Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
The left wing attack should be that Farage has drawn attention to a much wider problem, whereby tens of thousands of ordinary people have had their bank accounts arbitrarily closed.
Now that's a different story, and one that is a major issue for breadline Britain.
I would love to have seen Farage reduced to joining a credit union.
Would you really like it if you lived in a country where you could be denied banking on the basis of your political opinions?
There is a difference between bumping someone out of a bank for his particular political opinions, versus being a PEP. The latter is what counts in regulation AFAICS, and, presumably, in terms of the bank's liability if things go pearshaped.
The wider issue of bank access is to some extent a separate one - being a PEP is not the only reason to get a CIFAS flag against one's name.
I see the 'basic bank account' is much mentioned eg below, but what happens if none of the banks want to be socially positive? I don't have enough experience of that end of life (thank goodness).
You become a non person, unable to access housing or employment, so turn to criminality to survive or leave the country if you have the initiative otherwise homelessness. It is certainly a worse punishment than probation, fines, or community service and potentially worse than prison yet can be assigned to you by a faceless algorithm or incorrect data you are not allowed to see.
And no one on the left or centre of pb.com seem to care because Farage.
I am left of center, and I just gave my opinion that I care about it.
Typical PB categorical assertion that "everyone" or "no one" is this, that, or the other.
Real life just ain't THAT cut-and-dried. About 99.46% of the time, anyway.
I would be centre as well so yes, "everyone" was not meant to mean "literally everyone". Indeed "literally everyone" would rarely mean "literally everyone".....it is a strange language, not designed for vulcans.
The issue of people being unaccountably denied banking services is certainly important. It's more that Coutts Farage doesn't resonate (with me) as an egregious or typical example of it. If it leads to positive reform, good, but my blood refuses to bubble on this one. No point pretending otherwise.
Equally without it happening to someone famous and preferably controversial no one (for pedants this means not enough people to create change, or even the discussion of change at the right level, not literally no one) would ever have cared even though is important.
So if not now when would you have actually cared enough to argue for the unbanked?
Has this case made me more aware of the issue and/or care about it more? This is what I think you're asking me and the answer to both is no. I knew and cared about it before and this specific story (Farage/Coutts) has not made a material difference to that (for the reasons I gave).
There are days it is quite clear that @MikeSmithson is a LibDem
Well in the thread header the emphasis on Hillingdon as a massive blow and the treatment of the historic Selby and Ainsty result as a mere footnote to the headline is certainly consistent with someone trying to talk down Labour's chances in Mid Beds.
The last 3polls shown on Wikipedia for the Spanish GE give the centre right a 3-3.5 point lead. All are illegal and from GESOP. If they're accurate the centre right could just squeeze a majority but it is very close. Either way the centre left is well down on projected seats. I've no idea how this will play out on Sunday after the 8pm close of poll.
It might be clutching at straws as the Titanic sinks, but if I were a Tory strategist (God forbid - and do they indeed exist?), I would be looking at what can be learned from the ULEZ effect. One of the fundamental reasons I have never liked Labour is their bossiness and continual attempts to interfere in people's lives. It is why many British people still don't love them very much. Could Khan's ULEZ policy ultimately remind people that while they might hate the Tories, they can't trust Labour to not interfere in their lives?
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
The left wing attack should be that Farage has drawn attention to a much wider problem, whereby tens of thousands of ordinary people have had their bank accounts arbitrarily closed.
Now that's a different story, and one that is a major issue for breadline Britain.
I would love to have seen Farage reduced to joining a credit union.
I find it instructive that most left-wingers online are much happier laughing at Farage, than they are looking at the same issue as it affects tens of thousands of poorer people, many of whom now find themselves totally excluded from society as a result.
Didn't see any one mentioning the plight of the little people before big Nige got unbanked. Much like the plight of the smalls in London, no one cares until their right to pollute the city is infringed.
First they came for the Jews…
This is a very frequent misquote, the original...
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
—Martin Niemöller
In a roundabout way, it's similar to the debate between Sir Thomas More and Richard Rich, in A Man for All Seasons. He'd give the devil the benefit of law, for the sake of his own protection (not that the real Sir Thomas More would have agreed).
My favouite film exchange of all time. Though I should point out that the exchange was not between More and Richard Rich. It was between More and his future son in law William Roper. Richard Rich was the subject of the debate.
With apologies for being so pedantic.
You prefer that to "never show what you're thinking to anyone outside the family" from Brando to Caan in the Godfather?
Oh yes. It speaks to so much more than just the limits of the film itself.
It is up there alongside 'Tears in the Rain' from Bladerunner...
The story goes much of that was Hauer's.
This was the original script: “I’ve seen things… seen things you little people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion bright as magnesium… I rode on the back decks of a blinker and watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments… they’ll be gone.”
Hauer rewrote it the night before, and delivered his version as a surprise:
“I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.”
That is sublime.
I need to raise my Godfather game ...
"Fredo, you're my older brother and I love you. But don't ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever."
One interpretation of the Roy Batty speech is that the memories he is describing are implanted fakes.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
Not the point. Same if he were murdered; you and I might privately think that if someone had to be murdered we'd rather him than someone else, but we are morally obliged to mind about it.
Coutts have comprehensively f*cked up the PR on this. Quite how I’ve no idea: did it not occur to them that booted Farage out of their bank might cause them some political difficulties?
It doesn't occur to people like that that everyone doesn't think like they do. Because they make sure anyone who doesn't think like they do keeps quiet about it.
Sure, but if they didn’t like him why did they lie to him about why they were giving him the boot in the first place?
It’s the lies that have dragged this whole thing into the limelight. If they’d just transferred him to NatWest & told him to lump it he’d probably have (grumpily) accepted it.
An argument between a bank and Farage. Can't they both lose ?
They have.
It's an odd one.
A bank that is unattainable for the great unwashed, who for the most part care not a jot for its existence, has shot it's own foot off by telling an elitist tosspot that he no longer has enough cash for their elitist service and has to join the queue on the high street with the rest of us.
There’s a massive difference between a bank not wanting to give you an account, and your existing bank deciding to close your account for spurious reasons.
Oh behave. He fell below the threshold and he's an ar**. He sold the original story as "I am a national treasure and I have to leave this country because I cannot get a bank account, because of he woke banks". This story has become bigger as his ego has been inflated by his shills.
Why are we pandering to this self- indulgent t***? If all the high street banks had refused Corbyn a bank account we would be quite comfortable that an old anti- Semite apologist was being shown the door. We'd have had a whip round for his ferry ticket.
The left wing attack should be that Farage has drawn attention to a much wider problem, whereby tens of thousands of ordinary people have had their bank accounts arbitrarily closed.
Now that's a different story, and one that is a major issue for breadline Britain.
I would love to have seen Farage reduced to joining a credit union.
Would you really like it if you lived in a country where you could be denied banking on the basis of your political opinions?
There is a difference between bumping someone out of a bank for his particular political opinions, versus being a PEP. The latter is what counts in regulation AFAICS, and, presumably, in terms of the bank's liability if things go pearshaped.
The wider issue of bank access is to some extent a separate one - being a PEP is not the only reason to get a CIFAS flag against one's name.
I see the 'basic bank account' is much mentioned eg below, but what happens if none of the banks want to be socially positive? I don't have enough experience of that end of life (thank goodness).
You become a non person, unable to access housing or employment, so turn to criminality to survive or leave the country if you have the initiative otherwise homelessness. It is certainly a worse punishment than probation, fines, or community service and potentially worse than prison yet can be assigned to you by a faceless algorithm or incorrect data you are not allowed to see.
And no one on the left or centre of pb.com seem to care because Farage.
I am left of center, and I just gave my opinion that I care about it.
Typical PB categorical assertion that "everyone" or "no one" is this, that, or the other.
Real life just ain't THAT cut-and-dried. About 99.46% of the time, anyway.
I would be centre as well so yes, "everyone" was not meant to mean "literally everyone". Indeed "literally everyone" would rarely mean "literally everyone".....it is a strange language, not designed for vulcans.
The issue of people being unaccountably denied banking services is certainly important. It's more that Coutts Farage doesn't resonate (with me) as an egregious or typical example of it. If it leads to positive reform, good, but my blood refuses to bubble on this one. No point pretending otherwise.
Equally without it happening to someone famous and preferably controversial no one (for pedants this means not enough people to create change, or even the discussion of change at the right level, not literally no one) would ever have cared even though is important.
So if not now when would you have actually cared enough to argue for the unbanked?
Has this case made me more aware of the issue and/or care about it more? This is what I think you're asking me and the answer to both is no. I knew and cared about it before and this specific story (Farage/Coutts) has not made a material difference to that (for the reasons I gave).
There are, in any case, different issues: the PEP regulations; and the wider CIFAS issue. My sense is that the powerful, who find the PEP regulations burdensome for unsurprising but from the public good necessary reasons, are trying to get them jettisoned by conflating the two issues.
It might be clutching at straws as the Titanic sinks, but if I were a Tory strategist (God forbid - and do they indeed exist?), I would be looking at what can be learned from the ULEZ effect. One of the fundamental reasons I have never liked Labour is their bossiness and continual attempts to interfere in people's lives. It is why many British people still don't love them very much. Could Khan's ULEZ policy ultimately remind people that while they might hate the Tories, they can't trust Labour to not interfere in their lives?
I'd infer from Selby that it's not generally a happy hunting ground. We learned from Covid that most people want the government to interfere heavily in people's lives - with the occasional exception of their own.
It might be clutching at straws as the Titanic sinks, but if I were a Tory strategist (God forbid - and do they indeed exist?), I would be looking at what can be learned from the ULEZ effect. One of the fundamental reasons I have never liked Labour is their bossiness and continual attempts to interfere in people's lives. It is why many British people still don't love them very much. Could Khan's ULEZ policy ultimately remind people that while they might hate the Tories, they can't trust Labour to not interfere in their lives?
"Vote Conservative if you want to carry on poisoning children."
It might be clutching at straws as the Titanic sinks, but if I were a Tory strategist (God forbid - and do they indeed exist?), I would be looking at what can be learned from the ULEZ effect. One of the fundamental reasons I have never liked Labour is their bossiness and continual attempts to interfere in people's lives. It is why many British people still don't love them very much. Could Khan's ULEZ policy ultimately remind people that while they might hate the Tories, they can't trust Labour to not interfere in their lives?
Bossy and continually interfering? Soulds like a Conservative Government, certainly when it comes to peaceful protest, or free market negotiation between employer and employees. Or just plain interfering. Vide the ticket offices on the railways - largely driven by HMG, it is said on here.
It might be clutching at straws as the Titanic sinks, but if I were a Tory strategist (God forbid - and do they indeed exist?), I would be looking at what can be learned from the ULEZ effect. One of the fundamental reasons I have never liked Labour is their bossiness and continual attempts to interfere in people's lives. It is why many British people still don't love them very much. Could Khan's ULEZ policy ultimately remind people that while they might hate the Tories, they can't trust Labour to not interfere in their lives?
"Vote Conservative if you want to carry on poisoning children."
Yes, an appeal to the Tory core vote.
I would imagine it’s a progressive step forward for Tories to be poisoning children rather than eating babies?
Strange there should be so much antagonism against the low emission zone when few people are in scope for it, becoming increasingly fewer.
Suspect there's something else going on. Maybe the people of Hillingdon actually like the Conservatives. They willingly voted for Johnson after all.
From actually talking to people - in addition to the people affected, everyone with an ICE vehicle is convinced they are next for the chop. With just as little notice, or help.
That's a very bad "slippery slope" take, but if people believe it then I guess it might explain the Uxbridge vote. While ULEZ has something to do with the result obviously, I just think people there are actually quite happy with the Conservatives really and don't need much of a prompt to vote for them.
It might be clutching at straws as the Titanic sinks, but if I were a Tory strategist (God forbid - and do they indeed exist?), I would be looking at what can be learned from the ULEZ effect. One of the fundamental reasons I have never liked Labour is their bossiness and continual attempts to interfere in people's lives. It is why many British people still don't love them very much. Could Khan's ULEZ policy ultimately remind people that while they might hate the Tories, they can't trust Labour to not interfere in their lives?
"Vote Conservative if you want to carry on poisoning children."
Yes, an appeal to the Tory core vote.
I would imagine it’s a progressive step forward for Tories to be poisoning children rather than eating babies?
The two are naturally negatively correlated. They don't want to eat babies they have poisoned.
It might be clutching at straws as the Titanic sinks, but if I were a Tory strategist (God forbid - and do they indeed exist?), I would be looking at what can be learned from the ULEZ effect. One of the fundamental reasons I have never liked Labour is their bossiness and continual attempts to interfere in people's lives. It is why many British people still don't love them very much. Could Khan's ULEZ policy ultimately remind people that while they might hate the Tories, they can't trust Labour to not interfere in their lives?
"Vote Conservative if you want to carry on poisoning children."
Yes, an appeal to the Tory core vote.
That is completely ridiculous. How do we steal from our kids if they are poisoned? Who is going to pay our pensions and for our care?
Interesting to see that Boris Johnson, even now, believes he can negotiate with a Judicial Enquiry - says the Guardian.
"Relevant" messages only will be handed over. Still squirming.
Boris Johnson has vowed to pass his pandemic WhatsApp messages over to the Covid inquiry after experts managed to recover them from an old phone he had been advised not to use for security reasons.
All “relevant” material will be passed to the inquiry in unredacted form as soon as possible, the former prime minister’s spokesperson said.
It might be clutching at straws as the Titanic sinks, but if I were a Tory strategist (God forbid - and do they indeed exist?), I would be looking at what can be learned from the ULEZ effect. One of the fundamental reasons I have never liked Labour is their bossiness and continual attempts to interfere in people's lives. It is why many British people still don't love them very much. Could Khan's ULEZ policy ultimately remind people that while they might hate the Tories, they can't trust Labour to not interfere in their lives?
So are you claiming that another 13 years of Conservative govt will make people happier and freer and less interfered with?
You may be on to something. It is could be said that with their partying, trousering of money, patronage, etc that the Tories never seem to think of the electorate in the slightest.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
First they came for the vile, self-promoting rent-a-gobs and you did nothing....
What should I be doing? It is not like the govt listens to anybody.
Or should I be protesting so that I can feel better later when they completely stuff up something else because they don't give a monkeys? How much ineffective self-righteousness should I be exerting?
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
Not the point. Same if he were murdered; you and I might privately think that if someone had to be murdered we'd rather him than someone else, but we are morally obliged to mind about it.
If he were murdered I would expect the cops to pursue and arrest his murderer, but being murdered would not change my opinion of Farage.
My opinion of him is not dependent on the actions of unknown third parties.
On Topic - Rather remarkably, very little on this thread re: yesterday's 3-Ring By-Circus (in manner of speaking).
So here's a bit of guff about it/them (in part re: burning Trans issues).
> for starters, giving credit where credit is due, kudos to HYUFD the Vicar of this PB Parish (and may God have mercy on our souls!) for contending - it appears rightly - that ULEZ could allow Tory to squeeze to victory in Uxsbridge and South Ruislip.
> which rather highlights the LACK of electoral impact of the dreaded Woke?
> am guessing that another Tony Blair! of 1997 leading Labour, would likely have won U&SR 2023 whereas Keir Starmer did NOT.
> however, do NOT think that's of much more than short-term significance, and doubtful even on that score, more like a minor speed bump, which many have benefit of concentrating some minds among opposition leaders, activists and likely voters.
> as for Conservatives, helps prop up Sunak methinks, probably enough to keep him as CUP Leader and UK PM through to impending (as in Sword of Damocles) general election.
Interesting to see that Boris Johnson, even now, believes he can negotiate with a Judicial Enquiry - says the Guardian.
"Relevant" messages only will be handed over. Still squirming.
Boris Johnson has vowed to pass his pandemic WhatsApp messages over to the Covid inquiry after experts managed to recover them from an old phone he had been advised not to use for security reasons.
All “relevant” material will be passed to the inquiry in unredacted form as soon as possible, the former prime minister’s spokesperson said.
I know its an unpopular view, but having the politicians hand over their phones to the enquiry is a step too far. They had no expectation at the time, that these were to be public records, and the conversations recorded will lack a lot of context from the time.
It might be clutching at straws as the Titanic sinks, but if I were a Tory strategist (God forbid - and do they indeed exist?), I would be looking at what can be learned from the ULEZ effect. One of the fundamental reasons I have never liked Labour is their bossiness and continual attempts to interfere in people's lives. It is why many British people still don't love them very much. Could Khan's ULEZ policy ultimately remind people that while they might hate the Tories, they can't trust Labour to not interfere in their lives?
"Vote Conservative if you want to carry on poisoning children."
Interesting to see that Boris Johnson, even now, believes he can negotiate with a Judicial Enquiry - says the Guardian.
"Relevant" messages only will be handed over. Still squirming.
Boris Johnson has vowed to pass his pandemic WhatsApp messages over to the Covid inquiry after experts managed to recover them from an old phone he had been advised not to use for security reasons.
All “relevant” material will be passed to the inquiry in unredacted form as soon as possible, the former prime minister’s spokesperson said.
I know its an unpopular view, but having the politicians hand over their phones to the enquiry is a step too far. They had no expectation at the time, that these were to be public records, and the conversations recorded will lack a lot of context from the time.
If only they had the patience to use govt work equipment for govt work and personal equipment for personal stuff all would be fine. The result is harsh on them but their own fault for being lazy.
Interesting to see that Boris Johnson, even now, believes he can negotiate with a Judicial Enquiry - says the Guardian.
"Relevant" messages only will be handed over. Still squirming.
Boris Johnson has vowed to pass his pandemic WhatsApp messages over to the Covid inquiry after experts managed to recover them from an old phone he had been advised not to use for security reasons.
All “relevant” material will be passed to the inquiry in unredacted form as soon as possible, the former prime minister’s spokesperson said.
I know its an unpopular view, but having the politicians hand over their phones to the enquiry is a step too far. They had no expectation at the time, that these were to be public records, and the conversations recorded will lack a lot of context from the time.
In USA basic rule (to extent there IS one) is that, if elected officials use private devices for emails, texts, etc., etc., to conduct public business, then any records thus generated are public business and subject to disclosure.
AND such records are disclosable (sp?) in wide range of criminal AND civil cases. At least that's my distinct impression.
He’s not as slim as he was (who is?) but he’s nothing like that.
Cheers, thank goodness for that. It was upsetting me.
Likewise!
As I age I get more conscious of ageing in others. I guess I’m subtly thinking “shit, do I look that bad?!”
So it’s a relief to know Jamie has not become Jabba
He is chunkier tho. Should get on the old ozempic
He's always had a 'could run to chub' look, as do many people. Funnily enough it's attractive so long as they stay just the right side of it. Me, I could be mistaken for a whippet, same shape now as when I was 17, and that's not an uncaveated blessing.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
First they came for the vile, self-promoting rent-a-gobs and you did nothing....
What should I be doing? It is not like the govt listens to anybody.
Or should I be protesting so that I can feel better later when they completely stuff up something else because they don't give a monkeys? How much ineffective self-righteousness should I be exerting?
It was a joke, obviously but I suppose the more serious answer is that we should not approve of people having their bank accounts taken away because of their political views, no matter how repulsive.
Interesting to see that Boris Johnson, even now, believes he can negotiate with a Judicial Enquiry - says the Guardian.
"Relevant" messages only will be handed over. Still squirming.
Boris Johnson has vowed to pass his pandemic WhatsApp messages over to the Covid inquiry after experts managed to recover them from an old phone he had been advised not to use for security reasons.
All “relevant” material will be passed to the inquiry in unredacted form as soon as possible, the former prime minister’s spokesperson said.
I know its an unpopular view, but having the politicians hand over their phones to the enquiry is a step too far. They had no expectation at the time, that these were to be public records, and the conversations recorded will lack a lot of context from the time.
In USA basic rule (to extent there IS one) is that, if elected officials use private devices for emails, texts, etc., etc., to conduct public business, then any records thus generated are public business and subject to disclosure.
AND such records are disclosable (sp?) in wide range of criminal AND civil cases. At least that's my distinct impression.
Yes, the issue is a whole load of regulations that concern both public and private phones. The bigger problem is the restospective designation of regulations.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
Not the point. Same if he were murdered; you and I might privately think that if someone had to be murdered we'd rather him than someone else, but we are morally obliged to mind about it.
If he were murdered I would expect the cops to pursue and arrest his murderer, but being murdered would not change my opinion of Farage.
My opinion of him is not dependent on the actions of unknown third parties.
I'm not saying it should change your opinion of him. But I'd be disappointed if you didn't consider his murder a bad thing, just as throwing milkshakes at people you don't like is a bad thing and electing to take away someone's bank account because you don't like them is a bad thing and assaulting them in a car park is a bad thing. Too many don'tappear to think bad things which happen to Nigel Farage are bad things.
For balance, I think John Prescott is dreadful. But I cheered when he punched that man who through an egg at him, and when he (reputedly) punched that fella from Chumbawamba who poured a jug of water over him (as he later - reputedly - said to his son: "I knocked him down - and he didn't get up again").
Speaking of required disclosures or lack thereof by elected and public officials . . .
Courthouse News Service - [Florida] Lawmakers ask 11th Circuit [federal court] to block subpoenas in ‘Stop Woke’ lawsuit
Over a dozen members of Florida’s House of Representatives are fighting to keep a lid on communications discussing hot-button topics like critical race theory and the Black Lives Matter movement.
A group of university students and professors argue Florida's new law dubbed the Stop Woke Act is intentionally discriminatory. They want to subpoena 14 Sunshine State lawmakers in hopes of showing what they say were the true motivations behind the law.
A federal judge refused to quash those subpoenas earlier this year, but the lawmakers are fighting back, arguing they shouldn't have to produce the requested documents under the principle of legislative privilege. A panel of the 11th Circuit, which heard arguments in the case on Tuesday, could ultimately decide whether the documents are released.
The legal challenge comes amid separate litigation involving the law whose official name is the Individual Freedom Act. Signed by the governor last year, the legislation would restrict how employers and educators discuss race, gender and inequality. Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a November order, however, that temporarily blocked portions of the law from being enforced in public universities, calling it “positively dystopian.”
SSI - Note that claims of legislative privilege are hardly unique to the Wack-jobs currently disgracing the Florida legislature AND governor's office. Indeed, such claims are as old as the American Republic; actually older as the stem from . . . take a guess!
For example, in today's Washington State, our quite Wokeish legislature still maintains position, policy AND legislation that exempts them from much, if not most, of the provision of WA State Open Public Records Act.
On Topic - Rather remarkably, very little on this thread re: yesterday's 3-Ring By-Circus (in manner of speaking).
So here's a bit of guff about it/them (in part re: burning Trans issues).
> for starters, giving credit where credit is due, kudos to HYUFD the Vicar of this PB Parish (and may God have mercy on our souls!) for contending - it appears rightly - that ULEZ could allow Tory to squeeze to victory in Uxsbridge and South Ruislip.
> which rather highlights the LACK of electoral impact of the dreaded Woke?
> am guessing that another Tony Blair! of 1997 leading Labour, would likely have won U&SR 2023 whereas Keir Starmer did NOT.
> however, do NOT think that's of much more than short-term significance, and doubtful even on that score, more like a minor speed bump, which many have benefit of concentrating some minds among opposition leaders, activists and likely voters.
> as for Conservatives, helps prop up Sunak methinks, probably enough to keep him as CUP Leader and UK PM through to impending (as in Sword of Damocles) general election.
Summarises my thinking including the kudos to HYUFD on his call.
Labour should not backtrack on its environmental policies because of the result in Uxbridge, for two main reasons, in order of priority:
1. Measures to reduce air pollution in cities and, more generally, to tackle climate change are urgently needed. 2. Any backtracking would lead to a significant increase in the Green vote at the next GE, potentially losing Labour quite a few seats.
That's not to say that the implementation of schemes like ULEZ shouldn't be improved. But they shouldn't be abandoned.
Double-down on the environmental measures in central London, without making life difficult for people living on the edge of the metropolis like Uxbridge where a car is still important.
Picking this up from earlier.
That doesn't work, because it is the Outer London Boroughs which are the most polluted based on the published scorecard, and therefore most in need of measures to be taken - despite some of those Boroughs refusing to take responsibility for themselves.
Strange there should be so much antagonism against the low emission zone when few people are in scope for it, becoming increasingly fewer.
Suspect there's something else going on. Maybe the people of Hillingdon actually like the Conservatives. They willingly voted for Johnson after all.
From actually talking to people - in addition to the people affected, everyone with an ICE vehicle is convinced they are next for the chop. With just as little notice, or help.
That's a very bad "slippery slope" take, but if people believe it then I guess it might explain the Uxbridge vote. While ULEZ has something to do with the result obviously, I just think people there are actually quite happy with the Conservatives really and don't need much of a prompt to vote for them.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
Not the point. Same if he were murdered; you and I might privately think that if someone had to be murdered we'd rather him than someone else, but we are morally obliged to mind about it.
If he were murdered I would expect the cops to pursue and arrest his murderer, but being murdered would not change my opinion of Farage.
My opinion of him is not dependent on the actions of unknown third parties.
I'm not saying it should change your opinion of him. But I'd be disappointed if you didn't consider his murder a bad thing, just as throwing milkshakes at people you don't like is a bad thing and electing to take away someone's bank account because you don't like them is a bad thing and assaulting them in a car park is a bad thing. Too many don'tappear to think bad things which happen to Nigel Farage are bad things.
For balance, I think John Prescott is dreadful. But I cheered when he punched that man who through an egg at him, and when he (reputedly) punched that fella from Chumbawamba who poured a jug of water over him (as he later - reputedly - said to his son: "I knocked him down - and he didn't get up again").
I consider murder a bad thing. Farage has nothing to do with it.
It might be clutching at straws as the Titanic sinks, but if I were a Tory strategist (God forbid - and do they indeed exist?), I would be looking at what can be learned from the ULEZ effect. One of the fundamental reasons I have never liked Labour is their bossiness and continual attempts to interfere in people's lives. It is why many British people still don't love them very much. Could Khan's ULEZ policy ultimately remind people that while they might hate the Tories, they can't trust Labour to not interfere in their lives?
"Vote Conservative if you want to carry on poisoning children."
Yes, an appeal to the Tory core vote.
I was in Lewisham Hospital last night with a thankfully non-case of appendicitis in my son. It brought back memories of two previous visits - the birth of my youngest and the time my eldest was hospitalised with a severe asthma attack. It was utterly terrifying watching her fight for every breath. It was the second time she had been hospitalised, the first time she spent several days in ICU and there were times I thought she might not make it. So I really have zero sympathy for people who think they have a right to poison the air that other people breathe.
Labour should not backtrack on its environmental policies because of the result in Uxbridge, for two main reasons, in order of priority:
1. Measures to reduce air pollution in cities and, more generally, to tackle climate change are urgently needed. 2. Any backtracking would lead to a significant increase in the Green vote at the next GE, potentially losing Labour quite a few seats.
That's not to say that the implementation of schemes like ULEZ shouldn't be improved. But they shouldn't be abandoned.
Double-down on the environmental measures in central London, without making life difficult for people living on the edge of the metropolis like Uxbridge where a car is still important.
Picking this up from earlier.
That doesn't work, because it is the Outer London Boroughs which are the most polluted based on the published scorecard, and therefore most in need of measures to be taken - despite some of those Boroughs refusing to take responsibility for themselves.
Strange there should be so much antagonism against the low emission zone when few people are in scope for it, becoming increasingly fewer.
Suspect there's something else going on. Maybe the people of Hillingdon actually like the Conservatives. They willingly voted for Johnson after all.
From actually talking to people - in addition to the people affected, everyone with an ICE vehicle is convinced they are next for the chop. With just as little notice, or help.
That's a very bad "slippery slope" take, but if people believe it then I guess it might explain the Uxbridge vote. While ULEZ has something to do with the result obviously, I just think people there are actually quite happy with the Conservatives really and don't need much of a prompt to vote for them.
Its a perfectly reasonable slippery slope take and what I said overnight at the start of this thread.
The arguments made in favour of this by its advocates apply effectively to all ICE vehicles, hell some of its advocates clearly hate all vehicles even if electric and despise private transportation in its own right, so why not draw the line here?
If you tolerate this, then your child car could be next is not a fallacy, its perfectly logical.
On Topic - Rather remarkably, very little on this thread re: yesterday's 3-Ring By-Circus (in manner of speaking).
So here's a bit of guff about it/them (in part re: burning Trans issues).
> for starters, giving credit where credit is due, kudos to HYUFD the Vicar of this PB Parish (and may God have mercy on our souls!) for contending - it appears rightly - that ULEZ could allow Tory to squeeze to victory in Uxsbridge and South Ruislip.
> which rather highlights the LACK of electoral impact of the dreaded Woke?
> am guessing that another Tony Blair! of 1997 leading Labour, would likely have won U&SR 2023 whereas Keir Starmer did NOT.
> however, do NOT think that's of much more than short-term significance, and doubtful even on that score, more like a minor speed bump, which many have benefit of concentrating some minds among opposition leaders, activists and likely voters.
> as for Conservatives, helps prop up Sunak methinks, probably enough to keep him as CUP Leader and UK PM through to impending (as in Sword of Damocles) general election.
Summarises my thinking including the kudos to HYUFD on his call.
I have yet to see analysis about differential turnout and which voters opted to transfer party / stay at home.
On Topic - Rather remarkably, very little on this thread re: yesterday's 3-Ring By-Circus (in manner of speaking).
So here's a bit of guff about it/them (in part re: burning Trans issues).
> for starters, giving credit where credit is due, kudos to HYUFD the Vicar of this PB Parish (and may God have mercy on our souls!) for contending - it appears rightly - that ULEZ could allow Tory to squeeze to victory in Uxsbridge and South Ruislip.
> which rather highlights the LACK of electoral impact of the dreaded Woke?
> am guessing that another Tony Blair! of 1997 leading Labour, would likely have won U&SR 2023 whereas Keir Starmer did NOT.
> however, do NOT think that's of much more than short-term significance, and doubtful even on that score, more like a minor speed bump, which many have benefit of concentrating some minds among opposition leaders, activists and likely voters.
> as for Conservatives, helps prop up Sunak methinks, probably enough to keep him as CUP Leader and UK PM through to impending (as in Sword of Damocles) general election.
Summarises my thinking including the kudos to HYUFD on his call.
Winning Selby but not Uxbridge is much better for GE prospects than the opposite would have been imo.
Labour should not backtrack on its environmental policies because of the result in Uxbridge, for two main reasons, in order of priority:
1. Measures to reduce air pollution in cities and, more generally, to tackle climate change are urgently needed. 2. Any backtracking would lead to a significant increase in the Green vote at the next GE, potentially losing Labour quite a few seats.
That's not to say that the implementation of schemes like ULEZ shouldn't be improved. But they shouldn't be abandoned.
Double-down on the environmental measures in central London, without making life difficult for people living on the edge of the metropolis like Uxbridge where a car is still important.
Picking this up from earlier.
That doesn't work, because it is the Outer London Boroughs which are the most polluted based on the published scorecard, and therefore most in need of measures to be taken - despite some of those Boroughs refusing to take responsibility for themselves.
That was what I thought - but isn't that in Hounslow?
In any case, it doesn't pass the sniff test, so needs some digging into. I've had a perfunctory look and it doesn't leap out at you how they reached this conclusion. But it was only a two minute look.
Very much "A Tale of Three Elections" as someone would not have said.
Indeed, more similarities across the three contests than you might think from the superficial analysis of a good result for x, a bad result for y etc.
Let's start with the Labour win at Selby & Ainsty on a 44.8% turnout (pretty much uniform across the three contests). That meant 20,500 fewer people voted than at the 2019 election - the Conservatives lost 20,700 voters.
At Somerton & Frome, the turnout was 44.2% (compared with 52.1% at Chesham & Amersham and 52.3% at Tiverton & Honiton). This meant there were 26,000 fewer votes cast - the Conservative vote fell by 26,000.
As for Uxbridge & South Ruislip, turnout of 46.2% meant 17,300 fewer votes than in 2019 - the Conservatives lost 12,000 but Labour lost 5,000.
What we're left with is a sense the real victor last night was Apathy and disenchantment/disillusion with the Conservatives translated, to a degree at S&F and S&A into a vote for the opposition but the overwhelming sense was of an electorate disenchanted with most of what was on offer. The problem for the Conservatives is they need people to get off their hands and vote - Starmer may want a ringing endorsement on a high turnout but I'm sure he'll take a ringing endorsement on a low turnout.
We can't of course sniff at a 29% swing to the LDs at S&F nor at a near 24% swing to Labour in S&A. If both were repeated at a GE, the Conservatives would be reduced to a rump of 20-30 seats.
U&SR complicates matters - I did like @Sean_F's take this morning. As we've seen in both the last two local election rounds, there are areas where the Conservative vote has proven more robust and reliable than in other matters. These tend to be Con-Lab areas with little or no LD or Green presence. In London, I'd put Hillingdon alongside Croydon - both Boroughs are highly polarised - in Hillingdon, the north of the Borough is strongly Conservative while the south is Labour. That's how you get John McConnell's Hayes & Harlington in the same borough as Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (the 203rd safest Conservative seat).
I suspect there are economic factors at work which don't apply in other areas where political opinion seems more volatile. Perhaps the starker contrast between levels of wealth in an area, the more polarised and confrontational the politics.
Very much "A Tale of Three Elections" as someone would not have said.
Indeed, more similarities across the three contests than you might think from the superficial analysis of a good result for x, a bad result for y etc.
Let's start with the Labour win at Selby & Ainsty on a 44.8% turnout (pretty much uniform across the three contests). That meant 20,500 fewer people voted than at the 2019 election - the Conservatives lost 20,700 voters.
At Somerton & Frome, the turnout was 44.2% (compared with 52.1% at Chesham & Amersham and 52.3% at Tiverton & Honiton). This meant there were 26,000 fewer votes cast - the Conservative vote fell by 26,000.
As for Uxbridge & South Ruislip, turnout of 46.2% meant 17,300 fewer votes than in 2019 - the Conservatives lost 12,000 but Labour lost 5,000.
What we're left with is a sense the real victor last night was Apathy and disenchantment/disillusion with the Conservatives translated, to a degree at S&F and S&A into a vote for the opposition but the overwhelming sense was of an electorate disenchanted with most of what was on offer. The problem for the Conservatives is they need people to get off their hands and vote - Starmer may want a ringing endorsement on a high turnout but I'm sure he'll take a ringing endorsement on a low turnout.
We can't of course sniff at a 29% swing to the LDs at S&F nor at a near 24% swing to Labour in S&A. If both were repeated at a GE, the Conservatives would be reduced to a rump of 20-30 seats.
U&SR complicates matters - I did like @Sean_F's take this morning. As we've seen in both the last two local election rounds, there are areas where the Conservative vote has proven more robust and reliable than in other matters. These tend to be Con-Lab areas with little or no LD or Green presence. In London, I'd put Hillingdon alongside Croydon - both Boroughs are highly polarised - in Hillingdon, the north of the Borough is strongly Conservative while the south is Labour. That's how you get John McConnell's Hayes & Harlington in the same borough as Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (the 203rd safest Conservative seat).
I suspect there are economic factors at work which don't apply in other areas where political opinion seems more volatile. Perhaps the starker contrast between levels of wealth in an area, the more polarised and confrontational the politics.
Turnouts were higher than they used to be at by-elections a few years back when we used to get a lot of 20s and 30s, and the occasional one in the teens.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
First they came for the vile, self-promoting rent-a-gobs and you did nothing....
What should I be doing? It is not like the govt listens to anybody.
Or should I be protesting so that I can feel better later when they completely stuff up something else because they don't give a monkeys? How much ineffective self-righteousness should I be exerting?
It was a joke, obviously but I suppose the more serious answer is that we should not approve of people having their bank accounts taken away because of their political views, no matter how repulsive.
I never mentioned bank accounts - I just said that I regarded Farage in a poor light. Certain posters here seem to be trying to say that I must therefore approve of him being treated unfairly. I said no such thing. Some are even insinuating that I might approve of his murder because I do not like him.
It is almost as if people are attempting to guilt-trip into recanting my views and perhaps force me to admit that Farage has some redeeming features. He may have. I don't care. I regard him as rent-a-gob because of his antics over decades as well as comments he has made that, IMO, verge on being racist or at least incredibly intolerant.
I am aware of the bank story as it is all over the news but I will leave it up the regulators to sort out because that is their job. I am not interested enough to dig into the detail - which is why I never brought the bank account into it.
Interesting to see that Boris Johnson, even now, believes he can negotiate with a Judicial Enquiry - says the Guardian.
"Relevant" messages only will be handed over. Still squirming.
Boris Johnson has vowed to pass his pandemic WhatsApp messages over to the Covid inquiry after experts managed to recover them from an old phone he had been advised not to use for security reasons.
All “relevant” material will be passed to the inquiry in unredacted form as soon as possible, the former prime minister’s spokesperson said.
I know its an unpopular view, but having the politicians hand over their phones to the enquiry is a step too far. They had no expectation at the time, that these were to be public records, and the conversations recorded will lack a lot of context from the time.
Depends to what extent theyt deliberately redirected their decision-making discussions, no?
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
This tends to be the difference between the left and the right. For instance, right-wingers hate Corbyn's politics but they don't hate him as a person.
Labour should not backtrack on its environmental policies because of the result in Uxbridge, for two main reasons, in order of priority:
1. Measures to reduce air pollution in cities and, more generally, to tackle climate change are urgently needed. 2. Any backtracking would lead to a significant increase in the Green vote at the next GE, potentially losing Labour quite a few seats.
That's not to say that the implementation of schemes like ULEZ shouldn't be improved. But they shouldn't be abandoned.
Double-down on the environmental measures in central London, without making life difficult for people living on the edge of the metropolis like Uxbridge where a car is still important.
Picking this up from earlier.
That doesn't work, because it is the Outer London Boroughs which are the most polluted based on the published scorecard, and therefore most in need of measures to be taken - despite some of those Boroughs refusing to take responsibility for themselves.
That "published scorecard" looks like total bovine manure by those with an axe to grind to me. Heavily weighting things like "light" that have nothing to do with air quality anyway.
The two measures that this is supposed to tackle is NOX and PM2.5, not the garbage in that chart that seems to have been designed backwards with a desired outcome and then working back from there.
If you look at what is red for PM2.5 then the result is clear, central London has a problem, and Heathrow has a problem ... and that's about it.
Switch to NOX and while central London and Heathrow remains red, most of outer London is colour coded ... green.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
This tends to be the difference between the left and the right. For instance, right-wingers hate Corbyn's politics but they don't hate him as a person.
That surprises me. Look at the personal attacks on PB - a relatively sane forum - on non-rightwingers. Diane Abbott comes to mind.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
First they came for the vile, self-promoting rent-a-gobs and you did nothing....
What should I be doing? It is not like the govt listens to anybody.
Or should I be protesting so that I can feel better later when they completely stuff up something else because they don't give a monkeys? How much ineffective self-righteousness should I be exerting?
It was a joke, obviously but I suppose the more serious answer is that we should not approve of people having their bank accounts taken away because of their political views, no matter how repulsive.
I never mentioned bank accounts - I just said that I regarded Farage in a poor light. Certain posters here seem to be trying to say that I must therefore approve of him being treated unfairly. I said no such thing. Some are even insinuating that I might approve of his murder because I do not like him.
It is almost as if people are attempting to guilt-trip into recanting my views and perhaps force me to admit that Farage has some redeeming features. He may have. I don't care. I regard him as rent-a-gob because of his antics over decades as well as comments he has made that, IMO, verge on being racist or at least incredibly intolerant.
I am aware of the bank story as it is all over the news but I will leave it up the regulators to sort out because that is their job. I am not interested enough to dig into the detail - which is why I never brought the bank account into it.
Well I think I started this by saying "It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him" to which you replied "I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him" - from which I (and others) inferred that perhaps you don't think a bad thing - at least, this bad thing - is a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage.
Re: U&SR (what does that remind me of?) am wondering IF this is area where ULEZ was of above-average significance, due to socio-economics of local voters, as just alluded to by stodge.
For example, am guessing plenty of middling middle-class folks, many who use cars for work, to get to work, for schlepping kids before & after work. With mortgages and other mounting household expenses, for whom ULEZ charges are (at least perceived) as an additional, and unfair, burden?
In general terms, cost of living and sterling (ahem) contribution of recent Conservative (in manner of speaking) government under musical-chair premiership, might be expected to dent the Tory vote - as it appears to have done.
But in more specific, immediate terms, ULEZ cut the other way . . . at least in THIS constituency at THIS time.
Labour should not backtrack on its environmental policies because of the result in Uxbridge, for two main reasons, in order of priority:
1. Measures to reduce air pollution in cities and, more generally, to tackle climate change are urgently needed. 2. Any backtracking would lead to a significant increase in the Green vote at the next GE, potentially losing Labour quite a few seats.
That's not to say that the implementation of schemes like ULEZ shouldn't be improved. But they shouldn't be abandoned.
Double-down on the environmental measures in central London, without making life difficult for people living on the edge of the metropolis like Uxbridge where a car is still important.
Picking this up from earlier.
That doesn't work, because it is the Outer London Boroughs which are the most polluted based on the published scorecard, and therefore most in need of measures to be taken - despite some of those Boroughs refusing to take responsibility for themselves.
That "published scorecard" looks like total bovine manure by those with an axe to grind to me. Heavily weighting things like "light" that have nothing to do with air quality anyway.
The two measures that this is supposed to tackle is NOX and PM2.5, not the garbage in that chart that seems to have been designed backwards with a desired outcome and then working back from there.
If you look at what is red for PM2.5 then the result is clear, central London has a problem, and Heathrow has a problem ... and that's about it.
Switch to NOX and while central London and Heathrow remains red, most of outer London is colour coded ... green.
That map is doing a hell of a lot of averaging out. The outer areas do tend to have ribbon development with trees and fields in between. It's the actual places around the roads where people live that are the issue.
England look absolutely the superior team now. And Oz are meant to be Number 1?
Had the edge all series for me. Hence my lack of truck with all that 'Ashes are gone' talk at nil two.
Agreed. We should have won at least one of Edgbaston or Lord’s. And we’d now be 2-1 and bowling to win back the Ashes
England are more aggressive, creative, imaginative - and entertaining (no small thing)
Australia are really competent - excellent bowlers, some of the world’s best batters. But they lack that stroke of genius that England possess, as a team (which is largely but not entirely down to Stokes)
Australia are a good German football side, England are Argentina with Messi
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
This tends to be the difference between the left and the right. For instance, right-wingers hate Corbyn's politics but they don't hate him as a person.
That surprises me. Look at the personal attacks on PB - a relatively sane forum - on non-rightwingers. Diane Abbott comes to mind.
I think you (@carnyx) are right. The belief amongst the right that they hate the policy not the individual is I think more self-flattery than actual fact. I seem to remember a lot of seething over Corbyn, for example.
Very much "A Tale of Three Elections" as someone would not have said.
Indeed, more similarities across the three contests than you might think from the superficial analysis of a good result for x, a bad result for y etc.
Let's start with the Labour win at Selby & Ainsty on a 44.8% turnout (pretty much uniform across the three contests). That meant 20,500 fewer people voted than at the 2019 election - the Conservatives lost 20,700 voters.
At Somerton & Frome, the turnout was 44.2% (compared with 52.1% at Chesham & Amersham and 52.3% at Tiverton & Honiton). This meant there were 26,000 fewer votes cast - the Conservative vote fell by 26,000.
As for Uxbridge & South Ruislip, turnout of 46.2% meant 17,300 fewer votes than in 2019 - the Conservatives lost 12,000 but Labour lost 5,000.
What we're left with is a sense the real victor last night was Apathy and disenchantment/disillusion with the Conservatives translated, to a degree at S&F and S&A into a vote for the opposition but the overwhelming sense was of an electorate disenchanted with most of what was on offer. The problem for the Conservatives is they need people to get off their hands and vote - Starmer may want a ringing endorsement on a high turnout but I'm sure he'll take a ringing endorsement on a low turnout.
We can't of course sniff at a 29% swing to the LDs at S&F nor at a near 24% swing to Labour in S&A. If both were repeated at a GE, the Conservatives would be reduced to a rump of 20-30 seats.
U&SR complicates matters - I did like @Sean_F's take this morning. As we've seen in both the last two local election rounds, there are areas where the Conservative vote has proven more robust and reliable than in other matters. These tend to be Con-Lab areas with little or no LD or Green presence. In London, I'd put Hillingdon alongside Croydon - both Boroughs are highly polarised - in Hillingdon, the north of the Borough is strongly Conservative while the south is Labour. That's how you get John McConnell's Hayes & Harlington in the same borough as Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (the 203rd safest Conservative seat).
I suspect there are economic factors at work which don't apply in other areas where political opinion seems more volatile. Perhaps the starker contrast between levels of wealth in an area, the more polarised and confrontational the politics.
Well, John McConnell's constituency is also a white-minority area. White outer London suburbs have swung heavily Tory since the time Blair came in, not so much as Essex, but more than white inner London constituencies (like, say... Eltham).
I thought we might have seen a 10% swing in U&SR but instead it was 6.75%.
As for ULEZ, Khan now has two choices - kick the whole can down the road, postponing implementation in Outer London pending "further research and analysis" or he can go ahead, introduce and see what happens.
Khan has a valuable ally in Susan Hall who was on Sky News this morning ranting about everything under the sun. I know she thinks she's playing to her constituency - the only trouble is it's not Londoners who, for the most part, would quite like to breathe cleaner air.
There is an avenue of opposition claiming it's just a money-making ruse by the Mayor (which it probably is) and asking for the incentives to give up non-compliant vehicles to be improved further. I suppose you could give every non-compliant car owner a brand new compliant vehicle (though I suspect such a scheme might be open to the tiniest bit of fraud).
The success of Nick Ferrari and other anti-Khan propagandists has been to turn what is a basically fairly insignificant measure into an anti-car crusade (ULEZ is nothing to dow with car use - compliant vehicles can be in the zone as much as they like). The idea of a wider congestion charge is on hold - the idea of road pricing remains in the background and it would be interesting to see if any Conservative might propose it in place of road tax.
England look absolutely the superior team now. And Oz are meant to be Number 1?
Had the edge all series for me. Hence my lack of truck with all that 'Ashes are gone' talk at nil two.
Agreed. We should have won at least one of Edgbaston or Lord’s. And we’d now be 2-1 and bowling to win back the Ashes
England are more aggressive, creative, imaginative - and entertaining (no small thing)
Australia are really competent - excellent bowlers, some of the world’s best batters. But they lack that stroke of genius that England possess, as a team (which is largely but not entirely down to Stokes)
Australia are a good German football side, England are Argentina with Messi
Lyon is a big loss for Australia. They don't have another quality experienced in English conditions spinner, and Lyon also made some crucial runs.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
This tends to be the difference between the left and the right. For instance, right-wingers hate Corbyn's politics but they don't hate him as a person.
I dislike Farage. I do not wish him harm. But he is not someone I would wish to associate with because I completely disagree with everything he says and does. His views and statements I find repellent, but I will not be joining the torches and pitchforks mob to burn him at the nearest stake or stone him to death.
LOL that "published scorecard" that @MattW shared is even worse than it first appears. Not only does it weight things that have bugger all to do with air pollution, but it down-weights by population.
So the most populated boroughs like Tower Hamlets have their average dragged right down because they've got a high divisor, while the least populated boroughs like the City of London (not so many technically live there) have their average affected by a much smaller divisor.
So its not remotely a measure of air quality whatsoever. Its not even trying to be. No wonder it doesn't match published air quality charts at all. 😂
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
This tends to be the difference between the left and the right. For instance, right-wingers hate Corbyn's politics but they don't hate him as a person.
That surprises me. Look at the personal attacks on PB - a relatively sane forum - on non-rightwingers. Diane Abbott comes to mind.
I went from finding Diane Abbot reasonably tolerable and slightly amusing in a 'late night on telly with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo' way to disliking her quite a lot. But I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to her personally unless that bad thing was losing an election to someone saner.
Politicians deserve special protection from this kind of thing. Otherwise we go down the road not only to David Amess and Jo Cox, but to no-one ever daring to express opinions outside a very narrow range of approved opinions.
Labour should not backtrack on its environmental policies because of the result in Uxbridge, for two main reasons, in order of priority:
1. Measures to reduce air pollution in cities and, more generally, to tackle climate change are urgently needed. 2. Any backtracking would lead to a significant increase in the Green vote at the next GE, potentially losing Labour quite a few seats.
That's not to say that the implementation of schemes like ULEZ shouldn't be improved. But they shouldn't be abandoned.
Double-down on the environmental measures in central London, without making life difficult for people living on the edge of the metropolis like Uxbridge where a car is still important.
Picking this up from earlier.
That doesn't work, because it is the Outer London Boroughs which are the most polluted based on the published scorecard, and therefore most in need of measures to be taken - despite some of those Boroughs refusing to take responsibility for themselves.
That "published scorecard" looks like total bovine manure by those with an axe to grind to me. Heavily weighting things like "light" that have nothing to do with air quality anyway.
The two measures that this is supposed to tackle is NOX and PM2.5, not the garbage in that chart that seems to have been designed backwards with a desired outcome and then working back from there.
If you look at what is red for PM2.5 then the result is clear, central London has a problem, and Heathrow has a problem ... and that's about it.
Switch to NOX and while central London and Heathrow remains red, most of outer London is colour coded ... green.
That map is doing a hell of a lot of averaging out. The outer areas do tend to have ribbon development with trees and fields in between. It's the actual places around the roads where people live that are the issue.
I don’t think it’s averaging. Rather it’s the total emission/count per cell.
England look absolutely the superior team now. And Oz are meant to be Number 1?
Had the edge all series for me. Hence my lack of truck with all that 'Ashes are gone' talk at nil two.
Agreed. We should have won at least one of Edgbaston or Lord’s. And we’d now be 2-1 and bowling to win back the Ashes
England are more aggressive, creative, imaginative - and entertaining (no small thing)
Australia are really competent - excellent bowlers, some of the world’s best batters. But they lack that stroke of genius that England possess, as a team (which is largely but not entirely down to Stokes)
Australia are a good German football side, England are Argentina with Messi
Lyon is a big loss for Australia. They don't have another quality experienced in English conditions spinner, and Lyon also made some crucial runs.
And he also performed the often overlooked role of giving the quicks a break. It's hard for an all-quick attack to keep bowling with penetration for 80-odd overs.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
This tends to be the difference between the left and the right. For instance, right-wingers hate Corbyn's politics but they don't hate him as a person.
That surprises me. Look at the personal attacks on PB - a relatively sane forum - on non-rightwingers. Diane Abbott comes to mind.
I think you (@carnyx) are right. The belief amongst the right that they hate the policy not the individual is I think more self-flattery than actual fact. I seem to remember a lot of seething over Corbyn, for example.
No, the data says you’re wrong
Polls consistently show that while rightwingers fiercely disapprove of left wing beliefs, they don’t extend that loathing to the individual. Whereas the left makes it much more personal. “Never kissed a Tory”, “Tory scum”. &c
Rightwingers wouldn’t mind their kids dating a lefty, the left shows no such tolerance
And so on. There really is a difference and the moral failing is on the Left
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
First they came for the vile, self-promoting rent-a-gobs and you did nothing....
What should I be doing? It is not like the govt listens to anybody.
Or should I be protesting so that I can feel better later when they completely stuff up something else because they don't give a monkeys? How much ineffective self-righteousness should I be exerting?
It was a joke, obviously but I suppose the more serious answer is that we should not approve of people having their bank accounts taken away because of their political views, no matter how repulsive.
I never mentioned bank accounts - I just said that I regarded Farage in a poor light. Certain posters here seem to be trying to say that I must therefore approve of him being treated unfairly. I said no such thing. Some are even insinuating that I might approve of his murder because I do not like him.
It is almost as if people are attempting to guilt-trip into recanting my views and perhaps force me to admit that Farage has some redeeming features. He may have. I don't care. I regard him as rent-a-gob because of his antics over decades as well as comments he has made that, IMO, verge on being racist or at least incredibly intolerant.
I am aware of the bank story as it is all over the news but I will leave it up the regulators to sort out because that is their job. I am not interested enough to dig into the detail - which is why I never brought the bank account into it.
Well I think I started this by saying "It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him" to which you replied "I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him" - from which I (and others) inferred that perhaps you don't think a bad thing - at least, this bad thing - is a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage.
I am not responsible for your inferences. If Farage is assaulted he has recourse to the law like everyone else. And that is as it should be.
Labour should not backtrack on its environmental policies because of the result in Uxbridge, for two main reasons, in order of priority:
1. Measures to reduce air pollution in cities and, more generally, to tackle climate change are urgently needed. 2. Any backtracking would lead to a significant increase in the Green vote at the next GE, potentially losing Labour quite a few seats.
That's not to say that the implementation of schemes like ULEZ shouldn't be improved. But they shouldn't be abandoned.
Double-down on the environmental measures in central London, without making life difficult for people living on the edge of the metropolis like Uxbridge where a car is still important.
Picking this up from earlier.
That doesn't work, because it is the Outer London Boroughs which are the most polluted based on the published scorecard, and therefore most in need of measures to be taken - despite some of those Boroughs refusing to take responsibility for themselves.
That "published scorecard" looks like total bovine manure by those with an axe to grind to me. Heavily weighting things like "light" that have nothing to do with air quality anyway.
The two measures that this is supposed to tackle is NOX and PM2.5, not the garbage in that chart that seems to have been designed backwards with a desired outcome and then working back from there.
If you look at what is red for PM2.5 then the result is clear, central London has a problem, and Heathrow has a problem ... and that's about it.
Switch to NOX and while central London and Heathrow remains red, most of outer London is colour coded ... green.
That map is doing a hell of a lot of averaging out. The outer areas do tend to have ribbon development with trees and fields in between. It's the actual places around the roads where people live that are the issue.
Fresh air circulates and trees are good for keeping the air clean, yes.
Those are the measurements though, those are the facts.
The fact is one of the worst areas for PM2.5 pollution is Tower Hamlets, but Matt's chart claims its the best. Why? Because of the inclusion of stuff that has bugger all to do with air quality, and the fact that Tower Hamlets has a lot of people so a big divisor in their broken chart.
As if the existence of neighbouring people suddenly mythically makes your air cleaner. The existence of neighbouring trees actually does, you're right, and they exist in certain places more than others and the facts, the real facts, speak for themselves.
Heathrow is in Hillingdon borough, but culturally I feel it's closer to Hounslow borough, maybe because the transport links around there are west-east rather than north-south. Certainly I've heard of more people from Hounslow talking about family employed by or at the airport.
It's as if quite a lot of people don't recognise a bad thing as a bad thing if it happens to Nigel Farage. cf. having a milkshake thrown at him.
I regard Farage as a vile, self-promoting rent-a-gob. Frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn about him.
This tends to be the difference between the left and the right. For instance, right-wingers hate Corbyn's politics but they don't hate him as a person.
That surprises me. Look at the personal attacks on PB - a relatively sane forum - on non-rightwingers. Diane Abbott comes to mind.
Comments
The problem is he's almost always wrong.
As I age I get more conscious of ageing in others. I guess I’m subtly thinking “shit, do I look that bad?!”
So it’s a relief to know Jamie has not become Jabba
He is chunkier tho. Should get on the old ozempic
Daily Mail Dorset holiday news. A curious example of clickbait.
Yes, an appeal to the Tory core vote.
(God I hope this works)
"Relevant" messages only will be handed over. Still squirming.
Boris Johnson has vowed to pass his pandemic WhatsApp messages over to the Covid inquiry after experts managed to recover them from an old phone he had been advised not to use for security reasons.
All “relevant” material will be passed to the inquiry in unredacted form as soon as possible, the former prime minister’s spokesperson said.
However, there is one final hurdle that must be overcome before the messages are delivered to the inquiry chair, Heather Hallett, and her team.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/21/boris-johnson-experts-recover-messages-old-phone-covid-inquiry
You may be on to something. It is could be said that with their partying, trousering of money, patronage, etc that the Tories never seem to think of the electorate in the slightest.
Or should I be protesting so that I can feel better later when they completely stuff up something else because they don't give a monkeys? How much ineffective self-righteousness should I be exerting?
My opinion of him is not dependent on the actions of unknown third parties.
So here's a bit of guff about it/them (in part re: burning Trans issues).
> for starters, giving credit where credit is due, kudos to HYUFD the Vicar of this PB Parish (and may God have mercy on our souls!) for contending - it appears rightly - that ULEZ could allow Tory to squeeze to victory in Uxsbridge and South Ruislip.
> which rather highlights the LACK of electoral impact of the dreaded Woke?
> am guessing that another Tony Blair! of 1997 leading Labour, would likely have won U&SR 2023 whereas Keir Starmer did NOT.
> however, do NOT think that's of much more than short-term significance, and doubtful even on that score, more like a minor speed bump, which many have benefit of concentrating some minds among opposition leaders, activists and likely voters.
> as for Conservatives, helps prop up Sunak methinks, probably enough to keep him as CUP Leader and UK PM through to impending (as in Sword of Damocles) general election.
AND such records are disclosable (sp?) in wide range of criminal AND civil cases. At least that's my distinct impression.
And so is school!
Wicket!
For balance, I think John Prescott is dreadful. But I cheered when he punched that man who through an egg at him, and when he (reputedly) punched that fella from Chumbawamba who poured a jug of water over him (as he later - reputedly - said to his son: "I knocked him down - and he didn't get up again").
Courthouse News Service - [Florida] Lawmakers ask 11th Circuit [federal court] to block subpoenas in ‘Stop Woke’ lawsuit
Over a dozen members of Florida’s House of Representatives are fighting to keep a lid on communications discussing hot-button topics like critical race theory and the Black Lives Matter movement.
A group of university students and professors argue Florida's new law dubbed the Stop Woke Act is intentionally discriminatory. They want to subpoena 14 Sunshine State lawmakers in hopes of showing what they say were the true motivations behind the law.
A federal judge refused to quash those subpoenas earlier this year, but the lawmakers are fighting back, arguing they shouldn't have to produce the requested documents under the principle of legislative privilege. A panel of the 11th Circuit, which heard arguments in the case on Tuesday, could ultimately decide whether the documents are released.
The legal challenge comes amid separate litigation involving the law whose official name is the Individual Freedom Act. Signed by the governor last year, the legislation would restrict how employers and educators discuss race, gender and inequality. Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a November order, however, that temporarily blocked portions of the law from being enforced in public universities, calling it “positively dystopian.”
https://www.courthousenews.com/lawmakers-ask-11th-circuit-to-block-subpoenas-in-stop-woke-lawsuit/
SSI - Note that claims of legislative privilege are hardly unique to the Wack-jobs currently disgracing the Florida legislature AND governor's office. Indeed, such claims are as old as the American Republic; actually older as the stem from . . . take a guess!
For example, in today's Washington State, our quite Wokeish legislature still maintains position, policy AND legislation that exempts them from much, if not most, of the provision of WA State Open Public Records Act.
That doesn't work, because it is the Outer London Boroughs which are the most polluted based on the published scorecard, and therefore most in need of measures to be taken - despite some of those Boroughs refusing to take responsibility for themselves.
Hillingdon, where if my geography is correct is where the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency is located, is one of the worst of all.
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/most-polluted-london-boroughs
Schools out forev ... till Sept anyway
The arguments made in favour of this by its advocates apply effectively to all ICE vehicles, hell some of its advocates clearly hate all vehicles even if electric and despise private transportation in its own right, so why not draw the line here?
If you tolerate this, then your child car could be next is not a fallacy, its perfectly logical.
In any case, it doesn't pass the sniff test, so needs some digging into. I've had a perfunctory look and it doesn't leap out at you how they reached this conclusion. But it was only a two minute look.
It only becomes compulsory at nine down I think.
Very much "A Tale of Three Elections" as someone would not have said.
Indeed, more similarities across the three contests than you might think from the superficial analysis of a good result for x, a bad result for y etc.
Let's start with the Labour win at Selby & Ainsty on a 44.8% turnout (pretty much uniform across the three contests). That meant 20,500 fewer people voted than at the 2019 election - the Conservatives lost 20,700 voters.
At Somerton & Frome, the turnout was 44.2% (compared with 52.1% at Chesham & Amersham and 52.3% at Tiverton & Honiton). This meant there were 26,000 fewer votes cast - the Conservative vote fell by 26,000.
As for Uxbridge & South Ruislip, turnout of 46.2% meant 17,300 fewer votes than in 2019 - the Conservatives lost 12,000 but Labour lost 5,000.
What we're left with is a sense the real victor last night was Apathy and disenchantment/disillusion with the Conservatives translated, to a degree at S&F and S&A into a vote for the opposition but the overwhelming sense was of an electorate disenchanted with most of what was on offer. The problem for the Conservatives is they need people to get off their hands and vote - Starmer may want a ringing endorsement on a high turnout but I'm sure he'll take a ringing endorsement on a low turnout.
We can't of course sniff at a 29% swing to the LDs at S&F nor at a near 24% swing to Labour in S&A. If both were repeated at a GE, the Conservatives would be reduced to a rump of 20-30 seats.
U&SR complicates matters - I did like @Sean_F's take this morning. As we've seen in both the last two local election rounds, there are areas where the Conservative vote has proven more robust and reliable than in other matters. These tend to be Con-Lab areas with little or no LD or Green presence. In London, I'd put Hillingdon alongside Croydon - both Boroughs are highly polarised - in Hillingdon, the north of the Borough is strongly Conservative while the south is Labour. That's how you get John McConnell's Hayes & Harlington in the same borough as Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (the 203rd safest Conservative seat).
I suspect there are economic factors at work which don't apply in other areas where political opinion seems more volatile. Perhaps the starker contrast between levels of wealth in an area, the more polarised and confrontational the politics.
It is almost as if people are attempting to guilt-trip into recanting my views and perhaps force me to admit that Farage has some redeeming features. He may have. I don't care. I regard him as rent-a-gob because of his antics over decades as well as comments he has made that, IMO, verge on being racist or at least incredibly intolerant.
I am aware of the bank story as it is all over the news but I will leave it up the regulators to sort out because that is their job. I am not interested enough to dig into the detail - which is why I never brought the bank account into it.
OOOOOOOH
Draw then.
Throw in a Tymal Mills, without degenerative back, England could have 4 ultraquicks to rotate.
The two measures that this is supposed to tackle is NOX and PM2.5, not the garbage in that chart that seems to have been designed backwards with a desired outcome and then working back from there.
If you look at what is red for PM2.5 then the result is clear, central London has a problem, and Heathrow has a problem ... and that's about it.
Switch to NOX and while central London and Heathrow remains red, most of outer London is colour coded ... green.
https://naei.beis.gov.uk/emissionsapp/
For example, am guessing plenty of middling middle-class folks, many who use cars for work, to get to work, for schlepping kids before & after work. With mortgages and other mounting household expenses, for whom ULEZ charges are (at least perceived) as an additional, and unfair, burden?
In general terms, cost of living and sterling (ahem) contribution of recent Conservative (in manner of speaking) government under musical-chair premiership, might be expected to dent the Tory vote - as it appears to have done.
But in more specific, immediate terms, ULEZ cut the other way . . . at least in THIS constituency at THIS time.
England are more aggressive, creative, imaginative - and entertaining (no small thing)
Australia are really competent - excellent bowlers, some of the world’s best batters. But they lack that stroke of genius that England possess, as a team (which is largely but not entirely down to Stokes)
Australia are a good German football side, England are Argentina with Messi
As for ULEZ, Khan now has two choices - kick the whole can down the road, postponing implementation in Outer London pending "further research and analysis" or he can go ahead, introduce and see what happens.
Khan has a valuable ally in Susan Hall who was on Sky News this morning ranting about everything under the sun. I know she thinks she's playing to her constituency - the only trouble is it's not Londoners who, for the most part, would quite like to breathe cleaner air.
There is an avenue of opposition claiming it's just a money-making ruse by the Mayor (which it probably is) and asking for the incentives to give up non-compliant vehicles to be improved further. I suppose you could give every non-compliant car owner a brand new compliant vehicle (though I suspect such a scheme might be open to the tiniest bit of fraud).
The success of Nick Ferrari and other anti-Khan propagandists has been to turn what is a basically fairly insignificant measure into an anti-car crusade (ULEZ is nothing to dow with car use - compliant vehicles can be in the zone as much as they like). The idea of a wider congestion charge is on hold - the idea of road pricing remains in the background and it would be interesting to see if any Conservative might propose it in place of road tax.
So the most populated boroughs like Tower Hamlets have their average dragged right down because they've got a high divisor, while the least populated boroughs like the City of London (not so many technically live there) have their average affected by a much smaller divisor.
So its not remotely a measure of air quality whatsoever. Its not even trying to be. No wonder it doesn't match published air quality charts at all. 😂
Politicians deserve special protection from this kind of thing. Otherwise we go down the road not only to David Amess and Jo Cox, but to no-one ever daring to express opinions outside a very narrow range of approved opinions.
EnglandAustralia bat deep.....Polls consistently show that while rightwingers fiercely disapprove of left wing beliefs, they don’t extend that loathing to the individual. Whereas the left makes it much more personal. “Never kissed a Tory”, “Tory scum”. &c
Rightwingers wouldn’t mind their kids dating a lefty, the left shows no such tolerance
And so on. There really is a difference and the moral failing is on the Left
Those are the measurements though, those are the facts.
The fact is one of the worst areas for PM2.5 pollution is Tower Hamlets, but Matt's chart claims its the best. Why? Because of the inclusion of stuff that has bugger all to do with air quality, and the fact that Tower Hamlets has a lot of people so a big divisor in their broken chart.
As if the existence of neighbouring people suddenly mythically makes your air cleaner. The existence of neighbouring trees actually does, you're right, and they exist in certain places more than others and the facts, the real facts, speak for themselves.