She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
Not just makes them look incompetent, but proves that they are...
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
One could also argue the opposite, that politics is the art of the possible, and that for a minister new to the brief to take a step back, and be more realistic about what’s achievable within a given timescale, is a point in her favour.
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
One could also argue the opposite, that politics is the art of the possible, and that for a minister new to the brief to take a step back, and be more realistic about what’s achievable within a given timescale, is a point in her favour.
I'd say it is more representative of the improvement in approach since Sunak took over, but they are essentially fixing the mess that they themselves caused; so it is hard to give them much credit.
I do agree that Badenoch is one of the better politicians though.
Could Bakhmut be the Goose Green of Ukraine? A place of little or no strategic value, but so heavily invested in that its loss causes a sudden collapse.
Certainly Progizhin seems to think so judging by his recent statements. As do the Russian Defence Ministry.
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
One could also argue the opposite, that politics is the art of the possible, and that for a minister new to the brief to take a step back, and be more realistic about what’s achievable within a given timescale, is a point in her favour.
Imagine being a 36 year woman from Australia who comes to London for the coronation and ends up getting locked up all day for no reason, other than happening to be next to some protesters.
She has been living here 7 years.
Surely though arresting anyone who has not done anything but watch is the problem, not that she was a royalist fan?
We are going to see lots of folk locked up when the police don't like the look of them. It's like bringing back the old "Sus" laws that provoked the Brixton riots. Sooner or later we will see riots in response to this sort of policing.
The problem is that the police arrested protesters before they'd done anything that merited arrest. If you are arresting people who haven't done anything wrong then you will end up, well, arresting people who haven't done anything wrong - including those who had no intention of doing anything wrong (however you wish to define "doing anything wrong" for whatever context).
Could Bakhmut be the Goose Green of Ukraine? A place of little or no strategic value, but so heavily invested in that its loss causes a sudden collapse.
Certainly Progizhin seems to think so judging by his recent statements. As do the Russian Defence Ministry.
Prigozhin really comes across as someone eager for an excuse to get out of there, provided he can blame the Russians.
Could Bakhmut be the Goose Green of Ukraine? A place of little or no strategic value, but so heavily invested in that its loss causes a sudden collapse.
Certainly Progizhin seems to think so judging by his recent statements. As do the Russian Defence Ministry.
Let’s all hope so! The Russians have lost around 20,000 men attacking that one small railway town. Reports overnight don’t look good for them, and watching Russia and Wagner argue with each other in public isn’t a positive sign either.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
It wasn't Crace's finest piece - when he's good, he's very good, but without passion the invective is just a bit tiresome.
Regardless, I stick to my view that Badenoch is a bit crap, and would be a bit crap as leader too.
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
I do enjoy how it brings out the full dogmatic weirdness of the ERG. Nothing will ever be enough for them.
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
I do enjoy how it brings out the full dogmatic weirdness of the ERG. Nothing will ever be enough for them.
That's a pity for them, as nothing is what they're getting from now on.
Could Bakhmut be the Goose Green of Ukraine? A place of little or no strategic value, but so heavily invested in that its loss causes a sudden collapse.
Certainly Progizhin seems to think so judging by his recent statements. As do the Russian Defence Ministry.
Let’s all hope so! The Russians have lost around 20,000 men attacking that one small railway town. Reports overnight don’t look good for them, and watching Russia and Wagner argue with each other in public isn’t a positive sign either.
It's an astonishing and tragic loss, in an astonishingly stupid, tragic and pointless conflict.
Starting to think a Polonium-induced early retirement may be heading Putin's way.
Could Bakhmut be the Goose Green of Ukraine? A place of little or no strategic value, but so heavily invested in that its loss causes a sudden collapse.
Certainly Progizhin seems to think so judging by his recent statements. As do the Russian Defence Ministry.
Let’s all hope so! The Russians have lost around 20,000 men attacking that one small railway town. Reports overnight don’t look good for them, and watching Russia and Wagner argue with each other in public isn’t a positive sign either.
It's an astonishing and tragic loss, in an astonishingly stupid, tragic and pointless conflict.
Starting to think a Polonium-induced early retirement may be heading Putin's way.
They have a small window of opportunity.
It's on the third floor and opens when someone has cocked up massively.
Could Bakhmut be the Goose Green of Ukraine? A place of little or no strategic value, but so heavily invested in that its loss causes a sudden collapse.
Certainly Progizhin seems to think so judging by his recent statements. As do the Russian Defence Ministry.
Prigozhin really comes across as someone eager for an excuse to get out of there, provided he can blame the Russians.
It’s an existential crisis now for Wagner Group. They need to maintain their reputation as hard men that win wars, and that’s not happening here. They’ve also lost a lot of their own officer corps.
Train strikes today and tomorrow. The train companies are saying they had not targetted Eurovision and other events this weekend. I find this implausible to say the least.
I don't quite get why the results of the local elections seemingly show that Labour will have problems winning a majority. They may not win a majority, but using the local elections as an argument for that doesn't make much sense to me.
They made big advances in the 'Red Wall' and in more traditional marginal areas. If all councils had been 'all-up' (rather than elected in thirds) then they would have won even more councils and seats and I doubt this argument would be being put forth as much.
I'd say that, if anything, the results suggest that Labour had a pretty good chance of a comfortable working majority even if no particular advances in Scotland are made.
SNP implosion combines with tactical voting and a general mood for change. They may fall just short of an overall majority but I think Scotland will just get them over the line.
Interesting, thanks.
I do think Labour could win 20-30 seats in Scotland and being largest party there is also not out of the question.
Yeah, I'd say winning about half the seats back that they lost in 2015 - so 20-30 seats - is a realistic target for Labour.
The thing about FPTP is what it gives and just as easily take away...
I don't quite get why the results of the local elections seemingly show that Labour will have problems winning a majority. They may not win a majority, but using the local elections as an argument for that doesn't make much sense to me.
They made big advances in the 'Red Wall' and in more traditional marginal areas. If all councils had been 'all-up' (rather than elected in thirds) then they would have won even more councils and seats and I doubt this argument would be being put forth as much.
I'd say that, if anything, the results suggest that Labour had a pretty good chance of a comfortable working majority even if no particular advances in Scotland are made.
The nub of the matter is that the Conservative vote went down but the Labour vote didn't go up.
Suggesting that Tory absententions may have been more significant than vote-switching, and that people wanted to vote against the Tories but aren't particularly rushing to vote for Labour.
Of course, if the same happens at a GE, Labour still wins. But they would be better off with a few positives and not merely being not as desperately bad as the the current lot. Because when a GE campaign approaches there is usually a swingback to the government from the election results and polls prior (noting Mrs May's big achievement in proving that this isn't always so).
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
I don't quite get why the results of the local elections seemingly show that Labour will have problems winning a majority. They may not win a majority, but using the local elections as an argument for that doesn't make much sense to me.
They made big advances in the 'Red Wall' and in more traditional marginal areas. If all councils had been 'all-up' (rather than elected in thirds) then they would have won even more councils and seats and I doubt this argument would be being put forth as much.
I'd say that, if anything, the results suggest that Labour had a pretty good chance of a comfortable working majority even if no particular advances in Scotland are made.
The results were very good for Labour. But not quite at the annihilatory level they would need for a definite majority. The vote efficiency looks good for them as well.
All this is why a number of people (including myself) are 98% certain that Labour will be largest party after the next election and about 60% that they will have a majority.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
0.1% growt in Q1. Was @MaxPB not telling us it was going to be 0.6? The large number of public sector strikes seem to have let the steam out.
0.1% for Q1 was in line with the market consensus and my forecast. March was weaker (-0.3% vs 0.0% consensus and my forecast), so perhaps there was an upwards revision to earlier months, I've not looked at the numbers in detail yet. The BOE reckons underlying growth is 0.2% once you take out strikes etc, which sounds about right.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
She's also what the Conservative don't need as LOTO. The Tories need to head back to the centre ground if they want to win again. It used to be that Labour was the party of 'lefty loonies' but now the Tories are being held captive by 'right wing loonies'.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
You mean she might surprise on the upside?
In that interview Badenoch's saying, you may know me as a batshit ideologue, but I can do the technocratic delivery thing too. That could count as an upside, while others might see her as disingenuous.
I don't quite get why the results of the local elections seemingly show that Labour will have problems winning a majority. They may not win a majority, but using the local elections as an argument for that doesn't make much sense to me.
They made big advances in the 'Red Wall' and in more traditional marginal areas. If all councils had been 'all-up' (rather than elected in thirds) then they would have won even more councils and seats and I doubt this argument would be being put forth as much.
I'd say that, if anything, the results suggest that Labour had a pretty good chance of a comfortable working majority even if no particular advances in Scotland are made.
The nub of the matter is that the Conservative vote went down but the Labour vote didn't go up.
Suggesting that Tory absententions may have been more significant than vote-switching, and that people wanted to vote against the Tories but aren't particularly rushing to vote for Labour.
Of course, if the same happens at a GE, Labour still wins. But they would be better off with a few positives and not merely being not as desperately bad as the the current lot. Because when a GE campaign approaches there is usually a swingback to the government from the election results and polls prior (noting Mrs May's big achievement in proving that this isn't always so).
In my view. swing back is tempered by the idea that This is Sunak's honeymoon. As an example, one can take a slice of 16 polls between Jan-Mar 91 which already showed Major over 5% ahead. He only eventually exceeded that level, with swing back, by 2.5%.
If Sunak's personal popularity drops, swing back doesn't necessarily yet start from here.
Could Bakhmut be the Goose Green of Ukraine? A place of little or no strategic value, but so heavily invested in that its loss causes a sudden collapse.
Certainly Progizhin seems to think so judging by his recent statements. As do the Russian Defence Ministry.
Let’s all hope so! The Russians have lost around 20,000 men attacking that one small railway town. Reports overnight don’t look good for them, and watching Russia and Wagner argue with each other in public isn’t a positive sign either.
Worse for the Russians: the Ukrainians have been making small but valuable gains, retaking territory that would have cost the Russians days, weeks, or months, and possibly hundreds of livres, to gain.
"Sky News understands Harriet Harman, chair of parliament’s Partygate Inquiry, was in personal contact with Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer’s incoming chief of staff Sue Gray while she was still a civil servant"
Sounds rather mild, but Sky don't get involved in fringe matters unless they sniff a story. Will this have legs after all?
No - it's just a leak designed to foster suspicion. If that's the best they can do, there isn't much to leak.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
One could also argue the opposite, that politics is the art of the possible, and that for a minister new to the brief to take a step back, and be more realistic about what’s achievable within a given timescale, is a point in her favour.
One could. But the original legislation was quite plainly imbecilic from the start. Giving them credit for taking so long to realise what was obvious to everyone else is something of a stretch.
I don't quite get why the results of the local elections seemingly show that Labour will have problems winning a majority. They may not win a majority, but using the local elections as an argument for that doesn't make much sense to me.
They made big advances in the 'Red Wall' and in more traditional marginal areas. If all councils had been 'all-up' (rather than elected in thirds) then they would have won even more councils and seats and I doubt this argument would be being put forth as much.
I'd say that, if anything, the results suggest that Labour had a pretty good chance of a comfortable working majority even if no particular advances in Scotland are made.
The nub of the matter is that the Conservative vote went down but the Labour vote didn't go up.
Suggesting that Tory absententions may have been more significant than vote-switching, and that people wanted to vote against the Tories but aren't particularly rushing to vote for Labour.
Of course, if the same happens at a GE, Labour still wins. But they would be better off with a few positives and not merely being not as desperately bad as the the current lot. Because when a GE campaign approaches there is usually a swingback to the government from the election results and polls prior (noting Mrs May's big achievement in proving that this isn't always so).
In my view. swing back is tempered by the idea that This is Sunak's honeymoon. As an example, one can take a slice of 16 polls between Jan-Mar 91 which already showed Major over 5% ahead. He only eventually exceeded that level, with swing back, by 2.5%.
If Sunak's personal popularity drops, swing back doesn't necessarily yet start from here.
Yes, I think this a valid point. The post Truss defenestration bounce looks like it is over. Swingback is nor inevitable and doesn't necessarily start from here.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
You mean she might surprise on the upside?
In that interview Badenoch's saying, you may know me as a batshit ideologue, but I can do the technocratic delivery thing too. That could count as an upside, while others might see her as disingenuous.
I guess that shows a modicum of self awareness. One of the problems with Truss to go with all the others is that she thinks she’s just dandy and no comprehension that others may disagree. All the evidence suggests that she believes her downfall is the fault of others and that she’ll be back.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
You mean she might surprise on the upside?
In that interview Badenoch's saying, you may know me as a batshit ideologue, but I can do the technocratic delivery thing too. That could count as an upside, while others might see her as disingenuous.
I guess that shows a modicum of self awareness. One of the problems with Truss to go with all the others is that she thinks she’s just dandy and no comprehension that others may disagree. All the evidence suggests that she believes her downfall is the fault of others and that she’ll be back.
I don't quite get why the results of the local elections seemingly show that Labour will have problems winning a majority. They may not win a majority, but using the local elections as an argument for that doesn't make much sense to me.
They made big advances in the 'Red Wall' and in more traditional marginal areas. If all councils had been 'all-up' (rather than elected in thirds) then they would have won even more councils and seats and I doubt this argument would be being put forth as much.
I'd say that, if anything, the results suggest that Labour had a pretty good chance of a comfortable working majority even if no particular advances in Scotland are made.
My take too. The Lib Dems and Greens did extremely well at the expense of the Conservatives, while Labour only did somewhat well. The key question is how much Labour and LD/Green supporters are willing to lend their votes to the other parties. Depending on the answer, the locals could indicate no majority or a stonking majority for Labour (I think the possibility of a landslide is underestimated on here)
She’s really rather good, especially against an idiot interviewer.
Calm but assertive, probably one of the best politicians on either front bench.
This Bill (the one scrapping all EU law) would have had massive consequences in all areas of public life, but it was pushed through in the hope of igniting a dispute between the 'true Brexiteers' and 'lefty lawyers'. Eventually the government have to confess that it isn't going to work and is more complicated than they thought. It makes them look incompetent.
One could also argue the opposite, that politics is the art of the possible, and that for a minister new to the brief to take a step back, and be more realistic about what’s achievable within a given timescale, is a point in her favour.
One could. But the original legislation was quite plainly imbecilic from the start. Giving them credit for taking so long to realise what was obvious to everyone else is something of a stretch.
An arsonist who calls the fire brigade should not expect too much thanks.
Worth noting that this bill was central to Sunaks leadership bid too, showing his level of understanding.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
You mean she might surprise on the upside?
In that interview Badenoch's saying, you may know me as a batshit ideologue, but I can do the technocratic delivery thing too. That could count as an upside, while others might see her as disingenuous.
The combination of dogmatism and ability to get things done is what brought us (for example) Gove's damaging education reforms, and Lansley's NHS reorganisation.
An AI aside: there's a Skyrim mod that replaced NPC chat with AI. Apparently it's so-so at best, but that sort of thing will revolutionise video games, perhaps especially open world sandboxes.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
I think that was intended ironically, FWIW. At least I hope it was.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
I think that was intended ironically, FWIW. At least I hope it was.
The police certainly exorcised the protestors’ right to protest.
"Royal fan detained for 13 hours after 'wrongful arrest' at King's coronation
Alice Chambers was an innocent bystander waiting to see the King drive past before being crowned at Westminster Abbey when she was arrested and locked up for the whole day."
I was assures yesterday this was a non-issue and the Met had behaved perfectly throughout.
Labour need to split up the Met.
Why are you blaming the police and not the protestors for things like this happening? The question to you is, if I placed you in overall charge for managing the security of the Coronation, what would have been different?
I was there, and I told the protestors there what they could and couldn’t do - no noises to alarm the horses, no going beyond the barricades, and if someone’s come all from Australia to enjoy the vibe and ultimate history making pageantry (that was indeed awesome) would it be fair to stick their placards up so they can’t see it and chant over the bands and bagpipes?
I told the protestors they shouldn’t be there. They were exorcising their rights to protest without any thought to the responsibilities which come with the right to protest, that is injury to others. You just can’t have any protest a protest group thinks up, protest just can’t be anything goes. The right to protest comes with responsibility on protestors too.
You really are a loon
I think that was intended ironically, FWIW. At least I hope it was.
I dunno. I fondly remember the days when MR pretended to be a lib dem (without ever deviating from the Tory line about anything). Nowadays the pretence seems to have been dropped. For irony to work, it needs to be out of character (this isn't) or so obviously out of kilter with normal thought patterns that you have to believe it's a spoof. But we've seen much the same fare from the monarchist right. Something about royalty brings out this dissent intolerance in some people. It's horribly fascinating.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
You mean she might surprise on the upside?
In that interview Badenoch's saying, you may know me as a batshit ideologue, but I can do the technocratic delivery thing too. That could count as an upside, while others might see her as disingenuous.
Well let's see her deliver something worthwhile on the Post Office instead of the feeble square root of f**k all she's done so far.
As for the EU Bill everyone said it was a hopelessly stupid piece of legislation, including me on here, ages ago. Finally recognising that hardly makes her a political Solomon.
As a Tory (usually) who intends to vote for them a few things stand out:
Abolishing the Lords: Replacing this with elected people, setting up an automatic conflict between two elected bodies is not great. Also, the actually useful people in the Lords wouldn't stand for election.
Votes for 16/17: No.
No return to FOM: Makes EFTA/EEA impossible. Not good.
Debt, deficit, how to fund the plans, SME: Nothing
Generally: Hundreds of 'Seek to' 'Begin' 'Bolster' 'Strengthen' 'Push'. No meaning to any of them. And far too many policy points amounting to little.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
You mean she might surprise on the upside?
In that interview Badenoch's saying, you may know me as a batshit ideologue, but I can do the technocratic delivery thing too. That could count as an upside, while others might see her as disingenuous.
Well let's see her deliver something worthwhile on the Post Office instead of the feeble square root of f**k all she's done so far.
As for the EU Bill everyone said it was a hopelessly stupid piece of legislation, including me on here, ages ago. Finally recognising that hardly makes her a political Solomon.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
You mean she might surprise on the upside?
In that interview Badenoch's saying, you may know me as a batshit ideologue, but I can do the technocratic delivery thing too. That could count as an upside, while others might see her as disingenuous.
Well let's see her deliver something worthwhile on the Post Office instead of the feeble square root of f**k all she's done so far.
As for the EU Bill everyone said it was a hopelessly stupid piece of legislation, including me on here, ages ago. Finally recognising that hardly makes her a political Solomon.
She’ll be out of office before the Inquiry reports!
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Er... you know Crace is a political sketch writer? It's not meant to be a serious report.
He's pretty good at that genre, not as good as Marina Hyde of course but she's superb.
I should be quite grateful for my £90 course offer for 75 in a 60 then, at the archbishop's rate it would have been over £1500.
If it were up to me, you'd be banned for 75 in a 60.
I bet it was a variable limit on a motorway.
Hmmm, I'll wind that back slightly if so. I was picturing a single carriageway A-road, but you're right to remind me that context matters.
I feel I'm tempting fate writing this, but I was flashed by a camera on the M25 two weeks ago. It was at 2am and it was the first gantry with limits with it set to 50mph. I refuse to brake unnecessarily on a motorway so just got of the gas. I reckon I was doing 65mph when I went through it, but my view is, they need to give you a chance to slow down. Going from 70 to 50 and doing so on a gantry with not much sighting (it was the one after you go over the M4) is a bit off in my opinion.
Anyway, not heard anything, so maybe they don't care or someone has shown some common sense.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
You mean she might surprise on the upside?
In that interview Badenoch's saying, you may know me as a batshit ideologue, but I can do the technocratic delivery thing too. That could count as an upside, while others might see her as disingenuous.
Well let's see her deliver something worthwhile on the Post Office instead of the feeble square root of f**k all she's done so far.
As for the EU Bill everyone said it was a hopelessly stupid piece of legislation, including me on here, ages ago. Finally recognising that hardly makes her a political Solomon.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
You mean she might surprise on the upside?
In that interview Badenoch's saying, you may know me as a batshit ideologue, but I can do the technocratic delivery thing too. That could count as an upside, while others might see her as disingenuous.
Well let's see her deliver something worthwhile on the Post Office instead of the feeble square root of f**k all she's done so far.
As for the EU Bill everyone said it was a hopelessly stupid piece of legislation, including me on here, ages ago. Finally recognising that hardly makes her a political Solomon.
She’ll be out of office before the Inquiry reports!
And Good Morning everybody.
Compensation needs to be paid now. Not whenever. That's what she needs to deliver.
Also sacking the Board over the bonus scheme should not take too long.
As a Tory (usually) who intends to vote for them a few things stand out:
Abolishing the Lords: Replacing this with elected people, setting up an automatic conflict between two elected bodies is not great. Also, the actually useful people in the Lords wouldn't stand for election.
Votes for 16/17: No.
No return to FOM: Makes EFTA/EEA impossible. Not good.
Debt, deficit, how to fund the plans, SME: Nothing
Generally: Hundreds of 'Seek to' 'Begin' 'Bolster' 'Strengthen' 'Push'. No meaning to any of them. And far too many policy points amounting to little.
This needs severe editing and review.
Is conflict between an elected and an unelected house really better than a conflict between two elected houses? Doesn't seem so to me. As long as we're clear which house is supreme, this is a positive move in my view. We absolutely must end the crony appointments and our inability to flush the turds out of the Lords.
I should be quite grateful for my £90 course offer for 75 in a 60 then, at the archbishop's rate it would have been over £1500.
If it were up to me, you'd be banned for 75 in a 60.
It was on the M25 in a variable speed limit. I must have missed the sign (fair enough) but so did everyone else.
Personally I think 75mph is perfectly safe on some sections of single carriageway but I accept there are plenty where it's dangerous... then again there are plenty of national speed limit roads where 60 is suicidal.
I don't quite get why the results of the local elections seemingly show that Labour will have problems winning a majority. They may not win a majority, but using the local elections as an argument for that doesn't make much sense to me.
They made big advances in the 'Red Wall' and in more traditional marginal areas. If all councils had been 'all-up' (rather than elected in thirds) then they would have won even more councils and seats and I doubt this argument would be being put forth as much.
I'd say that, if anything, the results suggest that Labour had a pretty good chance of a comfortable working majority even if no particular advances in Scotland are made.
My take too. The Lib Dems and Greens did extremely well at the expense of the Conservatives, while Labour only did somewhat well. The key question is how much Labour and LD/Green supporters are willing to lend their votes to the other parties. Depending on the answer, the locals could indicate no majority or a stonking majority for Labour (I think the possibility of a landslide is underestimated on here)
That's the key. I think the local elections should scare the Tories, because it looked like tactical voting was fully back, if not greater than ever before.
Before the elections, in discussion with HYUFD, I commented:
I believe the big drivers of LD gains/losses will be:
- What degree of tactical voting has come about or reduced since 2019? - How well/badly have incumbents done in either defending their record or boosting their personal vote? - How well/badly has targeting done? - How has local party strength (both for LDs and whoever they're fighting) increased/diminished in the areas being fought? - How accurate are/aren't the polls? - How will/badly Independents do in defending seats they won last time with widespread "sod the lot of you" mindsets? - How much will Voter ID affect the vote (either for or against)?
The actual opinion polls are within MoE (damn near identical) to how they were last time around, so these variables will, I believe be the key ones. My best guess right now is that anywhere between -50 and +250 is likely, depending on how those factors play out on the day.
The actual outcome was far off the top end of my range.
Looking through that list, incumbents records were mixed (some good, some not so good), targeting was definitely good, local party strength for LDs was up and Tories was down, the polls were pretty accurate, Independents did poorly, and Voter ID didn't seem to affect the vote significantly.
Those factors would have left the LDs at about +100 to, I'd have thought. The remaining +307 look to have been down to tactical voting (and of the other factors, local party strength also plays into the GE campaign to a degree as well). I'd therefore expect both Labour and LDs to significantly beat UNS, as it stands at the moment.
(Obviously there could be a falling out or other reasons why tactical voting would diminish between now and the GE but none appear on the cards at the moment)
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
You mean she might surprise on the upside?
In that interview Badenoch's saying, you may know me as a batshit ideologue, but I can do the technocratic delivery thing too. That could count as an upside, while others might see her as disingenuous.
Well let's see her deliver something worthwhile on the Post Office instead of the feeble square root of f**k all she's done so far.
As for the EU Bill everyone said it was a hopelessly stupid piece of legislation, including me on here, ages ago. Finally recognising that hardly makes her a political Solomon.
LOL, was that written by a twelve-year-old in the junior debate society, who just discovered the f-word?
There’s a fair point to be made about announcing policy first in the Commons, the abandonment of which appears to have been a feature of the last 25 years of British politics, but that wasn’t it, and neither to be fair was the Speaker’s over-reaction yesterday.
Hoyle showed he was all mouth and no trousers, if he wants to clamp down on outside announcements, for which he’d have my support, he needs to actually start sanctioning ministers for it.
Articles like this do suggest however, that Kemi Badenoch is who Labour really don’t want as LotO after the next election.
Nothing suggests Badenoch would be more effective opposition to Labour than Sunak. At best Badenoch might have more to her than first - dire - appearances indicate.
You mean she might surprise on the upside?
In that interview Badenoch's saying, you may know me as a batshit ideologue, but I can do the technocratic delivery thing too. That could count as an upside, while others might see her as disingenuous.
Well let's see her deliver something worthwhile on the Post Office instead of the feeble square root of f**k all she's done so far.
As for the EU Bill everyone said it was a hopelessly stupid piece of legislation, including me on here, ages ago. Finally recognising that hardly makes her a political Solomon.
She’ll be out of office before the Inquiry reports!
And Good Morning everybody.
Compensation needs to be paid now. Not whenever. That's what she needs to deliver.
Also sacking the Board over the bonus scheme should not take too long.
Don’t disagree, but things being what they are, Government will wait for the Inquiry.
Edit: I see the £510 was for legal costs, not a fine #crapreporting. Why'd he bother to contest it? (And I hope he's paying the legal bill.)
Standard report:
"A court official said the Archbishop pleaded guilty and was handed three penalty points and a £300 fine. He was ordered to pay £90 in costs and a £120 victim surcharge, bringing the final legal bill to £510."
The suggestion is that somehow he failed to cough up the standard penalty and it went to court by this oversight.
(BTW how many PBers have not driven at 25 in a 20?)
I should be quite grateful for my £90 course offer for 75 in a 60 then, at the archbishop's rate it would have been over £1500.
If it were up to me, you'd be banned for 75 in a 60.
It was on the M25 in a variable speed limit. I must have missed the sign (fair enough) but so did everyone else.
Personally I think 75mph is perfectly safe on some sections of single carriageway but I accept there are plenty where it's dangerous... then again there are plenty of national speed limit roads where 60 is suicidal.
Yeah, very easily done when the traffic is actually moving along.
Seems the Archbishop managed to miss three letters about his speeding due to "admin errors". With Archbishop Sentamu also in the news for much worse reasons, any moral high ground on which the Established Church has attempted to stand this week has crumbled beneath them.
Edit: I see the £510 was for legal costs, not a fine #crapreporting. Why'd he bother to contest it? (And I hope he's paying the legal bill.)
Standard report:
"A court official said the Archbishop pleaded guilty and was handed three penalty points and a £300 fine. He was ordered to pay £90 in costs and a £120 victim surcharge, bringing the final legal bill to £510."
The suggestion is that somehow he failed to cough up the standard penalty and it went to court by this oversight.
(BTW how many PBers have not driven at 25 in a 20?)
I should be quite grateful for my £90 course offer for 75 in a 60 then, at the archbishop's rate it would have been over £1500.
If it were up to me, you'd be banned for 75 in a 60.
I bet it was a variable limit on a motorway.
Hmmm, I'll wind that back slightly if so. I was picturing a single carriageway A-road, but you're right to remind me that context matters.
I feel I'm tempting fate writing this, but I was flashed by a camera on the M25 two weeks ago. It was at 2am and it was the first gantry with limits with it set to 50mph. I refuse to brake unnecessarily on a motorway so just got of the gas. I reckon I was doing 65mph when I went through it, but my view is, they need to give you a chance to slow down. Going from 70 to 50 and doing so on a gantry with not much sighting (it was the one after you go over the M4) is a bit off in my opinion.
Anyway, not heard anything, so maybe they don't care or someone has shown some common sense.
I don't know how to deal with that kind of situation. It's not a problem I normally face being as there are no motorways around here and I'm rarely that far south. That said, I think I'd have touched the brakes in your situation, depending on what the other traffic was doing.
One problem I have encountered is on my rare forays down to Glasgow, you're sometimes in a situation where the traffic is going much faster than the speed limit and it's actively dangerous to stick to the limit. I tried once and was nearly rammed from behind for my trouble. I was literally on the speed limit on the inside lane. If you're forced to choose between safe and legal, there's a problem.
Edit: I see the £510 was for legal costs, not a fine #crapreporting. Why'd he bother to contest it? (And I hope he's paying the legal bill.)
Standard report:
"A court official said the Archbishop pleaded guilty and was handed three penalty points and a £300 fine. He was ordered to pay £90 in costs and a £120 victim surcharge, bringing the final legal bill to £510."
The suggestion is that somehow he failed to cough up the standard penalty and it went to court by this oversight.
(BTW how many PBers have not driven at 25 in a 20?)
Dura Ace? Hard to believe he ever drives as slow as 25mph anywhere
Edit: I see the £510 was for legal costs, not a fine #crapreporting. Why'd he bother to contest it? (And I hope he's paying the legal bill.)
Standard report:
"A court official said the Archbishop pleaded guilty and was handed three penalty points and a £300 fine. He was ordered to pay £90 in costs and a £120 victim surcharge, bringing the final legal bill to £510."
The suggestion is that somehow he failed to cough up the standard penalty and it went to court by this oversight.
(BTW how many PBers have not driven at 25 in a 20?)
I've probably gone at 25 a few times through carelessness but generally speaking the lower the speed limit the more assiduous I am at respecting it. In a 20mph zone I generally trundle along at around 19-22. To this date the only speeding ticket I have was for doing 56 in a 50mph spot of the A1. On 70mph roads I generally do 75-80 but it doesn't seem to bother the authorities.
Edit: I see the £510 was for legal costs, not a fine #crapreporting. Why'd he bother to contest it? (And I hope he's paying the legal bill.)
Standard report:
"A court official said the Archbishop pleaded guilty and was handed three penalty points and a £300 fine. He was ordered to pay £90 in costs and a £120 victim surcharge, bringing the final legal bill to £510."
The suggestion is that somehow he failed to cough up the standard penalty and it went to court by this oversight.
(BTW how many PBers have not driven at 25 in a 20?)
Pretty sure there are at least a couple who've never gone that slowly.
Edit: I see the £510 was for legal costs, not a fine #crapreporting. Why'd he bother to contest it? (And I hope he's paying the legal bill.)
Standard report:
"A court official said the Archbishop pleaded guilty and was handed three penalty points and a £300 fine. He was ordered to pay £90 in costs and a £120 victim surcharge, bringing the final legal bill to £510."
The suggestion is that somehow he failed to cough up the standard penalty and it went to court by this oversight.
(BTW how many PBers have not driven at 25 in a 20?)
Dura Ace? Hard to believe he ever drives as slow as 25mph anywhere
I understand he sticks to 25mph on his mobility scooter when on the pavement.
As a Tory (usually) who intends to vote for them a few things stand out:
Abolishing the Lords: Replacing this with elected people, setting up an automatic conflict between two elected bodies is not great. Also, the actually useful people in the Lords wouldn't stand for election.
Votes for 16/17: No.
No return to FOM: Makes EFTA/EEA impossible. Not good.
Debt, deficit, how to fund the plans, SME: Nothing
Generally: Hundreds of 'Seek to' 'Begin' 'Bolster' 'Strengthen' 'Push'. No meaning to any of them. And far too many policy points amounting to little.
This needs severe editing and review.
Is conflict between an elected and an unelected house really better than a conflict between two elected houses? Doesn't seem so to me. As long as we're clear which house is supreme, this is a positive move in my view. We absolutely must end the crony appointments and our inability to flush the turds out of the Lords.
Yes. Reform not abolition. An expert revising and warning chamber is of great value; because the Lords is unelected the HoC remains both in theory and practice supreme.
In reality, the Mirror obtained the information after employing private investigators to pose as the prince’s accountant, phone the bank and illegally “blag” his account details, the court heard...
Edit: I see the £510 was for legal costs, not a fine #crapreporting. Why'd he bother to contest it? (And I hope he's paying the legal bill.)
Standard report:
"A court official said the Archbishop pleaded guilty and was handed three penalty points and a £300 fine. He was ordered to pay £90 in costs and a £120 victim surcharge, bringing the final legal bill to £510."
The suggestion is that somehow he failed to cough up the standard penalty and it went to court by this oversight.
(BTW how many PBers have not driven at 25 in a 20?)
I've probably gone at 25 a few times through carelessness but generally speaking the lower the speed limit the more assiduous I am at respecting it. In a 20mph zone I generally trundle along at around 19-22. To this date the only speeding ticket I have was for doing 56 in a 50mph spot of the A1. On 70mph roads I generally do 75-80 but it doesn't seem to bother the authorities.
I tend to take the same approach, but I find 20s very difficult to stick to.
Edit: I see the £510 was for legal costs, not a fine #crapreporting. Why'd he bother to contest it? (And I hope he's paying the legal bill.)
Standard report:
"A court official said the Archbishop pleaded guilty and was handed three penalty points and a £300 fine. He was ordered to pay £90 in costs and a £120 victim surcharge, bringing the final legal bill to £510."
The suggestion is that somehow he failed to cough up the standard penalty and it went to court by this oversight.
(BTW how many PBers have not driven at 25 in a 20?)
I've probably gone at 25 a few times through carelessness but generally speaking the lower the speed limit the more assiduous I am at respecting it. In a 20mph zone I generally trundle along at around 19-22. To this date the only speeding ticket I have was for doing 56 in a 50mph spot of the A1. On 70mph roads I generally do 75-80 but it doesn't seem to bother the authorities.
I tend to take the same approach, but I find 20s very difficult to stick to.
Living in London I am very used to them, to the extent that I now feel a bit alarmed driving at 30 in a built up area.
I should be quite grateful for my £90 course offer for 75 in a 60 then, at the archbishop's rate it would have been over £1500.
If it were up to me, you'd be banned for 75 in a 60.
It was on the M25 in a variable speed limit. I must have missed the sign (fair enough) but so did everyone else.
Personally I think 75mph is perfectly safe on some sections of single carriageway but I accept there are plenty where it's dangerous... then again there are plenty of national speed limit roads where 60 is suicidal.
There are definitely sections where single carriageway speeding is relatively safe, but I'd still throw the book at anyone who does it. Those 60 roads have all sorts of things going on that motorways try to engineer out: blind summits, fallen branches, adverse cambers, no central reservation protection, cyclists, walkers, tractors, potholes, oncoming overtakers and much more. People get complacent on A-roads, especially ones they know, and suddenly one day conditions are different and wham you're in a pickle. I've got a lot more sympathy with people going too fast on a motorway: they are spaces designed for speed, and the risks are lower. 85 on a motorway is silly. 75 on a single carriageway is stupid.
Comments
I do agree that Badenoch is one of the better politicians though.
Certainly Progizhin seems to think so judging by his recent statements. As do the Russian Defence Ministry.
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1656616385970073601?t=mKSr-rmacGNqa0eBwxyZjg&s=19
All together, now -
“God Save the King!”
Edit: I see this is already on the PB radar ^^
Regardless, I stick to my view that Badenoch is a bit crap, and would be a bit crap as leader too.
Starting to think a Polonium-induced early retirement may be heading Putin's way.
It's on the third floor and opens when someone has cocked up massively.
They made big advances in the 'Red Wall' and in more traditional marginal areas. If all councils had been 'all-up' (rather than elected in thirds) then they would have won even more councils and seats and I doubt this argument would be being put forth as much.
I'd say that, if anything, the results suggest that Labour had a pretty good chance of a comfortable working majority even if no particular advances in Scotland are made.
"Whooze responsible for the failure of this task Kemi?"
"Definitely Rishi," (brief cut to Rishi taking offence at this) "and, uh, the entire British public."
Just imagine this lot at the Café of Doom.
Suggesting that Tory absententions may have been more significant than vote-switching, and that people wanted to vote against the Tories but aren't particularly rushing to vote for Labour.
Of course, if the same happens at a GE, Labour still wins. But they would be better off with a few positives and not merely being not as desperately bad as the the current lot. Because when a GE campaign approaches there is usually a swingback to the government from the election results and polls prior (noting Mrs May's big achievement in proving that this isn't always so).
All this is why a number of people (including myself) are 98% certain that Labour will be largest party after the next election and about 60% that they will have a majority.
The Tories need to head back to the centre ground if they want to win again.
It used to be that Labour was the party of 'lefty loonies' but now the Tories are being held captive by 'right wing loonies'.
If Sunak's personal popularity drops, swing back doesn't necessarily yet start from here.
Giving them credit for taking so long to realise what was obvious to everyone else is something of a stretch.
One of the problems with Truss to go with all the others is that she thinks she’s just dandy and no comprehension that others may disagree. All the evidence suggests that she believes her downfall is the fault of others and that she’ll be back.
Worth noting that this bill was central to Sunaks leadership bid too, showing his level of understanding.
I don't see a huge upside.
An AI aside: there's a Skyrim mod that replaced NPC chat with AI. Apparently it's so-so at best, but that sort of thing will revolutionise video games, perhaps especially open world sandboxes.
At least I hope it was.
https://twitter.com/otto_english/status/1656768334350675970?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
⚡️🇺🇦Ukrainian troops began preparations for a counteroffensive - CNN.
Ukrainian forces have launched "formative" operations ahead of an expected counter-offensive against Russian forces, two senior Western military officials told CNN.
https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1656916857159385088
For irony to work, it needs to be out of character (this isn't) or so obviously out of kilter with normal thought patterns that you have to believe it's a spoof. But we've seen much the same fare from the monarchist right. Something about royalty brings out this dissent intolerance in some people. It's horribly fascinating.
Archbishop of Canterbury fined £510 and given three points on his licence for speeding
Cameras caught him doing 25mph on a 20mph road in London last October:
https://twitter.com/kayaburgess/status/1656918619387838464
Landlords to be given more powers to evict tenants for antisocial behaviour
Michael Gove to introduce bill strengthening lessors’ rights in England as charities warn of impact for domestic abuse victims
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/may/12/landlords-to-be-given-more-powers-to-evict-tenants-for-antisocial-behaviour
I should be quite grateful for my £90 course offer for 75 in a 60 then, at the archbishop's rate it would have been over £1500.
As for the EU Bill everyone said it was a hopelessly stupid piece of legislation, including me on here, ages ago. Finally recognising that hardly makes her a political Solomon.
Edit: I see the £510 was for legal costs, not a fine #crapreporting. Why'd he bother to contest it? (And I hope he's paying the legal bill.)
https://labourlist.org/2023/05/labour-manifesto-2024-election-what-policies-npf-party/
As a Tory (usually) who intends to vote for them a few things stand out:
Abolishing the Lords: Replacing this with elected people, setting up an automatic conflict between two elected bodies is not great. Also, the actually useful people in the Lords wouldn't stand for election.
Votes for 16/17: No.
No return to FOM: Makes EFTA/EEA impossible. Not good.
Debt, deficit, how to fund the plans, SME: Nothing
Generally: Hundreds of 'Seek to' 'Begin' 'Bolster' 'Strengthen' 'Push'. No meaning to any of them. And far too many policy points amounting to little.
This needs severe editing and review.
And Good Morning everybody.
He's pretty good at that genre, not as good as Marina Hyde of course but she's superb.
Anyway, not heard anything, so maybe they don't care or someone has shown some common sense.
Mind you, twenty is plenty.
Also sacking the Board over the bonus scheme should not take too long.
As long as we're clear which house is supreme, this is a positive move in my view. We absolutely must end the crony appointments and our inability to flush the turds out of the Lords.
Personally I think 75mph is perfectly safe on some sections of single carriageway but I accept there are plenty where it's dangerous... then again there are plenty of national speed limit roads where 60 is suicidal.
Before the elections, in discussion with HYUFD, I commented: The actual outcome was far off the top end of my range.
Looking through that list, incumbents records were mixed (some good, some not so good), targeting was definitely good, local party strength for LDs was up and Tories was down, the polls were pretty accurate, Independents did poorly, and Voter ID didn't seem to affect the vote significantly.
Those factors would have left the LDs at about +100 to, I'd have thought. The remaining +307 look to have been down to tactical voting (and of the other factors, local party strength also plays into the GE campaign to a degree as well). I'd therefore expect both Labour and LDs to significantly beat UNS, as it stands at the moment.
(Obviously there could be a falling out or other reasons why tactical voting would diminish between now and the GE but none appear on the cards at the moment)
https://tinyurl.com/54mzmnrp
Ecclesiastes 9
Standard report:
"A court official said the Archbishop pleaded guilty and was handed three penalty points and a £300 fine. He was ordered to pay £90 in costs and a £120 victim surcharge, bringing the final legal bill to £510."
The suggestion is that somehow he failed to cough up the standard penalty and it went to court by this oversight.
(BTW how many PBers have not driven at 25 in a 20?)
He came even unto them, and cometh not again: and the driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of Nimshi; for he driveth furiously.
II Kings 9.20
One problem I have encountered is on my rare forays down to Glasgow, you're sometimes in a situation where the traffic is going much faster than the speed limit and it's actively dangerous to stick to the limit. I tried once and was nearly rammed from behind for my trouble. I was literally on the speed limit on the inside lane. If you're forced to choose between safe and legal, there's a problem.
There will be much more such evidence, no doubt.
Piers Morgan authorised illegal blagging of prince’s bank details, court told
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/may/11/piers-morgan-authorised-blagging-of-prince-michael-bank-details-court-told
...When the prince’s lawyers complained to Morgan that the story was inaccurate and the records must have been obtained illegally, Morgan dismissed their “poor and thinly disguised threat” and insisted the information had come from an “impeccable source”.
In reality, the Mirror obtained the information after employing private investigators to pose as the prince’s accountant, phone the bank and illegally “blag” his account details, the court heard...
I've got a lot more sympathy with people going too fast on a motorway: they are spaces designed for speed, and the risks are lower. 85 on a motorway is silly. 75 on a single carriageway is stupid.