority of GOP politicos would much rather have RDS as their standard-bearer. Especially in swing states and districts. And that growing numbers of Republican voters are clearly coming to same conclusion.
Agree with Haley and Scott are really thinking about the VP side. Personally, I would prefer Scott but either is fine.
I'm not sure about RDS beating Trump which is why I have been beating the drum about RDS doing a deal with Trump and standing as his VP pick (and, yes, I know about the one state rule and it has been gotten round before / is easy to get round). This from the NY Magazine (via MSN):
As for Mike's argument, one counter-argument. If you look at the Republicans and Democrats, their score between March 30th and April 6th on whether he should be prosecuted have barely budged but the Independents showed a large swing towards yes. It could easily swing back. Even those who might be sympathetic to a Trump conviction say the case is not exactly strong.
The New York case is not strong. In fact, it should never have been filed. (But you know what, that's what happens when you have elected prosecutors.)
But there are two significantly more problematic legal cases coming up:
- The Georgia election interference case - Valuing building at one level for tax purposes, and at 3x that level in documentation with the bank: either it's tax fraud or mail fraud.
In addition to these, there's the documents case, where Trump instructed his lawyers to lie and to confirm everything had been returned. Again, this isn't as serious as the mail fraud/tax fraud or electoral interference once, but it's one where his lawyer appears to have effectively flipped, and which there is no meaningful defence.
It is entirely possible that we will not hear again from the New York case, but will hear a lot about the others.
Yes, Georgia seems to be the most problematic of the three. The documents case is definitely an issue but it is clouded by Biden's own mishaps (which seem to have slipped off the radar screen).
I think the problem here for those hoping Trump will be derailed is the order of the cases. For somebody looking to take out Trump, the NY case should not have been the first because it is baking in the idea that the cases against him are politically motivated and that will compromise - potentially - how people look at the other cases (plus the usual grounds for appeal etc). I see Bill Barr came out against it and a lot of vox pop Republican voters who don't want DJT to run again nevertheless say they think the case is BS.
The thing is that, despite all the talk about Trump being a liability, the polls still show a close race in a T v B election with neither looking to have entirely convinced the electorate.
The documents case is not about the documents any more, it is about Trump's instruction to his lawyer to sign an affidavit confirming that all documents had been returned.
The original offence is a misdemeanor. The cover up likely a felony.
On the politics side, well, that's what happens when you have elected DAs. It doesn't help, too, that Trump has - like many Billionaires, I suspect - skated the line many many times.
If this election is a rerun it feels all of a piece with the speedy decline of America, and the West in general
A 78 year old, narcissistic bully possibly awaiting criminal charges, facing an 80 year old in obvious cognitive decline
AGAIN
And all the time, American cities rot from the core, and American life expectancy plunges below that of Panama.
Fucksake America, SORT IT OUT
Nothing left to save when the response to the latest shooting in a school which had an armed guard is "more armed guards". And then the morons saying that keep getting elected.
True . Sad to say the US is fast turning into a failed state .
It is indeed
Read 'Why Nations Fail', The US' biggest problem at the moment is that neither side trusts the other. As a result, yes, the US is starting to take on the characteristics of other failed / dysfunctional states.
Good book, as is the other by the same authors 'The Narrow Corridor: How nations struggle for liberty'.
Cheers, will take a look.
Reading 'The Digital Silk Road' at the moment. Also worth a read.
{Note there is zero space the way RDS spells his surname. Says guy who can't spell "Barack" right half the time!}
Word on the street is that both 2024 GOP hopefuls from the great Palmetto State of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, are REALLY running for Vice President. At least THIS cycle.
As for Florida's answer to Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis most definitely has a chance of beating out Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. PROVIDED he can play his cards correctly in a VERY high-stakes poker game.
For one thing, no doubt that majority of GOP politicos would much rather have RDS as their standard-bearer. Especially in swing states and districts. And that growing numbers of Republican voters are clearly coming to same conclusion.
Agree with Haley and Scott are really thinking about the VP side. Personally, I would prefer Scott but either is fine.
I'm not sure about RDS beating Trump which is why I have been beating the drum about RDS doing a deal with Trump and standing as his VP pick (and, yes, I know about the one state rule and it has been gotten round before / is easy to get round). This from the NY Magazine (via MSN):
As for Mike's argument, one counter-argument. If you look at the Republicans and Democrats, their score between March 30th and April 6th on whether he should be prosecuted have barely budged but the Independents showed a large swing towards yes. It could easily swing back. Even those who might be sympathetic to a Trump conviction say the case is not exactly strong.
The New York case is not strong. In fact, it should never have been filed. (But you know what, that's what happens when you have elected prosecutors.)
But there are two significantly more problematic legal cases coming up:
- The Georgia election interference case - Valuing building at one level for tax purposes, and at 3x that level in documentation with the bank: either it's tax fraud or mail fraud.
In addition to these, there's the documents case, where Trump instructed his lawyers to lie and to confirm everything had been returned. Again, this isn't as serious as the mail fraud/tax fraud or electoral interference once, but it's one where his lawyer appears to have effectively flipped, and which there is no meaningful defence.
It is entirely possible that we will not hear again from the New York case, but will hear a lot about the others.
Yes, Georgia seems to be the most problematic of the three. The documents case is definitely an issue but it is clouded by Biden's own mishaps (which seem to have slipped off the radar screen).
I think the problem here for those hoping Trump will be derailed is the order of the cases. For somebody looking to take out Trump, the NY case should not have been the first because it is baking in the idea that the cases against him are politically motivated and that will compromise - potentially - how people look at the other cases (plus the usual grounds for appeal etc). I see Bill Barr came out against it and a lot of vox pop Republican voters who don't want DJT to run again nevertheless say they think the case is BS.
The thing is that, despite all the talk about Trump being a liability, the polls still show a close race in a T v B election with neither looking to have entirely convinced the electorate.
The Biden documents may well be far less in scale, and without what seems like deliberate obstruction in returning the damn things as in the Trump case, but it does mean the waters can look muddier even if the specifics end up being quite different and it shouldn't be a good deflection.
Georgia seems like it should be cut and dried, since if what he did was not illegal it feels like it should be, but the law can be a weird one. Apparently his lack of understanding, well, anything, could be a handy defence.
New York looks highly technical as it involves just about being within statute of limitations (thanks to a covid extension), and requirement of his actions involving commission of another crime in order to be charged as a felony etc. So it seems much harder to prove amad vulnerable to legal challenges.
I really enjoy trying wines made from unfashionable grape varieties, but made with modern techniques and made up to a quality instead of down to a price. Not all of them are good, but some of them are very good indeed.
Redfield & Wilton Strategies @RedfieldWilton · 15s Labour leads by 14%, the narrowest lead for Labour since Rishi Sunak became PM.
Westminster VI (9 April):
Labour 44% (-1) Conservative 30% (+2) Liberal Democrat 10% (-2) Reform UK 6% (+1) Green 5% (+1) SNP 3% (-1) Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 2 April
Definite narrowing. It is undeniable. It's clear that previous Don't Knows are returning to the Tories. What we have yet to see, though, is any sign of direct switchers to Labour having a change of heart. It starts to get very interesting if that happens.
Labour will form the next government, I'm very sure.
Cameron struggled to get a majority and Conservatives are in a much worse state than they were then. Sunak is popular but not more so than Cameron was. Plus Covid's removed some older voters.
Boundary change may favour the CP a bit but Scotland is the dynamic which will get Labour over the line, probably into majority territory. The implosion of SNP will prove decisive. Don't rely on 2019 GE as any sort of guide to 2024, that's my advice.
Sunak is very good, and more popular than Starmer, but it won't be nearly enough to counteract time for a change.
There is not much polling evidence that Sunak is more popular than Starmer. He's just not as unpopular as either Johnson or Truss. In today's R&W, for example, Starmer is ahead on both favourability and best PM.
R&W has Starmer on 39% (+1%) to Sunak 37% (+2) as best PM and they say this is the lowest lead since the 20th January for Starmer
Starmer's support of the posters is unwise and apparently Diane Abbott has called it racists in a tweet - no love lost there
Meanwhile, Sunak stands above it pleading with all parties in Northern Ireland to come together and reconvene Stormont, whilst preparing to meet Biden off Air Force One in Belfast
He is the grown up competent politician here
They should just reconvene Stormont and empty chair any party (such as DUP) that refuses to take their seats.
I expect new elections will be called if the DUP cannot see sense
I would be delighted if Sunak got agreement from Biden that if he sidelined the DUP, he would be supported by the USA.
I wouldn’t see how the US would help there. It’s the other side they usually support.
He just needs to sideline the DUP on the grounds they are antediluvian nutcases. Apart from a rapidly declining constituency in NI itself everyone would be whistling and cheering him on.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
They complained because they weren't let in you dolt.
And the yanks didn't complain because they had the right paperwork
You dolt
They would have complained if there had been lots of it. After all they complained enough about US/Canadian border paperwork.
Don't be such a prick.
What a prickish way to judge visa paperwork
UK - Reams of unfair bullshit
EU - Exactly right and what you voted for
If I looked at it I might complain about EU visa paperwork, but that's not really the point.
I bet it’s not much more than one percent of a ream of paperwork to get a band into the UK
You're going to nitpick a common figure of speech because you want to deflect attention from the freedom-hating choices of the Conservative government.
{Note there is zero space the way RDS spells his surname. Says guy who can't spell "Barack" right half the time!}
Word on the street is that both 2024 GOP hopefuls from the great Palmetto State of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, are REALLY running for Vice President. At least THIS cycle.
As for Florida's answer to Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis most definitely has a chance of beating out Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. PROVIDED he can play his cards correctly in a VERY high-stakes poker game.
For one thing, no doubt that majority of GOP politicos would much rather have RDS as their standard-bearer. Especially in swing states and districts. And that growing numbers of Republican voters are clearly coming to same conclusion.
Agree with Haley and Scott are really thinking about the VP side. Personally, I would prefer Scott but either is fine.
I'm not sure about RDS beating Trump which is why I have been beating the drum about RDS doing a deal with Trump and standing as his VP pick (and, yes, I know about the one state rule and it has been gotten round before / is easy to get round). This from the NY Magazine (via MSN):
As for Mike's argument, one counter-argument. If you look at the Republicans and Democrats, their score between March 30th and April 6th on whether he should be prosecuted have barely budged but the Independents showed a large swing towards yes. It could easily swing back. Even those who might be sympathetic to a Trump conviction say the case is not exactly strong.
The New York case is not strong. In fact, it should never have been filed. (But you know what, that's what happens when you have elected prosecutors.)
But there are two significantly more problematic legal cases coming up:
- The Georgia election interference case - Valuing building at one level for tax purposes, and at 3x that level in documentation with the bank: either it's tax fraud or mail fraud.
In addition to these, there's the documents case, where Trump instructed his lawyers to lie and to confirm everything had been returned. Again, this isn't as serious as the mail fraud/tax fraud or electoral interference once, but it's one where his lawyer appears to have effectively flipped, and which there is no meaningful defence.
It is entirely possible that we will not hear again from the New York case, but will hear a lot about the others.
Yes, Georgia seems to be the most problematic of the three. The documents case is definitely an issue but it is clouded by Biden's own mishaps (which seem to have slipped off the radar screen).
I think the problem here for those hoping Trump will be derailed is the order of the cases. For somebody looking to take out Trump, the NY case should not have been the first because it is baking in the idea that the cases against him are politically motivated and that will compromise - potentially - how people look at the other cases (plus the usual grounds for appeal etc). I see Bill Barr came out against it and a lot of vox pop Republican voters who don't want DJT to run again nevertheless say they think the case is BS.
The thing is that, despite all the talk about Trump being a liability, the polls still show a close race in a T v B election with neither looking to have entirely convinced the electorate.
The documents case is not about the documents any more, it is about Trump's instruction to his lawyer to sign an affidavit confirming that all documents had been returned.
The original offence is a misdemeanor. The cover up likely a felony.
On the politics side, well, that's what happens when you have elected DAs. It doesn't help, too, that Trump has - like many Billionaires, I suspect - skated the line many many times.
I just really don't get that whole case. It's pretty clear government figures tend to hold onto documents they are not supposed to, but when it comes to light they co-operate, yet he may have ended up committing crimes because for some bizarre reason he is insistent that government documents belong to him personally and he just does not want to return them.
So independents might affect the Republican nomination, as well as the general election.
(One thing that is difficult to judge at this point: Whether the major news organizations will be more, shall we say, professional, in their coverage. In 2016, they gave Trump incredible amounts of air time and newspaper space, compared to more qualified candidates. Les Moonves of CBS admitted they were doing it for commercial reasons, though he thought Trump would be bad for the nation.
That the coverage was negative actually helped Trump in the nomination fight, since many Republicans distrust our "mainstream" news organizations. Similarly, I wouldn't be suprised to learn that some Conservative voters in the UK might be more attracted to a candidate -- if they were attacked by the Guardian.)
If the rest of the bunch are to have a chance, their fate lies in their own hands. Temporising over Trump, even defending him as they’ve done so far, is a recipe for dismal failure just like the last time.
{Note there is zero space the way RDS spells his surname. Says guy who can't spell "Barack" right half the time!}
Word on the street is that both 2024 GOP hopefuls from the great Palmetto State of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, are REALLY running for Vice President. At least THIS cycle.
As for Florida's answer to Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis most definitely has a chance of beating out Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. PROVIDED he can play his cards correctly in a VERY high-stakes poker game.
For one thing, no doubt that majority of GOP politicos would much rather have RDS as their standard-bearer. Especially in swing states and districts. And that growing numbers of Republican voters are clearly coming to same conclusion.
Agree with Haley and Scott are really thinking about the VP side. Personally, I would prefer Scott but either is fine.
I'm not sure about RDS beating Trump which is why I have been beating the drum about RDS doing a deal with Trump and standing as his VP pick (and, yes, I know about the one state rule and it has been gotten round before / is easy to get round). This from the NY Magazine (via MSN):
As for Mike's argument, one counter-argument. If you look at the Republicans and Democrats, their score between March 30th and April 6th on whether he should be prosecuted have barely budged but the Independents showed a large swing towards yes. It could easily swing back. Even those who might be sympathetic to a Trump conviction say the case is not exactly strong.
The New York case is not strong. In fact, it should never have been filed. (But you know what, that's what happens when you have elected prosecutors.)
But there are two significantly more problematic legal cases coming up:
- The Georgia election interference case - Valuing building at one level for tax purposes, and at 3x that level in documentation with the bank: either it's tax fraud or mail fraud.
In addition to these, there's the documents case, where Trump instructed his lawyers to lie and to confirm everything had been returned. Again, this isn't as serious as the mail fraud/tax fraud or electoral interference once, but it's one where his lawyer appears to have effectively flipped, and which there is no meaningful defence.
It is entirely possible that we will not hear again from the New York case, but will hear a lot about the others.
Yes, Georgia seems to be the most problematic of the three. The documents case is definitely an issue but it is clouded by Biden's own mishaps (which seem to have slipped off the radar screen).
I think the problem here for those hoping Trump will be derailed is the order of the cases. For somebody looking to take out Trump, the NY case should not have been the first because it is baking in the idea that the cases against him are politically motivated and that will compromise - potentially - how people look at the other cases (plus the usual grounds for appeal etc). I see Bill Barr came out against it and a lot of vox pop Republican voters who don't want DJT to run again nevertheless say they think the case is BS.
The thing is that, despite all the talk about Trump being a liability, the polls still show a close race in a T v B election with neither looking to have entirely convinced the electorate.
The documents case is not about the documents any more, it is about Trump's instruction to his lawyer to sign an affidavit confirming that all documents had been returned.
The original offence is a misdemeanor. The cover up likely a felony.
On the politics side, well, that's what happens when you have elected DAs. It doesn't help, too, that Trump has - like many Billionaires, I suspect - skated the line many many times.
correction - many, many, MANY times squared, then cubed, then . . .
I don't know why so many people are trying to make it into an EU Vs Britain issue. Britain is free to set its own rules and I criticised them for being shit. They're shit whether the EU's are shit or not.
You claimed reams of paperwork to get into the UK
You compared it to an American band getting into the EU, using the yardstick of how much they didn't complain
Which is a bit like comparing heights using a ruler and a snail shell
I complained about British bureaucracy, red tape and infringements on liberty and I made the mistake of being drawn into a relative argument about the EU.
BorderGuard: Are you going to use the “certificate of sponsorship route”
Band: “No we are going to use the Permitted Paid Exemption route instead”
BG: “ok. Please show me your formal invitation, proof of funds and return ticket”
Band: errr…
The bit in italics is not in the article. It goes directly from the band intention to use the PPE route to them being denied entry and blaming Brexit.
Do you think it would be helpful for us to be told *why* they were denied entry under the PPE route?
Okay, fine. I'll chalk your down as another fan of bureaucracy and red tape and an enemy to freedom then, because your defence of my criticism is that they didn't have the necessary paperwork to fulfill the rules.
Why should they need reams of paperwork in the first place? What good does it do?
And it's not about Brexit. It's about the government's choice to impose bureaucracy and red tape because the freedom of foreign punk bands to come and play in Britain threatens them, because they hate freedom.
Did you care before Brexit when non-EU bands faced the same hurdles? Do you know what rules other countries have? Are ours unusually onerous, or about normal?
I don't need to be an expert in the field, or have a decades-long campaigning record on the issue, before complaining about it.
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
So it would have been fine if the German punks hadn't complained..
They complained because they weren't let in you dolt.
And the yanks didn't complain because they had the right paperwork
You dolt
They would have complained if there had been lots of it. After all they complained enough about US/Canadian border paperwork.
Don't be such a prick.
What a prickish way to judge visa paperwork
UK - Reams of unfair bullshit
EU - Exactly right and what you voted for
If I looked at it I might complain about EU visa paperwork, but that's not really the point.
I bet it’s not much more than one percent of a ream of paperwork to get a band into the UK
You're going to nitpick a common figure of speech because you want to deflect attention from the freedom-hating choices of the Conservative government.
Epic sad.
We wanted visa exemptions for touring bands
The EU voted them down
Well they probably didn't vote them down, but it still had something to do with EU democracy
A reply to @Stocky, minus the blockquotes as Vanilla is a pile of glitchy shite.
I still think a Labour minority is the most probable outcome, but we shouldn't dismiss the Tories out of hand.
Starmer isn't exactly setting the world on fire, is he? Other recent polling suggests that a lot of Labour voters are dissatisfied with him, and generating enthusiasm is far more important for Labour, which relies on average for a younger voter who is less likely to bother to turn out, than the Tories, who rely more heavily on old crocs who will traipse to the infants' school down the road regardless.
Labour's main selling point is being Not Tories - but is that sufficient? It's all very well saying that the public is ready for change, but a large fraction of the electorate is actually doing well out of the current dispensation - and what change is Labour offering for everyone else, exactly? Do they have anything to give their supporters to make them enthusiastic about turning out to vote, or are they just going to tax the young to buggery to pay for a handful of extra police and nurses, whilst leaving the better-off elderly to enjoy their ever-growing wealth undisturbed, because Starmer is petrified of upsetting wrinklies?
Covid deaths will have had an insignificant impact on overall electoral demography.
Scotland won't be of very much help to Starmer. The very large fraction of the Scottish electorate that is either fixated on independence, or thinks that the SNP is the only exclusively Scottish choice and the Westminster parties don't really care about Scotland, or both, won't turn out for anyone else. I don't see the SNP doing any worse than in 2017, regardless of how much of a pickle they get themselves into (after all, it feels like they've been the incumbent government in Edinburgh for about a hundred years and still most of their voters seem to be disinterested in change.)
I'm of the opinion that Sunak and Hunt will use any improvement in the economy over the next year to justify bribes in the Spring 2024 budget to try to create a feel good factor and buy off wavering voters. If I were in their place I'd abolish IHT to remind olds with big houses and the heirs who's on their side, and knock a couple of pence off the basic rate of income tax, then go to the King the same week. If rampant inflation has finally calmed down and the finances of better off voters at least are a bit less shit by then, it might stand a chance of working.
Beyond that, there's the usual warning that the total seat gain needed even for Labour to achieve a majority of one is huge, and unusual historically. I'm still expecting a Hung Parliament at this juncture, but I reckon that the probability of a Tory majority is greater than that of a Labour one.
The comments on here from Labour supporters about Labour's lead being still strong have an echo of the Tories' ones about the Conservatives' lead being healthy even when Johnson was having his problems. These things tend not to be a problem until they are a problem, if you see what I mean.
FWIW, I think @MaxPB and @Casino_Royale are right in that Labour are somewhat panicking about Rishi. He is starting to find his form, is coming up with initiatives that are being received with at least relief that it is not 100% Johnsonian rhetoric (Rwanda aside) and Labour have shot themselves in the foot with the series of posters.
Where does it go from here? Labour really needs to come out with positive reasons to vote for them, of which the public think there are few. I personally think there is a lot of traction in the 'Big State' line and there are probably things that can be done to improve matters that are more a matter of process than throwing money (for example, I would take a look at the university system for medicine students and see if there is anything that can be done to increase the future supply of doctors and / or offer cancellation of student debt if doctors agree to go into short-staffed areas).
A reply to @Stocky, minus the blockquotes as Vanilla is a pile of glitchy shite.
I still think a Labour minority is the most probable outcome, but we shouldn't dismiss the Tories out of hand.
Starmer isn't exactly setting the world on fire, is he? Other recent polling suggests that a lot of Labour voters are dissatisfied with him, and generating enthusiasm is far more important for Labour, which relies on average for a younger voter who is less likely to bother to turn out, than the Tories, who rely more heavily on old crocs who will traipse to the infants' school down the road regardless.
Labour's main selling point is being Not Tories - but is that sufficient? It's all very well saying that the public is ready for change, but a large fraction of the electorate is actually doing well out of the current dispensation - and what change is Labour offering for everyone else, exactly? Do they have anything to give their supporters to make them enthusiastic about turning out to vote, or are they just going to tax the young to buggery to pay for a handful of extra police and nurses, whilst leaving the better-off elderly to enjoy their ever-growing wealth undisturbed, because Starmer is petrified of upsetting wrinklies?
Covid deaths will have had an insignificant impact on overall electoral demography.
Scotland won't be of very much help to Starmer. The very large fraction of the Scottish electorate that is either fixated on independence, or thinks that the SNP is the only exclusively Scottish choice and the Westminster parties don't really care about Scotland, or both, won't turn out for anyone else. I don't see the SNP doing any worse than in 2017, regardless of how much of a pickle they get themselves into (after all, it feels like they've been the incumbent government in Edinburgh for about a hundred years and still most of their voters seem to be disinterested in change.)
I'm of the opinion that Sunak and Hunt will use any improvement in the economy over the next year to justify bribes in the Spring 2024 budget to try to create a feel good factor and buy off wavering voters. If I were in their place I'd abolish IHT to remind olds with big houses and the heirs who's on their side, and knock a couple of pence off the basic rate of income tax, then go to the King the same week. If rampant inflation has finally calmed down and the finances of better off voters at least are a bit less shit by then, it might stand a chance of working.
Beyond that, there's the usual warning that the total seat gain needed even for Labour to achieve a majority of one is huge, and unusual historically. I'm still expecting a Hung Parliament at this juncture, but I reckon that the probability of a Tory majority is greater than that of a Labour one.
The electorate have a low opinion of all politicians but will jump for the least worst option.
If Sunak is steering the ship onto calmer waters, dealing with inflation, the economy, tax and Ukraine - fixing things and getting things done - while the situation still looks tricky and fragile, and Starmer always rows in behind Sunak's big calls 1-2 months later, then they likely won't go for him.
If, on the other hand, the Tory psychodrama continues, distracting them from governing, and Sunak doesn't look like he's getting on top of any of the issues, then it's quite a different story.
{Note there is zero space the way RDS spells his surname. Says guy who can't spell "Barack" right half the time!}
Word on the street is that both 2024 GOP hopefuls from the great Palmetto State of South Carolina, former Gov. Nikki Haley and current US Sen. Tim Scott, are REALLY running for Vice President. At least THIS cycle.
As for Florida's answer to Viktor Orban, Ron DeSantis most definitely has a chance of beating out Donald Trump for the Republican nomination. PROVIDED he can play his cards correctly in a VERY high-stakes poker game.
For one thing, no doubt that majority of GOP politicos would much rather have RDS as their standard-bearer. Especially in swing states and districts. And that growing numbers of Republican voters are clearly coming to same conclusion.
Agree with Haley and Scott are really thinking about the VP side. Personally, I would prefer Scott but either is fine.
I'm not sure about RDS beating Trump which is why I have been beating the drum about RDS doing a deal with Trump and standing as his VP pick (and, yes, I know about the one state rule and it has been gotten round before / is easy to get round). This from the NY Magazine (via MSN):
As for Mike's argument, one counter-argument. If you look at the Republicans and Democrats, their score between March 30th and April 6th on whether he should be prosecuted have barely budged but the Independents showed a large swing towards yes. It could easily swing back. Even those who might be sympathetic to a Trump conviction say the case is not exactly strong.
The New York case is not strong. In fact, it should never have been filed. (But you know what, that's what happens when you have elected prosecutors.)
But there are two significantly more problematic legal cases coming up:
- The Georgia election interference case - Valuing building at one level for tax purposes, and at 3x that level in documentation with the bank: either it's tax fraud or mail fraud.
In addition to these, there's the documents case, where Trump instructed his lawyers to lie and to confirm everything had been returned. Again, this isn't as serious as the mail fraud/tax fraud or electoral interference once, but it's one where his lawyer appears to have effectively flipped, and which there is no meaningful defence.
It is entirely possible that we will not hear again from the New York case, but will hear a lot about the others.
Yes, Georgia seems to be the most problematic of the three. The documents case is definitely an issue but it is clouded by Biden's own mishaps (which seem to have slipped off the radar screen).
I think the problem here for those hoping Trump will be derailed is the order of the cases. For somebody looking to take out Trump, the NY case should not have been the first because it is baking in the idea that the cases against him are politically motivated and that will compromise - potentially - how people look at the other cases (plus the usual grounds for appeal etc). I see Bill Barr came out against it and a lot of vox pop Republican voters who don't want DJT to run again nevertheless say they think the case is BS.
The thing is that, despite all the talk about Trump being a liability, the polls still show a close race in a T v B election with neither looking to have entirely convinced the electorate.
The documents case is not about the documents any more, it is about Trump's instruction to his lawyer to sign an affidavit confirming that all documents had been returned.
The original offence is a misdemeanor. The cover up likely a felony.
On the politics side, well, that's what happens when you have elected DAs. It doesn't help, too, that Trump has - like many Billionaires, I suspect - skated the line many many times.
I just really don't get that whole case. It's pretty clear government figures tend to hold onto documents they are not supposed to, but when it comes to light they co-operate, yet he may have ended up committing crimes because for some bizarre reason he is insistent that government documents belong to him personally and he just does not want to return them.
If he'd responded saying "Yes, I have documents, but I believe them to be my possessions, rather than the Government's", then he'd be fine.
Instead, he got his lawyer to confirm via affidavit that everything had been returned. When that was very clearly not the case.
It reminds me of the Martha Stewart case for straight boneheaded stupidity.
I don't know why so many people are trying to make it into an EU Vs Britain issue. Britain is free to set its own rules and I criticised them for being shit. They're shit whether the EU's are shit or not.
You claimed reams of paperwork to get into the UK
You compared it to an American band getting into the EU, using the yardstick of how much they didn't complain
Which is a bit like comparing heights using a ruler and a snail shell
I complained about British bureaucracy, red tape and infringements on liberty and I made the mistake of being drawn into a relative argument about the EU.
So do kindly get fucked.
Fascinating to watch people boxing about reams of paper.
I don't know why so many people are trying to make it into an EU Vs Britain issue. Britain is free to set its own rules and I criticised them for being shit. They're shit whether the EU's are shit or not.
You claimed reams of paperwork to get into the UK
You compared it to an American band getting into the EU, using the yardstick of how much they didn't complain
Which is a bit like comparing heights using a ruler and a snail shell
I complained about British bureaucracy, red tape and infringements on liberty and I made the mistake of being drawn into a relative argument about the EU.
So do kindly get fucked.
You brought Ireland into it
Kindly take your vulgar sexual fantasies elsewhere
Had to pay EUR48 for my three kids to visit Knossos and the Archaeological Museum in Heraklion. EU citizens under 26 go free. Another fantastic Brexit dividend.
They tell you this, but it isn’t true. The Cretan minor tour is a myth.
Should be noted that at the same stage in the 2010-15 parliament, Labour was polling at around 5-8%. They're clearly in a much, much stronger position now.
Should be noted that at the same stage in the 2010-15 parliament, Labour was polling at around 5-8%. They're clearly in a much, much stronger position now.
The Conservative Party hadn’t revealed itself as a bunch of certifiable and/or shitfaced retards at that stage.
So independents might affect the Republican nomination, as well as the general election.
(One thing that is difficult to judge at this point: Whether the major news organizations will be more, shall we say, professional, in their coverage. In 2016, they gave Trump incredible amounts of air time and newspaper space, compared to more qualified candidates. Les Moonves of CBS admitted they were doing it for commercial reasons, though he thought Trump would be bad for the nation.
That the coverage was negative actually helped Trump in the nomination fight, since many Republicans distrust our "mainstream" news organizations. Similarly, I wouldn't be suprised to learn that some Conservative voters in the UK might be more attracted to a candidate -- if they were attacked by the Guardian.)
If the rest of the bunch are to have a chance, their fate lies in their own hands. Temporising over Trump, even defending him as they’ve done so far, is a recipe for dismal failure just like the last time.
Seems to me, there is really only one candidate challenger to Trump for top of 2024 GOP ticket - DeSantis.
Rest are running for Veep, at best. With either Haley or Scott looking most qualified, helpful AND available.
Not sure why Pence is running, seeing as how he's as likely to get nominated for ANYTHING in 2024 by Republicans, as is RFK the Younger by Democrats.
So, he's complaining about people taking offence at things... while simultaneously taking offence at gays and the like.
The irony is strong with this one.
True, but he wasn't demanding police go and arrest gays was he?
I hardly think that is the point at issue, unless of course the dolls in the pub were [edit] dressed in pink or something.
That story is barmy on all levels. Six rozzers turn up to nick a bunch of golliwogs from a boozer owned by a couple who think they live in a 70s sitcom. The couple are clearly vile creatures, but 6 coppers? Couldn't they have just sent a pcso to find out what's going on and then clarify the situation and then take appropriate action, rather than make martyrs out of the bigoted tossers?
Oh, quite. Unless they did it in opening hours and were worried about the customer reaction? But then why do it then?
I don't know why so many people are trying to make it into an EU Vs Britain issue. Britain is free to set its own rules and I criticised them for being shit. They're shit whether the EU's are shit or not.
You claimed reams of paperwork to get into the UK
You compared it to an American band getting into the EU, using the yardstick of how much they didn't complain
Which is a bit like comparing heights using a ruler and a snail shell
I complained about British bureaucracy, red tape and infringements on liberty and I made the mistake of being drawn into a relative argument about the EU.
So do kindly get fucked.
You brought Ireland into it
Kindly take your vulgar sexual fantasies elsewhere
Only after someone else had tried to confuse the issue by asking about other countries your sad pathetic excuse-monger.
Britain isn't on the EU now. We have control of our own laws. Why has the Conservative government chosen to create pointless bureaucracy for touring musicians? Why do they hate freedom?
A reply to @Stocky, minus the blockquotes as Vanilla is a pile of glitchy shite.
I still think a Labour minority is the most probable outcome, but we shouldn't dismiss the Tories out of hand.
Starmer isn't exactly setting the world on fire, is he? Other recent polling suggests that a lot of Labour voters are dissatisfied with him, and generating enthusiasm is far more important for Labour, which relies on average for a younger voter who is less likely to bother to turn out, than the Tories, who rely more heavily on old crocs who will traipse to the infants' school down the road regardless.
Labour's main selling point is being Not Tories - but is that sufficient? It's all very well saying that the public is ready for change, but a large fraction of the electorate is actually doing well out of the current dispensation - and what change is Labour offering for everyone else, exactly? Do they have anything to give their supporters to make them enthusiastic about turning out to vote, or are they just going to tax the young to buggery to pay for a handful of extra police and nurses, whilst leaving the better-off elderly to enjoy their ever-growing wealth undisturbed, because Starmer is petrified of upsetting wrinklies?
Covid deaths will have had an insignificant impact on overall electoral demography.
Scotland won't be of very much help to Starmer. The very large fraction of the Scottish electorate that is either fixated on independence, or thinks that the SNP is the only exclusively Scottish choice and the Westminster parties don't really care about Scotland, or both, won't turn out for anyone else. I don't see the SNP doing any worse than in 2017, regardless of how much of a pickle they get themselves into (after all, it feels like they've been the incumbent government in Edinburgh for about a hundred years and still most of their voters seem to be disinterested in change.)
I'm of the opinion that Sunak and Hunt will use any improvement in the economy over the next year to justify bribes in the Spring 2024 budget to try to create a feel good factor and buy off wavering voters. If I were in their place I'd abolish IHT to remind olds with big houses and the heirs who's on their side, and knock a couple of pence off the basic rate of income tax, then go to the King the same week. If rampant inflation has finally calmed down and the finances of better off voters at least are a bit less shit by then, it might stand a chance of working.
Beyond that, there's the usual warning that the total seat gain needed even for Labour to achieve a majority of one is huge, and unusual historically. I'm still expecting a Hung Parliament at this juncture, but I reckon that the probability of a Tory majority is greater than that of a Labour one.
Why is reducing the tax burden (which is what you suggest) considered a “bribe”?
I could get the argument that it’s not wise, but you seem to have muddled up in your head whether money belongs to the government or the voters in the first place
I see the progressive erosion of Labour's lead and the creepback of the Conservatives is being steadily explained away on here, bit by bit, because it is happening over several months and incrementally.
Nevertheless, it is there.
It won't take much for the Conservatives to get back to the 33-35% bracket, and Labour descend to 37-39%, and then we have a whole different ballgame.
The Con revival does seem to be gathering pace. Biggest risk for Con is the ERG mob losing the plot again and blowing the revival out of the water.
However, after their humiliation on the Windsor Framework vote hopefully they've been put back in their box.
They're a busted flush. There'll always be technical discussions to be had with the EU, but the substance of the relationship seems to be settled for the time being. Brussels, Dublin and London all proclaim themselves satisfied, Sunak is not about to do a backwards flip and start shit-stirring like Johnson would, and the number of voters in Great Britain who sympathise with the DUP and its endless whining is almost zero. The ERG's members will probably spend more time moaning about the BBC and transsexuals in future than about Europe.
I see the progressive erosion of Labour's lead and the creepback of the Conservatives is being steadily explained away on here, bit by bit, because it is happening over several months and incrementally.
Nevertheless, it is there.
It won't take much for the Conservatives to get back to the 33-35% bracket, and Labour descend to 37-39%, and then we have a whole different ballgame.
The Conservatives won't poll less than a third of the popular vote at the next GE, and could do considerably better than that, depending on circumstances. Even John Major in 1997 managed about 31%, Starmer is no Blair, and the mean age of the electorate has increased since then. It's why all the hyperventilation about Labour landslides and Tory wipeouts, based on some outrageous mid-term polling leads, has always been overblown.
Comments
The border guard did nothing wrong (as far as we know). The band’s agent screwed up.
The materials required don’t seem particularly onerous to be honest
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
@RedfieldWilton
·
8m
Starmer leads Sunak by 2%.
At this moment, which of the following do Britons think would be the better Prime Minister for the UK? (9 April)
Keir Starmer 39% (+1)
Rishi Sunak 37% (+2)
Changes +/- 2 April
What I do know is that I went to a gig by a couple of lads from Minnesota in Ireland recently and they weren't complaining about the paperwork for their entry.
If Britain wants to be a country that cuts itself off from the world and criticises people for not filling in paperwork properly then I guess that's your choice. But I think it's a sad way for the country to go.
Starmer's support of the posters is unwise and apparently Diane Abbott has called it racists in a tweet - no love lost there
Meanwhile, Sunak stands above it pleading with all parties in Northern Ireland to come together and reconvene Stormont, whilst preparing to meet Biden off Air Force One in Belfast
He is the grown up competent politician here
You dolt
Don't be such a prick.
UK - Reams of unfair bullshit
EU - Exactly right and what you voted for
I know a little bit about the subject, because it also affects motorsport teams travelling to the Continent. While the F1 teams can obviously throw resources at the paperwork, smaller organisations and individuals entering events in Europe don’t have that luxury.
It’s a genuine negative issue with the UK leaving the EU, and would be a good subject for the next set of negotiations between the parties.
You compared it to an American band getting into the EU, using the yardstick of how much they didn't complain
Which is a bit like comparing heights using a ruler and a snail shell
It will take time but Labour need to guard against complacency and hubris not least with Starmer leading them
Nevertheless, it is there.
It won't take much for the Conservatives to get back to the 33-35% bracket, and Labour descend to 37-39%, and then we have a whole different ballgame.
But there are two significantly more problematic legal cases coming up:
- The Georgia election interference case
- Valuing building at one level for tax purposes, and at 3x that level in documentation with the bank: either it's tax fraud or mail fraud.
In addition to these, there's the documents case, where Trump instructed his lawyers to lie and to confirm everything had been returned. Again, this isn't as serious as the mail fraud/tax fraud or electoral interference once, but it's one where his lawyer appears to have effectively flipped, and which there is no meaningful defence.
It is entirely possible that we will not hear again from the New York case, but will hear a lot about the others.
They could, but this is not about that. The police is a institution like any other where its employees need to credentialise themselves with each other, and play the internal politicking game like any other.
Having prioritised a "hate crime" incident like this will look superb at their end of year reviews.
It's called "Maree d'ione", made from Nero Di Troia grapes in Puglia (the heel) and costs £8.99
I highly recommend
https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/maree-dione-organic-nero-di-troia/824473-585691-585692
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/09/putins-stolen-aircrafts-problem-says-insurance-howden/
It does appear that the insurance bought by many aircraft lease companies, excluded war risks.
I am coming round to the view that the political advisor class in this country is almost entirely populated by complete twats.
The evidence seems to be overwhelming.
However, after their humiliation on the Windsor Framework vote hopefully they've been put back in their box.
Labour are extremely panicked by Rishi and they look desperate, the current reaction from Rishi is entirely correct, just let Labour make fools of themselves. It's a bit like Corbyn's free broadband, that was the moment that voters decided the whole Labour offer was just ridiculous. Labour attempting to paint Rishi as a friend of paedos or soft on illegal immigrants or other various types of criminal is just too far removed from the truth that Labour ate losing credibility with voters right now. The more they push this narrative the worse it will get for them.
@Samfr
·
1h
This lower lead is due to DKs coming back to the Tories. The number of Tory 2019s saying they'll vote Labour is the same as a few weeks ago when the topline lead was 21pts.
I think the problem here for those hoping Trump will be derailed is the order of the cases. For somebody looking to take out Trump, the NY case should not have been the first because it is baking in the idea that the cases against him are politically motivated and that will compromise - potentially - how people look at the other cases (plus the usual grounds for appeal etc). I see Bill Barr came out against it and a lot of vox pop Republican voters who don't want DJT to run again nevertheless say they think the case is BS.
The thing is that, despite all the talk about Trump being a liability, the polls still show a close race in a T v B election with neither looking to have entirely convinced the electorate.
I still think a Labour minority is the most probable outcome, but we shouldn't dismiss the Tories out of hand.
Starmer isn't exactly setting the world on fire, is he? Other recent polling suggests that a lot of Labour voters are dissatisfied with him, and generating enthusiasm is far more important for Labour, which relies on average for a younger voter who is less likely to bother to turn out, than the Tories, who rely more heavily on old crocs who will traipse to the infants' school down the road regardless.
Labour's main selling point is being Not Tories - but is that sufficient? It's all very well saying that the public is ready for change, but a large fraction of the electorate is actually doing well out of the current dispensation - and what change is Labour offering for everyone else, exactly? Do they have anything to give their supporters to make them enthusiastic about turning out to vote, or are they just going to tax the young to buggery to pay for a handful of extra police and nurses, whilst leaving the better-off elderly to enjoy their ever-growing wealth undisturbed, because Starmer is petrified of upsetting wrinklies?
Covid deaths will have had an insignificant impact on overall electoral demography.
Scotland won't be of very much help to Starmer. The very large fraction of the Scottish electorate that is either fixated on independence, or thinks that the SNP is the only exclusively Scottish choice and the Westminster parties don't really care about Scotland, or both, won't turn out for anyone else. I don't see the SNP doing any worse than in 2017, regardless of how much of a pickle they get themselves into (after all, it feels like they've been the incumbent government in Edinburgh for about a hundred years and still most of their voters seem to be disinterested in change.)
I'm of the opinion that Sunak and Hunt will use any improvement in the economy over the next year to justify bribes in the Spring 2024 budget to try to create a feel good factor and buy off wavering voters. If I were in their place I'd abolish IHT to remind olds with big houses and the heirs who's on their side, and knock a couple of pence off the basic rate of income tax, then go to the King the same week. If rampant inflation has finally calmed down and the finances of better off voters at least are a bit less shit by then, it might stand a chance of working.
Beyond that, there's the usual warning that the total seat gain needed even for Labour to achieve a majority of one is huge, and unusual historically. I'm still expecting a Hung Parliament at this juncture, but I reckon that the probability of a Tory majority is greater than that of a Labour one.
It’s not too bad at all as a pub although the peas I had with the scampi were maybe a bit over cooked. Comfortable, good service, friendly staff, lots of room. And the peas apart the food was good.
We're certain to hear more about Trump's sleazy dealings with Stormy (and visa versa) as the legal process grinds on, and political process ditto.
However, your point re: Trump's legal (also political) jeopardy re: great Peach State of Georgia, is well taken. Though am more doubtful (but still hopeful!) re: other cases you cite.
The Brexiteers decided to introduce barriers which weren’t there before, which greatly restrict such cultural exchange with Europe. It’s a direct result of the crappy deal we ended up doing.
Now Starmer is fighting Sunak like he's still up against Johnson
So independents might affect the Republican nomination, as well as the general election.
(One thing that is difficult to judge at this point: Whether the major news organizations will be more, shall we say, professional, in their coverage. In 2016, they gave Trump incredible amounts of air time and newspaper space, compared to more qualified candidates. Les Moonves of CBS admitted they were doing it for commercial reasons, though he thought Trump would be bad for the nation.
That the coverage was negative actually helped Trump in the nomination fight, since many Republicans distrust our "mainstream" news organizations. Similarly, I wouldn't be suprised to learn that some Conservative voters in the UK might be more attracted to a candidate -- if they were attacked by the Guardian.)
The original offence is a misdemeanor. The cover up likely a felony.
On the politics side, well, that's what happens when you have elected DAs. It doesn't help, too, that Trump has - like many Billionaires, I suspect - skated the line many many times.
https://www.waitrosecellar.com/wine-type/waitrose-rich-and-intense-italian-red
Reading 'The Digital Silk Road' at the moment. Also worth a read.
Georgia seems like it should be cut and dried, since if what he did was not illegal it feels like it should be, but the law can be a weird one. Apparently his lack of understanding, well, anything, could be a handy defence.
New York looks highly technical as it involves just about being within statute of limitations (thanks to a covid extension), and requirement of his actions involving commission of another crime in order to be charged as a felony etc. So it seems much harder to prove amad vulnerable to legal challenges.
Now that the Tories have finally sobered up enough to install someone who isn't a blond dipstick, it makes Labour's life that much more difficult.
He just needs to sideline the DUP on the grounds they are antediluvian nutcases. Apart from a rapidly declining constituency in NI itself everyone would be whistling and cheering him on.
Epic sad.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/10/trump-2024-2016-gop-00091097
If the rest of the bunch are to have a chance, their fate lies in their own hands.
Temporising over Trump, even defending him as they’ve done so far, is a recipe for dismal failure just like the last time.
So do kindly get fucked.
The EU voted them down
Well they probably didn't vote them down, but it still had something to do with EU democracy
FWIW, I think @MaxPB and @Casino_Royale are right in that Labour are somewhat panicking about Rishi. He is starting to find his form, is coming up with initiatives that are being received with at least relief that it is not 100% Johnsonian rhetoric (Rwanda aside) and Labour have shot themselves in the foot with the series of posters.
Where does it go from here? Labour really needs to come out with positive reasons to vote for them, of which the public think there are few. I personally think there is a lot of traction in the 'Big State' line and there are probably things that can be done to improve matters that are more a matter of process than throwing money (for example, I would take a look at the university system for medicine students and see if there is anything that can be done to increase the future supply of doctors and / or offer cancellation of student debt if doctors agree to go into short-staffed areas).
If Sunak is steering the ship onto calmer waters, dealing with inflation, the economy, tax and Ukraine - fixing things and getting things done - while the situation still looks tricky and fragile, and Starmer always rows in behind Sunak's big calls 1-2 months later, then they likely won't go for him.
If, on the other hand, the Tory psychodrama continues, distracting them from governing, and Sunak doesn't look like he's getting on top of any of the issues, then it's quite a different story.
Instead, he got his lawyer to confirm via affidavit that everything had been returned. When that was very clearly not the case.
It reminds me of the Martha Stewart case for straight boneheaded stupidity.
Kindly take your vulgar sexual fantasies elsewhere
Rest are running for Veep, at best. With either Haley or Scott looking most qualified, helpful AND available.
Not sure why Pence is running, seeing as how he's as likely to get nominated for ANYTHING in 2024 by Republicans, as is RFK the Younger by Democrats.
Britain isn't on the EU now. We have control of our own laws. Why has the Conservative government chosen to create pointless bureaucracy for touring musicians? Why do they hate freedom?
I could get the argument that it’s not wise, but you seem to have muddled up in your head whether money belongs to the government or the voters in the first place