I don't believe the polls showing Canadians to be in favour of a republic, in the sense that if it actually came to a referendum, most of them would vote against a republic, not because they love the monarchy particularly but because they would dislike the idea of a politician from a different political party to the one they support getting the job.
The SNP in-fighting is getting extraordinarily vicious. Yousaf considering publishing a report on alleged bullying by Fergus Ewing during his tenure as a minister. Ewing has been one of the MSP's most contemptuous of Yousaf and the SNP alliance with the Greens.
For those not conversant with the minutiae of SNP history, the Ewings are the nearest thing the Nats have to royalty. His Mum is Winnie, one of the first SNP MPs, and his sister is also a member at Holyrood.
On matters more immediate, the Survation local election numbers would, if accurate, be very poor for the Conservatives and in truth uninspiring for Labour with the Liberal Democrats and Greens doing well.
I'm not entirely convinced but we'll see if those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.
“those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.”
They are basing it on what happened in 2019 a high watershed for libdems and greens and under 30 PNE for Tories, and what has happened historically, especially in this set of elections.
But this as an exceptional period of politics, a LLG of 60 plus out to get the Tories, the most unprecedented credit crunch ever.
I expect the lib dems to be the big winners tomorrow and a very bad night for the conservatives
I hope so as if so I will win my fun charity bet with @HYUFD. In fairness to HYUFD he made the sensible bet and I made the risky one, so will be chuffed if it comes off, but my gut from this neck of the woods encouraged me even if we did make big gains here last time.
I think LDs will do ok tomorrow. Better than the polls suggest. But not enough to 'go back to your constituencies and prepare for government '. 👍
It’s not just those who don’t have the photo ID but those who might be planning to vote but forget their ID at home and then will have to go to a lot of effort to vote.
Postal voters who are more likely to vote Tory have not had hurdles placed to exercise their right to vote .
The Tories can bank their postal votes and are quite happy to see millions disenfranchised.
The new voter ID rules are a disgrace and anyone with a working brain surely can’t avoid the reality that these new rules are only happening because the Tories know it will benefit them .
I don't believe the polls showing Canadians to be in favour of a republic, in the sense that if it actually came to a referendum, most of them would vote against a republic, not because they love the monarchy particularly but because they would dislike the idea of a politician from a different political party to the one they support getting the job.
Zero chance of a referendum anyway as both the Canadian Liberals and Conservatives back retaining the monarchy
The Lib Dems often act as a think tank for future Labour (and occasionally Tory) policies, so look out for the 24 hour booking line appearing in Labour pledges soon:
On matters more immediate, the Survation local election numbers would, if accurate, be very poor for the Conservatives and in truth uninspiring for Labour with the Liberal Democrats and Greens doing well.
I'm not entirely convinced but we'll see if those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.
“those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.”
They are basing it on what happened in 2019 a high watershed for libdems and greens and under 30 PNE for Tories, and what has happened historically, especially in this set of elections.
But this as an exceptional period of politics, a LLG of 60 plus out to get the Tories, the most unprecedented credit crunch ever.
I expect the lib dems to be the big winners tomorrow and a very bad night for the conservatives
I hope so as if so I will win my fun charity bet with @HYUFD. In fairness to HYUFD he made the sensible bet and I made the risky one, so will be chuffed if it comes off, but my gut from this neck of the woods encouraged me even if we did make big gains here last time.
It will be close either way, I expect some LD gains in Tory councils balanced by Tory gains from LDs in councils the LDs gained from the Tories in 2019 or 2022
"The war on cash poses an existential threat to our financial independence It’s terrible for the elderly, and risks giving massive power to social engineers and faceless bureaucrats"
Donald Trump on Biden's non attendance at the coronation 'He said: 'I think that it's hard for him to do it physically. I think, getting over here for him.
'He's got a lot of things going and a lot of strange things happen. But certainly he should be here as a representative of our country. I was surprised when I heard that he wasn't coming.
'You would think he would be here, he'll be in Delaware where he spends a lot of time, he spent a lot of time there during the election.
'So I don't know, but I was very surprised to see I think it's very disrespectful for him not to be.'
He added: 'That man is incompetent, and it's a shame.
'He can't even come to your Coronation as a country, and your Coronation's a big event.
'When you have somebody that's going to be sleeping instead of coming to the coronation as president of the United States, I think it's a bad thing
When asked by Farage whether he would have attended if he was president, Trump said: 'I would.'
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
I think I had quick whip through it once.
It didn’t draw you in and tie you down for long then.
He got to the bottom of it
My copy got bent somehow. I’m still trying to work out all the kinks
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
I came under considerable attack on simply stating what I considered a fair response
I reiterate I believe her report into Johnson was fair and indeed lenient and was completed before her talks with Starmer
There are some in the conservative party who are trying to ludicrously claim it negates her report and I reject that100%
The question relates to whether in discussing her appointment to Starmer and labour was in breach of civil service rules and that will be answered shortly
The question of gardening leave will follow the report
I would just say pilling into a fellow poster who may have a more nuanced opinion than some can be unfair
It’s true. Soon as you posted, everyone came back with an opinion.
But where we don’t know the outcome, you do concede there are breaches and then there are breaches of code, “you didn’t ask for permission first” being very minor - and the length of gardening leave, largely there for commercial consideration, defence PS to defence industry for example, utterly absent in Civil Service to political party role moves, so will need something remarkable we havn’t or heard of yet to be longer than standard 6 months?
Acoba is the body with responsibility for assessing new jobs for senior civil servants, as well as former ministers, and has the power to suggest a cooling-off period of between three months and two years if there are concerns about any conflict of interest. Nobody disputes that it should have a say over Gray’s appointment.
But the Cabinet Office inquiry was less conventional, and more controversial. “There’s no precedent for this sort of investigation for someone who’s already left the civil service,” Pippa said. “And there are senior civil servants who were concerned about such a politically charged report being released just before the local elections.”
Nonetheless, detailed briefing that the Cabinet Office had concluded that “Sue Gray held secret talks with [Starmer] while working for the team advising the Commons partygate investigation” appeared in advance. And yet the actual update from Oliver Dowden said nothing of the kind, but noted that Gray had declined to participate and said that there was an obligation “to maintain confidentiality towards an individual former employee”...
The Lib Dems often act as a think tank for future Labour (and occasionally Tory) policies, so look out for the 24 hour booking line appearing in Labour pledges soon:
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
I came under considerable attack on simply stating what I considered a fair response
I reiterate I believe her report into Johnson was fair and indeed lenient and was completed before her talks with Starmer
There are some in the conservative party who are trying to ludicrously claim it negates her report and I reject that100%
The question relates to whether in discussing her appointment to Starmer and labour was in breach of civil service rules and that will be answered shortly
The question of gardening leave will follow the report
I would just say pilling into a fellow poster who may have a more nuanced opinion than some can be unfair
It’s true. Soon as you posted, everyone came back with an opinion.
But where we don’t know the outcome, you do concede there are breaches and then there are breaches of code, “you didn’t ask for permission first” being very minor - and the length of gardening leave, largely there for commercial consideration, defence PS to defence industry for example, utterly absent in Civil Service to political party role moves, so will need something remarkable we havn’t or heard of yet to be longer than standard 6 months?
Acoba is the body with responsibility for assessing new jobs for senior civil servants, as well as former ministers, and has the power to suggest a cooling-off period of between three months and two years if there are concerns about any conflict of interest. Nobody disputes that it should have a say over Gray’s appointment.
But the Cabinet Office inquiry was less conventional, and more controversial. “There’s no precedent for this sort of investigation for someone who’s already left the civil service,” Pippa said. “And there are senior civil servants who were concerned about such a politically charged report being released just before the local elections.”
Nonetheless, detailed briefing that the Cabinet Office had concluded that “Sue Gray held secret talks with [Starmer] while working for the team advising the Commons partygate investigation” appeared in advance. And yet the actual update from Oliver Dowden said nothing of the kind, but noted that Gray had declined to participate and said that there was an obligation “to maintain confidentiality towards an individual former employee”...
Donald Trump on Biden's non attendance at the coronation 'He said: 'I think that it's hard for him to do it physically. I think, getting over here for him.
'He's got a lot of things going and a lot of strange things happen. But certainly he should be here as a representative of our country. I was surprised when I heard that he wasn't coming.
'You would think he would be here, he'll be in Delaware where he spends a lot of time, he spent a lot of time there during the election.
'So I don't know, but I was very surprised to see I think it's very disrespectful for him not to be.'
He added: 'That man is incompetent, and it's a shame.
'He can't even come to your Coronation as a country, and your Coronation's a big event.
'When you have somebody that's going to be sleeping instead of coming to the coronation as president of the United States, I think it's a bad thing
When asked by Farage whether he would have attended if he was president, Trump said: 'I would.'
I see that the Lib Dems, who eschew populism, are now being populist:
"With the rising cost of a weekly shop adding to pressure on households across the country, the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, called on the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to investigate whether any profiteering was taking place among supermarkets and food multinationals."
This was playing in the pub just now, as people shouted and swore about Sue Gray, There was one young woman who was literally shaking with fury, and I felt concerned for her and her child, and so tried to comisserate.
Graygate all over the front pages again. Wall to wall. It’s like the coronation isn’t happening to concentrate on the publication of this report, which is annoying me no end. We will be the most corrupt government in the world if Starmer gets in. He has literally no manners or respect for rules.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
You look nothing like Steven Tyler or Todd Rundgren!
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
I came under considerable attack on simply stating what I considered a fair response
I reiterate I believe her report into Johnson was fair and indeed lenient and was completed before her talks with Starmer
There are some in the conservative party who are trying to ludicrously claim it negates her report and I reject that100%
The question relates to whether in discussing her appointment to Starmer and labour was in breach of civil service rules and that will be answered shortly
The question of gardening leave will follow the report
I would just say pilling into a fellow poster who may have a more nuanced opinion than some can be unfair
It’s true. Soon as you posted, everyone came back with an opinion.
But where we don’t know the outcome, you do concede there are breaches and then there are breaches of code, “you didn’t ask for permission first” being very minor - and the length of gardening leave, largely there for commercial consideration, defence PS to defence industry for example, utterly absent in Civil Service to political party role moves, so will need something remarkable we havn’t or heard of yet to be longer than standard 6 months?
Acoba is the body with responsibility for assessing new jobs for senior civil servants, as well as former ministers, and has the power to suggest a cooling-off period of between three months and two years if there are concerns about any conflict of interest. Nobody disputes that it should have a say over Gray’s appointment.
But the Cabinet Office inquiry was less conventional, and more controversial. “There’s no precedent for this sort of investigation for someone who’s already left the civil service,” Pippa said. “And there are senior civil servants who were concerned about such a politically charged report being released just before the local elections.”
Nonetheless, detailed briefing that the Cabinet Office had concluded that “Sue Gray held secret talks with [Starmer] while working for the team advising the Commons partygate investigation” appeared in advance. And yet the actual update from Oliver Dowden said nothing of the kind, but noted that Gray had declined to participate and said that there was an obligation “to maintain confidentiality towards an individual former employee”...
So the Cabinet Office "inquiry" was - or rather is - political hackery & cheap trickery from the word go?
I see that the Lib Dems, who eschew populism, are now being populist:
"With the rising cost of a weekly shop adding to pressure on households across the country, the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, called on the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to investigate whether any profiteering was taking place among supermarkets and food multinationals."
(Sainsbury's most recent results: margin of 3%)
The RAC are certainly calling out profiteering on car fuel on front of the ft. Meanwhile the front of the times carries a blue on blue attack on the government for being short termist and making the Tories party of nimbyism. After the local election drubbing will be more blue on blue attacks on Sunak and his government, likely saying similar to this, wrong policies, short term policies, not brave enough policies - the government response will be, we are listening, we will improve our communication and deliver on the priorities of the voters.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
Are you sure your "bearskins" are for real? Odds they're really rabbitskins WAY more than 19 out of 20!
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
I must say I do like this photo. It reminds me of some of your best Penny Mordaunt swimsuit pics...er ahem ;.)
I see that the Lib Dems, who eschew populism, are now being populist:
"With the rising cost of a weekly shop adding to pressure on households across the country, the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, called on the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to investigate whether any profiteering was taking place among supermarkets and food multinationals."
(Sainsbury's most recent results: margin of 3%)
The RAC are certainly calling out profiteering on car fuel on front of the ft. Meanwhile the front of the times carries a blue on blue attack on the government for being short termist and making the Tories party of nimbyism. After the local election drubbing will be more blue on blue attacks on Sunak and his government, likely saying similar to this, wrong policies, short term policies, not brave enough policies - the government response will be, we are listening, we will improve our communication and deliver on the priorities of the voters.
The RAC don't complain when prices are on the way up and forecourt prices are kept down, there being a lag on the price rises coming through. When the same lag happens, when prices are on the way down, they issue press releases decrying it, and journalists fall for it.
It's all just to keep the name RAC in the public mind.
Donald Trump on Biden's non attendance at the coronation 'He said: 'I think that it's hard for him to do it physically. I think, getting over here for him.
'He's got a lot of things going and a lot of strange things happen. But certainly he should be here as a representative of our country. I was surprised when I heard that he wasn't coming.
'You would think he would be here, he'll be in Delaware where he spends a lot of time, he spent a lot of time there during the election.
'So I don't know, but I was very surprised to see I think it's very disrespectful for him not to be.'
He added: 'That man is incompetent, and it's a shame.
'He can't even come to your Coronation as a country, and your Coronation's a big event.
'When you have somebody that's going to be sleeping instead of coming to the coronation as president of the United States, I think it's a bad thing
When asked by Farage whether he would have attended if he was president, Trump said: 'I would.'
We have had voter ID requirements in Northern Ireland for years. Its not exactly a burden, just get on with it.
Meanwhile lots of speculation over exactly what that UAV attack on the Kremlin was about.
1. Ukraine can attack that deep into Russia. There are multiple Ukrainian agencies who could give it a crack and who have links with local sympathisers on the ground. 2. Its unlikely the UAVs were launched from Ukraine, they seem a bit small 3. The Russian provocation idea only sounds good if you want the embarassment of admitting you cant shoot down two drones coming at your seat of power, and a location that, on paper, has plenty of air defences around it. It is also mitigated by the fact that the Russian authorities didnt exactly acknowledge it super quick. Signs of a bit of fakery are rapid acknowledgement, finger pointing and production of evidence. If it was such a move by Russia it appears remarkably unclear in its objective.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
I came under considerable attack on simply stating what I considered a fair response
I reiterate I believe her report into Johnson was fair and indeed lenient and was completed before her talks with Starmer
There are some in the conservative party who are trying to ludicrously claim it negates her report and I reject that100%
The question relates to whether in discussing her appointment to Starmer and labour was in breach of civil service rules and that will be answered shortly
The question of gardening leave will follow the report
I would just say pilling into a fellow poster who may have a more nuanced opinion than some can be unfair
It’s true. Soon as you posted, everyone came back with an opinion.
But where we don’t know the outcome, you do concede there are breaches and then there are breaches of code, “you didn’t ask for permission first” being very minor - and the length of gardening leave, largely there for commercial consideration, defence PS to defence industry for example, utterly absent in Civil Service to political party role moves, so will need something remarkable we havn’t or heard of yet to be longer than standard 6 months?
Acoba is the body with responsibility for assessing new jobs for senior civil servants, as well as former ministers, and has the power to suggest a cooling-off period of between three months and two years if there are concerns about any conflict of interest. Nobody disputes that it should have a say over Gray’s appointment.
But the Cabinet Office inquiry was less conventional, and more controversial. “There’s no precedent for this sort of investigation for someone who’s already left the civil service,” Pippa said. “And there are senior civil servants who were concerned about such a politically charged report being released just before the local elections.”
Nonetheless, detailed briefing that the Cabinet Office had concluded that “Sue Gray held secret talks with [Starmer] while working for the team advising the Commons partygate investigation” appeared in advance. And yet the actual update from Oliver Dowden said nothing of the kind, but noted that Gray had declined to participate and said that there was an obligation “to maintain confidentiality towards an individual former employee”...
So the Cabinet Office "inquiry" was - or rather is - political hackery & cheap trickery from the word go?
Not in my opinion. “There’s no precedent for this sort of investigation for someone who’s already left the civil service”. Even if they left the civil service, if they were PS at defence for example, I should hope a sensible period should be imposed before they work for a defence contractor.
Should such a politically charged report be allowed to be released on eve of voting, or held back till after voting?There’s obviously been a service v politicians bun fight behind the scenes this week, which resulted in this delayed till after voting, based on purdah if not also fears of libel. It was quite rightly held back IMO.
At start of week we were spun there was proper damaging revelations in this. Now we know for certain there isn’t any substance beyond “secret talks” because government were not told they were happening, and in October when Sue was advising the Commons Partygate investigation. Anyone think that sounds substantial or even interesting? If there was anything more damaging than this, once civil service refused to publish, the Tories would have easily leaked it.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
I came under considerable attack on simply stating what I considered a fair response
I reiterate I believe her report into Johnson was fair and indeed lenient and was completed before her talks with Starmer
There are some in the conservative party who are trying to ludicrously claim it negates her report and I reject that100%
The question relates to whether in discussing her appointment to Starmer and labour was in breach of civil service rules and that will be answered shortly
The question of gardening leave will follow the report
I would just say pilling into a fellow poster who may have a more nuanced opinion than some can be unfair
It’s true. Soon as you posted, everyone came back with an opinion.
But where we don’t know the outcome, you do concede there are breaches and then there are breaches of code, “you didn’t ask for permission first” being very minor - and the length of gardening leave, largely there for commercial consideration, defence PS to defence industry for example, utterly absent in Civil Service to political party role moves, so will need something remarkable we havn’t or heard of yet to be longer than standard 6 months?
Acoba is the body with responsibility for assessing new jobs for senior civil servants, as well as former ministers, and has the power to suggest a cooling-off period of between three months and two years if there are concerns about any conflict of interest. Nobody disputes that it should have a say over Gray’s appointment.
But the Cabinet Office inquiry was less conventional, and more controversial. “There’s no precedent for this sort of investigation for someone who’s already left the civil service,” Pippa said. “And there are senior civil servants who were concerned about such a politically charged report being released just before the local elections.”
Nonetheless, detailed briefing that the Cabinet Office had concluded that “Sue Gray held secret talks with [Starmer] while working for the team advising the Commons partygate investigation” appeared in advance. And yet the actual update from Oliver Dowden said nothing of the kind, but noted that Gray had declined to participate and said that there was an obligation “to maintain confidentiality towards an individual former employee”...
So the Cabinet Office "inquiry" was - or rather is - political hackery & cheap trickery from the word go?
Not in my opinion. “There’s no precedent for this sort of investigation for someone who’s already left the civil service”. Even if they left the civil service, if they were PS at defence for example, I should hope a sensible period should be imposed before they work for a defence contractor.
Should such a politically charged report be allowed to be released on eve of voting, or held back till after voting?There’s obviously been a service v politicians bun fight behind the scenes this week, which resulted in this delayed till after voting, based on purdah if not also fears of libel. It was quite rightly held back IMO.
At start of week we were spun there was proper damaging revelations in this. Now we know for certain there isn’t any substance beyond “secret talks” because government were not told they were happening, and in October when Sue was advising the Commons Partygate investigation. Anyone think that sounds substantial or even interesting? If there was anything more damaging than this, once civil service refused to publish, the Tories would have easily leaked it.
Re: your first paragraph, is not the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments "the body with responsibility for assessing new jobs for senior civil servants" as was quoted in email up thread?
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
We have had voter ID requirements in Northern Ireland for years. Its not exactly a burden, just get on with it.
Meanwhile lots of speculation over exactly what that UAV attack on the Kremlin was about.
1. Ukraine can attack that deep into Russia. There are multiple Ukrainian agencies who could give it a crack and who have links with local sympathisers on the ground. 2. Its unlikely the UAVs were launched from Ukraine, they seem a bit small 3. The Russian provocation idea only sounds good if you want the embarassment of admitting you cant shoot down two drones coming at your seat of power, and a location that, on paper, has plenty of air defences around it. It is also mitigated by the fact that the Russian authorities didnt exactly acknowledge it super quick. Signs of a bit of fakery are rapid acknowledgement, finger pointing and production of evidence. If it was such a move by Russia it appears remarkably unclear in its objective.
It does increase the likelihood of attack response on Zelenskyy and his government doesn’t it, which is one tick in the box in favour of fakery?
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
Are you sure your "bearskins" are for real? Odds they're really rabbitskins WAY more than 19 out of 20!
Running your finger through it, you can tell it’s not been alive at any point.
This pic has really piqued your interest again. You must be a complete sucker for the trappings of British pageantry
1) I suppose we can't know how many personations (?) took place
2) Surely it's older voters who are most likely to not have a valid passport/driving licence? Even with the trend for not drinking/driving, most younger people have ID to get into concerts etc
3) lots of countries that we admire have ID requirements (and monarchies ). Sweden, for example.
The main thing it will do is cause massive queues, lots of angst and general ill feeling.
Of developed world democracies without ID cards - New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Japan - two don't require ID to vote at all (NZ and Japan), while two (Australia and Canada) do.
However, in both cases, there are contingencies for people who arrive without ID*: if another voter attests to your identity, then you can vote; and if you don't have another voter who can attest, then you can cast a provisional ballot that can be cured later in the event that the result is sufficiently close.
* And their list of acceptable IDs is longer
Though worth adding that in Australia voting is compulsory so the effect of ID cards upon likelihood to vote and disenfrancisement is probably rather muted
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
My favourite counter-measure would be quite technical - instruct the Boundary Commission to draw constituency boundaries according to population, as shown by the census, rather than by the number who have registered. That would eliminate the inherent bias to older, more settled people, as opposed to young people who constantly move around. I wouldn't extend the vote to anyone unregistered, but a community of 80,000 should be worth an MP regardless of how many of them have in fact registered.
Agreed - calculating based on a measure that is even more changable than mere population growth is a poor idea.
I've never known a Labour supporter who doesn't support this move.
Never voted Labour in my life. It just sounds fairer to me.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
That would be no to Boudicca on the grounds of zero relevancy to the coronation of King Charles.
There’s a Coronation taking place Saturday in London, not a toga party.
She was a British queen regnant, was she not? So more royal than any guards(wo)man!
And did you know, that Guards originated as part of the New Model Army?
So they had something to do with KCI losing his fool head? (But also KCII gaining his crown.)
I didn’t know guards originated in the new model army.
But I suspect Charles 1st was no fool, despite Cromwell being the most horrible murderous bloodthirsty bastard ever, they didn’t want to cut kings head off, he gave them no choice knowing how it could damage them and their take over.
"The war on cash poses an existential threat to our financial independence It’s terrible for the elderly, and risks giving massive power to social engineers and faceless bureaucrats"
We're in the middle of our town pottery festival. The government's been promoting cashless payment, and there are a bunch of very aggressive payment system companies signing everybody up. So nearly all the pottery stalls are able to accept non-cash payments from the customers' phones.
There's just one problem: When this many visitors show up, all the mobile networks go down. Luckily we still have cash...
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
Are you sure your "bearskins" are for real? Odds they're really rabbitskins WAY more than 19 out of 20!
Running your finger through it, you can tell it’s not been alive at any point.
This pic has really piqued your interest again. You must be a complete sucker for the trappings of British pageantry
Bunnies and bears are both alive before being turned into hats.
Since you are such a mind reader, how many $500 bills am I thinking are currently in my wallet?
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
I came under considerable attack on simply stating what I considered a fair response
I reiterate I believe her report into Johnson was fair and indeed lenient and was completed before her talks with Starmer
There are some in the conservative party who are trying to ludicrously claim it negates her report and I reject that100%
The question relates to whether in discussing her appointment to Starmer and labour was in breach of civil service rules and that will be answered shortly
The question of gardening leave will follow the report
I would just say pilling into a fellow poster who may have a more nuanced opinion than some can be unfair
It’s true. Soon as you posted, everyone came back with an opinion.
But where we don’t know the outcome, you do concede there are breaches and then there are breaches of code, “you didn’t ask for permission first” being very minor - and the length of gardening leave, largely there for commercial consideration, defence PS to defence industry for example, utterly absent in Civil Service to political party role moves, so will need something remarkable we havn’t or heard of yet to be longer than standard 6 months?
Acoba is the body with responsibility for assessing new jobs for senior civil servants, as well as former ministers, and has the power to suggest a cooling-off period of between three months and two years if there are concerns about any conflict of interest. Nobody disputes that it should have a say over Gray’s appointment.
But the Cabinet Office inquiry was less conventional, and more controversial. “There’s no precedent for this sort of investigation for someone who’s already left the civil service,” Pippa said. “And there are senior civil servants who were concerned about such a politically charged report being released just before the local elections.”
Nonetheless, detailed briefing that the Cabinet Office had concluded that “Sue Gray held secret talks with [Starmer] while working for the team advising the Commons partygate investigation” appeared in advance. And yet the actual update from Oliver Dowden said nothing of the kind, but noted that Gray had declined to participate and said that there was an obligation “to maintain confidentiality towards an individual former employee”...
So the Cabinet Office "inquiry" was - or rather is - political hackery & cheap trickery from the word go?
I did like how Guido interpreted it, under the title of 'Shady Gray stays silent' and 'Rule-breaking Sue stonewalled government inquiry'
According to The Sun, the Cabinet Office were able to search Sue’s emails and late interventions from Whitehall lawyers were the only reason insiders removed lines accusing Gray of rule-breaking
So...basically there was going to be harsher accusations until lawyers intervened (presumably to say that was a 'brave' move), but we should assume those accusations were true regardless.
We have had voter ID requirements in Northern Ireland for years. Its not exactly a burden, just get on with it.
Meanwhile lots of speculation over exactly what that UAV attack on the Kremlin was about.
1. Ukraine can attack that deep into Russia. There are multiple Ukrainian agencies who could give it a crack and who have links with local sympathisers on the ground. 2. Its unlikely the UAVs were launched from Ukraine, they seem a bit small 3. The Russian provocation idea only sounds good if you want the embarassment of admitting you cant shoot down two drones coming at your seat of power, and a location that, on paper, has plenty of air defences around it. It is also mitigated by the fact that the Russian authorities didnt exactly acknowledge it super quick. Signs of a bit of fakery are rapid acknowledgement, finger pointing and production of evidence. If it was such a move by Russia it appears remarkably unclear in its objective.
It’s another one where I’m wondering why everyone is saying State Actors.
A medium sized drone plus something to go bang is a weekend hobby project, not the X Men Jet….
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
That would be no to Boudicca on the grounds of zero relevancy to the coronation of King Charles.
There’s a Coronation taking place Saturday in London, not a toga party.
She was a British queen regnant, was she not? So more royal than any guards(wo)man!
And did you know, that Guards originated as part of the New Model Army?
So they had something to do with KCI losing his fool head? (But also KCII gaining his crown.)
I didn’t know guards originated in the new model army.
But I suspect Charles 1st was no fool, despite Cromwell being the most horrible murderous bloodthirsty bastard ever, they didn’t want to cut kings head off, he gave them no choice knowing how it could damage them and their take over.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
That would be no to Boudicca on the grounds of zero relevancy to the coronation of King Charles.
There’s a Coronation taking place Saturday in London, not a toga party.
I'm thinking about coming along as Oliver Cromwell
I wouldn’t advise it based on last appearance on streets of London.
Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey and publicly dragged through the streets of London to the Tyburn gallows at present-day Marble Arch. His corpse was strung up in chains until four o'clock that afternoon, then struck down and decapitated.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
Are you sure your "bearskins" are for real? Odds they're really rabbitskins WAY more than 19 out of 20!
Running your finger through it, you can tell it’s not been alive at any point.
This pic has really piqued your interest again. You must be a complete sucker for the trappings of British pageantry
Bunnies and bears are both alive before being turned into hats.
Since you are such a mind reader, how many $500 bills am I thinking are currently in my wallet?
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
That would be no to Boudicca on the grounds of zero relevancy to the coronation of King Charles.
There’s a Coronation taking place Saturday in London, not a toga party.
She was a British queen regnant, was she not? So more royal than any guards(wo)man!
And did you know, that Guards originated as part of the New Model Army?
So they had something to do with KCI losing his fool head? (But also KCII gaining his crown.)
I didn’t know guards originated in the new model army.
But I suspect Charles 1st was no fool, despite Cromwell being the most horrible murderous bloodthirsty bastard ever, they didn’t want to cut kings head off, he gave them no choice knowing how it could damage them and their take over.
Charles I was indeed a fool - just ask Prince Rupert's ghost!
As for the New Model and the Guards, just got a great idea for a new TV series:
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
That would be no to Boudicca on the grounds of zero relevancy to the coronation of King Charles.
There’s a Coronation taking place Saturday in London, not a toga party.
She was a British queen regnant, was she not? So more royal than any guards(wo)man!
And did you know, that Guards originated as part of the New Model Army?
So they had something to do with KCI losing his fool head? (But also KCII gaining his crown.)
I didn’t know guards originated in the new model army.
But I suspect Charles 1st was no fool, despite Cromwell being the most horrible murderous bloodthirsty bastard ever, they didn’t want to cut kings head off, he gave them no choice knowing how it could damage them and their take over.
Charles I was most definitely a fool, at least when it came to stubborn inflexibility and a highly ahistorical view about the power of the monarch (yes opponents engaged in plenty of ahistorical analysis as well) and implications of a divine right, breaking his word and causing his enemies to become ever more extreme.
Whilst we would not call what he got a fair trial today, it was by some margin more than those who opposed him got upon Charles II's return.
The NMA regiment to which part of the Guards trace their history was formed after the regicide, by a Royalist turned Cromwellian turned Royalist (there are other elements to it).
Cromwell was not the most horrible murderous bloodthirsty bastard ever, even considering the nature of the conquest of Ireland which was, unfortunately, not unheard of for the time.
The dominant army faction purged the parliament in order to ensure the execution of Charles, it was hardly a singularly Cromwell driven even though he was the key figure of the period.
We have had voter ID requirements in Northern Ireland for years. Its not exactly a burden, just get on with it.
Meanwhile lots of speculation over exactly what that UAV attack on the Kremlin was about.
1. Ukraine can attack that deep into Russia. There are multiple Ukrainian agencies who could give it a crack and who have links with local sympathisers on the ground. 2. Its unlikely the UAVs were launched from Ukraine, they seem a bit small 3. The Russian provocation idea only sounds good if you want the embarassment of admitting you cant shoot down two drones coming at your seat of power, and a location that, on paper, has plenty of air defences around it. It is also mitigated by the fact that the Russian authorities didnt exactly acknowledge it super quick. Signs of a bit of fakery are rapid acknowledgement, finger pointing and production of evidence. If it was such a move by Russia it appears remarkably unclear in its objective.
It does increase the likelihood of attack response on Zelenskyy and his government doesn’t it, which is one tick in the box in favour of fakery?
Russia is doing that anyway, if they could have got Zelensky by now they would have.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
Are you sure your "bearskins" are for real? Odds they're really rabbitskins WAY more than 19 out of 20!
Running your finger through it, you can tell it’s not been alive at any point.
This pic has really piqued your interest again. You must be a complete sucker for the trappings of British pageantry
Bunnies and bears are both alive before being turned into hats.
Since you are such a mind reader, how many $500 bills am I thinking are currently in my wallet?
Are the various divisions of England perhaps labeled, "French Occupation Zone", "German Occupation Zone", "Spanish Occupation Zone', "Scottish Occupation Zone" and (last and maybe least) "Welsh Occupation Zone"?
A desire for neatness means no gaps may be permitted.Serbia will get in on sufference just so all the space is filled in.
It can't be considered neat with the European bit of Turkey missing.
That's part of phase 2 - expansion through Turkey to the Caucasus and the Levant.
Phase 3 will be to restore the former Roman territories on the north coast of Africa and gain total dominance of the Mediterranean and the temperate zone.
Phase 4 will conclude with pushing across the Urals, probably around 2075.
Only then gain the French overseas departments be used as staging points for expansion into South American and the pacific.
Are the various divisions of England perhaps labeled, "French Occupation Zone", "German Occupation Zone", "Spanish Occupation Zone', "Scottish Occupation Zone" and (last and maybe least) "Welsh Occupation Zone"?
Given the capital is in Vienna, wouldn't Prince Archbishopric of Cambridge, etc, be more appropriate?
A desire for neatness means no gaps may be permitted.Serbia will get in on sufference just so all the space is filled in.
It can't be considered neat with the European bit of Turkey missing.
That's part of phase 2 - expansion through Turkey to the Caucasus and the Levant.
Phase 3 will be to restore the former Roman territories on the north coast of Africa and gain total dominance of the Mediterranean and the temperate zone.
Phase 4 will conclude with pushing across the Urals, probably around 2075.
Only then gain the French overseas departments be used as staging points for expansion into South American and the pacific.
Have you been reading some old German literature recently, by any chance?
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
Are you sure your "bearskins" are for real? Odds they're really rabbitskins WAY more than 19 out of 20!
Running your finger through it, you can tell it’s not been alive at any point.
This pic has really piqued your interest again. You must be a complete sucker for the trappings of British pageantry
Bunnies and bears are both alive before being turned into hats.
Since you are such a mind reader, how many $500 bills am I thinking are currently in my wallet?
The real battle at the next election is whether to stick to a now-bankrupt model (Sunak) or whether to follow Biden and Europe toward the next thing (hesitantly, Starmer).
London, Scotland and Wales aren't voting tomorrow/today, but if I understand it correctly the projected national vote will be an estimate of how the whole of Britain would have voted, including the areas that aren't actually voting. Is this correct? I always find it a bit confusing. I don't know how they can include places that aren't voting in the calculations for the simple reason that there won't be any data from those areas, but on the other hand the phrase "National Equivalent Vote Share" implies that it does attempt to estimate vote shares for the whole of Britain.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
That would be no to Boudicca on the grounds of zero relevancy to the coronation of King Charles.
There’s a Coronation taking place Saturday in London, not a toga party.
She was a British queen regnant, was she not? So more royal than any guards(wo)man!
And did you know, that Guards originated as part of the New Model Army?
So they had something to do with KCI losing his fool head? (But also KCII gaining his crown.)
I didn’t know guards originated in the new model army.
But I suspect Charles 1st was no fool, despite Cromwell being the most horrible murderous bloodthirsty bastard ever, they didn’t want to cut kings head off, he gave them no choice knowing how it could damage them and their take over.
Charles I was most definitely a fool, at least when it came to stubborn inflexibility and a highly ahistorical view about the power of the monarch (yes opponents engaged in plenty of ahistorical analysis as well) and implications of a divine right, breaking his word and causing his enemies to become ever more extreme.
Whilst we would not call what he got a fair trial today, it was by some margin more than those who opposed him got upon Charles II's return.
The NMA regiment to which part of the Guards trace their history was formed after the regicide, by a Royalist turned Cromwellian turned Royalist (there are other elements to it).
Cromwell was not the most horrible murderous bloodthirsty bastard ever, even considering the nature of the conquest of Ireland which was, unfortunately, not unheard of for the time.
The dominant army faction purged the parliament in order to ensure the execution of Charles, it was hardly a singularly Cromwell driven even though he was the key figure of the period.
Just for starters.
Yey! We have a period expert.
So what was the Protectorate arrangement with the UK Catholic Church? Did they have cordial dealings with them, or feared they were simply plotters with foreign enemies?
London, Scotland and Wales aren't voting tomorrow/today, but if I understand it correctly the projected national vote will be an estimate of how the whole of Britain would have voted, including the areas that aren't actually voting. Is this correct? I always find it a bit confusing. I don't know how they can include places that aren't voting in the calculations for the simple reason that there won't be any data from those areas, but on the other hand the phrase "National Equivalent Vote Share" implies that it does attempt to estimate vote shares for the whole of Britain.
I understand that too. They have mathematical tools in a spreadsheet, so they just punch in the voting results, and last time it took a couple off Tory’s and added it to Labour for the PNE.
Like you, I expect there are some assumptions built into the maths.
"Loneliness poses profound public health threat, surgeon general says
The risk of premature death posed by social disconnection is similar to smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day and even greater than obesity and physical inactivity, according to a review of research on social connection."
My favourite counter-measure would be quite technical - instruct the Boundary Commission to draw constituency boundaries according to population, as shown by the census, rather than by the number who have registered. That would eliminate the inherent bias to older, more settled people, as opposed to young people who constantly move around. I wouldn't extend the vote to anyone unregistered, but a community of 80,000 should be worth an MP regardless of how many of them have in fact registered.
Agreed - calculating based on a measure that is even more changable than mere population growth is a poor idea.
I've never known a Labour supporter who doesn't support this move.
Never voted Labour in my life. It just sounds fairer to me.
Some people have suggested that boundaries should be set by the number of people voting...
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
Are you sure your "bearskins" are for real? Odds they're really rabbitskins WAY more than 19 out of 20!
Running your finger through it, you can tell it’s not been alive at any point.
This pic has really piqued your interest again. You must be a complete sucker for the trappings of British pageantry
Bunnies and bears are both alive before being turned into hats.
Since you are such a mind reader, how many $500 bills am I thinking are currently in my wallet?
None. Zero.
You ARE a mind reader!
And you are broke.
You wouldn't make a mean, hurtful crack like that about Rishi Sunak!
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
That would be no to Boudicca on the grounds of zero relevancy to the coronation of King Charles.
There’s a Coronation taking place Saturday in London, not a toga party.
She was a British queen regnant, was she not? So more royal than any guards(wo)man!
And did you know, that Guards originated as part of the New Model Army?
So they had something to do with KCI losing his fool head? (But also KCII gaining his crown.)
I didn’t know guards originated in the new model army.
But I suspect Charles 1st was no fool, despite Cromwell being the most horrible murderous bloodthirsty bastard ever, they didn’t want to cut kings head off, he gave them no choice knowing how it could damage them and their take over.
Charles I was most definitely a fool, at least when it came to stubborn inflexibility and a highly ahistorical view about the power of the monarch (yes opponents engaged in plenty of ahistorical analysis as well) and implications of a divine right, breaking his word and causing his enemies to become ever more extreme.
Whilst we would not call what he got a fair trial today, it was by some margin more than those who opposed him got upon Charles II's return.
The NMA regiment to which part of the Guards trace their history was formed after the regicide, by a Royalist turned Cromwellian turned Royalist (there are other elements to it).
Cromwell was not the most horrible murderous bloodthirsty bastard ever, even considering the nature of the conquest of Ireland which was, unfortunately, not unheard of for the time.
The dominant army faction purged the parliament in order to ensure the execution of Charles, it was hardly a singularly Cromwell driven even though he was the key figure of the period.
Just for starters.
Yey! We have a period expert.
So what was the Protectorate arrangement with the UK Catholic Church? Did they have cordial dealings with them, or feared they were simply plotters with foreign enemies?
Not an expert, but believe answer was behind Door #2.
Nothing approaching cordiality between Roman Catholics and Commonwealth in any of the Three Kingdoms.
"Loneliness poses profound public health threat, surgeon general says
The risk of premature death posed by social disconnection is similar to smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day and even greater than obesity and physical inactivity, according to a review of research on social connection."
Certainly no point in staying up late. Getting up early might yield a reasonably slice of news, but the story of the elections will mostly emerge during Friday and we won’t have the full picture until later on that day. A story, if there is one, for Saturday’s news.
London, Scotland and Wales aren't voting tomorrow/today, but if I understand it correctly the projected national vote will be an estimate of how the whole of Britain would have voted, including the areas that aren't actually voting. Is this correct? I always find it a bit confusing. I don't know how they can include places that aren't voting in the calculations for the simple reason that there won't be any data from those areas, but on the other hand the phrase "National Equivalent Vote Share" implies that it does attempt to estimate vote shares for the whole of Britain.
Yes, that is what they try to do, using the swings in a good batch of wards supposedly chosen as being representative of various different types of area. It’s a reasonable approach but unlikely to fully overcome the problems of differential swings by geography or demography coupled with the inbuilt bias in the batch of wards that come up for election each cycle.
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
Bell wethers - castrated rams wearing bells that the other sheep follow
"Loneliness poses profound public health threat, surgeon general says
The risk of premature death posed by social disconnection is similar to smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day and even greater than obesity and physical inactivity, according to a review of research on social connection."
So, what you're saying is that so long as I'm sociable, I can smoke a packet a day?
This is another covid legacy, the legacy of social distancing; over the longer term of course even when assessed in terms of health outcomes, the harm may well outweigh the benefits by quite a large margin.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
I came under considerable attack on simply stating what I considered a fair response
I reiterate I believe her report into Johnson was fair and indeed lenient and was completed before her talks with Starmer
There are some in the conservative party who are trying to ludicrously claim it negates her report and I reject that100%
The question relates to whether in discussing her appointment to Starmer and labour was in breach of civil service rules and that will be answered shortly
The question of gardening leave will follow the report
I would just say pilling into a fellow poster who may have a more nuanced opinion than some can be unfair
It’s true. Soon as you posted, everyone came back with an opinion.
But where we don’t know the outcome, you do concede there are breaches and then there are breaches of code, “you didn’t ask for permission first” being very minor - and the length of gardening leave, largely there for commercial consideration, defence PS to defence industry for example, utterly absent in Civil Service to political party role moves, so will need something remarkable we havn’t or heard of yet to be longer than standard 6 months?
Acoba is the body with responsibility for assessing new jobs for senior civil servants, as well as former ministers, and has the power to suggest a cooling-off period of between three months and two years if there are concerns about any conflict of interest. Nobody disputes that it should have a say over Gray’s appointment.
But the Cabinet Office inquiry was less conventional, and more controversial. “There’s no precedent for this sort of investigation for someone who’s already left the civil service,” Pippa said. “And there are senior civil servants who were concerned about such a politically charged report being released just before the local elections.”
Nonetheless, detailed briefing that the Cabinet Office had concluded that “Sue Gray held secret talks with [Starmer] while working for the team advising the Commons partygate investigation” appeared in advance. And yet the actual update from Oliver Dowden said nothing of the kind, but noted that Gray had declined to participate and said that there was an obligation “to maintain confidentiality towards an individual former employee”...
So the Cabinet Office "inquiry" was - or rather is - political hackery & cheap trickery from the word go?
Not in my opinion. “There’s no precedent for this sort of investigation for someone who’s already left the civil service”. Even if they left the civil service, if they were PS at defence for example, I should hope a sensible period should be imposed before they work for a defence contractor...
Which is precisely the role of Acoba to rule on.
Eff all to do with the spurious cabinet office 'enquiry'. Which is evidently a bit of political theatre..
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
I'm expecting differential turnout to favour Labour - a lot of Lab voters are really keen to vote, and I've only met a few Tories who feel like that.
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
I'm expecting differential turnout to favour Labour - a lot of Lab voters are really keen to vote, and I've only met a few Tories who feel like that.
“Canadians are very much split on their opinions when it comes to the monarchy in Canada. Roughly half (54%) agree (20% strongly/33% somewhat) that now that Queen Elizabeth II’s reign has ended, Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy. This sentiment is down 5 points from 2021, but up from 44% in 2011. Conversely, 46% disagree (19% strongly/27% somewhat) that Canada should sever ties, up 5 points.”
Only 20% are strong republicans (bet they’re mostly in Quebec). You need way more than that to go through the enormous arse-ache of massive constitutional turmoil. It’s not gonna happen. Canada is a safe, stable, prosperous country, looked on with envy by many. Why change what works?
Also, the monarchy sets Canada apart from the USA and, in my experience, Canadians love ANYTHING that does that
It's in the Guardian, so you can properly ChatGPT the whole article from here: "write me an article in the style of the Guardian as to why the monarchy is unpopular in Canada"
In fact, I just did - here is what it said: "As a Commonwealth country with a constitutional monarchy, Canada has long been associated with the British royal family. However, recent years have seen a decline in support for the monarchy in Canada, with polls indicating that a growing number of Canadians now believe that the country should become a republic.
The reasons for this shift in opinion are multifaceted. Firstly, many Canadians see the monarchy as an anachronism that is out of step with modern values. The monarchy is seen by some as a relic of the past, with its focus on tradition and ceremony seen as at odds with Canada's progressive, diverse and egalitarian society.
Additionally, many Canadians object to the idea of a hereditary head of state. The fact that the position of monarch is passed down through a single family, with no democratic input, is seen by many as fundamentally undemocratic. In a country that values meritocracy and equal opportunity, the idea of a person holding a position of power simply because of their birthright is unpalatable to many.
Another factor contributing to the unpopularity of the monarchy in Canada is the cost of maintaining the royal family. Despite the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy, the royal family does not actually reside in the country, meaning that Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for their security when they visit. This has led to criticism that the money spent on the monarchy could be better used to fund public services or support vulnerable communities.
Moreover, recent controversies surrounding the royal family have also played a role in eroding support for the institution. The revelations of racism and colonialism made by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in their interview with Oprah Winfrey, as well as the scandals surrounding Prince Andrew, have called into question the values and behaviour of the royal family.
Despite these challenges, supporters of the monarchy argue that it provides a link to Canada's history and tradition, and that the cost of maintaining the royal family is minimal compared to the economic benefits that they bring to the country. However, with support for the monarchy declining and calls for a republic growing louder, it remains to be seen whether the institution will continue to have a place in Canadian society.
Regenerate response"
That’s a pretty good response to brief. Probably would get a B+ at A level
Certainly no point in staying up late. Getting up early might yield a reasonably slice of news, but the story of the elections will mostly emerge during Friday and we won’t have the full picture until later on that day. A story, if there is one, for Saturday’s news.
Well, up to a point Lord Copper.
The PA site referenced here seems to show a huge increase on previous years in final counts delayed till Friday.
But certainly here, verifications - which mean activists will see the votes - are happening tonight even though the final count won't be called till Friday afternoon, which will be a good 15 hours later than earlier elections this century . So activists will have a pretty good idea by midnight tonight how or whether: - turnout differs from previous years (and whether that's led to a suppression of anti-Tory votes) - the smaller anti-Tory parties (Greens, LDs and regionalist radicals) have had their following nibbled away by the Starmer bulldozer - national media are able to pick up on the signals from these verifications.
Generally, local parties have a pretty accurate insight into the eventual result from the verification stage. What I've never quite been able to trap is how far national media have been able to pick this up.
It'll be interesting to compare Friday morning's coverage of this with Saturday and Sunday morning's coverage.
Comments
Anyone care to guess which firm audits them - if you guessed KPMG you read my post earlier regarding the previous defaulting banks.
Cross-over on the list - which determines who actually gets the most MSPs. Would be a Unionist majority.
New Scottish Parliament poll, Redfield & Wilton 30 Apr - 2 May (changes v 31 Mar - 1 Apr):
List:
Lab ~ 27% (+3)
SNP ~ 25% (-5)
Con ~ 19% (nc)
Grn ~ 13% (+2)
LD ~ 10% (-3)
Alba ~ 2% (+2)
RUK ~ 2% (nc)
Const:
SNP ~ 36% (-2)
Lab ~ 32% (+4)
Con ~ 18% (nc)
LD ~ 8% (-2)
Grn ~ 2% (-1)
Labour ~ 38 (+8 / +16)
SNP ~ 37 (-14 / -27)
Conservative ~ 25 (+2 / -6)
Green ~ 17 (+7 /+9)
Lib Dem ~ 12 (-3 / +8)
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1653845448703057920
Postal voters who are more likely to vote Tory have not had hurdles placed to exercise their right to vote .
The Tories can bank their postal votes and are quite happy to see millions disenfranchised.
The new voter ID rules are a disgrace and anyone with a working brain surely can’t avoid the reality that these new rules are only happening because the Tories know it will benefit them .
With enthusiasm and photo ID.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/03/war-on-cash-existential-threat-financial-independence/
"The war on cash poses an existential threat to our financial independence
It’s terrible for the elderly, and risks giving massive power to social engineers and faceless bureaucrats"
'He's got a lot of things going and a lot of strange things happen. But certainly he should be here as a representative of our country. I was surprised when I heard that he wasn't coming.
'You would think he would be here, he'll be in Delaware where he spends a lot of time, he spent a lot of time there during the election.
'So I don't know, but I was very surprised to see I think it's very disrespectful for him not to be.'
He added: 'That man is incompetent, and it's a shame.
'He can't even come to your Coronation as a country, and your Coronation's a big event.
'When you have somebody that's going to be sleeping instead of coming to the coronation as president of the United States, I think it's a bad thing
When asked by Farage whether he would have attended if he was president, Trump said: 'I would.'
He added: 'I think it's a very important event. I think it's a great thing. A lot of people talk about the monarchy should you have it, should you not, I think it's a fantastic thing. It holds your country together largely.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12043173/Donald-Trump-blasts-Meghan-Markle-disrespecting-Queen.html
So yet again Starmer told the truth.
More at 10
A dream of power and energy
We go for the gold
Together we hold on to our vision of global strategy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCvKXgp-Awo
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/03/first-edition-sue-gray-keir-starmer-labour-partygate
… Yesterday’s update was on the Cabinet Office inquiry; there is no date for when Acoba will reach its conclusion.
Acoba is the body with responsibility for assessing new jobs for senior civil servants, as well as former ministers, and has the power to suggest a cooling-off period of between three months and two years if there are concerns about any conflict of interest. Nobody disputes that it should have a say over Gray’s appointment.
But the Cabinet Office inquiry was less conventional, and more controversial. “There’s no precedent for this sort of investigation for someone who’s already left the civil service,” Pippa said. “And there are senior civil servants who were concerned about such a politically charged report being released just before the local elections.”
Nonetheless, detailed briefing that the Cabinet Office had concluded that “Sue Gray held secret talks with [Starmer] while working for the team advising the Commons partygate investigation” appeared in advance. And yet the actual update from Oliver Dowden said nothing of the kind, but noted that Gray had declined to participate and said that there was an obligation “to maintain confidentiality towards an individual former employee”...
"With the rising cost of a weekly shop adding to pressure on households across the country, the Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, called on the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to investigate whether any profiteering was taking place among supermarkets and food multinationals."
(Sainsbury's most recent results: margin of 3%)
"Savanta
🌹Lab 42 (-3)
🌳Con 31 (=)
🔶LD 9 (+1)
➡️Ref 7 (+2)
🎗️SNP 3 (=)
🌍Gre 3 (=)
⬜️Oth 5 (+1)
2,156 UK adults, 21-23 April"
https://twitter.com/ChrisHopkins92/status/1653772452600717312
It's bizarre. Why go the trouble of doing a voting intention poll and then taking two weeks to make it public? 🤷♂️
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/PACW:NASDAQ?hl=en
One a week?
It's all just to keep the name RAC in the public mind.
Or does the word "disrespecting" have a different meaning in UK than USA?
Meanwhile lots of speculation over exactly what that UAV attack on the Kremlin was about.
1. Ukraine can attack that deep into Russia. There are multiple Ukrainian agencies who could give it a crack and who have links with local sympathisers on the ground.
2. Its unlikely the UAVs were launched from Ukraine, they seem a bit small
3. The Russian provocation idea only sounds good if you want the embarassment of admitting you cant shoot down two drones coming at your seat of power, and a location that, on paper, has plenty of air defences around it. It is also mitigated by the fact that the Russian authorities didnt exactly acknowledge it super quick. Signs of a bit of fakery are rapid acknowledgement, finger pointing and production of evidence. If it was such a move by Russia it appears remarkably unclear in its objective.
Boudicca costume
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuyhOTHbJJ8
Should such a politically charged report be allowed to be released on eve of voting, or held back till after voting?There’s obviously been a service v politicians bun fight behind the scenes this week, which resulted in this delayed till after voting, based on purdah if not also fears of libel. It was quite rightly held back IMO.
At start of week we were spun there was proper damaging revelations in this. Now we know for certain there isn’t any substance beyond “secret talks” because government were not told they were happening, and in October when Sue was advising the Commons Partygate investigation. Anyone think that sounds substantial or even interesting? If there was anything more damaging than this, once civil service refused to publish, the Tories would have easily leaked it.
There’s a Coronation taking place Saturday in London, not a toga party.
https://election.pressassociation.com/locals/provisional-may-election-declaration-times-in-chronological-order/
This pic has really piqued your interest again. You must be a complete sucker for the trappings of British pageantry
And did you know, that Guards originated as part of the New Model Army?
So they had something to do with KCI losing his fool head? (But also KCII gaining his crown.)
https://twitter.com/EeldenDen/status/1653096350056079370
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1653792839698980865
Electoral Calculus translates that into 21 additional Labour seats.
But I suspect Charles 1st was no fool, despite Cromwell being the most horrible murderous bloodthirsty bastard ever, they didn’t want to cut kings head off, he gave them no choice knowing how it could damage them and their take over.
There's just one problem: When this many visitors show up, all the mobile networks go down. Luckily we still have cash...
Since you are such a mind reader, how many $500 bills am I thinking are currently in my wallet?
According to The Sun, the Cabinet Office were able to search Sue’s emails and late interventions from Whitehall lawyers were the only reason insiders removed lines accusing Gray of rule-breaking
So...basically there was going to be harsher accusations until lawyers intervened (presumably to say that was a 'brave' move), but we should assume those accusations were true regardless.
A medium sized drone plus something to go bang is a weekend hobby project, not the X Men Jet….
Cromwell's body was exhumed from Westminster Abbey and publicly dragged through the streets of London to the Tyburn gallows at present-day Marble Arch. His corpse was strung up in chains until four o'clock that afternoon, then struck down and decapitated.
As for the New Model and the Guards, just got a great idea for a new TV series:
"Monck" staring Tony Shalhoub.
Whilst we would not call what he got a fair trial today, it was by some margin more than those who opposed him got upon Charles II's return.
The NMA regiment to which part of the Guards trace their history was formed after the regicide, by a Royalist turned Cromwellian turned Royalist (there are other elements to it).
Cromwell was not the most horrible murderous bloodthirsty bastard ever, even considering the nature of the conquest of Ireland which was, unfortunately, not unheard of for the time.
The dominant army faction purged the parliament in order to ensure the execution of Charles, it was hardly a singularly Cromwell driven even though he was the key figure of the period.
Just for starters.
Are the various divisions of England perhaps labeled, "French Occupation Zone", "German Occupation Zone", "Spanish Occupation Zone', "Scottish Occupation Zone" and (last and maybe least) "Welsh Occupation Zone"?
Phase 3 will be to restore the former Roman territories on the north coast of Africa and gain total dominance of the Mediterranean and the temperate zone.
Phase 4 will conclude with pushing across the Urals, probably around 2075.
Only then gain the French overseas departments be used as staging points for expansion into South American and the pacific.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-bidenomics-has-finally-defeated-reaganomics
Britain’s model stopped working in 2008 (at least). It’s astonishing that it still has such an ideological grip on the country.
So what was the Protectorate arrangement with the UK Catholic Church? Did they have cordial dealings with them, or feared they were simply plotters with foreign enemies?
Like you, I expect there are some assumptions built into the maths.
The risk of premature death posed by social disconnection is similar to smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day and even greater than obesity and physical inactivity, according to a review of research on social connection."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/05/02/loneliness-health-crisis-surgeon-general/
Nothing approaching cordiality between Roman Catholics and Commonwealth in any of the Three Kingdoms.
Nothing to do with the weather
Feels about right.
Eff all to do with the spurious cabinet office 'enquiry'. Which is evidently a bit of political theatre..
F1: backed Perez at 6.5 to 'win' qualifying each way. Last year he was within half a tenth of Verstappen.
The PA site referenced here seems to show a huge increase on previous years in final counts delayed till Friday.
But certainly here, verifications - which mean activists will see the votes - are happening tonight even though the final count won't be called till Friday afternoon, which will be a good 15 hours later than earlier elections this century . So activists will have a pretty good idea by midnight tonight how or whether:
- turnout differs from previous years (and whether that's led to a suppression of anti-Tory votes)
- the smaller anti-Tory parties (Greens, LDs and regionalist radicals) have had their following nibbled away by the Starmer bulldozer
- national media are able to pick up on the signals from these verifications.
Generally, local parties have a pretty accurate insight into the eventual result from the verification stage. What I've never quite been able to trap is how far national media have been able to pick this up.
It'll be interesting to compare Friday morning's coverage of this with Saturday and Sunday morning's coverage.