As I said: Its been reported quite widely that Starmer and Davey get on very well and have conversations. So I assume that they have already Tehran Conferenced the coming byelections: Rutherglen: Labour Mid Beds: LibDems Uxbridge: Labour
If the Tories pick a local councillor in nearly 10% Hindu Uxbridge they could even win it under Rishi.
Would be amusing if Labour lost Uxbridge but the LDs won Mid Beds which I think is possible.
Leaving Labour's only gain from the SNP not the Tories in Rutherglen
I don’t know what is more sad.
Your assumption that Hindus will vote, as a block, for a Hindu, or the fact that your assumption is probably correct.
Our politics shouldn’t work like this.
Leicester has the highest Hindu percentage of voters in the UK and the Tories had their best result in the local elections in the UK by far in Leicester in May gaining 17 seats from Labour. Hindus may only be less than 2% of the UK population but for them having one of their own as UK PM is as big as Obama being US President was for African Americans. Where the Hindu population is well above average there may even be a swing to the Conservatives while Rishi is PM
And do you think the opposite could be true? Voters who see brown-skinned Hindu and change their vote from Conservative to something else? Given that Hindus are outnumbered in Uxbridge by Christians, atheists, and Muslims, do you think the PM's ethnicity and religion could count more against than for him?
No.
You've never met a racist? Lucky you.
You desperately want all Conservatives or Conservative-inclined voters to be racist because this would conveniently fit your world view.
Unfortunately for you, it's not true; your prejudices are just that.
Not all, but do you think there might be a minority, perhaps 1-2% of the country, who won't vote for a non-white PM?
The visceral dislike of Rishi Sunak on the right of the Tory Party is quite something. Does his ethnicity play into this in some way? I'd hope not but I think it probably does.
My parents voted for Truss in the leadership contest because they felt Sunak uncommitted to this country. I don't think this so much racism as his Green card and Non-Dom wife, properties in California, and his comment that if it hadn't been for his political career he would have stayed in California.
Perhaps we should double-down on not being committed to this country and draft in a political equivalent of Sven-Göran Eriksson to run the government?
There's a challenge. Here y'go, PB: which politician from another country would you draft in to be PM? Double points if not American. Stephen Harper? Sanna Marin? Leo Varadkar?
Nayib Bukele. Detested in the western press, but has a 90% approval rating in his home country...
As I said: Its been reported quite widely that Starmer and Davey get on very well and have conversations. So I assume that they have already Tehran Conferenced the coming byelections: Rutherglen: Labour Mid Beds: LibDems Uxbridge: Labour
If the Tories pick a local councillor in nearly 10% Hindu Uxbridge they could even win it under Rishi.
Would be amusing if Labour lost Uxbridge but the LDs won Mid Beds which I think is possible.
Leaving Labour's only gain from the SNP not the Tories in Rutherglen
I don’t know what is more sad.
Your assumption that Hindus will vote, as a block, for a Hindu, or the fact that your assumption is probably correct.
Our politics shouldn’t work like this.
Leicester has the highest Hindu percentage of voters in the UK and the Tories had their best result in the local elections in the UK by far in Leicester in May gaining 17 seats from Labour. Hindus may only be less than 2% of the UK population but for them having one of their own as UK PM is as big as Obama being US President was for African Americans. Where the Hindu population is well above average there may even be a swing to the Conservatives while Rishi is PM
And do you think the opposite could be true? Voters who see brown-skinned Hindu and change their vote from Conservative to something else? Given that Hindus are outnumbered in Uxbridge by Christians, atheists, and Muslims, do you think the PM's ethnicity and religion could count more against than for him?
No.
You've never met a racist? Lucky you.
You desperately want all Conservatives or Conservative-inclined voters to be racist because this would conveniently fit your world view.
Unfortunately for you, it's not true; your prejudices are just that.
Not all, but do you think there might be a minority, perhaps 1-2% of the country, who won't vote for a non-white PM?
The visceral dislike of Rishi Sunak on the right of the Tory Party is quite something. Does his ethnicity play into this in some way? I'd hope not but I think it probably does.
My parents voted for Truss in the leadership contest because they felt Sunak uncommitted to this country. I don't think this so much racism as his Green card and Non-Dom wife, properties in California, and his comment that if it hadn't been for his political career he would have stayed in California.
Perhaps we should double-down on not being committed to this country and draft in a political equivalent of Sven-Göran Eriksson to run the government?
There's a challenge. Here y'go, PB: which politician from another country would you draft in to be PM? Double points if not American. Stephen Harper? Sanna Marin? Leo Varadkar?
Emmanuel Macron or Michel Barnier.
I know you’re just trying to wind us up, but is there a vomit emoji on here?
Do people on this site really want all the fighting age men of ukraine to be slaughtered.
No of course not. We want all the fighting age men of Russia to be slaughtered.
I don't wish for anyone to be slaughtered, personally.
Quite. The challenge is how to achieve that. It’s the eternal problem in wars. Pretty sure most Brits in WW2 didn’t want people slaughtered but there comes a point where you have to fight. And sometimes some people end up dead to save the lives of many more.
I agree with the principle. But the language used in the initial post I didn't, we should not be aiming to slaughter anyone, the point should be as few casualties as possible. It was a very American-feeling post, "slaughter the bastards", I strongly oppose that kind of thing.
If Ukraine doesn't inflict a lot of casualties they won't drive Russia from Ukraine, as without a lot of casualties Putin will too easily replenish them. Ukraine can't afford a stalemate, they need to go as hard and as fast as possible and that does mean killing a lot of Russian soldiers.
Are we seriously getting minimum four by-elections this summer? Let joy be unconfined.
We’re very close to Recess. I think they can be delayed well into the Autumn now if so desired. Depends what Rishi thinks. Lose some now and hope they get forgotten, or hope to have recovered some more my October and use some wins to boost the troops?
I was hoping we'd get the Rutherglen one at least. I need the entertainment.
Apparently Boris nommed him for a peerage, but HOLAC knocked it back, so he's flouncing.
Him and Dorries? I mean, this process is handily removing a number of problem cases for the party in opposition, and will help them bring fresh blood into safe seats. Unless Boris gets one.
Nigel Wotzit says he has stepped down because his association have just selected an "excellent parliamentary candidate". Yes - who expected to have some time to do summer tea parties and sheep tupping as an introduction before the campaigning started.
No MP who is standing down immediately quits because the new candidate has been chosen. So what is he up to?
@Cicero and others. I enjoyed this piece from Brett Devereaux, analysing why Russian military performance has been so poor (and the same may turn out to be true of other vaunted militaries). I also take his point that (counter-intuitively, WMD, especially nukes, save lives.)
As a counterbalance read this from foreignaffairs.com an unwinnable war.
That's a good article (if interminably long) - essentially TLDR: Ukraine and Russia will be mutually hostile indefinitely, and no military outcome will change that, Ukraine may well shift the current frontline but is unlikely to win decisively; Russia cannot win decisively at all without nukes and maybe not even with nukes; therefore a parallel diplomatic effort should be made to achieve an indefinite ceasefire coupled with an unambiguous US guarantee to Ukraine in the event of further fighting.
For those interested in the military detail, Tom Cooper (pro-Ukraine but tries to be factual) is interesting:
No one has a problem with a negotiated settlement Nick. As long as that means Ukraine (all of Ukraine including Crimea and Donbass) gets to decide for themselves as a country who they align with. Joining NATO and the EU as they see fit and Russia has no input at all. That should be the absolute minimum.
One of the problems is populations don’t stand still. If something has been seized and held for a while, or been a miserable war zone, can there be an approved UN backed negotiated settlement based on votes in the region that doesn’t rubber stamp original evil intent and let them get away with it?
For example, if you had a vote exactly here in land being fought over today at one point of history, the Cossacks would have won - I believe they were Cossacks, not Russian, Polish, Ukrainian or Lithuanian. But there is nothing in this world today, certainly not the United Nations, who at any point in history would have accepted a Cossack win.
Yes, that's a very familiar problem from Palestine. I think you have to draw a line somewhere and say that if people have moved (whatever the reason, including ethnic cleansing) they will eventually have more of a stake where they've moved to - certainly after a generation (you don't get a vote on the future of where your grandfather used to live). Right now, though, I think that any regional polling a la Slesvig=Holstein would need to include both current residents and people who have fled. Ultimately the question shouldn't be "where does national pride say the border should be?" but "what do people there actually want?"
One of the reasons why the war was idiotic is that there are certainly parts of Ukraine where Russia would have had a good shot at a majority vote. Now? Doubtful.
It the moonhowlers self-select and quit it's no skin off my rosy nose.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Nigel Wotzit says he has stepped down because his association have just selected an "excellent parliamentary candidate". Yes - who expected to have some time to do summer tea parties and sheep tupping as an introduction before the campaigning started.
No MP who is standing down immediately quits because the new candidate has been chosen. So what is he up to?
As already suggested downthread, it could be a flounce a la Dorries. I believe he's another one whom Johnson nominated for a peerage that was blocked.
Off topic - WTF are the Aussies playing at? Past the world record chase now. Still need to take 10 wickets. Madness. Declare and get bowling.
I have no idea who will win the Ashes, but it’s clearly going to be a clash of styles.
What do you mean, off topic? The Johnsonian flouncing etc discussion is just to fill in the gaps between overs and inningses, it seems more like on PB these days.
As I said: Its been reported quite widely that Starmer and Davey get on very well and have conversations. So I assume that they have already Tehran Conferenced the coming byelections: Rutherglen: Labour Mid Beds: LibDems Uxbridge: Labour
If the Tories pick a local councillor in nearly 10% Hindu Uxbridge they could even win it under Rishi.
Would be amusing if Labour lost Uxbridge but the LDs won Mid Beds which I think is possible.
Leaving Labour's only gain from the SNP not the Tories in Rutherglen
I don’t know what is more sad.
Your assumption that Hindus will vote, as a block, for a Hindu, or the fact that your assumption is probably correct.
Our politics shouldn’t work like this.
Leicester has the highest Hindu percentage of voters in the UK and the Tories had their best result in the local elections in the UK by far in Leicester in May gaining 17 seats from Labour. Hindus may only be less than 2% of the UK population but for them having one of their own as UK PM is as big as Obama being US President was for African Americans. Where the Hindu population is well above average there may even be a swing to the Conservatives while Rishi is PM
And do you think the opposite could be true? Voters who see brown-skinned Hindu and change their vote from Conservative to something else? Given that Hindus are outnumbered in Uxbridge by Christians, atheists, and Muslims, do you think the PM's ethnicity and religion could count more against than for him?
No.
You've never met a racist? Lucky you.
You desperately want all Conservatives or Conservative-inclined voters to be racist because this would conveniently fit your world view.
Unfortunately for you, it's not true; your prejudices are just that.
Not all, but do you think there might be a minority, perhaps 1-2% of the country, who won't vote for a non-white PM?
The visceral dislike of Rishi Sunak on the right of the Tory Party is quite something. Does his ethnicity play into this in some way? I'd hope not but I think it probably does.
My parents voted for Truss in the leadership contest because they felt Sunak uncommitted to this country. I don't think this so much racism as his Green card and Non-Dom wife, properties in California, and his comment that if it hadn't been for his political career he would have stayed in California.
Perhaps we should double-down on not being committed to this country and draft in a political equivalent of Sven-Göran Eriksson to run the government?
There's a challenge. Here y'go, PB: which politician from another country would you draft in to be PM? Double points if not American. Stephen Harper? Sanna Marin? Leo Varadkar?
Rishi could do worse than simply refuse to field a Tory candidate in any of these Boris by-lections. He probably won't hold the seats anyway, so that would remove the bigger embarrassment of actually losing them. It would also put the focus on Boris and his cronies' arsing about. Didn't Labour take this approach with DD? Why not?
Ok, on this one the gap between LD and Lab probably is large enough to ensure the latter get lead contender status.
A tacit agreement between Labour and LD to carve the seats up - Mid Beds to the yellows, the other two to the reds - and not try too hard in each other's targets would be helpful here.
Do people on this site really want all the fighting age men of ukraine to be slaughtered.
No of course not. We want all the fighting age men of Russia to be slaughtered.
I don't wish for anyone to be slaughtered, personally.
Quite. The challenge is how to achieve that. It’s the eternal problem in wars. Pretty sure most Brits in WW2 didn’t want people slaughtered but there comes a point where you have to fight. And sometimes some people end up dead to save the lives of many more.
I agree with the principle. But the language used in the initial post I didn't, we should not be aiming to slaughter anyone, the point should be as few casualties as possible. It was a very American-feeling post, "slaughter the bastards", I strongly oppose that kind of thing.
If Ukraine doesn't inflict a lot of casualties they won't drive Russia from Ukraine, as without a lot of casualties Putin will too easily replenish them. Ukraine can't afford a stalemate, they need to go as hard and as fast as possible and that does mean killing a lot of Russian soldiers.
I'm not doubting that - but just don't like the idea anyone takes pleasure in seeing people killed.
As I said: Its been reported quite widely that Starmer and Davey get on very well and have conversations. So I assume that they have already Tehran Conferenced the coming byelections: Rutherglen: Labour Mid Beds: LibDems Uxbridge: Labour
If the Tories pick a local councillor in nearly 10% Hindu Uxbridge they could even win it under Rishi.
Would be amusing if Labour lost Uxbridge but the LDs won Mid Beds which I think is possible.
Leaving Labour's only gain from the SNP not the Tories in Rutherglen
I don’t know what is more sad.
Your assumption that Hindus will vote, as a block, for a Hindu, or the fact that your assumption is probably correct.
Our politics shouldn’t work like this.
Leicester has the highest Hindu percentage of voters in the UK and the Tories had their best result in the local elections in the UK by far in Leicester in May gaining 17 seats from Labour. Hindus may only be less than 2% of the UK population but for them having one of their own as UK PM is as big as Obama being US President was for African Americans. Where the Hindu population is well above average there may even be a swing to the Conservatives while Rishi is PM
And do you think the opposite could be true? Voters who see brown-skinned Hindu and change their vote from Conservative to something else? Given that Hindus are outnumbered in Uxbridge by Christians, atheists, and Muslims, do you think the PM's ethnicity and religion could count more against than for him?
No.
You've never met a racist? Lucky you.
You desperately want all Conservatives or Conservative-inclined voters to be racist because this would conveniently fit your world view.
Unfortunately for you, it's not true; your prejudices are just that.
Not all, but do you think there might be a minority, perhaps 1-2% of the country, who won't vote for a non-white PM?
The visceral dislike of Rishi Sunak on the right of the Tory Party is quite something. Does his ethnicity play into this in some way? I'd hope not but I think it probably does.
My parents voted for Truss in the leadership contest because they felt Sunak uncommitted to this country. I don't think this so much racism as his Green card and Non-Dom wife, properties in California, and his comment that if it hadn't been for his political career he would have stayed in California.
Perhaps we should double-down on not being committed to this country and draft in a political equivalent of Sven-Göran Eriksson to run the government?
There's a challenge. Here y'go, PB: which politician from another country would you draft in to be PM? Double points if not American. Stephen Harper? Sanna Marin? Leo Varadkar?
If we're allowed historical ones, Adolfo Suárez of Spain. Rose through the ranks under Franco, became PM after Franco's death under the rules Franco left behind. Then negotiated a transition to a democratic state, using the mechanisms of the undemocratic state to do so in such a way that hardly anyone could complain.
Clearly a slippery so and so, but on the side of the angels. We could do with someone like that.
It the moonhowlers self-select and quit it's no skin off my rosy nose.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Your party looks like a shitshow in a fuck factory.
It the moonhowlers self-select and quit it's no skin off my rosy nose.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Your party looks like a shitshow in a fuck factory.
It the moonhowlers self-select and quit it's no skin off my rosy nose.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Your party looks like a shitshow in a fuck factory.
I thought the US was at least 5 hours behind the UK, not ahead?
Maybe they open early on a Saturday over there. Dunno.
It the moonhowlers self-select and quit it's no skin off my rosy nose.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Your party looks like a shitshow in a fuck factory.
I thought the US was at least 5 hours behind the UK, not ahead?
Maybe they open early on a Saturday over there. Dunno.
It the moonhowlers self-select and quit it's no skin off my rosy nose.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Weren’t the moonhowlers the future once, with you right behind them?
As I said: Its been reported quite widely that Starmer and Davey get on very well and have conversations. So I assume that they have already Tehran Conferenced the coming byelections: Rutherglen: Labour Mid Beds: LibDems Uxbridge: Labour
If the Tories pick a local councillor in nearly 10% Hindu Uxbridge they could even win it under Rishi.
Would be amusing if Labour lost Uxbridge but the LDs won Mid Beds which I think is possible.
Leaving Labour's only gain from the SNP not the Tories in Rutherglen
I don’t know what is more sad.
Your assumption that Hindus will vote, as a block, for a Hindu, or the fact that your assumption is probably correct.
Our politics shouldn’t work like this.
Leicester has the highest Hindu percentage of voters in the UK and the Tories had their best result in the local elections in the UK by far in Leicester in May gaining 17 seats from Labour. Hindus may only be less than 2% of the UK population but for them having one of their own as UK PM is as big as Obama being US President was for African Americans. Where the Hindu population is well above average there may even be a swing to the Conservatives while Rishi is PM
And do you think the opposite could be true? Voters who see brown-skinned Hindu and change their vote from Conservative to something else? Given that Hindus are outnumbered in Uxbridge by Christians, atheists, and Muslims, do you think the PM's ethnicity and religion could count more against than for him?
No.
You've never met a racist? Lucky you.
You desperately want all Conservatives or Conservative-inclined voters to be racist because this would conveniently fit your world view.
Unfortunately for you, it's not true; your prejudices are just that.
Not all, but do you think there might be a minority, perhaps 1-2% of the country, who won't vote for a non-white PM?
The visceral dislike of Rishi Sunak on the right of the Tory Party is quite something. Does his ethnicity play into this in some way? I'd hope not but I think it probably does.
My parents voted for Truss in the leadership contest because they felt Sunak uncommitted to this country. I don't think this so much racism as his Green card and Non-Dom wife, properties in California, and his comment that if it hadn't been for his political career he would have stayed in California.
Perhaps we should double-down on not being committed to this country and draft in a political equivalent of Sven-Göran Eriksson to run the government?
There's a challenge. Here y'go, PB: which politician from another country would you draft in to be PM? Double points if not American. Stephen Harper? Sanna Marin? Leo Varadkar?
Emmanuel Macron or Michel Barnier.
Or that Tusk guy, from the EU but originally Poland?
It the moonhowlers self-select and quit it's no skin off my rosy nose.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Weren’t the moonhowlers the future once, with you right behind them?
I take it with all these threads by TSE that OGH is holiday?
We should have known the shit was going to his the fan big time... 😂
It’s going to be a nice quiet weekend topping up the tan. Everything will be nice and quiet. Cocktails in the sun. No need for PB. No need for Malmesbury to get his Davey Crocket out. Not that there is any kind of day that actually needs Malmesbury to get his Davey Crocket out.
Reminds me of a joke I loved when I was little.
How many ears did Davey Crocket have?
3, his left ear, his right ear and his wild front ear.
It the moonhowlers self-select and quit it's no skin off my rosy nose.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Your party looks like a shitshow in a fuck factory.
It the moonhowlers self-select and quit it's no skin off my rosy nose.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Your party looks like a shitshow in a fuck factory.
Boris is effectively saying that the entire House of Commons, where his party has an overwhelming majority, is a kangaroo court biased against him.
And that the public could not override that kangaroo court and return him even if it was.
It's classic Boris - superficially confident blustering which strikes the right note of outrage at 'enemies' to garner plenty of support, despite being nonsense.
Those pointing out Labour used to hold Selby, beware. They did, between 1997 and 2010. Marginally. But it wasn't this Selby. That Selby was Selby and a substantial bit of York. Including the University. This Selby and Ainsty is Selby and a collection of villages near Harrogate. Not the same thing at all. Bet accordingly.
As I said: Its been reported quite widely that Starmer and Davey get on very well and have conversations. So I assume that they have already Tehran Conferenced the coming byelections: Rutherglen: Labour Mid Beds: LibDems Uxbridge: Labour
If the Tories pick a local councillor in nearly 10% Hindu Uxbridge they could even win it under Rishi.
Would be amusing if Labour lost Uxbridge but the LDs won Mid Beds which I think is possible.
Leaving Labour's only gain from the SNP not the Tories in Rutherglen
I don’t know what is more sad.
Your assumption that Hindus will vote, as a block, for a Hindu, or the fact that your assumption is probably correct.
Our politics shouldn’t work like this.
Leicester has the highest Hindu percentage of voters in the UK and the Tories had their best result in the local elections in the UK by far in Leicester in May gaining 17 seats from Labour. Hindus may only be less than 2% of the UK population but for them having one of their own as UK PM is as big as Obama being US President was for African Americans. Where the Hindu population is well above average there may even be a swing to the Conservatives while Rishi is PM
And do you think the opposite could be true? Voters who see brown-skinned Hindu and change their vote from Conservative to something else? Given that Hindus are outnumbered in Uxbridge by Christians, atheists, and Muslims, do you think the PM's ethnicity and religion could count more against than for him?
No.
You've never met a racist? Lucky you.
You desperately want all Conservatives or Conservative-inclined voters to be racist because this would conveniently fit your world view.
Unfortunately for you, it's not true; your prejudices are just that.
Not all, but do you think there might be a minority, perhaps 1-2% of the country, who won't vote for a non-white PM?
The visceral dislike of Rishi Sunak on the right of the Tory Party is quite something. Does his ethnicity play into this in some way? I'd hope not but I think it probably does.
My parents voted for Truss in the leadership contest because they felt Sunak uncommitted to this country. I don't think this so much racism as his Green card and Non-Dom wife, properties in California, and his comment that if it hadn't been for his political career he would have stayed in California.
Perhaps we should double-down on not being committed to this country and draft in a political equivalent of Sven-Göran Eriksson to run the government?
There's a challenge. Here y'go, PB: which politician from another country would you draft in to be PM? Double points if not American. Stephen Harper? Sanna Marin? Leo Varadkar?
Emmanuel Macron or Michel Barnier.
I like @williamglenn's suggestion - many would argue that Britain’s most successful rulers have always been imports - the Windsors amongst them. The Germans are good at being British -they often do it better than us, with an impressive teutonic commitment. Look at the Goring hotel. Providing loyalty to the British taxpayer is assured, if only within the term of the contract, it beats Boris or Sunak. And providing competency and cunning is assured, it beats Truss.
It the moonhowlers self-select and quit it's no skin off my rosy nose.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Your party looks like a shitshow in a fuck factory.
I thought the US was at least 5 hours behind the UK, not ahead?
Maybe they open early on a Saturday over there. Dunno.
Not a denial. Noted.
I have better things to do with my time than wrestle in shit with you.
It the moonhowlers self-select and quit it's no skin off my rosy nose.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Weren’t the moonhowlers the future once, with you right behind them?
If so, what is the lesson from this parable?
No, I never backed the moonhowlers and have never been one.
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
This will be key - though I think given the appearance of Uxbridge now too makes an informal pact more likely, as the LDs give Labour a clear run there.
It *is* easy to forget that the rivalry between the Lib Dems and Labour can often be deep and vicious at local level.
Yes - IIRC the Ukbridge LibDem last time ran on an "only I can win here" slogan, starting at 4%. But I agree that the two by-elections make an unofficial understanding more likely.
As a registered supporter of the Labour Party I've only received a call-to-arms for Uxbridge. Mid Beds isn't mentioned. As a member of the LibDems it is the reverse. So this will be like the T&H and Wakefield by-elections I think.
Comments
I have no idea who will win the Ashes, but it’s clearly going to be a clash of styles.
We must move on from Johnson he says, he was Johnson's chief cheerleader from 2019 to 2022!
Only question is who beats the Tory. Looks like Labour in this instance.
No MP who is standing down immediately quits because the new candidate has been chosen. So what is he up to?
One of the reasons why the war was idiotic is that there are certainly parts of Ukraine where Russia would have had a good shot at a majority vote. Now? Doubtful.
They don't reliably vote for or support the Government in Parliament anyway, and provided sensible candidates are selected (big if) there's a chance of swapping them out with someone sane.
Clearly a slippery so and so, but on the side of the angels. We could do with someone like that.
You wait months for one then four come along at once.
Maybe they open early on a Saturday over there. Dunno.
If so, what is the lesson from this parable?
Actually hotter in Manchester than in Istanbul right now, remarkably.
NEW THREAD WITH A FIRST AVAILABLE
It's classic Boris - superficially confident blustering which strikes the right note of outrage at 'enemies' to garner plenty of support, despite being nonsense.
They did, between 1997 and 2010. Marginally.
But it wasn't this Selby.
That Selby was Selby and a substantial bit of York. Including the University.
This Selby and Ainsty is Selby and a collection of villages near Harrogate.
Not the same thing at all.
Bet accordingly.
Anyone can easily look up what the statute says:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/body
Mid Beds isn't mentioned.
As a member of the LibDems it is the reverse.
So this will be like the T&H and Wakefield by-elections I think.