Ironically I suspect if SKS had been Labour leader during Brexit he may well have become PM of a grand coalition
Ironically if it had been May vs SKS in 2017, she might have won her majority.
I highly doubt it. SKS will be a much better PM than TM ever was.
She was genuinely popular before that election campaign, and Corbyn was able to capture the public imagination at the time in a way that I don't think SKS is capable of.
Burnham had he beaten Corbyn to the Labour leadership in 2015 might even have beaten May and won most seats in 2017.
By electing Corbyn Labour members got a socialist purist they loved but probably at the cost of an extra 7 years in opposition
Well maybe, or maybe there would not have been the groundswell of enthusiasm, crowds would not have been singing Oh Andy Burnham and Labour would have done worse in 2017. Who can tell?
There were crowds for Corbyn even in 2019.
The redwall would likely have gone even more for Burnham in 2017 than Corbyn in 2019 and Burnham likely won some marginals Cameron won Corbyn failed to win in 2017
The Government has published a prospectus this morning inviting local authorities to register their interest for one chess table and four seats, at the cost of £2,500.
Ironically I suspect if SKS had been Labour leader during Brexit he may well have become PM of a grand coalition
Ironically if it had been May vs SKS in 2017, she might have won her majority.
I highly doubt it. SKS will be a much better PM than TM ever was.
She was genuinely popular before that election campaign, and Corbyn was able to capture the public imagination at the time in a way that I don't think SKS is capable of.
Burnham had he beaten Corbyn to the Labour leadership in 2015 might even have beaten May and won most seats in 2017.
By electing Corbyn Labour members got a socialist purist they loved but probably at the cost of an extra 7 years in opposition
Well maybe, or maybe there would not have been the groundswell of enthusiasm, crowds would not have been singing Oh Andy Burnham and Labour would have done worse in 2017. Who can tell?
There were crowds for Corbyn even in 2019.
The redwall would likely have gone even more for Burnham in 2017 than Corbyn in 2019 and Burnham likely won some marginals Cameron won Corbyn failed to win in 2017
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
The Government has published a prospectus this morning inviting local authorities to register their interest for one chess table and four seats, at the cost of £2,500.
So that's the second opinion poll out today to show a Labour lead of 21% and this one includes fieldwork today.
My view is that the Conservatives are going to be eviscerated at the next General Election. Pb tories can castigate me all you like but my anecdotal antennae are backed up by polling.
Have a nice evening all.
xx
My view is, over the year Sunak’ credibility has fallen apart in voters eyes. Slipping further behind Starmer in best PM recently is related to who voters feel will deliver on promises.
It’s not what you are promising, or your policies, it’s wether you are believed you can deliver on them. A key moment, ironically when we had peak Sunak earlier in the year, wise old Conservative heads were shaking when they sensed he was “overpromising” on some policy.
It’s reached the point of a glass ceiling for the Tories under Sunak, likely not in the 30s. Sunak is now dragging the Tory poll rating further down.
So that's the second opinion poll out today to show a Labour lead of 21% and this one includes fieldwork today.
My view is that the Conservatives are going to be eviscerated at the next General Election. Pb tories can castigate me all you like but my anecdotal antennae are backed up by polling.
Have a nice evening all.
xx
My view is, over the year Sunak’ credibility has fallen apart in voters eyes. Slipping further behind Starmer in best PM recently is related to who voters feel will deliver on promises.
It’s not what you are promising, or your policies, it’s wether you are believed you can deliver on them. A key moment, ironically when we had peak Sunak earlier in the year, wise old Conservative heads were shaking when they sensed he was “overpromising” on some policy.
It’s reached the point of a glass ceiling for the Tories under Sunak, likely not in the 30s. Sunak is now dragging the Tory poll rating further down.
I think people probably gave Rishi a fair hearing for his first few months, to see if he was offering better government and solutions.
As it has now transpired that the government is still in a mess, and Rishi has very little in the way of solutions, people have now just shrugged their shoulders and moved on from the Tories.
A lot of this isn’t just Sunak’s fault - he has a lot of rotten figures and abject failures at the top of the Tory Party to work with - but he isn’t up to saving them. Very few people would be, given the state of the rot.
No. It was more than a few months, it’s only recently they view Sunak as bad as now, because it takes longer, nearly a year, to work out if someone can deliver on what they say they will.
Mike Smithson keeps hinting Conservatives might change leader with 1 year to go, like they did in 1963, and chewed up Labours big poll lead in those last months, though still lost by a little bit.
If you are still polling 24% 25% and 20+ behind, is there much jeopardy throwing the dice and offering voters a more dynamic and likeable PM, Chancellor and Home Secretary in build up to election?
You think Conservative members and MPs are going to choose Mordaunt? Because she's all they've got who could be described as "more dynamic and likeable".
Well… yes. It’s what I’m saying.
But it more than that isn’t it. A more electably combative message for next years General Election, tax, housing etc cannot now be delivered by Sunak and Hunt, because the voters just won’t be listening to them. Successfully selling the more aspirational agenda, and making the coming election more of a fight than a steam rollering, can only happen now if the Tories change the faces and voices.
I have already explained this in this mini thread. “It’s not what you are promising, or your policies, it’s wether you are believed you can deliver on them.” Do I have to keep repeating it till these facts of political life sink in?
If you are saying this simply won’t work now, you are simply saying it won’t work in 1963 ahead of 1964 election. Unfortunately for you, fresh faces and voices did work back then, Labours poll lead all but vanished.
Sixth year old history - and a completely different set of political circumstances - are a pretty poor guide to what happens next.
Ironically I suspect if SKS had been Labour leader during Brexit he may well have become PM of a grand coalition
Ironically if it had been May vs SKS in 2017, she might have won her majority.
I highly doubt it. SKS will be a much better PM than TM ever was.
She was genuinely popular before that election campaign, and Corbyn was able to capture the public imagination at the time in a way that I don't think SKS is capable of.
Burnham had he beaten Corbyn to the Labour leadership in 2015 might even have beaten May and won most seats in 2017.
By electing Corbyn Labour members got a socialist purist they loved but probably at the cost of an extra 7 years in opposition
Well maybe, or maybe there would not have been the groundswell of enthusiasm, crowds would not have been singing Oh Andy Burnham and Labour would have done worse in 2017. Who can tell?
There were crowds for Corbyn even in 2019.
The redwall would likely have gone even more for Burnham in 2017 than Corbyn in 2019 and Burnham likely won some marginals Cameron won Corbyn failed to win in 2017
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Isn't it flopped twice?
The favourite to be next Labour leader though. Insane. All the actual MPs that are labouring over the fortunes of Labour are hardly going to wave yesterday's failure through as a great saviour.
The Government has published a prospectus this morning inviting local authorities to register their interest for one chess table and four seats, at the cost of £2,500.
Ironically I suspect if SKS had been Labour leader during Brexit he may well have become PM of a grand coalition
Ironically if it had been May vs SKS in 2017, she might have won her majority.
I highly doubt it. SKS will be a much better PM than TM ever was.
She was genuinely popular before that election campaign, and Corbyn was able to capture the public imagination at the time in a way that I don't think SKS is capable of.
Burnham had he beaten Corbyn to the Labour leadership in 2015 might even have beaten May and won most seats in 2017.
By electing Corbyn Labour members got a socialist purist they loved but probably at the cost of an extra 7 years in opposition
Well maybe, or maybe there would not have been the groundswell of enthusiasm, crowds would not have been singing Oh Andy Burnham and Labour would have done worse in 2017. Who can tell?
Labour did well in 2017 because Corbyn was unknown. Same as SKS
Corbyn was not unknown. The Conservatives did badly because Lynton Crosby ran his worst campaign since Are You Thinking What We're Thinking? and because there were two terrorist outrages during the election campaign and the Conservative government in the shape of Theresa May had decimated the police.
The Government has published a prospectus this morning inviting local authorities to register their interest for one chess table and four seats, at the cost of £2,500.
Ironically I suspect if SKS had been Labour leader during Brexit he may well have become PM of a grand coalition
Ironically if it had been May vs SKS in 2017, she might have won her majority.
I highly doubt it. SKS will be a much better PM than TM ever was.
She was genuinely popular before that election campaign, and Corbyn was able to capture the public imagination at the time in a way that I don't think SKS is capable of.
Burnham had he beaten Corbyn to the Labour leadership in 2015 might even have beaten May and won most seats in 2017.
By electing Corbyn Labour members got a socialist purist they loved but probably at the cost of an extra 7 years in opposition
Well maybe, or maybe there would not have been the groundswell of enthusiasm, crowds would not have been singing Oh Andy Burnham and Labour would have done worse in 2017. Who can tell?
There were crowds for Corbyn even in 2019.
The redwall would likely have gone even more for Burnham in 2017 than Corbyn in 2019 and Burnham likely won some marginals Cameron won Corbyn failed to win in 2017
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Fairly sure the Government still owns a significant amount of all of those. UK is the exception.
Not true:
DHL (as Deutsche Post now is) is only about 21% owned by the German government, while the Japanese government owns about a third of Japan Post.
This shows what we are missing. In other countries the state can have significant minority stakes in private companies whereas here it is all or nothing (barring some temporary exceptions following rescues).
So that's the second opinion poll out today to show a Labour lead of 21% and this one includes fieldwork today.
My view is that the Conservatives are going to be eviscerated at the next General Election. Pb tories can castigate me all you like but my anecdotal antennae are backed up by polling.
Have a nice evening all.
xx
My view is, over the year Sunak’ credibility has fallen apart in voters eyes. Slipping further behind Starmer in best PM recently is related to who voters feel will deliver on promises.
It’s not what you are promising, or your policies, it’s wether you are believed you can deliver on them. A key moment, ironically when we had peak Sunak earlier in the year, wise old Conservative heads were shaking when they sensed he was “overpromising” on some policy.
It’s reached the point of a glass ceiling for the Tories under Sunak, likely not in the 30s. Sunak is now dragging the Tory poll rating further down.
So that's the second opinion poll out today to show a Labour lead of 21% and this one includes fieldwork today.
My view is that the Conservatives are going to be eviscerated at the next General Election. Pb tories can castigate me all you like but my anecdotal antennae are backed up by polling.
Have a nice evening all.
xx
My view is, over the year Sunak’ credibility has fallen apart in voters eyes. Slipping further behind Starmer in best PM recently is related to who voters feel will deliver on promises.
It’s not what you are promising, or your policies, it’s wether you are believed you can deliver on them. A key moment, ironically when we had peak Sunak earlier in the year, wise old Conservative heads were shaking when they sensed he was “overpromising” on some policy.
It’s reached the point of a glass ceiling for the Tories under Sunak, likely not in the 30s. Sunak is now dragging the Tory poll rating further down.
I think people probably gave Rishi a fair hearing for his first few months, to see if he was offering better government and solutions.
As it has now transpired that the government is still in a mess, and Rishi has very little in the way of solutions, people have now just shrugged their shoulders and moved on from the Tories.
A lot of this isn’t just Sunak’s fault - he has a lot of rotten figures and abject failures at the top of the Tory Party to work with - but he isn’t up to saving them. Very few people would be, given the state of the rot.
No. It was more than a few months, it’s only recently they view Sunak as bad as now, because it takes longer, nearly a year, to work out if someone can deliver on what they say they will.
Mike Smithson keeps hinting Conservatives might change leader with 1 year to go, like they did in 1963, and chewed up Labours big poll lead in those last months, though still lost by a little bit.
If you are still polling 24% 25% and 20+ behind, is there much jeopardy throwing the dice and offering voters a more dynamic and likeable PM, Chancellor and Home Secretary in build up to election?
You think Conservative members and MPs are going to choose Mordaunt? Because she's all they've got who could be described as "more dynamic and likeable".
Well… yes. It’s what I’m saying.
But it more than that isn’t it. A more electably combative message for next years General Election, tax, housing etc cannot now be delivered by Sunak and Hunt, because the voters just won’t be listening to them. Successfully selling the more aspirational agenda, and making the coming election more of a fight than a steam rollering, can only happen now if the Tories change the faces and voices.
I have already explained this in this mini thread. “It’s not what you are promising, or your policies, it’s wether you are believed you can deliver on them.” Do I have to keep repeating it till these facts of political life sink in?
If you are saying this simply won’t work now, you are simply saying it won’t work in 1963 ahead of 1964 election. Unfortunately for you, fresh faces and voices did work back then, Labours poll lead all but vanished.
Sixth year old history - and a completely different set of political circumstances - are a pretty poor guide to what happens next.
What I’m talking about is timeless politics Nige.
There’s the script, and the voters have long since stopped listening. Suddenly theres a fresh face and fresh voice reading it, and people are now listening again. It’s how it works.
This is how politics works. It’s not your manifesto that wins a general election, it’s your ability to set the narrative for the first two weeks of the election campaign to be on your opponents sleaze, failings, and everything else they would rather divert attention from.
Not your policies. Not your promises. Just your ability to be listened to.
And that can no longer be Sunak and Hunt.
I have defeated foot fungus more dynamic than Hunt.
Ironically I suspect if SKS had been Labour leader during Brexit he may well have become PM of a grand coalition
Ironically if it had been May vs SKS in 2017, she might have won her majority.
I highly doubt it. SKS will be a much better PM than TM ever was.
She was genuinely popular before that election campaign, and Corbyn was able to capture the public imagination at the time in a way that I don't think SKS is capable of.
Burnham had he beaten Corbyn to the Labour leadership in 2015 might even have beaten May and won most seats in 2017.
By electing Corbyn Labour members got a socialist purist they loved but probably at the cost of an extra 7 years in opposition
Well maybe, or maybe there would not have been the groundswell of enthusiasm, crowds would not have been singing Oh Andy Burnham and Labour would have done worse in 2017. Who can tell?
There were crowds for Corbyn even in 2019.
The redwall would likely have gone even more for Burnham in 2017 than Corbyn in 2019 and Burnham likely won some marginals Cameron won Corbyn failed to win in 2017
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Timidity in the face of radicalism.
Or, a more thoughtful answer: he’s the sort of practical politician that does well in a local role where there are real, bread and butter issues to get stuck into, where the right thing to do is mostly obvious from the circumstances and it’s simply a question of martialling the cash and political will. But he flailed when it came to putting himself forward for a national leadership position that required some strategic vision and ability to inspire through ideas and imagination.
The government was warned four years ago that unsafe concrete used in schools could collapse without warning, i can reveal.
Ministers have claimed that they had to take the snap decision to close more than 150 schools just days before the start of the new term because of “new evidence” this summer that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) could fail with “no warning”, rather than a previous assessment that remedial work should be carried out where there was visible evidence of buildings being affected.
However, i has been told that an alert was sent to the Department for Education (DfE) and the Local Government Association (LGA) in 2019 from a structural engineering organisation that buildings where RAAC was used could collapse “with very little noticeable warning”.
It's true councils have known about the risks from RAAC for several months if not years and a large number of inspections have been carried out. I'm not a structural surveyor but the risks of RAAC failing are obvious.
I know of one primary school where RAAC was found, not fortunately in the teaching areas but in the main hall. I'm not sure the parallel with asbestos is at all valid - claims for compensation for mesolithoma can be placed up to 40 years after exposure and the question with asbestos (especially blue asbestos) is one of potential exposure. If suitably sealed in, asbestos isn't a problem but it needs regular monitoring.
What the RAAC issue may uncover is the degree of compliance and other building inspections taking place. Councils are or should be undertaking a strong programme of regular condition surveys and other inspections but does this happen in other areas?
The government was warned four years ago that unsafe concrete used in schools could collapse without warning, i can reveal.
Ministers have claimed that they had to take the snap decision to close more than 150 schools just days before the start of the new term because of “new evidence” this summer that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) could fail with “no warning”, rather than a previous assessment that remedial work should be carried out where there was visible evidence of buildings being affected.
However, i has been told that an alert was sent to the Department for Education (DfE) and the Local Government Association (LGA) in 2019 from a structural engineering organisation that buildings where RAAC was used could collapse “with very little noticeable warning”.
It's true councils have known about the risks from RAAC for several months if not years and a large number of inspections have been carried out. I'm not a structural surveyor but the risks of RAAC failing are obvious.
I know of one primary school where RAAC was found, not fortunately in the teaching areas but in the main hall. I'm not sure the parallel with asbestos is at all valid - claims for compensation for mesolithoma can be placed up to 40 years after exposure and the question with asbestos (especially blue asbestos) is one of potential exposure. If suitably sealed in, asbestos isn't a problem but it needs regular monitoring.
What the RAAC issue may uncover is the degree of compliance and other building inspections taking place. Councils are or should be undertaking a strong programme of regular condition surveys and other inspections but does this happen in other areas?
The minister on lunchtime radio gave a reasonably credible answer, that the risks of RAAC have been known for some time, but RAAC that people were keeping an eye on and had no obvious structural weaknesses was considered safe, until the sudden and unexpected collapse of such an example during the summer.
The government was warned four years ago that unsafe concrete used in schools could collapse without warning, i can reveal.
Ministers have claimed that they had to take the snap decision to close more than 150 schools just days before the start of the new term because of “new evidence” this summer that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) could fail with “no warning”, rather than a previous assessment that remedial work should be carried out where there was visible evidence of buildings being affected.
However, i has been told that an alert was sent to the Department for Education (DfE) and the Local Government Association (LGA) in 2019 from a structural engineering organisation that buildings where RAAC was used could collapse “with very little noticeable warning”.
It's true councils have known about the risks from RAAC for several months if not years and a large number of inspections have been carried out. I'm not a structural surveyor but the risks of RAAC failing are obvious.
I know of one primary school where RAAC was found, not fortunately in the teaching areas but in the main hall. I'm not sure the parallel with asbestos is at all valid - claims for compensation for mesolithoma can be placed up to 40 years after exposure and the question with asbestos (especially blue asbestos) is one of potential exposure. If suitably sealed in, asbestos isn't a problem but it needs regular monitoring.
What the RAAC issue may uncover is the degree of compliance and other building inspections taking place. Councils are or should be undertaking a strong programme of regular condition surveys and other inspections but does this happen in other areas?
The minister on lunchtime radio gave a reasonably credible answer, that the risks of RAAC have been known for some time, but RAAC that people were keeping an eye on and had no obvious structural weaknesses was considered safe, until the sudden and unexpected collapse of such an example during the summer.
Nonsense to try to make this a political issue. Steve Reed busy on R4 this morning losing Labour votes for precisely being nonsensical.
CCTV monitoring all public spaces: 55% Compulsory ID cards: 54% National fingerprint database: 50% (net +10) National DNA database: 45% (net +4) Communications companies having to retain everyone's data: 16%"
"Tory voters are more likely to support security measures than Lab voters
Compulsory ID cards Con: 65% Lab: 42%
CCTV monitoring all public spaces Con: 65% Lab: 48%
People often support these things in the abstract, but when the incredible extravagence, wastefulness, incompetence and carelessness of the government in delivering them become evident, they have second thoughts pretty quickly.
The government was warned four years ago that unsafe concrete used in schools could collapse without warning, i can reveal.
Ministers have claimed that they had to take the snap decision to close more than 150 schools just days before the start of the new term because of “new evidence” this summer that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) could fail with “no warning”, rather than a previous assessment that remedial work should be carried out where there was visible evidence of buildings being affected.
However, i has been told that an alert was sent to the Department for Education (DfE) and the Local Government Association (LGA) in 2019 from a structural engineering organisation that buildings where RAAC was used could collapse “with very little noticeable warning”.
It's true councils have known about the risks from RAAC for several months if not years and a large number of inspections have been carried out. I'm not a structural surveyor but the risks of RAAC failing are obvious.
I know of one primary school where RAAC was found, not fortunately in the teaching areas but in the main hall. I'm not sure the parallel with asbestos is at all valid - claims for compensation for mesolithoma can be placed up to 40 years after exposure and the question with asbestos (especially blue asbestos) is one of potential exposure. If suitably sealed in, asbestos isn't a problem but it needs regular monitoring.
What the RAAC issue may uncover is the degree of compliance and other building inspections taking place. Councils are or should be undertaking a strong programme of regular condition surveys and other inspections but does this happen in other areas?
The minister on lunchtime radio gave a reasonably credible answer, that the risks of RAAC have been known for some time, but RAAC that people were keeping an eye on and had no obvious structural weaknesses was considered safe, until the sudden and unexpected collapse of such an example during the summer.
Nonsense to try to make this a political issue. Steve Reed busy on R4 this morning losing Labour votes for precisely being nonsensical.
CCTV monitoring all public spaces: 55% Compulsory ID cards: 54% National fingerprint database: 50% (net +10) National DNA database: 45% (net +4) Communications companies having to retain everyone's data: 16%"
"Tory voters are more likely to support security measures than Lab voters
Compulsory ID cards Con: 65% Lab: 42%
CCTV monitoring all public spaces Con: 65% Lab: 48%
People often support these things in the abstract, but when the incredible extravagence, wastefulness, incompetence and carelessness of the government in delivering them become evident, they have second thoughts pretty quickly.
Note the fans of a national ID card here, who will tell you
1) That they would never actually try and assemble the stupid database that they literally tried to do 2) It couldn't happen. Because trust me. 3) It actually being put out to tender was Fake News. Or something.
The government was warned four years ago that unsafe concrete used in schools could collapse without warning, i can reveal.
Ministers have claimed that they had to take the snap decision to close more than 150 schools just days before the start of the new term because of “new evidence” this summer that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) could fail with “no warning”, rather than a previous assessment that remedial work should be carried out where there was visible evidence of buildings being affected.
However, i has been told that an alert was sent to the Department for Education (DfE) and the Local Government Association (LGA) in 2019 from a structural engineering organisation that buildings where RAAC was used could collapse “with very little noticeable warning”.
It's true councils have known about the risks from RAAC for several months if not years and a large number of inspections have been carried out. I'm not a structural surveyor but the risks of RAAC failing are obvious.
I know of one primary school where RAAC was found, not fortunately in the teaching areas but in the main hall. I'm not sure the parallel with asbestos is at all valid - claims for compensation for mesolithoma can be placed up to 40 years after exposure and the question with asbestos (especially blue asbestos) is one of potential exposure. If suitably sealed in, asbestos isn't a problem but it needs regular monitoring.
What the RAAC issue may uncover is the degree of compliance and other building inspections taking place. Councils are or should be undertaking a strong programme of regular condition surveys and other inspections but does this happen in other areas?
The minister on lunchtime radio gave a reasonably credible answer, that the risks of RAAC have been known for some time, but RAAC that people were keeping an eye on and had no obvious structural weaknesses was considered safe, until the sudden and unexpected collapse of such an example during the summer.
Nonsense to try to make this a political issue. Steve Reed busy on R4 this morning losing Labour votes for precisely being nonsensical.
THIRTEEN YEARS OF TORY NEGLECT!
I didn't light your blue touchpaper, but I am standing well back.
Ironically I suspect if SKS had been Labour leader during Brexit he may well have become PM of a grand coalition
Ironically if it had been May vs SKS in 2017, she might have won her majority.
I highly doubt it. SKS will be a much better PM than TM ever was.
She was genuinely popular before that election campaign, and Corbyn was able to capture the public imagination at the time in a way that I don't think SKS is capable of.
Burnham had he beaten Corbyn to the Labour leadership in 2015 might even have beaten May and won most seats in 2017.
By electing Corbyn Labour members got a socialist purist they loved but probably at the cost of an extra 7 years in opposition
Well maybe, or maybe there would not have been the groundswell of enthusiasm, crowds would not have been singing Oh Andy Burnham and Labour would have done worse in 2017. Who can tell?
There were crowds for Corbyn even in 2019.
The redwall would likely have gone even more for Burnham in 2017 than Corbyn in 2019 and Burnham likely won some marginals Cameron won Corbyn failed to win in 2017
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
As Labour members preferred Ed Miliband and Corbyn, they wanted leftwing red meat after the New Labour and Blair years. As I expect Conservative members will want rightwing red meat from whoever replaces Sunak as leader if he and Hunt lose the next election
Fairly sure the Government still owns a significant amount of all of those. UK is the exception.
Privatisation has improved RM efficiency and shift to more profitable parcels and given share ownership to employees, the mistake was not to also ensure some government subsidy for the loss making but necessary for rural areas universal service
Certainly is news in the context of today's announcements together with 2 Welsh hospitals
A new definition of news!
As a matter of interest what did the Scottish government do about the report ?
You'll have to look it up - time for me to cook dinner.
But as it was a Scottish LD FOI, they knew already. They already seem to have been gathering information and tasking action. Fopr instance, they established some time back that 250 or so hospitals are likely to have the stuff.
Sky just confirmed that this is a major problem, not only in England, but also the devolved nations who are each responsible for their buildings and that it is not confined to schools
To be honest this looks like it is going to be a very big problem for governments going forward as the cost implications must be many billions
Oh yes. Though some of the schools etc should have been replaced anyway, so there's that.
Also - the private sector. Shopping centres and so on.
To be honest this looks every bit as bad as asbestos and potentially worse and as for the cost !!!!!
Raising another issue. How many of these buildings have asbestos?
I have no idea but in view of the age range circa 1950s to 1996 possibly very many
We had some contractors come out to map out all the asbestos in our 1960s building a while back. Lots of stickers on walls saying 'ASBESTOS!!!!!' on the walls. Then a different group of contractors called in to redecorate. Who painted over all the stickers.
There's a muddled metaphor for modern Britain in there somewhere...
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Burnham is terrible. In that contest he was the "centrist" candidate, now he's to the left of Corbyn. He would crash and burn as leader.
Kendall was the centrist candidate. He is left of Starmer, he is still right of Corbyn
Bottom line is that Kendall, Cooper and Burnham didn’t have a single new or inspirational idea to rub together, between the three of them.
They all wanted to be Starmer, before being Starmer became a thing.
And Starmer would have lost the leadership to Corbyn in 2015 too, his luck was he was first elected in 2015 and only stood for leader after 4 consecutive Labour general election defeats when they were desperate to finally find a leader who was electable
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Burnham is terrible. In that contest he was the "centrist" candidate, now he's to the left of Corbyn. He would crash and burn as leader.
Kendall was the centrist candidate. He is left of Starmer, he is still right of Corbyn
Bottom line is that Kendall, Cooper and Burnham didn’t have a single new or inspirational idea to rub together, between the three of them.
They all wanted to be Starmer, before being Starmer became a thing.
And Starmer would have lost the leadership to Corbyn in 2015 too, his luck was he was first elected in 2015 and only stood for leader after 4 consecutive Labour general election defeats when they were desperate to finally find a leader who was electable
They settled for one who wasn’t unelectable, as the best choice available.
Fairly sure the Government still owns a significant amount of all of those. UK is the exception.
Privatisation has improved RM efficiency and shift to more profitable parcels and given share ownership to employees, the mistake was not to also ensure some government subsidy for the loss making but necessary for rural areas universal service
Not really. It just enabled them to treble the prices, and still only scrape break even.
I worked for Royal Mail for 27 years, joining when a stamp cost 17p and leaving when it cost 41p. It now costs £1.10.
Fairly sure the Government still owns a significant amount of all of those. UK is the exception.
Privatisation has improved RM efficiency and shift to more profitable parcels and given share ownership to employees, the mistake was not to also ensure some government subsidy for the loss making but necessary for rural areas universal service
Not really. It just enabled them to treble the prices, and still only scrape break even.
I worked for Royal Mail for 27 years, joining when a stamp cost 17p and leaving when it cost 41p. It now costs £1.10.
Yes, well there aren't enough letters sent to make it viable to have cheap stamps now
Certainly is news in the context of today's announcements together with 2 Welsh hospitals
A new definition of news!
As a matter of interest what did the Scottish government do about the report ?
You'll have to look it up - time for me to cook dinner.
But as it was a Scottish LD FOI, they knew already. They already seem to have been gathering information and tasking action. Fopr instance, they established some time back that 250 or so hospitals are likely to have the stuff.
Sky just confirmed that this is a major problem, not only in England, but also the devolved nations who are each responsible for their buildings and that it is not confined to schools
To be honest this looks like it is going to be a very big problem for governments going forward as the cost implications must be many billions
Oh yes. Though some of the schools etc should have been replaced anyway, so there's that.
Also - the private sector. Shopping centres and so on.
To be honest this looks every bit as bad as asbestos and potentially worse and as for the cost !!!!!
Raising another issue. How many of these buildings have asbestos?
I have no idea but in view of the age range circa 1950s to 1996 possibly very many
We had some contractors come out to map out all the asbestos in our 1960s building a while back. Lots of stickers on walls saying 'ASBESTOS!!!!!' on the walls. Then a different group of contractors called in to redecorate. Who painted over all the stickers.
There's a muddled metaphor for modern Britain in there somewhere...
T'was on the Monday morning, the gas man came to call, The gas tap wouldn't turn, I wasn't getting gas at all; He tore out all the skirting boards to try and find the main, And I had to call a carpenter to put them back again!
Oh, it all makes work for the working man to do...
... ...
T'was on a Friday morning the painter made a start, With undercoats and overcoats he painted every part, Every nook and every cranny; but I found when he was gone He'd painted over the gas tap and I couldn't turn it on!
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Burnham is terrible. In that contest he was the "centrist" candidate, now he's to the left of Corbyn. He would crash and burn as leader.
Kendall was the centrist candidate. He is left of Starmer, he is still right of Corbyn
She was the right wing candidate. The right of Labour, not the entire political spectrum.
Tte annoying thing about the right of Labour: most of them are authoritarian war on terror hang em and flog em authoritarians. Where are the “right of labour” ultra liberal laissez faire free trade types?
Letters of no confidence are being submitted to Sir Graham Brady, according to the (I know) Express.
Yes well Boris and Truss supporters have never liked Rishi but they don't have the votes of the majority of Tory MPs they need to remove him before the next general election
Letters of no confidence are being submitted to Sir Graham Brady, according to the (I know) Express.
Yes well Boris and Truss supporters have never liked Rishi but they don't have the votes of the majority of Tory MPs they need to remove him before the next general election
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Burnham is terrible. In that contest he was the "centrist" candidate, now he's to the left of Corbyn. He would crash and burn as leader.
Kendall was the centrist candidate. He is left of Starmer, he is still right of Corbyn
She was the right wing candidate. The right of Labour, not the entire political spectrum.
Tte annoying thing about the right of Labour: most of them are authoritarian war on terror hang em and flog em authoritarians. Where are the “right of labour” ultra liberal laissez faire free trade types?
They would have no place in a Socialist party.
Nothing to stop you being a Socialist and an authoritarian, however. Actually, sounds a bit like me!
Letters of no confidence are being submitted to Sir Graham Brady, according to the (I know) Express.
Yes well Boris and Truss supporters have never liked Rishi but they don't have the votes of the majority of Tory MPs they need to remove him before the next general election
Letters of no confidence are being submitted to Sir Graham Brady, according to the (I know) Express.
Yes well Boris and Truss supporters have never liked Rishi but they don't have the votes of the majority of Tory MPs they need to remove him before the next general election
Good news for SKS though. Go backbenchers
I wish several of them would.
Just a year and a few months to wait, and plenty will, I promise.
Does Boris Johnson actually need to be an MP to be PM?
According to a poster earlier this week, Alec Douglas-Home was PM despite being in neither the Commons nor the Lords, for about five minutes back in 1963.
Letters of no confidence are being submitted to Sir Graham Brady, according to the (I know) Express.
Yes well Boris and Truss supporters have never liked Rishi but they don't have the votes of the majority of Tory MPs they need to remove him before the next general election
Good news for SKS though. Go backbenchers
I wish several of them would.
Just a year and a few months to wait, and plenty will, I promise.
Letters of no confidence are being submitted to Sir Graham Brady, according to the (I know) Express.
Yes well Boris and Truss supporters have never liked Rishi but they don't have the votes of the majority of Tory MPs they need to remove him before the next general election
It only took a couple of common sense posts from me to PB, why Sunak absolutely has to go now, and in go the letters almost immediately.
Does Boris Johnson actually need to be an MP to be PM?
According to a poster earlier this week, Alec Douglas-Home was PM despite being in neither the Commons nor the Lords, for about five minutes back in 1963.
The key point there being 'for about five minutes'
Letters of no confidence are being submitted to Sir Graham Brady, according to the (I know) Express.
Yes well Boris and Truss supporters have never liked Rishi but they don't have the votes of the majority of Tory MPs they need to remove him before the next general election
Good news for SKS though. Go backbenchers
I wish several of them would.
Just a year and a few months to wait, and plenty will, I promise.
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Burnham is terrible. In that contest he was the "centrist" candidate, now he's to the left of Corbyn. He would crash and burn as leader.
Kendall was the centrist candidate. He is left of Starmer, he is still right of Corbyn
She was the right wing candidate. The right of Labour, not the entire political spectrum.
Tte annoying thing about the right of Labour: most of them are authoritarian war on terror hang em and flog em authoritarians. Where are the “right of labour” ultra liberal laissez faire free trade types?
They are Orange Book LDs or Cameroon Tories. If you are laissez faire and pro free trade, why on earth would you be in the pro big state Labour Party?
Letters of no confidence are being submitted to Sir Graham Brady, according to the (I know) Express.
Yes well Boris and Truss supporters have never liked Rishi but they don't have the votes of the majority of Tory MPs they need to remove him before the next general election
Good news for SKS though. Go backbenchers
I wish several of them would.
Just a year and a few months to wait, and plenty will, I promise.
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Burnham is terrible. In that contest he was the "centrist" candidate, now he's to the left of Corbyn. He would crash and burn as leader.
Kendall was the centrist candidate. He is left of Starmer, he is still right of Corbyn
She was the right wing candidate. The right of Labour, not the entire political spectrum.
Tte annoying thing about the right of Labour: most of them are authoritarian war on terror hang em and flog em authoritarians. Where are the “right of labour” ultra liberal laissez faire free trade types?
They would have no place in a Socialist party.
Nothing to stop you being a Socialist and an authoritarian, however. Actually, sounds a bit like me!
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Burnham is terrible. In that contest he was the "centrist" candidate, now he's to the left of Corbyn. He would crash and burn as leader.
Kendall was the centrist candidate. He is left of Starmer, he is still right of Corbyn
She was the right wing candidate. The right of Labour, not the entire political spectrum.
Tte annoying thing about the right of Labour: most of them are authoritarian war on terror hang em and flog em authoritarians. Where are the “right of labour” ultra liberal laissez faire free trade types?
They are Orange Book LDs or Cameroon Tories. If you are laissez faire and pro free trade, why on earth would you be in the pro big state Labour Party?
I’m not, I’m a member of the Lib Dems. But one would hope for some fellow travellers in other parties. Everyone else has them. There are deep Greens in the Labour and Lib Dem parties, there are - essentially - Tories in Labour and there are - opportunistically - Lib Dems in the Conservative Party.
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Burnham is terrible. In that contest he was the "centrist" candidate, now he's to the left of Corbyn. He would crash and burn as leader.
Kendall was the centrist candidate. He is left of Starmer, he is still right of Corbyn
She was the right wing candidate. The right of Labour, not the entire political spectrum.
Tte annoying thing about the right of Labour: most of them are authoritarian war on terror hang em and flog em authoritarians. Where are the “right of labour” ultra liberal laissez faire free trade types?
Letters of no confidence are being submitted to Sir Graham Brady, according to the (I know) Express.
Yes well Boris and Truss supporters have never liked Rishi but they don't have the votes of the majority of Tory MPs they need to remove him before the next general election
It only took a couple of common sense posts from me to PB, why Sunak absolutely has to go now, and in go the letters almost immediately.
That’s how irresistible my reasoning was.
For my next trick, I will now convince the Liverpool owners to sell Mo Salah.
Liverpool obviously shouldn’t take the 150M, never accept a first offer, but start negotiating now and get as much as you can instead next week. As a shareholder, knowing Arab League are courting Salah, wondering what history will make of owners turning down £180M+ transfer fee for a 31 year old in 2023, there is no option but take that money now.
The season has barely started, but it’s already about 2024 for Liverpool - it’s going to take a while for raw and rusty Gravenberch to be up to speed, even then he might not be the much needed number 6. So more incomings are needed, for defence, number 6, and replace Salah.
Liverpool can add both Kvaratskhelia and Ousmane Dembele in January with 180M, even allowing for inflated quotes!
Minus Salah, but plus both Kvaratskhelia and Dembele from January 1st? Just common sense isn’t it. Got to do it.
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Burnham is terrible. In that contest he was the "centrist" candidate, now he's to the left of Corbyn. He would crash and burn as leader.
Kendall was the centrist candidate. He is left of Starmer, he is still right of Corbyn
She was the right wing candidate. The right of Labour, not the entire political spectrum.
Tte annoying thing about the right of Labour: most of them are authoritarian war on terror hang em and flog em authoritarians. Where are the “right of labour” ultra liberal laissez faire free trade types?
They are Orange Book LDs or Cameroon Tories. If you are laissez faire and pro free trade, why on earth would you be in the pro big state Labour Party?
I’m not, I’m a member of the Lib Dems. But one would hope for some fellow travellers in other parties. Everyone else has them. There are deep Greens in the Labour and Lib Dem parties, there are - essentially - Tories in Labour and there are - opportunistically - Lib Dems in the Conservative Party.
There are some liberals in the Conservatives there aren't any socialists in the Conservative Party as that would be as illogical as laissez faire ultra capitalists being in the Labour Party
Does Boris Johnson actually need to be an MP to be PM?
According to a poster earlier this week, Alec Douglas-Home was PM despite being in neither the Commons nor the Lords, for about five minutes back in 1963.
If the majority party supports him, and Sunak recommends him to the monarch, sure.
In practice, public accountability requires that he be a member of a body where his fellow elected politicians can hold him to account. (That was the problem he was grappling with recently.) Otherwise it is democratically iffy; like a stitch-up between the King's private secretary and the Tory Party.
If he were to win most Tories in a leadership contest, but Sunak were not to support him, some new constitutional tidbits would need to be written fast.
Letters of no confidence are being submitted to Sir Graham Brady, according to the (I know) Express.
Yes well Boris and Truss supporters have never liked Rishi but they don't have the votes of the majority of Tory MPs they need to remove him before the next general election
It only took a couple of common sense posts from me to PB, why Sunak absolutely has to go now, and in go the letters almost immediately.
That’s how irresistible my reasoning was.
To the lunatic tendency of the party, certainly. Doubt that will be enough, even in today's Tories.
Why did Burnham flop so badly in the Labour leadership election if he's such electoral dynamite?
Burnham is terrible. In that contest he was the "centrist" candidate, now he's to the left of Corbyn. He would crash and burn as leader.
Kendall was the centrist candidate. He is left of Starmer, he is still right of Corbyn
She was the right wing candidate. The right of Labour, not the entire political spectrum.
Tte annoying thing about the right of Labour: most of them are authoritarian war on terror hang em and flog em authoritarians. Where are the “right of labour” ultra liberal laissez faire free trade types?
They are Orange Book LDs or Cameroon Tories. If you are laissez faire and pro free trade, why on earth would you be in the pro big state Labour Party?
I’m not, I’m a member of the Lib Dems. But one would hope for some fellow travellers in other parties. Everyone else has them. There are deep Greens in the Labour and Lib Dem parties, there are - essentially - Tories in Labour and there are - opportunistically - Lib Dems in the Conservative Party.
Opportunistic Lib Dem’s? Will wonders never cease!
Can someone please explain how under "Financial Fair Play" Chelsea can spend reportedly £400mn in one transfer window?
Yes. It doesn’t apply today, but next year where they need to have balanced the books and share them, and by then with player sales and off loaded wages, and their use of long term contracts, and stage payments for players, they should easily meet the threshold.
CCTV monitoring all public spaces: 55% Compulsory ID cards: 54% National fingerprint database: 50% (net +10) National DNA database: 45% (net +4) Communications companies having to retain everyone's data: 16%"
"Tory voters are more likely to support security measures than Lab voters
Compulsory ID cards Con: 65% Lab: 42%
CCTV monitoring all public spaces Con: 65% Lab: 48%
People often support these things in the abstract, but when the incredible extravagence, wastefulness, incompetence and carelessness of the government in delivering them become evident, they have second thoughts pretty quickly.
Note the fans of a national ID card here, who will tell you
1) That they would never actually try and assemble the stupid database that they literally tried to do 2) It couldn't happen. Because trust me. 3) It actually being put out to tender was Fake News. Or something.
You fotgot 4) If you have nothing to hide...completely neglecting you might have nothing to hide now but who knows about the next government or the one after
Does Boris Johnson actually need to be an MP to be PM?
According to a poster earlier this week, Alec Douglas-Home was PM despite being in neither the Commons nor the Lords, for about five minutes back in 1963.
The key point there being 'for about five minutes'
Andy Burnham absolutely WAS the centrist candidate, as was Liz, as was everyone except Corbyn.
Burnham just goes wherever the wind is blowing, he has no principles at all. Bizarre that BJO is such a fan when Burnham was the man who originally claimed Labour needed to spend wisely...
Does Boris Johnson actually need to be an MP to be PM?
According to a poster earlier this week, Alec Douglas-Home was PM despite being in neither the Commons nor the Lords, for about five minutes back in 1963.
The key point there being 'for about five minutes'
Yes. It isn't technically compulsory but in practice it would be impossible for any length of time.
The only other example of a minister who was neither an MP nor a peer was Patrick Gordon-Walker in 1964, who lost his seat but whose experience Wilson considered vital to the government. But after he failed to win two by-elections he had to resign.
Say the Tories win an election, then midterm the PM announces intention to quit, and the party membership somehow chooses Nigel Farage or an even more right-wing figure as the new leader. That ministry would have minority support, say 200 to 250 MPs. What does the outgoing PM do? Certainly not to recommend that Farage can form a ministry with the support of the House. And what does the King's private secretary do? At least these days they can agree to call an election, but I imagine someone wargamed this scenario during the FTPA era.
Say the Tories win an election, then midterm the PM announces intention to quit, and the party membership somehow chooses Nigel Farage or an even more right-wing figure as the new leader. That ministry would have minority support, say 200 to 250 MPs. What does the outgoing PM do? Certainly not to recommend that Farage can form a ministry with the support of the House. And what does the King's private secretary do? At least these days they can agree to call an election, but I imagine someone wargamed this scenario during the FTPA era.
The act did allow for it. Under those circumstances the King could have asked for a vote of confidence to be passed before appointing a PM, and if one was not passed in 14 days then Parliament was dissolved automatically.
Say the Tories win an election, then midterm the PM announces intention to quit, and the party membership somehow chooses Nigel Farage or an even more right-wing figure as the new leader. That ministry would have minority support, say 200 to 250 MPs. What does the outgoing PM do? Certainly not to recommend that Farage can form a ministry with the support of the House. And what does the King's private secretary do? At least these days they can agree to call an election, but I imagine someone wargamed this scenario during the FTPA era.
The convention is very simple: the leader of the majority party is deemed to have the confidence of the house (this is tested annually in the King’s Speech).
In your scenario, assuming that there are no defections from those members of the majority party who do not support RWN (“right wing nutter”) then he become PM unless and until he loses a confidence vote
If there are defections then likely the LOTO will put down a motion of no confidence per @Richard_Nabavi upthread
Say the Tories win an election, then midterm the PM announces intention to quit, and the party membership somehow chooses Nigel Farage or an even more right-wing figure as the new leader. That ministry would have minority support, say 200 to 250 MPs. What does the outgoing PM do? Certainly not to recommend that Farage can form a ministry with the support of the House. And what does the King's private secretary do? At least these days they can agree to call an election, but I imagine someone wargamed this scenario during the FTPA era.
The act did allow for it. Under those circumstances the King could have asked for a vote of confidence to be passed before appointing a PM, and if one was not passed in 14 days then Parliament was dissolved automatically.
That's a great historical fact. The "could have" is stressful for me. Who advises the King to do so in the absence of a PM with the confidence of the house.
Say the Tories win an election, then midterm the PM announces intention to quit, and the party membership somehow chooses Nigel Farage or an even more right-wing figure as the new leader. That ministry would have minority support, say 200 to 250 MPs. What does the outgoing PM do? Certainly not to recommend that Farage can form a ministry with the support of the House. And what does the King's private secretary do? At least these days they can agree to call an election, but I imagine someone wargamed this scenario during the FTPA era.
The convention is very simple: the leader of the majority party is deemed to have the confidence of the house (this is tested annually in the King’s Speech).
In your scenario, assuming that there are no defections from those members of the majority party who do not support RWN (“right wing nutter”) then he become PM unless and until he loses a confidence vote
If there are defections then likely the LOTO will put down a motion of no confidence per @Richard_Nabavi upthread
My question was on what basis such a person could be appointed PM, with access to the royal prerogatives, Polaris and so on.
Can someone please explain how under "Financial Fair Play" Chelsea can spend reportedly £400mn in one transfer window?
Yes. It’s to do with how they structure the payments for the purchases. So if they buy Fred Bloggs from Ancaster Rovers for £50,000,000, they are usually paying over a period of years, rather than BACSing the cash today. So in essence their spend this year on Bloggs isn’t £50,000,000.
I think there have been moves to clamp down on this, but it’s within the rules AIUI.
Say the Tories win an election, then midterm the PM announces intention to quit, and the party membership somehow chooses Nigel Farage or an even more right-wing figure as the new leader. That ministry would have minority support, say 200 to 250 MPs. What does the outgoing PM do? Certainly not to recommend that Farage can form a ministry with the support of the House. And what does the King's private secretary do? At least these days they can agree to call an election, but I imagine someone wargamed this scenario during the FTPA era.
The convention is very simple: the leader of the majority party is deemed to have the confidence of the house (this is tested annually in the King’s Speech).
In your scenario, assuming that there are no defections from those members of the majority party who do not support RWN (“right wing nutter”) then he become PM unless and until he loses a confidence vote
If there are defections then likely the LOTO will put down a motion of no confidence per @Richard_Nabavi upthread
My question was on what basis such a person could be appointed PM, with access to the royal prerogatives, Polaris and so on.
I can 100% guarantee no UK PM will be given access to Polaris.
Does Boris Johnson actually need to be an MP to be PM?
According to a poster earlier this week, Alec Douglas-Home was PM despite being in neither the Commons nor the Lords, for about five minutes back in 1963.
The key point there being 'for about five minutes'
Yes. It isn't technically compulsory but in practice it would be impossible for any length of time.
The only other example of a minister who was neither an MP nor a peer was Patrick Gordon-Walker in 1964, who lost his seat but whose experience Wilson considered vital to the government. But after he failed to win two by-elections he had to resign.
Only one, namely Leyton, which he won in the 1966 GE.
Say the Tories win an election, then midterm the PM announces intention to quit, and the party membership somehow chooses Nigel Farage or an even more right-wing figure as the new leader. That ministry would have minority support, say 200 to 250 MPs. What does the outgoing PM do? Certainly not to recommend that Farage can form a ministry with the support of the House. And what does the King's private secretary do? At least these days they can agree to call an election, but I imagine someone wargamed this scenario during the FTPA era.
The convention is very simple: the leader of the majority party is deemed to have the confidence of the house (this is tested annually in the King’s Speech).
In your scenario, assuming that there are no defections from those members of the majority party who do not support RWN (“right wing nutter”) then he become PM unless and until he loses a confidence vote
If there are defections then likely the LOTO will put down a motion of no confidence per @Richard_Nabavi upthread
My question was on what basis such a person could be appointed PM, with access to the royal prerogatives, Polaris and so on.
I can 100% guarantee no UK PM will be given access to Polaris.
You saying there's more than one Polari? And the PM should have access?
Say the Tories win an election, then midterm the PM announces intention to quit, and the party membership somehow chooses Nigel Farage or an even more right-wing figure as the new leader. That ministry would have minority support, say 200 to 250 MPs. What does the outgoing PM do? Certainly not to recommend that Farage can form a ministry with the support of the House. And what does the King's private secretary do? At least these days they can agree to call an election, but I imagine someone wargamed this scenario during the FTPA era.
The convention is very simple: the leader of the majority party is deemed to have the confidence of the house (this is tested annually in the King’s Speech).
In your scenario, assuming that there are no defections from those members of the majority party who do not support RWN (“right wing nutter”) then he become PM unless and until he loses a confidence vote
If there are defections then likely the LOTO will put down a motion of no confidence per @Richard_Nabavi upthread
My question was on what basis such a person could be appointed PM, with access to the royal prerogatives, Polaris and so on.
I can 100% guarantee no UK PM will be given access to Polaris.
You saying there's more than one Polari? And the PM should have access?
Letters of no confidence are being submitted to Sir Graham Brady, according to the (I know) Express.
Yes well Boris and Truss supporters have never liked Rishi but they don't have the votes of the majority of Tory MPs they need to remove him before the next general election
It only took a couple of common sense posts from me to PB, why Sunak absolutely has to go now, and in go the letters almost immediately.
That’s how irresistible my reasoning was.
I feel its more likely that our huge readership within the PCP has been influenced over time by my relentless and accurate critique about the dismal decline manager.
Comments
The redwall would likely have gone even more for Burnham in 2017 than Corbyn in 2019 and Burnham likely won some marginals Cameron won Corbyn failed to win in 2017
(As an aside, if you or any other PBers fancy a game of chess then I'd be keen. I currently play on chess.com vs just one old friend.)
DHL (as Deutsche Post now is) is only about 21% owned by the German government, while the Japanese government owns about a third of Japan Post.
The favourite to be next Labour leader though. Insane. All the actual MPs that are labouring over the fortunes of Labour are hardly going to wave yesterday's failure through as a great saviour.
It always intrigues me that, in the land that finds a way to charge you for almost everything, the US still has toilets that are free.
There’s the script, and the voters have long since stopped listening. Suddenly theres a fresh face and fresh voice reading it, and people are now listening again. It’s how it works.
This is how politics works. It’s not your manifesto that wins a general election, it’s your ability to set the narrative for the first two weeks of the election campaign to be on your opponents sleaze, failings, and everything else they would rather divert attention from.
Not your policies. Not your promises. Just your ability to be listened to.
And that can no longer be Sunak and Hunt.
I have defeated foot fungus more dynamic than Hunt.
I know of one primary school where RAAC was found, not fortunately in the teaching areas but in the main hall. I'm not sure the parallel with asbestos is at all valid - claims for compensation for mesolithoma can be placed up to 40 years after exposure and the question with asbestos (especially blue asbestos) is one of potential exposure. If suitably sealed in, asbestos isn't a problem but it needs regular monitoring.
What the RAAC issue may uncover is the degree of compliance and other building inspections taking place. Councils are or should be undertaking a strong programme of regular condition surveys and other inspections but does this happen in other areas?
1) That they would never actually try and assemble the stupid database that they literally tried to do
2) It couldn't happen. Because trust me.
3) It actually being put out to tender was Fake News. Or something.
They all wanted to be Starmer, before being Starmer became a thing.
There's a muddled metaphor for modern Britain in there somewhere...
I worked for Royal Mail for 27 years, joining when a stamp cost 17p and leaving when it cost 41p. It now costs £1.10.
The gas tap wouldn't turn, I wasn't getting gas at all;
He tore out all the skirting boards to try and find the main,
And I had to call a carpenter to put them back again!
Oh, it all makes work for the working man to do...
... ...
T'was on a Friday morning the painter made a start,
With undercoats and overcoats he painted every part,
Every nook and every cranny; but I found when he was gone
He'd painted over the gas tap and I couldn't turn it on!
Nothing to stop you being a Socialist and an authoritarian, however. Actually, sounds a bit like me!
According to a poster earlier this week, Alec Douglas-Home was PM despite being in neither the Commons nor the Lords, for about five minutes back in 1963.
That’s how irresistible my reasoning was.
Liverpool obviously shouldn’t take the 150M, never accept a first offer, but start negotiating now and get as much as you can instead next week. As a shareholder, knowing Arab League are courting Salah, wondering what history will make of owners turning down £180M+ transfer fee for a 31 year old in 2023, there is no option but take that money now.
The season has barely started, but it’s already about 2024 for Liverpool - it’s going to take a while for raw and rusty Gravenberch to be up to speed, even then he might not be the much needed number 6. So more incomings are needed, for defence, number 6, and replace Salah.
Liverpool can add both Kvaratskhelia and Ousmane Dembele in January with 180M, even allowing for inflated quotes!
Minus Salah, but plus both Kvaratskhelia and Dembele from January 1st? Just common sense isn’t it. Got to do it.
In practice, public accountability requires that he be a member of a body where his fellow elected politicians can hold him to account. (That was the problem he was grappling with recently.) Otherwise it is democratically iffy; like a stitch-up between the King's private secretary and the Tory Party.
If he were to win most Tories in a leadership contest, but Sunak were not to support him, some new constitutional tidbits would need to be written fast.
Doubt that will be enough, even in today's Tories.
Burnham just goes wherever the wind is blowing, he has no principles at all. Bizarre that BJO is such a fan when Burnham was the man who originally claimed Labour needed to spend wisely...
Everything online to do with the express is just frustrating click bait.
The only other example of a minister who was neither an MP nor a peer was Patrick Gordon-Walker in 1964, who lost his seat but whose experience Wilson considered vital to the government. But after he failed to win two by-elections he had to resign.
In your scenario, assuming that there are no defections from those members of the majority party who do not support RWN (“right wing nutter”) then he become PM unless and until he loses a confidence vote
If there are defections then likely the LOTO will put down a motion of no confidence per @Richard_Nabavi upthread
I think there have been moves to clamp down on this, but it’s within the rules AIUI.
Inneee bold, that Mr Sunak....
It will, however, surely take a lot longer…