Victory will be ever sweeter in the end. Or maybe just for the lawyers
You'll be delighted to know that this weekend I am doing a thread entitled 'Why lawyers are awesome'.
The many victims of the Post Office scandal might disagree.
(Yes, there were plenty of my own profession disgracing themselves at the Post Office too, but I don’t spend all day saying that IT consultants are awesome, far from it.)
This thread has actual betting implications.
Perhaps Shadsy could create a market on the number of prosecutions.
Probably more than any other election in my lifetime, with the sole possible exception of 1997, the die is cast.
A sufficient proportion of voters have made up their minds, to the point where there is now nothing the Conservatives can do to win the coming election.
How long they spend in the wilderness depends on two things. 1. Whether Labour stuff it up 2. How right-wing the party lurches.
There’s a very real prospect that they will be out of office for a decade or more. Possibly a generation.
trip trap trip trap over the rickety bridge
Oh dear. You’ve posted up some passable, if rather unnecessarily acerbic, threads recently but this really is pathetic of you.
I am not a trolling type. A Labour sympathiser, yes, but that’s not the same thing. Just because my left-of-centre perspective doesn’t match yours from the right, should not mean you need to resort to a very childish remark. I think you can do better. I think you know you can.
For the record, for the benefit of others, my scepticism about Labour will come out when they are in power. I am not the type to bang a one-party drum. I regularly vote Green or LibDem when I feel it’s appropriate. Labour are in good shape but I don’t love everything about them and there will be plenty to criticise about their Government.
Try to take a pace back from that bridge and have another look. You may find that the troll you see below is in fact a reflection in the water.
Out of curiosity do you have any friends who arent Tories ?
Plenty but they aren’t as interesting
Yes, lefties arent half boring.
No perspective.
Well at least many of them (us) can listen to others with whom we don’t agree … you should try it.
I found Corbynites very interesting but they aren’t really in play at the moment. They were great fun. Often challenging ingrained ideas, not always incorrectly as it happens.
A LibDem voting friend of mine bought her rather inward-looking nephew a subscription to Marxism Today. She thought it would do him good to read other perspectives.
I like that.
Marxism Today was an interesting read, but folded decades ago didn't it?
Yes I believe so. This was a good while back. I just liked the idea of getting someone to enlarge their horizons.
FWIW I hated much of Jeremy’s Corbyn’s policies but on, for example, The Chagos islands I think he had a bloody excellent point. Reminds me a bit of Tam Dalyell on the sinking of the Belgrano or the West Lothian question.
IIRC Tam Dalyell refused to understand what actually happened with the Belgrano. Because the actual answer wasn’t Thatchers Fault.
What intrigues me most about my tory friends is that 2 of the 4 I regularly post about would vote Conservative like a shot ... if Boris Johnson were leader.
I find it bewildering, bizarre, but it’s the case. They ‘still’ love him. Both are female. The third, the one whom I was hiking with this past week, thinks that what Boris did ‘wasn’t really very bad.’
Boris was a cult figure.
Part of the weird dynamics of the current situation.
It's jolly hard to deprogram someone after they have been in a cult. Alternatively, slightly less provocatively, it's very hard to persuade the victim of a confidence trick that they have been conned.
Boris conned pretty much all of us- I voted for him in London 2008/12, as did some of his other critics here. It's not until a specific something comes up that individuals conclude that he doesn't give a flying one for anyone else.
(Me? The Garden Bridge fiasco was probably the first sign, and the prorogation mess the moment to think He Must Be Stopped.)
The only surefire protection against Boris seems to have been vaccination with his type i early adulthood. I fortunately got my jabs and booster early when I stumbled upon the Bullingdon crowd at university so my lymph glands were already flooding out killer T-cells every time he appeared on telly during his Spectator years.
It seems that a number of people have long-Johnson. I assume the only cure to that is rest, and the passage of time.
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
What intrigues me most about my tory friends is that 2 of the 4 I regularly post about would vote Conservative like a shot ... if Boris Johnson were leader.
I find it bewildering, bizarre, but it’s the case. They ‘still’ love him. Both are female. The third, the one whom I was hiking with this past week, thinks that what Boris did ‘wasn’t really very bad.’
Boris was a cult figure.
Part of the weird dynamics of the current situation.
It's jolly hard to deprogram someone after they have been in a cult. Alternatively, slightly less provocatively, it's very hard to persuade the victim of a confidence trick that they have been conned.
Boris conned pretty much all of us- I voted for him in London 2008/12, as did some of his other critics here. It's not until a specific something comes up that individuals conclude that he doesn't give a flying one for anyone else.
(Me? The Garden Bridge fiasco was probably the first sign, and the prorogation mess the moment to think He Must Be Stopped.)
When the Garden Bridge fiasco was happening, I was one of the few voices on here castigating him over it. I had a series of massive 'discussions' with Charles over it.
IMO everyone involved should have been forced to pay back the millions wasted.
Probably more than any other election in my lifetime, with the sole possible exception of 1997, the die is cast.
A sufficient proportion of voters have made up their minds, to the point where there is now nothing the Conservatives can do to win the coming election.
How long they spend in the wilderness depends on two things. 1. Whether Labour stuff it up 2. How right-wing the party lurches.
There’s a very real prospect that they will be out of office for a decade or more. Possibly a generation.
A generation is only 6 or 7 years according to the SNP. I suspect that it will be longer.
Having said that the underlying problems with this country are intractable and very difficult for a government to solve. We consume more than we earn. The cumulative effects of our persistent trade deficit has impoverished us and mean ever more of what we do earn belongs to those abroad.
Our refusal to face the consequences of this irresponsibility mean we blame governments for something that is collectively our fault. Starmer will also disappoint because that is already built in. There’s really not much we or he can do about it.
Probably more than any other election in my lifetime, with the sole possible exception of 1997, the die is cast.
A sufficient proportion of voters have made up their minds, to the point where there is now nothing the Conservatives can do to win the coming election.
How long they spend in the wilderness depends on two things. 1. Whether Labour stuff it up 2. How right-wing the party lurches.
There’s a very real prospect that they will be out of office for a decade or more. Possibly a generation.
trip trap trip trap over the rickety bridge
Tory infrastructure plans for the north ?
Midlands.
And the North - the A66 upgrade has been kicked into the grass for another 6 months...
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
The Tories campaign slogan could be MEGA - Make England Great Again.
Tom Winsor, former HM chief inspector of constabulary, is on @BBCr4today saying @SuellaBraverman has broken the spirit and letter of the convention that Home Secretary should never question the operational integrity of the police. @RishiSunak now facing huge pressure to sack her
If you recall, Braverman's team briefed the media that she had told Essicks Police to cease and desist their action against the Gollywog pub. Home Office officials were appalled by the breach of protocol and contacted Essicks PD to apologise. Only to be told that Braverman was lying and no such instructions had been given.
She has been dog-whistling racism for quite a while now.
Probably more than any other election in my lifetime, with the sole possible exception of 1997, the die is cast.
A sufficient proportion of voters have made up their minds, to the point where there is now nothing the Conservatives can do to win the coming election.
How long they spend in the wilderness depends on two things. 1. Whether Labour stuff it up 2. How right-wing the party lurches.
There’s a very real prospect that they will be out of office for a decade or more. Possibly a generation.
trip trap trip trap over the rickety bridge
Tory infrastructure plans for the north ?
Midlands.
And the North - the A66 upgrade has been kicked into the grass for another 6 months...
They were working fairly hard on it in July when we were touring England. Lots of improvement works were going on.
I was amused by Mark Sedwill yesterday. Typical lawyer ignorance, all three if you include the presiding judge and the one asking the questions. Reasonable worst case? Nonsense, all three thought. Why not just feel the truth in your water? None of them they know what science is designed for. Awkward facts - they just get in the way and complicate things.
Science is there to remove subjective bias and thats exactly what solicitors and politicians rely on. However, RWC scenarios come with caveats - you know those things relegated to footnotes which are too much bother and too complicated to read or understand.
We've relegated the Covid enquiry to seven-year-olds and any innumerates with a public-school education.
One of the minor bits of weirdness in Suella’s piece of grotesquerie in the Times was comparing the marches in support of Gaza to those in Northern Ireland. The inveterate marchers there are pretty much on one side of the community, is she saying Unionists are similar to Islamists? Radical.
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
The Tories campaign slogan could be MEGA - Make England Great Again.
There was an assault against democracy in Washington State yesterday.
The day after the 2023 general election, election workers in four counties opened incoming mail that contained some kind of white powDer. Offices were evacuated, and ballot processing and vote tabulating were suspended awaiting first responders and HAZMAT teams. In King County (Seattle) preliminary tests indicated presence of fentanyl; in Pierce County (Tacoma) substance tested as baking soda.
As a result of the disruption,King County Election added less than 26k ballots to Wed updated cumulative vote count, instead of over 80k as expected that morning; in Spokane County ballot processing was suspended for the day.
Note there were no statewide candidates or measures on 2023 WA general election ballots. Instead, local races and issues, such as Mayor of City of Spokane, and Seattle City Council. Counties affected will still be able to process ballots and count votes (valid ones are still arriving in the mail) in timely manner under state law.
This is still a serious attack upon democracy.
Note that many election workers in Washington State wear gloves when handing ballots. It's a requirement for workers opening return ballot envelopes in King County.
I was there when this first became a necessity, just after the turn of the millennium, when similar suspicious substances popped up in returned ballots at King Co Elections.
I well remember the fear it caused among the workers - mostly women from what you might call humble circumstances - who were doing the actual envelope and ballot process. And keep on doing their job.
May whomever is responsible be apprehended and brought to legal account for their criminal conduct and attack upon democracy.
Probably more than any other election in my lifetime, with the sole possible exception of 1997, the die is cast.
A sufficient proportion of voters have made up their minds, to the point where there is now nothing the Conservatives can do to win the coming election.
How long they spend in the wilderness depends on two things. 1. Whether Labour stuff it up 2. How right-wing the party lurches.
There’s a very real prospect that they will be out of office for a decade or more. Possibly a generation.
A generation is only 6 or 7 years according to the SNP. I suspect that it will be longer.
Having said that the underlying problems with this country are intractable and very difficult for a government to solve. We consume more than we earn. The cumulative effects of our persistent trade deficit has impoverished us and mean ever more of what we do earn belongs to those abroad.
Our refusal to face the consequences of this irresponsibility mean we blame governments for something that is collectively our fault. Starmer will also disappoint because that is already built in. There’s really not much we or he can do about it.
Starmer's not got a great chance, but he's the best chance we've got.
It's why I'm pretty sanguine about the "low expectations" thing. At some level, there's a bit of a collective recognition that we're entering a hangover and hangovers aren't meant to be fun.
I don't think any of us have taken on board how bad it will be, but that's another matter. Starmer and Reeves's job is to get us to a position where, maybe, we'll be ready to cautiously nibble some dry toast in 2028 or so.
Better that than hair of the dog, which some on the right are prescribing.
Probably more than any other election in my lifetime, with the sole possible exception of 1997, the die is cast.
A sufficient proportion of voters have made up their minds, to the point where there is now nothing the Conservatives can do to win the coming election.
How long they spend in the wilderness depends on two things. 1. Whether Labour stuff it up 2. How right-wing the party lurches.
There’s a very real prospect that they will be out of office for a decade or more. Possibly a generation.
A generation is only 6 or 7 years according to the SNP. I suspect that it will be longer.
Having said that the underlying problems with this country are intractable and very difficult for a government to solve. We consume more than we earn. The cumulative effects of our persistent trade deficit has impoverished us and mean ever more of what we do earn belongs to those abroad.
Our refusal to face the consequences of this irresponsibility mean we blame governments for something that is collectively our fault. Starmer will also disappoint because that is already built in. There’s really not much we or he can do about it.
That raises quite a few philosophical questions to me:
To what extent do politicians lead or follow? How as individuals do we change something that is 'collectively our fault'? Why do nations change their character over time? How much depends on being lucky with leaders and how much on the fundamental nature, the strengths and flaws, of the population?
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
@DougSeal will be vindicated by the triumphant return of Ms Truss, and recognised as a prophet.
When Braverman suggests there is a "double standard" in policing with far right activists versus other activists, she fails to mention the evidence that there is more planned violence by far right activists than other kinds of activists and, whilst much resource is put into monitoring and combatting Islamic terrorism, that comes from a smaller number of individuals than those engaged in violent far right activists (although admittedly far right violence does tend to be non lethal, even if there is more of it, whereas the fewer Islamic extremist terrorist actions do tend to kill more individuals).
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
Re your last paragraph. I don’t have your confidence, I’m afraid.
I think it’s pretty likely we are looking at the next LOTO. The only question for me is whether she has enough support in the parliamentary party to go through to the membership - I suspect she doesn’t now. But situations change.
Probably more than any other election in my lifetime, with the sole possible exception of 1997, the die is cast.
A sufficient proportion of voters have made up their minds, to the point where there is now nothing the Conservatives can do to win the coming election.
How long they spend in the wilderness depends on two things. 1. Whether Labour stuff it up 2. How right-wing the party lurches.
There’s a very real prospect that they will be out of office for a decade or more. Possibly a generation.
A generation is only 6 or 7 years according to the SNP. I suspect that it will be longer.
Having said that the underlying problems with this country are intractable and very difficult for a government to solve. We consume more than we earn. The cumulative effects of our persistent trade deficit has impoverished us and mean ever more of what we do earn belongs to those abroad.
Our refusal to face the consequences of this irresponsibility mean we blame governments for something that is collectively our fault. Starmer will also disappoint because that is already built in. There’s really not much we or he can do about it.
Starmer's not got a great chance, but he's the best chance we've got.
It's why I'm pretty sanguine about the "low expectations" thing. At some level, there's a bit of a collective recognition that we're entering a hangover and hangovers aren't meant to be fun.
I don't think any of us have taken on board how bad it will be, but that's another matter. Starmer and Reeves's job is to get us to a position where, maybe, we'll be ready to cautiously nibble some dry toast in 2028 or so.
Better that than hair of the dog, which some on the right are prescribing.
Oh I agree that “dry toast “ is a much better idea than further splurges of borrowing like Truss and others favour. But it will not make either Starmer or Reeves popular. The culture of entitlement runs deep.
Probably more than any other election in my lifetime, with the sole possible exception of 1997, the die is cast.
A sufficient proportion of voters have made up their minds, to the point where there is now nothing the Conservatives can do to win the coming election.
How long they spend in the wilderness depends on two things. 1. Whether Labour stuff it up 2. How right-wing the party lurches.
There’s a very real prospect that they will be out of office for a decade or more. Possibly a generation.
A generation is only 6 or 7 years according to the SNP. I suspect that it will be longer.
Having said that the underlying problems with this country are intractable and very difficult for a government to solve. We consume more than we earn. The cumulative effects of our persistent trade deficit has impoverished us and mean ever more of what we do earn belongs to those abroad.
Our refusal to face the consequences of this irresponsibility mean we blame governments for something that is collectively our fault. Starmer will also disappoint because that is already built in. There’s really not much we or he can do about it.
Starmer's not got a great chance, but he's the best chance we've got.
It's why I'm pretty sanguine about the "low expectations" thing. At some level, there's a bit of a collective recognition that we're entering a hangover and hangovers aren't meant to be fun.
I don't think any of us have taken on board how bad it will be, but that's another matter. Starmer and Reeves's job is to get us to a position where, maybe, we'll be ready to cautiously nibble some dry toast in 2028 or so.
Better that than hair of the dog, which some on the right are prescribing.
I think that a fair call, but lucky general Starmer may well be the recipient of significant benefit when the economic cycle turns, as it always does. 5 years of flatlining is not likely, and I think there will be green shoots (albeit nothing to do with Labour policy) fairly soon after the GE.
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
Re your last paragraph. I don’t have your confidence, I’m afraid.
I think it’s pretty likely we are looking at the next LOTO. The only question for me is whether she has enough support in the parliamentary party to go through to the membership - I suspect she doesn’t now. But situations change.
She doesn't have to now. It's the rump of survivors she'll need to convince. They'll be a very different constituency with different concerns. They'll all be secure in their seats for the long term for a start.
What intrigues me most about my tory friends is that 2 of the 4 I regularly post about would vote Conservative like a shot ... if Boris Johnson were leader.
I find it bewildering, bizarre, but it’s the case. They ‘still’ love him. Both are female. The third, the one whom I was hiking with this past week, thinks that what Boris did ‘wasn’t really very bad.’
Boris was a cult figure.
Part of the weird dynamics of the current situation.
It's jolly hard to deprogram someone after they have been in a cult. Alternatively, slightly less provocatively, it's very hard to persuade the victim of a confidence trick that they have been conned.
Boris conned pretty much all of us- I voted for him in London 2008/12, as did some of his other critics here. It's not until a specific something comes up that individuals conclude that he doesn't give a flying one for anyone else.
(Me? The Garden Bridge fiasco was probably the first sign, and the prorogation mess the moment to think He Must Be Stopped.)
The only surefire protection against Boris seems to have been vaccination with his type i early adulthood. I fortunately got my jabs and booster early when I stumbled upon the Bullingdon crowd at university so my lymph glands were already flooding out killer T-cells every time he appeared on telly during his Spectator years.
It seems that a number of people have long-Johnson. I assume the only cure to that is rest, and the passage of time.
So, so true. I first came across Johnsons at university. A very recognisable type. Once you meet them you are forever innoculated!
I was amused by Mark Sedwill yesterday. Typical lawyer ignorance, all three if you include the presiding judge and the one asking the questions. Reasonable worst case? Nonsense, all three thought. Why not just feel the truth in your water? None of them they know what science is designed for. Awkward facts - they just get in the way and complicate things.
Science is there to remove subjective bias and thats exactly what solicitors and politicians rely on. However, RWC scenarios come with caveats - you know those things relegated to footnotes which are too much bother and too complicated to read or understand.
We've relegated the Covid enquiry to seven-year-olds and any innumerates with a public-school education.
Did Whitty and Vallance labour in vain.
Some of our finest lawyers such as Denning and Mackay of Clashfern were serious mathematicians. I am not sure that tradition persists but numeracy rather than numerology should have been the minimum criteria for the Covid Inquiries both north and south of the border.
When Braverman suggests there is a "double standard" in policing with far right activists versus other activists, she fails to mention the evidence that there is more planned violence by far right activists than other kinds of activists and, whilst much resource is put into monitoring and combatting Islamic terrorism, that comes from a smaller number of individuals than those engaged in violent far right activists (although admittedly far right violence does tend to be non lethal, even if there is more of it, whereas the fewer Islamic extremist terrorist actions do tend to kill more individuals).
On the whole I would focus less on drunks wanting to fight other drunks and more on the few who want to blow up young people and children listening to not very good songs.
More significantly though, Braverman is becoming a nuisance to those who would like the Tory party to do the hard work of becoming once again the centrist, Christian Democrat competent party aimed at the votes of normal people.
Labour 47 Conservative 23 Liberal Democrat 10 Reform 8 Green 7 SNP 3
64% for LLG is one of their highest recently. But what I really want to see is Lib Dem- Tory crossover and we’re still a way from that.
The other thing I’m looking out for is RefCon dropping below 30%. 5 or 6 of that Ref total is going back blue come the election, to only 2-3% of Green returning to Labour.
Tories now on similar polling to the Lib Dems in the mid to late 2000s. But YG has been one of the worst for them.
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
The Tories campaign slogan could be MEGA - Make England Great Again.
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
Re your last paragraph. I don’t have your confidence, I’m afraid.
I think it’s pretty likely we are looking at the next LOTO. The only question for me is whether she has enough support in the parliamentary party to go through to the membership - I suspect she doesn’t now. But situations change.
She doesn't have to now. It's the rump of survivors she'll need to convince. They'll be a very different constituency with different concerns. They'll all be secure in their seats for the long term for a start.
"Rump of survivors" amazingly apt for CUP of the near future.
Probably more than any other election in my lifetime, with the sole possible exception of 1997, the die is cast.
A sufficient proportion of voters have made up their minds, to the point where there is now nothing the Conservatives can do to win the coming election.
How long they spend in the wilderness depends on two things. 1. Whether Labour stuff it up 2. How right-wing the party lurches.
There’s a very real prospect that they will be out of office for a decade or more. Possibly a generation.
A generation is only 6 or 7 years according to the SNP. I suspect that it will be longer.
Having said that the underlying problems with this country are intractable and very difficult for a government to solve. We consume more than we earn. The cumulative effects of our persistent trade deficit has impoverished us and mean ever more of what we do earn belongs to those abroad.
Our refusal to face the consequences of this irresponsibility mean we blame governments for something that is collectively our fault. Starmer will also disappoint because that is already built in. There’s really not much we or he can do about it.
Starmer's not got a great chance, but he's the best chance we've got.
It's why I'm pretty sanguine about the "low expectations" thing. At some level, there's a bit of a collective recognition that we're entering a hangover and hangovers aren't meant to be fun.
I don't think any of us have taken on board how bad it will be, but that's another matter. Starmer and Reeves's job is to get us to a position where, maybe, we'll be ready to cautiously nibble some dry toast in 2028 or so.
Better that than hair of the dog, which some on the right are prescribing.
I think that a fair call, but lucky general Starmer may well be the recipient of significant benefit when the economic cycle turns, as it always does. 5 years of flatlining is not likely, and I think there will be green shoots (albeit nothing to do with Labour policy) fairly soon after the GE.
Yes this seems reasonable. Not much joy in 2024 or 2025 as the increased interest rates have an impact.
Inflation may well/is quite likely to return towards 2% but not until 2026. Maybe some reduction in interest rates by 2026 although probably to a 3% ish long term level not the 0.5% which we had for so many years which was far too long and caused a lot of the problems we have today due to over spending/borrowing.
Moderate inflation + realistic interest rates to provide an environment for economic recovery. Maybe even room for Rachel to provide us with a tax cut in the pre election 2029 budget??
What intrigues me most about my tory friends is that 2 of the 4 I regularly post about would vote Conservative like a shot ... if Boris Johnson were leader.
I find it bewildering, bizarre, but it’s the case. They ‘still’ love him. Both are female. The third, the one whom I was hiking with this past week, thinks that what Boris did ‘wasn’t really very bad.’
Boris was a cult figure.
Part of the weird dynamics of the current situation.
It's jolly hard to deprogram someone after they have been in a cult. Alternatively, slightly less provocatively, it's very hard to persuade the victim of a confidence trick that they have been conned.
Boris conned pretty much all of us- I voted for him in London 2008/12, as did some of his other critics here. It's not until a specific something comes up that individuals conclude that he doesn't give a flying one for anyone else.
(Me? The Garden Bridge fiasco was probably the first sign, and the prorogation mess the moment to think He Must Be Stopped.)
The only surefire protection against Boris seems to have been vaccination with his type i early adulthood. I fortunately got my jabs and booster early when I stumbled upon the Bullingdon crowd at university so my lymph glands were already flooding out killer T-cells every time he appeared on telly during his Spectator years.
It seems that a number of people have long-Johnson. I assume the only cure to that is rest, and the passage of time.
Just how long is "long-Johnson"? Enquiring minds want to know!
What intrigues me most about my tory friends is that 2 of the 4 I regularly post about would vote Conservative like a shot ... if Boris Johnson were leader.
I find it bewildering, bizarre, but it’s the case. They ‘still’ love him. Both are female. The third, the one whom I was hiking with this past week, thinks that what Boris did ‘wasn’t really very bad.’
Boris was a cult figure.
Part of the weird dynamics of the current situation.
It's jolly hard to deprogram someone after they have been in a cult. Alternatively, slightly less provocatively, it's very hard to persuade the victim of a confidence trick that they have been conned.
Boris conned pretty much all of us- I voted for him in London 2008/12, as did some of his other critics here. It's not until a specific something comes up that individuals conclude that he doesn't give a flying one for anyone else.
(Me? The Garden Bridge fiasco was probably the first sign, and the prorogation mess the moment to think He Must Be Stopped.)
The only surefire protection against Boris seems to have been vaccination with his type i early adulthood. I fortunately got my jabs and booster early when I stumbled upon the Bullingdon crowd at university so my lymph glands were already flooding out killer T-cells every time he appeared on telly during his Spectator years.
It seems that a number of people have long-Johnson. I assume the only cure to that is rest, and the passage of time.
So, so true. I first came across Johnsons at university. A very recognisable type. Once you meet them you are forever innoculated!
And the thing I remember most is how outwardly friendly they seemed on first meeting. Cheerful, full of laughs, clubbable in that first week or so as freshers. They say all sorts of nice things with no intention ever of following up on them. But then comes the hardening - they simply return back into the cliques they arrived with, and have this way of looking through you. They exist in parallel to everyone else, as if in a different dimension.
If you’re, for want of a better word, a Charles Ryder in that situation then I think you either take the plover’s egg on day one and attach yourself to the culture, or you find yourself rejecting it.
Probably more than any other election in my lifetime, with the sole possible exception of 1997, the die is cast.
A sufficient proportion of voters have made up their minds, to the point where there is now nothing the Conservatives can do to win the coming election.
How long they spend in the wilderness depends on two things. 1. Whether Labour stuff it up 2. How right-wing the party lurches.
There’s a very real prospect that they will be out of office for a decade or more. Possibly a generation.
A generation is only 6 or 7 years according to the SNP. I suspect that it will be longer.
Having said that the underlying problems with this country are intractable and very difficult for a government to solve. We consume more than we earn. The cumulative effects of our persistent trade deficit has impoverished us and mean ever more of what we do earn belongs to those abroad.
Our refusal to face the consequences of this irresponsibility mean we blame governments for something that is collectively our fault. Starmer will also disappoint because that is already built in. There’s really not much we or he can do about it.
That raises quite a few philosophical questions to me:
To what extent do politicians lead or follow? How as individuals do we change something that is 'collectively our fault'? Why do nations change their character over time? How much depends on being lucky with leaders and how much on the fundamental nature, the strengths and flaws, of the population?
I agree it raises complicated questions.
In my view the job of politicians is to enhance and promote the long term interests and strengths of the country. This will usually not lead to short term popularity. Thatcher famously said that if her government was ahead in opinion polls mid term they weren’t doing enough. She is possibly the only politician in my lifetime (arguably early Wilson but I was too young to judge) who took that job seriously. Most just want to be loved (Blair and Boris being the most egregious examples).
Promoting the long term interests usually involves creating the conditions and capacities for success. That can be housing, infrastructure, education, a tax code that encourages investment, savings and capital creation, it can be a variety of things but it needs to address our weaknesses and challenges.
I don’t see much of that in the current government. I see even less in Labour.
Victory will be ever sweeter in the end. Or maybe just for the lawyers
You'll be delighted to know that this weekend I am doing a thread entitled 'Why lawyers are awesome'.
The many victims of the Post Office scandal might disagree.
(Yes, there were plenty of my own profession disgracing themselves at the Post Office too, but I don’t spend all day saying that IT consultants are awesome, far from it.)
This thread has actual betting implications.
After the Hillsborough disaster and subsequent investigation, I thought nothing would ever shock me about cover ups, but the Post Office scandal has managed it.
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
Re your last paragraph. I don’t have your confidence, I’m afraid.
I think it’s pretty likely we are looking at the next LOTO. The only question for me is whether she has enough support in the parliamentary party to go through to the membership - I suspect she doesn’t now. But situations change.
She doesn't have to now. It's the rump of survivors she'll need to convince. They'll be a very different constituency with different concerns. They'll all be secure in their seats for the long term for a start.
Does anyone publish a list of the safest Tory seats, with the candidate? Our constituency Dorset North is about the 19th safest, and Simon Hoare who is I believe standing again is a solid One Nation Tory.
(Mind you, three of the top 10 safest Tory seats from 2019 are now LD but I presume they will probably revert at the next GE.)
Tom Winsor, former HM chief inspector of constabulary, is on @BBCr4today saying @SuellaBraverman has broken the spirit and letter of the convention that Home Secretary should never question the operational integrity of the police. @RishiSunak now facing huge pressure to sack her
If you recall, Braverman's team briefed the media that she had told Essicks Police to cease and desist their action against the Gollywog pub. Home Office officials were appalled by the breach of protocol and contacted Essicks PD to apologise. Only to be told that Braverman was lying and no such instructions had been given.
She has been dog-whistling racism for quite a while now.
Like Trump re: infamous, and murderous, "Unite the Right" neo-Nazi, KKK, etc. jamboree.
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
Re your last paragraph. I don’t have your confidence, I’m afraid.
I think it’s pretty likely we are looking at the next LOTO. The only question for me is whether she has enough support in the parliamentary party to go through to the membership - I suspect she doesn’t now. But situations change.
She doesn't have to now. It's the rump of survivors she'll need to convince. They'll be a very different constituency with different concerns. They'll all be secure in their seats for the long term for a start.
Does anyone publish a list of the safest Tory seats, with the candidate? Our constituency Dorset North is about the 19th safest, and Simon Hoare who is I believe standing again is a solid One Nation Tory.
(Mind you, three of the top 10 safest Tory seats from 2019 are now LD but I presume they will probably revert at the next GE.)
I’m sure I have seen something about the safer Tory MPs generally skewing further right than the parliamentary party in general, but I admit I can’t recall where.
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
Re your last paragraph. I don’t have your confidence, I’m afraid.
I think it’s pretty likely we are looking at the next LOTO. The only question for me is whether she has enough support in the parliamentary party to go through to the membership - I suspect she doesn’t now. But situations change.
She doesn't have to now. It's the rump of survivors she'll need to convince. They'll be a very different constituency with different concerns. They'll all be secure in their seats for the long term for a start.
Does anyone publish a list of the safest Tory seats, with the candidate? Our constituency Dorset North is about the 19th safest, and Simon Hoare who is I believe standing again is a solid One Nation Tory.
(Mind you, three of the top 10 safest Tory seats from 2019 are now LD but I presume they will probably revert at the next GE.)
On Braverman, it seems to me that one of the following two scenarios applies:
1. Her recent sayings and writings have the tacit approval of Sunak. In which case, one can draw one's own conclusions about Sunak, and it isn't pretty.
2. She has gone completely off piste, and is a law unto herself.
If 2. above applies, Sunak should take the risk and sack her. While that would not go down well with some/many in his own party, I think it would with the general public as it would burnish his credentials as a decisive leader. There's no doubt that Starmer would wield the knife in parallel circumstances.
I'm sure there are some eggs good amongst lawyers, but the Yanks used to say that lawyers could be used instead of rats as experimental subjects in drug trials because there are more of them, and people prefer the rats.
I'm sure that's an exaggeration as you and Mr Eagles add a lot to this blog, but rats have a major advantage - they don't vomit back an oral, experimental drug.
Would any alternative Tory leader in parliament be doing much better than Sunak? I doubt it. The mood is for change and the Conservatives are unlikely to see any significant poll boost until Labour are in government and have to deal with the economy
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
Re your last paragraph. I don’t have your confidence, I’m afraid.
I think it’s pretty likely we are looking at the next LOTO. The only question for me is whether she has enough support in the parliamentary party to go through to the membership - I suspect she doesn’t now. But situations change.
It will depend on who is elected at the next GE, and whether there will be a bigger or smaller swing against the crazies as opposed to the one nation Tories.
Would any alternative Tory leader in parliament be doing much better than Sunak? I doubt it. The mood is for change and the Conservatives are unlikely to see any significant poll boost until Labour are in government and have to deal with the economy
Well maybe, but the Conservatives actually have to have some policies and a vision for the country. At present they have neither.
I was amused by Mark Sedwill yesterday. Typical lawyer ignorance, all three if you include the presiding judge and the one asking the questions. Reasonable worst case? Nonsense, all three thought. Why not just feel the truth in your water? None of them they know what science is designed for. Awkward facts - they just get in the way and complicate things.
Science is there to remove subjective bias and thats exactly what solicitors and politicians rely on. However, RWC scenarios come with caveats - you know those things relegated to footnotes which are too much bother and too complicated to read or understand.
We've relegated the Covid enquiry to seven-year-olds and any innumerates with a public-school education.
Did Whitty and Vallance labour in vain.
Some of our finest lawyers such as Denning and Mackay of Clashfern were serious mathematicians. I am not sure that tradition persists but numeracy rather than numerology should have been the minimum criteria for the Covid Inquiries both north and south of the border.
They will need numeracy to count all those WhatsApp messages.
Would any alternative Tory leader in parliament be doing much better than Sunak? I doubt it. The mood is for change and the Conservatives are unlikely to see any significant poll boost until Labour are in government and have to deal with the economy
How far we have come from the mood of December 2019 when we all thought it would take two GEs for Labour to fight back. Did anyone predict it?
(I mean, apart from Leon, obvs, who was bound to have seen this coming.)
I'm sure there are some eggs good amongst lawyers, but the Yanks used to say that lawyers could be used instead of rats as experimental subjects in drug trials because there are more of them, and people prefer the rats.
I'm sure that's an exaggeration as you and Mr Eagles add a lot to this blog, but rats have a major advantage - they don't vomit back an oral, experimental drug.
You’ve forgotten the punch line of that calumny: there are some things that rats just won’t do!
On Braverman, it seems to me that one of the following two scenarios applies:
1. Her recent sayings and writings have the tacit approval of Sunak. In which case, one can draw one's own conclusions about Sunak, and it isn't pretty.
2. She has gone completely off piste, and is a law unto herself.
If 2. above applies, Sunak should take the risk and sack her. While that would not go down well with some/many in his own party, I think it would with the general public as it would burnish his credentials as a decisive leader. There's no doubt that Starmer would wield the knife in parallel circumstances.
Unless things have completely broken down in government (always a chance with this lot) then the article surely will have gone through No.10 first, in which case 1 applies. If it didn’t there’s immediate cause for 2 because it undermines collective responsibility.
I disagree with Nadine (horaay!) that this is a ploy by Braverman to get herself sacked. In fact, I think she is gambling very much on the fact that she won’t be sacked - hence legitimising her.
Rishi has always had a blind spot with Braverman, because she was instrumental in bringing the ERG and the pro-Truss camps on board in order to get him his coronation. Although it would be utter lunacy, there is it has to be said a real potential that we could see another Tory civil war starting if he sacks her.
Labour 47 Conservative 23 Liberal Democrat 10 Reform 8 Green 7 SNP 3
After all that froth about being anti ULEZ being a bust, it seems as if the no-mark Conservative mayoral candidate is outperforming the national polls. In London. Despite being effectively a paper candidate nobody has ever heard of.
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
Re your last paragraph. I don’t have your confidence, I’m afraid.
I think it’s pretty likely we are looking at the next LOTO. The only question for me is whether she has enough support in the parliamentary party to go through to the membership - I suspect she doesn’t now. But situations change.
She doesn't have to now. It's the rump of survivors she'll need to convince. They'll be a very different constituency with different concerns. They'll all be secure in their seats for the long term for a start.
Does anyone publish a list of the safest Tory seats, with the candidate? Our constituency Dorset North is about the 19th safest, and Simon Hoare who is I believe standing again is a solid One Nation Tory.
(Mind you, three of the top 10 safest Tory seats from 2019 are now LD but I presume they will probably revert at the next GE.)
You are Billy Bragg and I claim my £2.4m
?? Genuinely mystified by that post, do please enlighten me.
Victory will be ever sweeter in the end. Or maybe just for the lawyers
You'll be delighted to know that this weekend I am doing a thread entitled 'Why lawyers are awesome'.
The many victims of the Post Office scandal might disagree.
(Yes, there were plenty of my own profession disgracing themselves at the Post Office too, but I don’t spend all day saying that IT consultants are awesome, far from it.)
This thread has actual betting implications.
After the Hillsborough disaster and subsequent investigation, I thought nothing would ever shock me about cover ups, but the Post Office scandal has managed it.
For once though, the Police are in the clear.
I'm quite certain that when it came to covering up and avoiding letting the defence know about information pertinent to the case, the Police will have been involved.
Sunak’s going out with a whimper in this final year of government seems to ensure the party will turn even further right after the election. The narrative is being set up, with Braverman doing much of the heavy lifting, that he’s too weak and centrist. We even have Lucky Guy here claiming he’s the plant of a social democratic coup. So the next leader will be the next chapter in the party’s drift towards MAGA. So overnight I’ve changed my mind on Cleverly. I’m not sure he’s capable to going far right enough with a straight face. He’s more of a bog standard Thatcherite.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
Re your last paragraph. I don’t have your confidence, I’m afraid.
I think it’s pretty likely we are looking at the next LOTO. The only question for me is whether she has enough support in the parliamentary party to go through to the membership - I suspect she doesn’t now. But situations change.
She doesn't have to now. It's the rump of survivors she'll need to convince. They'll be a very different constituency with different concerns. They'll all be secure in their seats for the long term for a start.
"Rump of survivors" amazingly apt for CUP of the near future.
Labour 47 Conservative 23 Liberal Democrat 10 Reform 8 Green 7 SNP 3
64% for LLG is one of their highest recently. But what I really want to see is Lib Dem- Tory crossover and we’re still a way from that.
The other thing I’m looking out for is RefCon dropping below 30%. 5 or 6 of that Ref total is going back blue come the election, to only 2-3% of Green returning to Labour.
Tories now on similar polling to the Lib Dems in the mid to late 2000s. But YG has been one of the worst for them.
Why makes you so sure that that many Ref will turn out and vote Con at the next GE? Why wouldn't many of them stick with Ref/abstain/vote someone for else?
Meanwhile if one is not convinced enough that Scotland is crap (not really a problem on PB) the media is helpfully doing whatever is the opposite of polishing a turd.
On Braverman, it seems to me that one of the following two scenarios applies:
1. Her recent sayings and writings have the tacit approval of Sunak. In which case, one can draw one's own conclusions about Sunak, and it isn't pretty.
2. She has gone completely off piste, and is a law unto herself.
If 2. above applies, Sunak should take the risk and sack her. While that would not go down well with some/many in his own party, I think it would with the general public as it would burnish his credentials as a decisive leader. There's no doubt that Starmer would wield the knife in parallel circumstances.
Poll on Sky news today gives 50,% backing for the match to be banned v 34% wanting it to go ahead. I loathe Braverman and would prefer her out of government but there would seem to be significant public support for her views. With Tories polling in the low 20's some level of disconnect here .
Meanwhile if one is not convinced enough that Scotland is crap (not really a problem on PB) the media is helpfully doing whatever is the opposite of polishing a turd.
The state broadcaster was at it as well.
As the Gaza hospital incident demonstrated, a great deal of "news" is down to the which intern is reading what Twatter feed.
Meanwhile if one is not convinced enough that Scotland is crap (not really a problem on PB) the media is helpfully doing whatever is the opposite of polishing a turd.
Meanwhile if one is not convinced enough that Scotland is crap (not really a problem on PB) the media is helpfully doing whatever is the opposite of polishing a turd.
The state broadcaster was at it as well.
As the Gaza hospital incident demonstrated, a great deal of "news" is down to the which intern is reading what Twatter feed.
Maybe, but that's a different problem from deliberately choosing a completely unconnected photo to heighten a story.
I'm sure there are some eggs good amongst lawyers, but the Yanks used to say that lawyers could be used instead of rats as experimental subjects in drug trials because there are more of them, and people prefer the rats.
I'm sure that's an exaggeration as you and Mr Eagles add a lot to this blog, but rats have a major advantage - they don't vomit back an oral, experimental drug.
You’ve forgotten the punch line of that calumny: there are some things that rats just won’t do!
No rat has ever volunteered to work for Trump, for example.
On Braverman, it seems to me that one of the following two scenarios applies:
1. Her recent sayings and writings have the tacit approval of Sunak. In which case, one can draw one's own conclusions about Sunak, and it isn't pretty.
2. She has gone completely off piste, and is a law unto herself.
If 2. above applies, Sunak should take the risk and sack her. While that would not go down well with some/many in his own party, I think it would with the general public as it would burnish his credentials as a decisive leader. There's no doubt that Starmer would wield the knife in parallel circumstances.
Poll on Sky news today gives 50,% backing for the match to be banned v 34% wanting it to go ahead. I loathe Braverman and would prefer her out of government but there would seem to be significant public support for her views. With Tories polling in the low 20's some level of disconnect here .
And this is exactly why we should all be paying attention to what is happening with Braverman.
She is in the early stages of creating a reactionary political movement similar to MAGA. It is still to early to tell if she will succeed, but let’s not kid ourselves that she’s just another run of the mill right wing Tory ERG no-hoper.
Probably more than any other election in my lifetime, with the sole possible exception of 1997, the die is cast.
A sufficient proportion of voters have made up their minds, to the point where there is now nothing the Conservatives can do to win the coming election.
How long they spend in the wilderness depends on two things. 1. Whether Labour stuff it up 2. How right-wing the party lurches.
There’s a very real prospect that they will be out of office for a decade or more. Possibly a generation.
A generation is only 6 or 7 years according to the SNP. I suspect that it will be longer.
Having said that the underlying problems with this country are intractable and very difficult for a government to solve. We consume more than we earn. The cumulative effects of our persistent trade deficit has impoverished us and mean ever more of what we do earn belongs to those abroad.
Our refusal to face the consequences of this irresponsibility mean we blame governments for something that is collectively our fault. Starmer will also disappoint because that is already built in. There’s really not much we or he can do about it.
Starmer's not got a great chance, but he's the best chance we've got.
It's why I'm pretty sanguine about the "low expectations" thing. At some level, there's a bit of a collective recognition that we're entering a hangover and hangovers aren't meant to be fun.
I don't think any of us have taken on board how bad it will be, but that's another matter. Starmer and Reeves's job is to get us to a position where, maybe, we'll be ready to cautiously nibble some dry toast in 2028 or so.
Better that than hair of the dog, which some on the right are prescribing.
I think that a fair call, but lucky general Starmer may well be the recipient of significant benefit when the economic cycle turns, as it always does. 5 years of flatlining is not likely, and I think there will be green shoots (albeit nothing to do with Labour policy) fairly soon after the GE.
Yes this seems reasonable. Not much joy in 2024 or 2025 as the increased interest rates have an impact.
Inflation may well/is quite likely to return towards 2% but not until 2026. Maybe some reduction in interest rates by 2026 although probably to a 3% ish long term level not the 0.5% which we had for so many years which was far too long and caused a lot of the problems we have today due to over spending/borrowing.
Moderate inflation + realistic interest rates to provide an environment for economic recovery. Maybe even room for Rachel to provide us with a tax cut in the pre election 2029 budget??
The fact that we had the lowest interest rates since the Bank of England hung up their shingle, was a sign that things were deeply weird in the economy. And that they were certain not to last.
I nearly persuaded my wife to go with a mortgage product I'd found - a portable, fixed rate for the remaining term of the mortgage. So you could move it from one property to another. Lock in the lowest rates ever....
Would any alternative Tory leader in parliament be doing much better than Sunak? I doubt it. The mood is for change and the Conservatives are unlikely to see any significant poll boost until Labour are in government and have to deal with the economy
How far we have come from the mood of December 2019 when we all thought it would take two GEs for Labour to fight back. Did anyone predict it?
(I mean, apart from Leon, obvs, who was bound to have seen this coming.)
We are 13 years into a Conservative government. Only one party has won a general election after that long in power in the last 100 years, Major's Tories in 1992.
On Braverman, it seems to me that one of the following two scenarios applies:
1. Her recent sayings and writings have the tacit approval of Sunak. In which case, one can draw one's own conclusions about Sunak, and it isn't pretty.
2. She has gone completely off piste, and is a law unto herself.
If 2. above applies, Sunak should take the risk and sack her. While that would not go down well with some/many in his own party, I think it would with the general public as it would burnish his credentials as a decisive leader. There's no doubt that Starmer would wield the knife in parallel circumstances.
Poll on Sky news today gives 50,% backing for the match to be banned v 34% wanting it to go ahead. I loathe Braverman and would prefer her out of government but there would seem to be significant public support for her views. With Tories polling in the low 20's some level of disconnect here .
I don't doubt that more people would want pro-Palestinian marches banned than let them go ahead. However, the same would be true of lots of different protest activities - eco-warrior stuff, for example. But the right to protest should be protected regardless of the extent to which a specific protest is popular (or not) with the public, surely?
Would any alternative Tory leader in parliament be doing much better than Sunak? I doubt it. The mood is for change and the Conservatives are unlikely to see any significant poll boost until Labour are in government and have to deal with the economy
How far we have come from the mood of December 2019 when we all thought it would take two GEs for Labour to fight back. Did anyone predict it?
(I mean, apart from Leon, obvs, who was bound to have seen this coming.)
Sorry - but I said at the time Bozo would be the last ever Tory PM.. Now granted I'm wrong there because Bozo didn't last all 5 years but the rest is true - after the next election the Tory party will never be in power again...
Would any alternative Tory leader in parliament be doing much better than Sunak? I doubt it. The mood is for change and the Conservatives are unlikely to see any significant poll boost until Labour are in government and have to deal with the economy
Well maybe, but the Conservatives actually have to have some policies and a vision for the country. At present they have neither.
Starmer doesn't either particularly, it is cost of living that is giving him a clear poll lead but if he wins then he will have to deal with that or else voters will start to blame him too
Meanwhile if one is not convinced enough that Scotland is crap (not really a problem on PB) the media is helpfully doing whatever is the opposite of polishing a turd.
The state broadcaster was at it as well.
As the Gaza hospital incident demonstrated, a great deal of "news" is down to the which intern is reading what Twatter feed.
This from the same news organisation that has its own fact checking service, the pompously named BBCVerify.
We have two immovable objects: the gargantuan Labour lead, and the unwillingness of the Tories to remove Sunak.
Something will have to give, and I don't think it will be the Labour lead. I keep reading political hacks quoting Tory MPs saying that Sunak has given up. Question is whether the Tory MPs have also given up.
One last roll of the dice boys and girls. If only Suella was Prime Minister. That would show the wokies who is boss...
Sunak has a real problem with Braverman, her most ardent supporters are the very core of Tory support. But now she's starting to push away the right of centre but not that far right Nick Ferrari types (He referenced it directly on his show this morning). Her words against the homeless and attacks on the police recently are frankly unbecoming of a Home Secretary; and views aside she's not been particularly good at her current job. Can't sack her, can't not sack her.
Victory will be ever sweeter in the end. Or maybe just for the lawyers
You'll be delighted to know that this weekend I am doing a thread entitled 'Why lawyers are awesome'.
The many victims of the Post Office scandal might disagree.
(Yes, there were plenty of my own profession disgracing themselves at the Post Office too, but I don’t spend all day saying that IT consultants are awesome, far from it.)
If the Inquiry continues in its current vein and its findings are acted upon, we could see hundreds being prosecuted - not just the PO Board but countless middle managers, lawyers, and IT consultants. The dishonesty seems to have been widespread and endemic.
It’s really quite astonishing, one of the worst scandals in my lifetime. The only one that comes close in recent years is the Rotherham rapes, and Hillsborough before that.
Nick Wallis’s book “The Great Post Office Scandal”, is well worth reading for anyone who has a personal or professional interest in the case.
Victory will be ever sweeter in the end. Or maybe just for the lawyers
You'll be delighted to know that this weekend I am doing a thread entitled 'Why lawyers are awesome'.
The many victims of the Post Office scandal might disagree.
(Yes, there were plenty of my own profession disgracing themselves at the Post Office too, but I don’t spend all day saying that IT consultants are awesome, far from it.)
If the Inquiry continues in its current vein and its findings are acted upon, we could see hundreds being prosecuted - not just the PO Board but countless middle managers, lawyers, and IT consultants. The dishonesty seems to have been widespread and endemic.
It’s really quite astonishing, one of the worst scandals in my lifetime. The only one that comes close in recent years is the Rotherham rapes, and Hillsborough before that.
Nick Wallis’s book “The Great Post Office Scandal”, is well worth reading for anyone who has a personal or professional interest in the case.
On Braverman, it seems to me that one of the following two scenarios applies:
1. Her recent sayings and writings have the tacit approval of Sunak. In which case, one can draw one's own conclusions about Sunak, and it isn't pretty.
2. She has gone completely off piste, and is a law unto herself.
If 2. above applies, Sunak should take the risk and sack her. While that would not go down well with some/many in his own party, I think it would with the general public as it would burnish his credentials as a decisive leader. There's no doubt that Starmer would wield the knife in parallel circumstances.
Poll on Sky news today gives 50,% backing for the match to be banned v 34% wanting it to go ahead. I loathe Braverman and would prefer her out of government but there would seem to be significant public support for her views. With Tories polling in the low 20's some level of disconnect here .
I don't doubt that more people would want pro-Palestinian marches banned than let them go ahead. However, the same would be true of lots of different protest activities - eco-warrior stuff, for example. But the right to protest should be protected regardless of the extent to which a specific protest is popular (or not) with the public, surely?
I don't disagree - but I think you miss the point.
Meanwhile if one is not convinced enough that Scotland is crap (not really a problem on PB) the media is helpfully doing whatever is the opposite of polishing a turd.
The state broadcaster was at it as well.
As the Gaza hospital incident demonstrated, a great deal of "news" is down to the which intern is reading what Twatter feed.
Maybe, but that's a different problem from deliberately choosing a completely unconnected photo to heighten a story.
The photo was undoubtedly chosen with a search of a photo database by some random junior, based on a couple of keywords. It's of a piece with getting your news from a Twatter feed.
It’s hard to see this changjng unless something out of the ordinary happens. For all the talk about labours problems over Israel and Gaza the polls have not gone against labour, but slightly in their favour.
I don’t think it’s like 97:and there is a tidal wave of enthusiasm for SKS but I do feel people have had enough of the Tories and want a change. Around 150 seat losses and a workable labour majority is what I’m expecting.
Good morning Taz. I was with a tory friend the other day and he was coming out with the:
‘There’s no enthusiasm for SKS’ line. Also: ‘Nothing will change under Labour. They don’t stand for anything. There’s so little room for manoeuvre.’ And even: ‘All the great achievements in post-war Britain came from Margaret Thatcher.’
It’s kind bemusing to me to hear these sort of tropes trotted out once more. They are the sort of last breaths of the embittered dying beast.
It’s true that SKS doesn’t engender huge enthusiasm but I don’t think that’s terribly surprising given what a shit time it has been over the past 4-5 years. People are generally very jaded.
It was easy to be elated by Tony Blair in the run-up to 1997. Things were good. The economy was in great shape. People had fun mocking the tory sleaze.
Circumstances this time are radically worse. The tory party has managed to outdo itself in stuffing everything up: staggeringly so. On top of which they have been hit by a series of external events that have knocked them, the country, and even the world sideways.
So against the ‘no enthusiasm for SKS’ meme I set the ‘things are far more shit now’ corrective.
One thing my tory friend and I did agree on: negativity is a FAR more powerful voting motivator than enthusiasm. Yes people warmed to Tony’s charm but it’s raw anger that will propel people into the ballot box this time.
The tories are in for a drubbing.
Congratulations on your considerable congregation of conversationally convenient conservative contacts
Victory will be ever sweeter in the end. Or maybe just for the lawyers
You'll be delighted to know that this weekend I am doing a thread entitled 'Why lawyers are awesome'.
The many victims of the Post Office scandal might disagree.
(Yes, there were plenty of my own profession disgracing themselves at the Post Office too, but I don’t spend all day saying that IT consultants are awesome, far from it.)
If the Inquiry continues in its current vein and its findings are acted upon, we could see hundreds being prosecuted - not just the PO Board but countless middle managers, lawyers, and IT consultants. The dishonesty seems to have been widespread and endemic.
"If".
Lots of people should be prosecuted. Or lose their professional standing. And jobs. And honours. Etc.,. Etc.,.
But I doubt it. First, because the inquiry will take an age to report precisely because there has been so much obstruction that witnesses are going to have to be reinterviewed and we can have no confidence whatsoever that even now we have been provided with all the relevant material. And, second, the chances of any government acting on its findings are vanishingly small. Ultimately, the PO's failings are down to the government who is - and always - has been the sole shareholder and who has completely failed to ensure that it was and is being properly managed.
The PO is currently obstructing the inquiry. That could be stopped overnight if its owner - the government - told it to to.
The inquiry is simply an attempt to fob off everyone concerned until everyone gets bored, dies etc and by then the police will do some pretend review taking another few years and then regretfully state that not enough evidence to prosecute, blah blah.
Victory will be ever sweeter in the end. Or maybe just for the lawyers
You'll be delighted to know that this weekend I am doing a thread entitled 'Why lawyers are awesome'.
The many victims of the Post Office scandal might disagree.
(Yes, there were plenty of my own profession disgracing themselves at the Post Office too, but I don’t spend all day saying that IT consultants are awesome, far from it.)
If the Inquiry continues in its current vein and its findings are acted upon, we could see hundreds being prosecuted - not just the PO Board but countless middle managers, lawyers, and IT consultants. The dishonesty seems to have been widespread and endemic.
"If".
Lots of people should be prosecuted. Or lose their professional standing. And jobs. And honours. Etc.,. Etc.,.
But I doubt it. First, because the inquiry will take an age to report precisely because there has been so much obstruction that witnesses are going to have to be reinterviewed and we can have no confidence whatsoever that even now we have been provided with all the relevant material. And, second, the chances of any government acting on its findings are vanishingly small. Ultimately, the PO's failings are down to the government who is - and always - has been the sole shareholder and who has completely failed to ensure that it was and is being properly managed.
The PO is currently obstructing the inquiry. That could be stopped overnight if its owner - the government - told it to to.
The inquiry is simply an attempt to fob off everyone concerned until everyone gets bored, dies etc and by then the police will do some pretend review taking another few years and then regretfully state that not enough evidence to prosecute, blah blah.
Yes Minister wasn't an instruction manual. But at times...
Victory will be ever sweeter in the end. Or maybe just for the lawyers
You'll be delighted to know that this weekend I am doing a thread entitled 'Why lawyers are awesome'.
The many victims of the Post Office scandal might disagree.
(Yes, there were plenty of my own profession disgracing themselves at the Post Office too, but I don’t spend all day saying that IT consultants are awesome, far from it.)
If the Inquiry continues in its current vein and its findings are acted upon, we could see hundreds being prosecuted - not just the PO Board but countless middle managers, lawyers, and IT consultants. The dishonesty seems to have been widespread and endemic.
It’s really quite astonishing, one of the worst scandals in my lifetime. The only one that comes close in recent years is the Rotherham rapes, and Hillsborough before that.
Nick Wallis’s book “The Great Post Office Scandal”, is well worth reading for anyone who has a personal or professional interest in the case.
does an act or series of acts; which has or have a tendency to pervert; and which is or are intended to pervert; the course of public justice. The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine. The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or proceedings have started or are about to start. In R v Cotter and Others [2002] EWCA Crim 1033 it was held that where the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove that she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested. The offence of perverting the course of justice is sometimes referred to as "attempting to pervert the course of justice". It does not matter whether or not the acts result in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done. The words "attempting to" should not appear in the charge. It is charged contrary to common law, not the Criminal Attempts Act 1981: R v Williams 92 Cr. App. R. 158 CA. The offence of perverting the course of justice overlaps with a number of other statutory offences. ..
Sunak has a real problem with Braverman, her most ardent supporters are the very core of Tory support. But now she's starting to push away the right of centre but not that far right Nick Ferrari types (He referenced it directly on his show this morning). Her words against the homeless and attacks on the police recently are frankly unbecoming of a Home Secretary; and views aside she's not been particularly good at her current job. Can't sack her, can't not sack her.
He did a deal with her to secure the leadership and I wonder if he really had to. Obviously he thought he did.
There was an assault against democracy in Washington State yesterday.
The day after the 2023 general election, election workers in four counties opened incoming mail that contained some kind of white powDer. Offices were evacuated, and ballot processing and vote tabulating were suspended awaiting first responders and HAZMAT teams. In King County (Seattle) preliminary tests indicated presence of fentanyl; in Pierce County (Tacoma) substance tested as baking soda.
As a result of the disruption,King County Election added less than 26k ballots to Wed updated cumulative vote count, instead of over 80k as expected that morning; in Spokane County ballot processing was suspended for the day.
Note there were no statewide candidates or measures on 2023 WA general election ballots. Instead, local races and issues, such as Mayor of City of Spokane, and Seattle City Council. Counties affected will still be able to process ballots and count votes (valid ones are still arriving in the mail) in timely manner under state law.
This is still a serious attack upon democracy.
Note that many election workers in Washington State wear gloves when handing ballots. It's a requirement for workers opening return ballot envelopes in King County.
I was there when this first became a necessity, just after the turn of the millennium, when similar suspicious substances popped up in returned ballots at King Co Elections.
I well remember the fear it caused among the workers - mostly women from what you might call humble circumstances - who were doing the actual envelope and ballot process. And keep on doing their job.
May whomever is responsible be apprehended and brought to legal account for their criminal conduct and attack upon democracy.
I seriously worry for the US elections next year, and fear that there will be a number of such incidents that seek to disrupt the process. A process that itself has become increasely politicised in recent years.
The politicians should also focus on getting out their votes the old-fashioned way, and leave the rest to impartial officials.
Comments
It seems that a number of people have long-Johnson. I assume the only cure to that is rest, and the passage of time.
I don’t think Braverman will be the leader though. She’s too divisive even within the party. She’ll do the groundwork for someone more palatable to move in. Who though?
Hadn’t thought of that. They’re welcome.
IMO everyone involved should have been forced to pay back the millions wasted.
Having said that the underlying problems with this country are intractable and very difficult for a government to solve. We consume more than we earn. The cumulative effects of our persistent trade deficit has impoverished us and mean ever more of what we do earn belongs to those abroad.
Our refusal to face the consequences of this irresponsibility mean we blame governments for something that is collectively our fault. Starmer will also disappoint because that is already built in. There’s really not much we or he can do about it.
She has been dog-whistling racism for quite a while now.
Science is there to remove subjective bias and thats exactly what solicitors and politicians rely on. However, RWC scenarios come with caveats - you know those things relegated to footnotes which are too much bother and too complicated to read or understand.
We've relegated the Covid enquiry to seven-year-olds and any innumerates with a public-school education.
Did Whitty and Vallance labour in vain.
The day after the 2023 general election, election workers in four counties opened incoming mail that contained some kind of white powDer. Offices were evacuated, and ballot processing and vote tabulating were suspended awaiting first responders and HAZMAT teams. In King County (Seattle) preliminary tests indicated presence of fentanyl; in Pierce County (Tacoma) substance tested as baking soda.
As a result of the disruption,King County Election added less than 26k ballots to Wed updated cumulative vote count, instead of over 80k as expected that morning; in Spokane County ballot processing was suspended for the day.
Note there were no statewide candidates or measures on 2023 WA general election ballots. Instead, local races and issues, such as Mayor of City of Spokane, and Seattle City Council. Counties affected will still be able to process ballots and count votes (valid ones are still arriving in the mail) in timely manner under state law.
This is still a serious attack upon democracy.
Note that many election workers in Washington State wear gloves when handing ballots. It's a requirement for workers opening return ballot envelopes in King County.
I was there when this first became a necessity, just after the turn of the millennium, when similar suspicious substances popped up in returned ballots at King Co Elections.
I well remember the fear it caused among the workers - mostly women from what you might call humble circumstances - who were doing the actual envelope and ballot process. And keep on doing their job.
May whomever is responsible be apprehended and brought to legal account for their criminal conduct and attack upon democracy.
It's why I'm pretty sanguine about the "low expectations" thing. At some level, there's a bit of a collective recognition that we're entering a hangover and hangovers aren't meant to be fun.
I don't think any of us have taken on board how bad it will be, but that's another matter. Starmer and Reeves's job is to get us to a position where, maybe, we'll be ready to cautiously nibble some dry toast in 2028 or so.
Better that than hair of the dog, which some on the right are prescribing.
To what extent do politicians lead or follow?
How as individuals do we change something that is 'collectively our fault'?
Why do nations change their character over time?
How much depends on being lucky with leaders and how much on the fundamental nature, the strengths and flaws, of the population?
I think it’s pretty likely we are looking at the next LOTO. The only question for me is whether she has enough support in the parliamentary party to go through to the membership - I suspect she doesn’t now. But situations change.
Labour 47
Conservative 23
Liberal Democrat 10
Reform 8
Green 7
SNP 3
It's the rump of survivors she'll need to convince.
They'll be a very different constituency with different concerns. They'll all be secure in their seats for the long term for a start.
More significantly though, Braverman is becoming a nuisance to those who would like the Tory party to do the hard work of becoming once again the centrist, Christian Democrat competent party aimed at the votes of normal people.
The other thing I’m looking out for is RefCon dropping below 30%. 5 or 6 of that Ref total is going back blue come the election, to only 2-3% of Green returning to Labour.
Tories now on similar polling to the Lib Dems in the mid to late 2000s. But YG has been one of the worst for them.
Inflation may well/is quite likely to return towards 2% but not until 2026. Maybe some reduction in interest rates by 2026 although probably to a 3% ish long term level not the 0.5% which we had for so many years which was far too long and caused a lot of the problems we have today due to over spending/borrowing.
Moderate inflation + realistic interest rates to provide an environment for economic recovery. Maybe even room for Rachel to provide us with a tax cut in the pre election 2029 budget??
If you’re, for want of a better word, a Charles Ryder in that situation then I think you either take the plover’s egg on day one and attach yourself to the culture, or you find yourself rejecting it.
Oh well...
In my view the job of politicians is to enhance and promote the long term interests and strengths of the country. This will usually not lead to short term popularity. Thatcher famously said that if her government was ahead in opinion polls mid term they weren’t doing enough. She is possibly the only politician in my lifetime (arguably early Wilson but I was too young to judge) who took that job seriously. Most just want to be loved (Blair and Boris being the most egregious examples).
Promoting the long term interests usually involves creating the conditions and capacities for success. That can be housing, infrastructure, education, a tax code that encourages investment, savings and capital creation, it can be a variety of things but it needs to address our weaknesses and challenges.
I don’t see much of that in the current government. I see even less in Labour.
(Mind you, three of the top 10 safest Tory seats from 2019 are now LD but I presume they will probably revert at the next GE.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
Well there's handy. No need for actual facts when you can just go with perceptions. Makes research so much easier.
1. Her recent sayings and writings have the tacit approval of Sunak. In which case, one can draw one's own conclusions about Sunak, and it isn't pretty.
2. She has gone completely off piste, and is a law unto herself.
If 2. above applies, Sunak should take the risk and sack her. While that would not go down well with some/many in his own party, I think it would with the general public as it would burnish his credentials as a decisive leader. There's no doubt that Starmer would wield the knife in parallel circumstances.
I'm sure there are some eggs good amongst lawyers, but the Yanks used to say that lawyers could be used instead of rats as experimental subjects in drug trials because there are more of them, and people prefer the rats.
I'm sure that's an exaggeration as you and Mr Eagles add a lot to this blog, but rats have a major advantage - they don't vomit back an oral, experimental drug.
(I mean, apart from Leon, obvs, who was bound to have seen this coming.)
I disagree with Nadine (horaay!) that this is a ploy by Braverman to get herself sacked. In fact, I think she is gambling very much on the fact that she won’t be sacked - hence legitimising her.
Rishi has always had a blind spot with Braverman, because she was instrumental in bringing the ERG and the pro-Truss camps on board in order to get him his coronation. Although it would be utter lunacy, there is it has to be said a real potential that we could see another Tory civil war starting if he sacks her.
Wozzername for PM instead of Sunak?
They have lots and lots of form for that.
The state broadcaster was at it as well.
She is in the early stages of creating a reactionary political movement similar to MAGA. It is still to early to tell if she will succeed, but let’s not kid ourselves that she’s just another run of the mill right wing Tory ERG no-hoper.
I nearly persuaded my wife to go with a mortgage product I'd found - a portable, fixed rate for the remaining term of the mortgage. So you could move it from one property to another. Lock in the lowest rates ever....
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/rmt-and-train-operators-reach-breakthrough-in-national-rail-row/ar-AA1jBkX6?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=1a0a30f44aee4bcdb3e9362055bfa17d&ei=16
Something will have to give, and I don't think it will be the Labour lead. I keep reading political hacks quoting Tory MPs saying that Sunak has given up. Question is whether the Tory MPs have also given up.
One last roll of the dice boys and girls. If only Suella was Prime Minister. That would show the wokies who is boss...
Can't sack her, can't not sack her.
Nick Wallis’s book “The Great Post Office Scandal”, is well worth reading for anyone who has a personal or professional interest in the case.
But it seems one does live under our floorboards
Lots of people should be prosecuted. Or lose their professional standing. And jobs. And honours. Etc.,. Etc.,.
But I doubt it. First, because the inquiry will take an age to report precisely because there has been so much obstruction that witnesses are going to have to be reinterviewed and we can have no confidence whatsoever that even now we have been provided with all the relevant material. And, second, the chances of any government acting on its findings are vanishingly small. Ultimately, the PO's failings are down to the government who is - and always - has been the sole shareholder and who has completely failed to ensure that it was and is being properly managed.
The PO is currently obstructing the inquiry. That could be stopped overnight if its owner - the government - told it to to.
The inquiry is simply an attempt to fob off everyone concerned until everyone gets bored, dies etc and by then the police will do some pretend review taking another few years and then regretfully state that not enough evidence to prosecute, blah blah.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard
...The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:
does an act or series of acts;
which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
which is or are intended to pervert;
the course of public justice.
The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine. The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
proceedings have started or are about to start.
In R v Cotter and Others [2002] EWCA Crim 1033 it was held that where the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove that she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested. The offence of perverting the course of justice is sometimes referred to as "attempting to pervert the course of justice". It does not matter whether or not the acts result in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done. The words "attempting to" should not appear in the charge. It is charged contrary to common law, not the Criminal Attempts Act 1981: R v Williams 92 Cr. App. R. 158 CA. The offence of perverting the course of justice overlaps with a number of other statutory offences. ..
The politicians should also focus on getting out their votes the old-fashioned way, and leave the rest to impartial officials.