With all the ins and outs discussed in this thread it does sort of imply that we're looking at December. I was convinced the election would be in May, but Sunak has said not and he is known for speaking the plain truth and never u-turning.
Actually hang on, yes of course it'll be December. Because I have a trip to Senegal booked then. Sod's law dictates I will of course be away for the big occasion.
EDIT: actually, looking at the dates, I'll be flying home on the 12th. Landing at LHR at 22:10, as pundits and politicians struggle to process their shock at the exit poll.
IF the GE occurs when you are on safari, could you return your "postal" ballot via cleft stick.?
Believe it was the cleft-stick vote that helped propel Lord Salisbury into No. 10, back in 1895.
I think it is an interesting question to ask just how our GE taking place at the same time or just after the US will affect the outcome if at all
My feeling is that he will avoid that close association. Any time after early November is potentially tainted by Trump's victory, as is the time immediately before. Hence, despite the real obstacles, he goes for September, with possibly a rather early announcement (July?) so that the obstacles can be adjusted for.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
Hmm, nobody considering the option of bringing back KCIII to the UK to do his most important job? QE2 is the precedent, after all.
If it is 12th Dec then we’ll have had a strange decade of elections. 5 years between the first two. Then 3 in the space of 4 years with a referendum thrown in. Then another gap of 5 years.
With all the ins and outs discussed in this thread it does sort of imply that we're looking at December. I was convinced the election would be in May, but Sunak has said not and he is known for speaking the plain truth and never u-turning.
Actually hang on, yes of course it'll be December. Because I have a trip to Senegal booked then. Sod's law dictates I will of course be away for the big occasion.
EDIT: actually, looking at the dates, I'll be flying home on the 12th. Landing at LHR at 22:10, as pundits and politicians struggle to process their shock at the exit poll.
IF the GE occurs when you are on safari, could you return your "postal" ballot via cleft stick.?
Believe it was the cleft-stick vote that helped propel Lord Salisbury into No. 10, back in 1895.
I shall send it in via riverboat. My plan is to spend a bit of time checking out Dakar then a few days on a pirogue pottering around some estuarine backwaters in Casamance.
With all the ins and outs discussed in this thread it does sort of imply that we're looking at December. I was convinced the election would be in May, but Sunak has said not and he is known for speaking the plain truth and never u-turning.
Actually hang on, yes of course it'll be December. Because I have a trip to Senegal booked then. Sod's law dictates I will of course be away for the big occasion.
EDIT: actually, looking at the dates, I'll be flying home on the 12th. Landing at LHR at 22:10, as pundits and politicians struggle to process their shock at the exit poll.
IF the GE occurs when you are on safari, could you return your "postal" ballot via cleft stick.?
Believe it was the cleft-stick vote that helped propel Lord Salisbury into No. 10, back in 1895.
I shall send it in via riverboat. My plan is to spend a bit of time checking out Dakar then a few days on a pirogue pottering around some estuarine backwaters in Casamance.
Do report back!
I have fancied Senegal for a long time. African vibe with a Gallic twist, and great birdlife too.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
Can't a (re)elected Prime Minster and the King meet on Zoom or Skype?
Just tell the King he has a constitutional duty to perform and if that is the date of the election then he will just have to be at the Palace to do his job.
Seattle Times ($) - Think you should be a Seattle council member? Here’s what to know
If you think you have what it takes to be a city council member, good news: The mostly new Seattle City Council has one more position to fill.
Teresa Mosqueda resigned her [at-large] seat on the Seattle City Council, effective Tuesday, after she was elected to the Metropolitan King County Council in November. That leaves a vacancy in one of the council’s two citywide positions. Applications for the seat open[ed] Wednesday.
New council members — Rob Saka (District 1), Joy Hollingsworth (District 3), Maritza Rivera (District 4), Cathy Moore (District 5) and Bob Kettle (District 7) — took office on Tuesday [along with incumbents Sara Nelson (at-large), Tammy Morales (D2) and Dan Strauss (D6)].
The mostly new council will have 20 days to appoint a replacement for Mosqueda.
What are the requirements? The application is available at seattle.gov/cityclerk/council-vacancy. The application period opens at 8 a.m. Wednesday and closes at 5 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 9.
Applicants must submit a résumé and cover letter to the city.
To qualify to hold a council seat, a candidate must be a U.S. citizen, eligible to vote in Washington, a Seattle resident and registered to vote in the city at least 120 days before declaring their candidacy.
The council is required to publish the application materials submitted by anyone who qualifies and will host a public interview forum before making an appointment. . . .
Whoever is appointed to replace Mosqueda will serve until a November 2024 special election for the seat.
Whoever is elected in the special election will take office in January 2025, and will serve until the term ends at the end of that year.
A regular city election, including for a full four-year term for the [two] citywide seat[s], will be held in November 2025.
SSI - For all you PB punters, odds are that who(m)ever the current city council selects to fill vacancy, the newbie will be a "moderate" by Seattle standards, as breakdown is now 6 moderates, 2 "progressives".
Sunak's suggestion that he'll probably call the election in Jul-Dec rather than Feb-Jun shouldn't be given much weight. If he said he'd probably hold it in the first half of the year and then come May he said he wouldn't, he'd look a right pillock, just as Callaghan did in 1978.
If he says he'll hold one in the second half, and come Mar-Apr he says "Right, lords and ladies of the Supreme Court, now I'm going to show you this country belongs to its people and not to you", nobody will give a monkey's what he said on 4th January.
When there aren't any policy announcements for this week, or burning issues that set the government against the opposition, he's got to keep his name in people's minds somehow, and remind them he's got the authority to do stuff.
He doesn't look "weak" over this. There's no obligation on prime ministers to call early elections because of what polling companies and the betting market are reporting. He may have a general appearance of being weak, but that's not the same.
With all the ins and outs discussed in this thread it does sort of imply that we're looking at December. I was convinced the election would be in May, but Sunak has said not and he is known for speaking the plain truth and never u-turning.
Actually hang on, yes of course it'll be December. Because I have a trip to Senegal booked then. Sod's law dictates I will of course be away for the big occasion.
EDIT: actually, looking at the dates, I'll be flying home on the 12th. Landing at LHR at 22:10, as pundits and politicians struggle to process their shock at the exit poll.
IF the GE occurs when you are on safari, could you return your "postal" ballot via cleft stick.?
Believe it was the cleft-stick vote that helped propel Lord Salisbury into No. 10, back in 1895.
I shall send it in via riverboat. My plan is to spend a bit of time checking out Dakar then a few days on a pirogue pottering around some estuarine backwaters in Casamance.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
There are dozens of examples of u-turns, I don’t know if they count as hypocrisy or not.
But Mandy is one of Sir Keir’s senior advisors, according to The Guardian
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
It's not the 1950s any more, though, and the attitude of both the public and the establishment to the monarch has shifted radically. I reckon Sunak will call the election on a date that suits him, and quite rightly expect that the traditional pageantry and formalities will adjust as necessary. Charles is hardly going to want to be publicly notable as the guy who forced a round the world flight or two just for a quick conversation, either, it goes completely against his environmental principles.
Can't a (re)elected Prime Minster and the King meet on Zoom or Skype?
Just tell the King he has a constitutional duty to perform and if that is the date of the election then he will just have to be at the Palace to do his job.
You wouldn't get this kind of nonsense from an elected Head of State.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
A better question would be did he bother about prosecuting corruption ("cracking down on cronyism" is idiotic tabloid speak) when he was in charge of public prosecutions.
That said, Starmer's reply to the challenge regarding Mandelson and Epstein, silly challenge though it may be, is weak. He should say if there is strong evidence that anyone, however high in the land, has committed a crime, then yes he would want that person prosecuted regardless of how senior a position they held, and yes, even if they were a cabinet minister at the time, and regardless of which party they were in. Then say visiting someone's house isn't a crime. Don't say all this "I don't know" crap. Makes him look like Frank Spencer.
With all the ins and outs discussed in this thread it does sort of imply that we're looking at December. I was convinced the election would be in May, but Sunak has said not and he is known for speaking the plain truth and never u-turning.
Actually hang on, yes of course it'll be December. Because I have a trip to Senegal booked then. Sod's law dictates I will of course be away for the big occasion.
EDIT: actually, looking at the dates, I'll be flying home on the 12th. Landing at LHR at 22:10, as pundits and politicians struggle to process their shock at the exit poll.
IF the GE occurs when you are on safari, could you return your "postal" ballot via cleft stick.?
Believe it was the cleft-stick vote that helped propel Lord Salisbury into No. 10, back in 1895.
I shall send it in via riverboat. My plan is to spend a bit of time checking out Dakar then a few days on a pirogue pottering around some estuarine backwaters in Casamance.
Do report back!
I have fancied Senegal for a long time. African vibe with a Gallic twist, and great birdlife too.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
A better question would be did he bother about prosecuting corruption ("cracking down on cronyism" is idiotic tabloid speak) when he was in charge of public prosecutions.
That depends on whether the police investigate it in the first place, to a stage worth taking to the DPP. So, not a better question at all.
Can't a (re)elected Prime Minster and the King meet on Zoom or Skype?
Just tell the King he has a constitutional duty to perform and if that is the date of the election then he will just have to be at the Palace to do his job.
You wouldn't get this kind of nonsense from an elected Head of State.
I am sure President Johnson would rather be down in Samoa than greeting a new Labour PM. And you know in your heart it would be him no matter how much you might deny it.
Can't a (re)elected Prime Minster and the King meet on Zoom or Skype?
Just tell the King he has a constitutional duty to perform and if that is the date of the election then he will just have to be at the Palace to do his job.
You wouldn't get this kind of nonsense from an elected Head of State.
They might just refuse to dissolve parliament instead, of course.
Can't a (re)elected Prime Minster and the King meet on Zoom or Skype?
Just tell the King he has a constitutional duty to perform and if that is the date of the election then he will just have to be at the Palace to do his job.
You wouldn't get this kind of nonsense from an elected Head of State.
I am sure President Johnson would rather be down in Samoa than greeting a new Labour PM. And you know in your heart it would be him no matter how much you might deny it.
No, it would probably be Farage. Or Blair. Or Alan Sugar, or someone off cheap-seat TV.
With all the ins and outs discussed in this thread it does sort of imply that we're looking at December. I was convinced the election would be in May, but Sunak has said not and he is known for speaking the plain truth and never u-turning.
Actually hang on, yes of course it'll be December. Because I have a trip to Senegal booked then. Sod's law dictates I will of course be away for the big occasion.
EDIT: actually, looking at the dates, I'll be flying home on the 12th. Landing at LHR at 22:10, as pundits and politicians struggle to process their shock at the exit poll.
IF the GE occurs when you are on safari, could you return your "postal" ballot via cleft stick.?
Believe it was the cleft-stick vote that helped propel Lord Salisbury into No. 10, back in 1895.
I shall send it in via riverboat. My plan is to spend a bit of time checking out Dakar then a few days on a pirogue pottering around some estuarine backwaters in Casamance.
Do report back!
I have fancied Senegal for a long time. African vibe with a Gallic twist, and great birdlife too.
I never had you down as a sex tourist.
I watch some great tits most mornings, though now it's winter they are often blue tits.
With all the ins and outs discussed in this thread it does sort of imply that we're looking at December. I was convinced the election would be in May, but Sunak has said not and he is known for speaking the plain truth and never u-turning.
Actually hang on, yes of course it'll be December. Because I have a trip to Senegal booked then. Sod's law dictates I will of course be away for the big occasion.
EDIT: actually, looking at the dates, I'll be flying home on the 12th. Landing at LHR at 22:10, as pundits and politicians struggle to process their shock at the exit poll.
IF the GE occurs when you are on safari, could you return your "postal" ballot via cleft stick.?
Believe it was the cleft-stick vote that helped propel Lord Salisbury into No. 10, back in 1895.
I shall send it in via riverboat. My plan is to spend a bit of time checking out Dakar then a few days on a pirogue pottering around some estuarine backwaters in Casamance.
Do report back!
I have fancied Senegal for a long time. African vibe with a Gallic twist, and great birdlife too.
I never had you down as a sex tourist.
I watch some great tits most mornings, though now it's winter they are often blue tits.
Part of the game of politics is misinformation or disinformation. If you have the decision as to when an election is closed, it seems odd to close off any option at this time. The last polls of 2023 taken between Christmas and New Year show little sign of festive goodwill towards the Conservatives.
I'm sure all the main parties are as ready as they can be for an election at any time. There may still be some candidates yet to be chosen but these will be primarily be paper candidates in unwinnable seats. In East Ham, Reform has chosen its candidate and it is widely expected Stephen Timms will run again but no other party has yet chosen a candidate but if they had to they probably could very quickly.
Rishi Sunak isn't stupid and he can clearly see which way the wind is blowing and like Micawber can wait for something to turn up but he also probably realises he has to dance a victory dance even if defeat beckons. The worst message you can give your supporters is to look defeatist so Sunak will go on believing publicly in the possibility of victory even though he will know it's over.
The bigger problem is persuading people to vote for him in spite of being a Conservative as against voting Conservative in spite of him.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
A better question would be did he bother about prosecuting corruption ("cracking down on cronyism" is idiotic tabloid speak) when he was in charge of public prosecutions.
That said, Starmer's reply to the challenge regarding Mandelson and Epstein, silly challenge though it may be, is weak. He should say if there is strong evidence that anyone, however high in the land, has committed a crime, then yes he would want that person prosecuted regardless of how senior a position they held, and yes, even if they were a cabinet minister at the time, and regardless of which party they were in. Then say visiting someone's house isn't a crime. Don't say all this "I don't know" crap. Makes him look like Frank Spencer.
If Starmer had some cojones, he'd also say even if the person was a member of the royal family who took millions in cash in paper bags from Qatar.
That'd get him in the headlines all right.
(And if any journalist had some cojones, they'd ask him the same .)
The Tories will polarise this election to hell. Starmer is letting the other side decide how it will develop. He's got "leader of the opposition who retires having never won an election" written all over him. He should polarise - get up early in the morning and polarise further than he thinks the Tories will - but he won't.
Can't a (re)elected Prime Minster and the King meet on Zoom or Skype?
Just tell the King he has a constitutional duty to perform and if that is the date of the election then he will just have to be at the Palace to do his job.
You wouldn't get this kind of nonsense from an elected Head of State.
I am sure President Johnson would rather be down in Samoa than greeting a new Labour PM. And you know in your heart it would be him no matter how much you might deny it.
It would be President Brian Blessed or President David Attenborough.
One of the reasons men exist is that so that these things can be explained clearly to servants, daughters, wives, concubines and so on. Who else will take on this tricky burden?
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
Except perhaps to note, that former might actually help them, by hurting Labour?
Part of the game of politics is misinformation or disinformation. If you have the decision as to when an election is closed, it seems odd to close off any option at this time. The last polls of 2023 taken between Christmas and New Year show little sign of festive goodwill towards the Conservatives.
I'm sure all the main parties are as ready as they can be for an election at any time. There may still be some candidates yet to be chosen but these will be primarily be paper candidates in unwinnable seats. In East Ham, Reform has chosen its candidate and it is widely expected Stephen Timms will run again but no other party has yet chosen a candidate but if they had to they probably could very quickly.
Rishi Sunak isn't stupid and he can clearly see which way the wind is blowing and like Micawber can wait for something to turn up but he also probably realises he has to dance a victory dance even if defeat beckons. The worst message you can give your supporters is to look defeatist so Sunak will go on believing publicly in the possibility of victory even though he will know it's over.
The bigger problem is persuading people to vote for him in spite of being a Conservative as against voting Conservative in spite of him.
Little Rishi is simply trying to close off the trap that Brown fell into, while keeping all his options open.
I'm 6ft and 12st9lb, which is about right for my height. Maybe could be a few pounds less but not far off the right weight.
You can keep your weight under control quite easily by not eating shit and not eating too much of it either - without giving anything serious up.
I cook and eat real food, avoid anything orange, with one serious meal a day, maybe a coffee and crumpet for breakfast, and a lighter meal for supper, and enjoy a beer and glass of wine too. I also do about 30 minutes tempo walking a day.
That's all it takes. Don't touch fast food.
It must be fairly easy not getting overweight when you're as tall as that.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
Except perhaps to note, that former might actually help them, by hurting Labour?
Hurting Labour in Scotland helps the SNP, not the Tories.
There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
Can't a (re)elected Prime Minster and the King meet on Zoom or Skype?
Just tell the King he has a constitutional duty to perform and if that is the date of the election then he will just have to be at the Palace to do his job.
You wouldn't get this kind of nonsense from an elected Head of State.
I am sure President Johnson would rather be down in Samoa than greeting a new Labour PM. And you know in your heart it would be him no matter how much you might deny it.
It would be President Brian Blessed or President David Attenborough.
Well, President Blessed wouldn’t need to come back to commission a PM. He could just shout fairly loudly.
One of the reasons men exist is that so that these things can be explained clearly to servants, daughters, wives, concubines and so on. Who else will take on this tricky burden?
I’m assuming it was a misunderstanding.
Somebody told him his genius is linked to being a massive c… and he thought they said ‘being from.’
What Musk says makes perfect sense if you think technology's going to take over evolution.
The contrapositive also makes sense: technology is not going to take over evolution, so the man is an idiot.
What he doesn't seem to realise is the role of culture in increasing - and for the last few thousand years, in holding back - the intelligence of the species. But then...look at the company he recently bought - the one whose famous service he uses to propagate this latest thought.
London cabbies who do "the Knowledge" get bigger posterior hippocampuses than the average. Nothing to do with the diameter of their mothers' birth canals.
Can't a (re)elected Prime Minster and the King meet on Zoom or Skype?
Just tell the King he has a constitutional duty to perform and if that is the date of the election then he will just have to be at the Palace to do his job.
You wouldn't get this kind of nonsense from an elected Head of State.
I am sure President Johnson would rather be down in Samoa than greeting a new Labour PM. And you know in your heart it would be him no matter how much you might deny it.
It would be President Brian Blessed or President David Attenborough.
"At 2044 State Opening of Parliament, British Republic President Meghan Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor announced that . . ."
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
Except perhaps to note, that former might actually help them, by hurting Labour?
Hurting Labour in Scotland helps the SNP, not the Tories.
One of the reasons men exist is that so that these things can be explained clearly to servants, daughters, wives, concubines and so on. Who else will take on this tricky burden?
In any other person, "concubine" would be a misphrasing...
With all the ins and outs discussed in this thread it does sort of imply that we're looking at December. I was convinced the election would be in May, but Sunak has said not and he is known for speaking the plain truth and never u-turning.
Actually hang on, yes of course it'll be December. Because I have a trip to Senegal booked then. Sod's law dictates I will of course be away for the big occasion.
EDIT: actually, looking at the dates, I'll be flying home on the 12th. Landing at LHR at 22:10, as pundits and politicians struggle to process their shock at the exit poll.
IF the GE occurs when you are on safari, could you return your "postal" ballot via cleft stick.?
Believe it was the cleft-stick vote that helped propel Lord Salisbury into No. 10, back in 1895.
I shall send it in via riverboat. My plan is to spend a bit of time checking out Dakar then a few days on a pirogue pottering around some estuarine backwaters in Casamance.
Do report back!
I have fancied Senegal for a long time. African vibe with a Gallic twist, and great birdlife too.
I never had you down as a sex tourist.
I watch some great tits most mornings, though now it's winter they are often blue tits.
What Musk says makes perfect sense if you think technology's going to take over evolution.
The contrapositive also makes sense: technology is not going to take over evolution, so the man is an idiot.
What he doesn't seem to realise is the role of culture in increasing - and for the last few thousand years, in holding back - the intelligence of the species. But then...look at the company he recently bought - the one whose famous service he uses to propagate this latest thought.
London cabbies who do "the Knowledge" get bigger posterior hippocampuses than the average. Nothing to do with the diameter of their mothers' birth canals.
Sorry for the multiple posting, but people who learn braille also get a part of their brain that grows bigger than the average. Musk hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. Stay specialising in payment services and space rockets, Elon, lovie.
With all the ins and outs discussed in this thread it does sort of imply that we're looking at December. I was convinced the election would be in May, but Sunak has said not and he is known for speaking the plain truth and never u-turning.
Actually hang on, yes of course it'll be December. Because I have a trip to Senegal booked then. Sod's law dictates I will of course be away for the big occasion.
EDIT: actually, looking at the dates, I'll be flying home on the 12th. Landing at LHR at 22:10, as pundits and politicians struggle to process their shock at the exit poll.
IF the GE occurs when you are on safari, could you return your "postal" ballot via cleft stick.?
Believe it was the cleft-stick vote that helped propel Lord Salisbury into No. 10, back in 1895.
I shall send it in via riverboat. My plan is to spend a bit of time checking out Dakar then a few days on a pirogue pottering around some estuarine backwaters in Casamance.
Do report back!
I have fancied Senegal for a long time. African vibe with a Gallic twist, and great birdlife too.
I never had you down as a sex tourist.
I watch some great tits most mornings, though now it's winter they are often blue tits.
If you go tit-spotting in Senegal, I believe Saly is where you need to aim for.
There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
Surely the people with the greatest evolutionary advantage are those who have lots of children, starting at an early age. I doubt if this includes many geniuses (as conventionally understood) of either sex.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
Except perhaps to note, that former might actually help them, by hurting Labour?
Hurting Labour in Scotland helps the SNP, not the Tories.
So would be of zero benefit to Tories?
Might actually hurt them, if anything, as any tactical voters they could pick up in Scotland would be Labour or Liberal Democrat (not that I think they will have many).
Sam Coates of Sky speculating it will be the 14th November and after the US election
Maybe Sunak is calculating that he will look good by comparison with American politicians, which is probably true.
He's reasonably young, maybe foolish but not actively insane, can type without jamming the caps lock and can just about get through a ceremony without falling over.
Yep, he'd look good by comparison to America.
Unfortunately (for him) neither Biden nor Trump are leaders of the Labour Party.
There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
Musk is talking about long-term evolution (in the past) and how humans got bigger brains than chimpanzees despite us both supposedly evolving from a common ancestor only a few million years ago. He's quite right that birth canal size change was involved. Then he extrapolates to what he thinks of as short-term evolution in the future, all on the assumption that technology is taking over. What he doesn't understand, like most of those Silicon Valley Cartesian "man is a machine" fools (who it has to be observed are all male) is culture.
"Too posh to push" is unfair. I've known women who aren't posh who had elective Caesareans because they felt the NHS messes them up less often than they mess up normal deliveries. Playing it safe.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
Except perhaps to note, that former might actually help them, by hurting Labour?
Hurting Labour in Scotland helps the SNP, not the Tories.
So would be of zero benefit to Tories?
Might actually hurt them, if anything, as any tactical voters they could pick up in Scotland would be Labour or Liberal Democrat (not that I think they will have many).
My own thought, is that even if date might advantage SNP, that would hurt Starmer & Co, by potentially reducing seats (re)gained in Scotland, and thus increasing decreasing likelihood of UK majority for Labour?
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
Except perhaps to note, that former might actually help them, by hurting Labour?
Hurting Labour in Scotland helps the SNP, not the Tories.
So would be of zero benefit to Tories?
Might actually hurt them, if anything, as any tactical voters they could pick up in Scotland would be Labour or Liberal Democrat (not that I think they will have many).
My own thought, is that even if date might advantage SNP, that would hurt Starmer & Co, by potentially reducing seats (re)gained in Scotland, and thus increasing decreasing likelihood of UK majority for Labour?
In practical terms it will make no difference whether the SNP win a seat or Labour do, because there is no situation imaginable where the SNP will even dare to abstain to prop up a Tory government and they don't appear to have the money to fight two elections in rapid succession.
So it would not hurt Labour from that point of view.
It may not help the Tories much but it wouldn't form a part of their calculations.
Musk has selflessly offered to sleep with thousands of attractive, young, Dutch women to help reverse the decline, a Tesla spokesman said. He added "this will not be a free for all. And Mr Musk reserves the right not to sleep with the 'mingers'."
I'm 6ft and 12st9lb, which is about right for my height. Maybe could be a few pounds less but not far off the right weight.
You can keep your weight under control quite easily by not eating shit and not eating too much of it either - without giving anything serious up.
I cook and eat real food, avoid anything orange, with one serious meal a day, maybe a coffee and crumpet for breakfast, and a lighter meal for supper, and enjoy a beer and glass of wine too. I also do about 30 minutes tempo walking a day.
That's all it takes. Don't touch fast food.
It must be fairly easy not getting overweight when you're as tall as that.
Is that because it's harder to physically reach food if you're so high up?
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
Musk has selflessly offered to sleep with thousands of attractive, young, Dutch women to help reverse the decline, a Tesla spokesman said. He added "this will not be a free for all. And Mr Musk reserves the right not to sleep with the 'mingers'."
If that business with mingers works both ways, it won't help the birth rate much.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Sam Coates of Sky speculating it will be the 14th November and after the US election
Maybe Sunak is calculating that he will look good by comparison with American politicians, which is probably true.
Yes but then you would compare SKS with Rishi, remember the way Rishi has disappointed over the last 2 years and go meh and do what you were originally planning to do (i.e. either voting Labour or staying at home).
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It won’t be much consolation but you are not suffering alone! Putting the bins out (on random hope that they will be collected tomorrow) felt like being an extra in ‘The Perfect Storm…
There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
Musk is talking about long-term evolution (in the past) and how humans got bigger brains than chimpanzees despite us both supposedly evolving from a common ancestor only a few million years ago. He's quite right that birth canal size change was involved. Then he extrapolates to what he thinks of as short-term evolution in the future, all on the assumption that technology is taking over. What he doesn't understand, like most of those Silicon Valley Cartesian "man is a machine" fools (who it has to be observed are all male) is culture.
"Too posh to push" is unfair. I've known women who aren't posh who had elective Caesareans because they felt the NHS messes them up less often than they mess up normal deliveries. Playing it safe.
My partner had two elective Caesareans for that reason. A couple of her friends lives have been messed up by being ‘encouraged’ to have a natural birth by the consultants. She had to practically beg them with our first child
Can't a (re)elected Prime Minster and the King meet on Zoom or Skype?
Just tell the King he has a constitutional duty to perform and if that is the date of the election then he will just have to be at the Palace to do his job.
You wouldn't get this kind of nonsense from an elected Head of State.
I am sure President Johnson would rather be down in Samoa than greeting a new Labour PM. And you know in your heart it would be him no matter how much you might deny it.
It would be President Brian Blessed or President David Attenborough.
"At 2044 State Opening of Parliament, British Republic President Meghan Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor announced that . . ."
Meghan has more chance of being Queen than President, given her poll ratings are worse than Sunak's in the UK but but Harry is 5th in line to throne
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Private schools might be smaller so would have to shut for a day. Significant loss of revenue. (My primary school did shut for a day when used as a polling station. It's why they eventually switched it to the local church.) They might also not be very conveniently located (would the people of Denstone traipse to Denstone school to vote)? The rooms might not be suitable.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
Except perhaps to note, that former might actually help them, by hurting Labour?
State schools don't normally close until mid-late July but private schools close at the end of June/early July, so an election then would hit the Tories most as private school parents are more likely to be Tory than state school parents
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
Sunak* will be in Samoa from the 21st to the 25th-ish of October.
And so will Charles.
That rules out the 24th. Probably the 31st too.
*If he's still the PM, but if we've had an election beforehand the point is moot.
Sunak won't want to even be out of the country when the GE campaign is on. Think about it. A swan song on the world stage is great for his post-election earnings potential. So either done and dusted by mid October or we're into Christmas season.
Not sure billionaire PM, Rishi Sunak, is all that bothered about his post-election earning potential, which will be relatively limited anyway. He's likely to be a fairly short-lived PM without a great deal of star appeal. Not saying he won't get invited to conferences and get some nice speaker fees, but we're talking a contribution to heating the spare swimming pool here.
Calling the shindig in Samoa the "world stage" is also a stretch. It's a Commonwealth biennial meeting.
In any event, if he desperately wants a "swan song" he'd definitely not go for an election in mid-October as I'm assuming the invitation is to the British PM, not him personally (although didn't Truss rock up at something, somewhat to everyone's surprise, post-defenestration?)
As I say, doing it during a campaign (for a day or so) isn't a bad shout. Statesman vs Nobody spin. But the alternative is to send Dowden. It's entirely common for this sort of thing to happen in election campaigns across the world - South Korea has an election during the G20, and nobody notices. I think you're creating an issue that just doesn't exist.
OK, lets play the scenario. An election in that period means that Sunak has to fly to Aus/NZ, then fly back, then start the campaign, then fly to Samoa and back. Doesn't look good. And yes, he will need to fly to the King.
Remember how his mother insisted that Rees-Moog and friend fly to Balmoral to prorogue parliament? You think Chuck is going to not insist on personally granting the election? "Back again? Dear oh dear".
Yes, its possible. But its not *probable*. Not only will the Sir Humphreys be pointing out the perils of such a thing, his own side will observe that two round the world trips don't help his image, and sending Dowdy just promotes the "Britain not a world power" thing.
If the CHOGM does take place during an election campaign, Sunak could always send Cameron in his place. Being a Lord, Cameron wouldn't be defending a seat, and would probably give better speeches than Sunak.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
Except perhaps to note, that former might actually help them, by hurting Labour?
State schools don't normally close until mid-late July but private schools close at the end of June/early July, so an election then would hit the Tories most as private school parents are more likely to be Tory than state school parents
Private schools close *whenever they choose to* Hyufd. Which is usually in early July, but can be as early as June.
Also the bit about state schools, a reminder that's state schools in England and Wales, not Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
Notion that an opinion poll taken yesterday, today, tomorrow will provide ANY insight, into situation(s) decades in the future, is __________ (fill in the blank).
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
Musk is talking about long-term evolution (in the past) and how humans got bigger brains than chimpanzees despite us both supposedly evolving from a common ancestor only a few million years ago. He's quite right that birth canal size change was involved. Then he extrapolates to what he thinks of as short-term evolution in the future, all on the assumption that technology is taking over. What he doesn't understand, like most of those Silicon Valley Cartesian "man is a machine" fools (who it has to be observed are all male) is culture.
"Too posh to push" is unfair. I've known women who aren't posh who had elective Caesareans because they felt the NHS messes them up less often than they mess up normal deliveries. Playing it safe.
My partner had two elective Caesareans for that reason. A couple of her friends lives have been messed up by being ‘encouraged’ to have a natural birth by the consultants. She had to practically beg them with our first child
Yes, and I think this is part of the multiple maternity scandals across the country.
Managing multiple births on an understaffed labour ward, often happening simultaneously is very demanding and always carries some risk, particularly if staff are out of their depth. A planned section is often the safer option, though does carry its own risks for the mother.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It won’t be much consolation but you are not suffering alone! Putting the bins out (on random hope that they will be collected tomorrow) felt like being an extra in ‘The Perfect Storm…
I hope you find them after!
Today, hovercrafts are cancelled, Rectory Road Niton is flooded, all Island Line trains are cancelled, Middle Road Afton is blocked, Main Road Sandford is flooded, Brading is described as ‘treacherous’, the manhole covers up the hill from me are all lifted and the road is a river, Fairlee Road is flooded, Ashey Road is flooded, bus routes 2, 3, 7 & 8 are diverted or stopping short, Lukely Brook is on flood alert, sandbags are being issued in East Cowes, Briddlesford Road is closed, St John’s Ryde is on flood alert, the pub at Wootton Bridge has closed as its car park is under water, etc etc.
Please give generously when the island disaster appeal is launched nationwide…
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
Not true that just wealthy retirees back the monarchy, 66% of UK voters back retaining the monarchy in an autumn 2023 poll, which is far more than voted for the Tories in 2019, back Labour now or voted for Brexit https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-prefer-britain-remain-monarchy
Part of the game of politics is misinformation or disinformation. If you have the decision as to when an election is closed, it seems odd to close off any option at this time. The last polls of 2023 taken between Christmas and New Year show little sign of festive goodwill towards the Conservatives.
I'm sure all the main parties are as ready as they can be for an election at any time. There may still be some candidates yet to be chosen but these will be primarily be paper candidates in unwinnable seats. In East Ham, Reform has chosen its candidate and it is widely expected Stephen Timms will run again but no other party has yet chosen a candidate but if they had to they probably could very quickly.
Rishi Sunak isn't stupid and he can clearly see which way the wind is blowing and like Micawber can wait for something to turn up but he also probably realises he has to dance a victory dance even if defeat beckons. The worst message you can give your supporters is to look defeatist so Sunak will go on believing publicly in the possibility of victory even though he will know it's over.
The bigger problem is persuading people to vote for him in spite of being a Conservative as against voting Conservative in spite of him.
Little Rishi is simply trying to close off the trap that Brown fell into, while keeping all his options open.
I totally agree with you and TSE header. If Rishi gives impression it’s May and it doesn’t happen, the bottled it narrative will shred him. However if he aims for May behind the scenes, and calls the election end of March shortly after budget, no hit at all.
I would also add it’s not Rishi or team suggesting May, it’s commentators suggesting it based on how quickly tranche one of tax cuts will hit pockets, timing of budget, and how a lot of journalists feel May makes more sense. January’s tax cut is distant memory come November.
Can't a (re)elected Prime Minster and the King meet on Zoom or Skype?
Just tell the King he has a constitutional duty to perform and if that is the date of the election then he will just have to be at the Palace to do his job.
You wouldn't get this kind of nonsense from an elected Head of State.
Of course you would as they also have foreign nations to visit on state visits (just some of them have fixed elections for their national Parliaments).
Of course the King is also head of state of Australia and NZ too not just here and the idea he should postpone a visit to 2 of his realms just so the UK PM can call a general election on that date rather than wait a fortnight or so is absurd
There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
Musk is talking about long-term evolution (in the past) and how humans got bigger brains than chimpanzees despite us both supposedly evolving from a common ancestor only a few million years ago. He's quite right that birth canal size change was involved. Then he extrapolates to what he thinks of as short-term evolution in the future, all on the assumption that technology is taking over. What he doesn't understand, like most of those Silicon Valley Cartesian "man is a machine" fools (who it has to be observed are all male) is culture.
"Too posh to push" is unfair. I've known women who aren't posh who had elective Caesareans because they felt the NHS messes them up less often than they mess up normal deliveries. Playing it safe.
Tsk tsk…you of all people ought to know that multiple accounts and sock puppets are verboten.
There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
"No significant difference in intelligence quotient was seen in 1192 children delivered by forceps (114 midforceps) compared with 1499 who were delivered spontaneously."
There are clearly lots of factors at play here. And the chances that this will be "simple" is... small...
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
Musk is talking about long-term evolution (in the past) and how humans got bigger brains than chimpanzees despite us both supposedly evolving from a common ancestor only a few million years ago. He's quite right that birth canal size change was involved. Then he extrapolates to what he thinks of as short-term evolution in the future, all on the assumption that technology is taking over. What he doesn't understand, like most of those Silicon Valley Cartesian "man is a machine" fools (who it has to be observed are all male) is culture.
"Too posh to push" is unfair. I've known women who aren't posh who had elective Caesareans because they felt the NHS messes them up less often than they mess up normal deliveries. Playing it safe.
My partner had two elective Caesareans for that reason. A couple of her friends lives have been messed up by being ‘encouraged’ to have a natural birth by the consultants. She had to practically beg them with our first child
Yes, and I think this is part of the multiple maternity scandals across the country.
Managing multiple births on an understaffed labour ward, often happening simultaneously is very demanding and always carries some risk, particularly if staff are out of their depth. A planned section is often the safer option, though does carry its own risks for the mother.
Plus generally a tougher first few weeks for the mother after major abdominal surgery.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It’s been grim frankly since the last week of October. I’ve never known such consistent strong wind and rain. We had a red weather warning for tonight with force tens. Have been doing an emergency dog sitting for a friend and their dog that can’t leave their house and so staying right on a harbour and was quite brutal early evening.
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
I'm convinced the combination of the autumn being logistically difficult and the fallout of the likely poor May council elections will tilt the balance towards a May election.
Would save money, too. Could definitely be spun as a political choice by the (sic) careful custodians of the economy*....
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It’s been grim frankly since the last week of October. I’ve never known such consistent strong wind and rain. We had a red weather warning for tonight with force tens. Have been doing an emergency dog sitting for a friend and their dog that can’t leave their house and so staying right on a harbour and was quite brutal early evening.
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
This is the view up from the house.
Apparently the south coast of England hasn’t had as much rain October to now since the 1940s.
I defer to PB’s older posters as to precisely when in the 1940s that was.
Todays been like the title sequence from ‘Dads’ Army’ for our south coast, except that wind and extremely heavy rain took the place of advancing Nazi flags….
It’s been grim frankly since the last week of October. I’ve never known such consistent strong wind and rain. We had a red weather warning for tonight with force tens. Have been doing an emergency dog sitting for a friend and their dog that can’t leave their house and so staying right on a harbour and was quite brutal early evening.
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
This is the view up from the house.
Apparently the south coast of England hasn’t had as much rain October to now since the 1940s.
I defer to PB’s older posters as to precisely when in the 1940s that was.
This doesn't surprise me at all. I can't remember as wet a winter in my lifetime.
Comments
Believe it was the cleft-stick vote that helped propel Lord Salisbury into No. 10, back in 1895.
Every bit as hypocritical as those people who suggest an apple is a fruit and yet at the same insist a cat is a mammal. Outrageous.
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
I have fancied Senegal for a long time. African vibe with a Gallic twist, and great birdlife too.
Thankfully I was my modest with the headline in this thread header.
https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1742974178469302772
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=649300403990580&set=pcb.649302130657074
And if the ceremony doesn't exist I suspect he will event a new ceremony for the sake of it.
It is simply clutching at straws.
If you think you have what it takes to be a city council member, good news: The mostly new Seattle City Council has one more position to fill.
Teresa Mosqueda resigned her [at-large] seat on the Seattle City Council, effective Tuesday, after she was elected to the Metropolitan King County Council in November. That leaves a vacancy in one of the council’s two citywide positions. Applications for the seat open[ed] Wednesday.
New council members — Rob Saka (District 1), Joy Hollingsworth (District 3), Maritza Rivera (District 4), Cathy Moore (District 5) and Bob Kettle (District 7) — took office on Tuesday [along with incumbents Sara Nelson (at-large), Tammy Morales (D2) and Dan Strauss (D6)].
The mostly new council will have 20 days to appoint a replacement for Mosqueda.
What are the requirements?
The application is available at seattle.gov/cityclerk/council-vacancy. The application period opens at 8 a.m. Wednesday and closes at 5 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 9.
Applicants must submit a résumé and cover letter to the city.
To qualify to hold a council seat, a candidate must be a U.S. citizen, eligible to vote in Washington, a Seattle resident and registered to vote in the city at least 120 days before declaring their candidacy.
The council is required to publish the application materials submitted by anyone who qualifies and will host a public interview forum before making an appointment. . . .
Whoever is appointed to replace Mosqueda will serve until a November 2024 special election for the seat.
Whoever is elected in the special election will take office in January 2025, and will serve until the term ends at the end of that year.
A regular city election, including for a full four-year term for the [two] citywide seat[s], will be held in November 2025.
SSI - For all you PB punters, odds are that who(m)ever the current city council selects to fill vacancy, the newbie will be a "moderate" by Seattle standards, as breakdown is now 6 moderates, 2 "progressives".
If he says he'll hold one in the second half, and come Mar-Apr he says "Right, lords and ladies of the Supreme Court, now I'm going to show you this country belongs to its people and not to you", nobody will give a monkey's what he said on 4th January.
When there aren't any policy announcements for this week, or burning issues that set the government against the opposition, he's got to keep his name in people's minds somehow, and remind them he's got the authority to do stuff.
He doesn't look "weak" over this. There's no obligation on prime ministers to call early elections because of what polling companies and the betting market are reporting. He may have a general appearance of being weak, but that's not the same.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren’t lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
But Mandy is one of Sir Keir’s senior advisors, according to The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/07/whos-who-in-keir-starmers-reshaped-top-team
and he apparently stayed whilst Epstein was in prison
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/21/jp-morgan-report-jeffrey-epstein-apparent-contact-peter-mandelson
And Sir Keir knew about it last summer
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/21/keir-starmer-peter-mandelson-adviser-jeffrey-epstein-link/
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
That said, Starmer's reply to the challenge regarding Mandelson and Epstein, silly challenge though it may be, is weak. He should say if there is strong evidence that anyone, however high in the land, has committed a crime, then yes he would want that person prosecuted regardless of how senior a position they held, and yes, even if they were a cabinet minister at the time, and regardless of which party they were in. Then say visiting someone's house isn't a crime. Don't say all this "I don't know" crap. Makes him look like Frank Spencer.
Ain't got time to explain
Sunny days are gone, I'm a-goin' home
My Rishi just a wrote me a letter
Joe Cocker - The Letter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlX5IWwizGg
Addendum - Mad Dogs & Englishmen indeed!
Part of the game of politics is misinformation or disinformation. If you have the decision as to when an election is closed, it seems odd to close off any option at this time. The last polls of 2023 taken between Christmas and New Year show little sign of festive goodwill towards the Conservatives.
I'm sure all the main parties are as ready as they can be for an election at any time. There may still be some candidates yet to be chosen but these will be primarily be paper candidates in unwinnable seats. In East Ham, Reform has chosen its candidate and it is widely expected Stephen Timms will run again but no other party has yet chosen a candidate but if they had to they probably could very quickly.
Rishi Sunak isn't stupid and he can clearly see which way the wind is blowing and like Micawber can wait for something to turn up but he also probably realises he has to dance a victory dance even if defeat beckons. The worst message you can give your supporters is to look defeatist so Sunak will go on believing publicly in the possibility of victory even though he will know it's over.
The bigger problem is persuading people to vote for him in spite of being a Conservative as against voting Conservative in spite of him.
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
That'd get him in the headlines all right.
(And if any journalist had some cojones, they'd ask him the same
The Tories will polarise this election to hell. Starmer is letting the other side decide how it will develop. He's got "leader of the opposition who retires having never won an election" written all over him. He should polarise - get up early in the morning and polarise further than he thinks the Tories will - but he won't.
Except perhaps to note, that former might actually help them, by hurting Labour?
For a start, wealthy women are more likely to have C-sections*.
Against that, C-sections are often performed earlier*, and therefore foetuses (or babies if you prefer) tend to be less well developed when they are born, which correlates with lower educational achievement.
Does anyone know if use of forceps correlates with lower educational achievement?
* Too posh to push
Somebody told him his genius is linked to being a massive c… and he thought they said ‘being from.’
The contrapositive also makes sense: technology is not going to take over evolution, so the man is an idiot.
What he doesn't seem to realise is the role of culture in increasing - and for the last few thousand years, in holding back - the intelligence of the species. But then...look at the company he recently bought - the one whose famous service he uses to propagate this latest thought.
London cabbies who do "the Knowledge" get bigger posterior hippocampuses than the average. Nothing to do with the diameter of their mothers' birth canals.
Yep, he'd look good by comparison to America.
Unfortunately (for him) neither Biden nor Trump are leaders of the Labour Party.
"Musk Warns Wilders Dutch May ‘Die Out’ Due to Low Birth Rate"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-04/musk-warns-wilders-dutch-may-die-out-due-to-low-birth-rate
"Too posh to push" is unfair. I've known women who aren't posh who had elective Caesareans because they felt the NHS messes them up less often than they mess up normal deliveries. Playing it safe.
So it would not hurt Labour from that point of view.
It may not help the Tories much but it wouldn't form a part of their calculations.
> By definition, the UK campaign would be occurring during leadup to first Tuesday after first Monday in November.
> PLUS the fact that the US election will NOT be over, as Electoral College won't vote until December
> Perhaps might be assumed this is just a formality/technicality? With Trump & Co in the mix????
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Meanwhile:
https://www.pepf.co.uk/fact-finder/facts-and-figures/
proportion of pupils at private schools:
England: 6.4%
Wales: 2%
Scotland: 4.3%
Northern Ireland: <1%
Private schools might be smaller so would have to shut for a day. Significant loss of revenue. (My primary school did shut for a day when used as a polling station. It's why they eventually switched it to the local church.)
They might also not be very conveniently located (would the people of Denstone traipse to Denstone school to vote)?
The rooms might not be suitable.
Being a Lord, Cameron wouldn't be defending a seat, and would probably give better speeches than Sunak.
Also the bit about state schools, a reminder that's state schools in England and Wales, not Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Managing multiple births on an understaffed labour ward, often happening simultaneously is very demanding and always carries some risk, particularly if staff are out of their depth. A planned section is often the safer option, though does carry its own risks for the mother.
Today, hovercrafts are cancelled, Rectory Road Niton is flooded, all Island Line trains are cancelled, Middle Road Afton is blocked, Main Road Sandford is flooded, Brading is described as ‘treacherous’, the manhole covers up the hill from me are all lifted and the road is a river, Fairlee Road is flooded, Ashey Road is flooded, bus routes 2, 3, 7 & 8 are diverted or stopping short, Lukely Brook is on flood alert, sandbags are being issued in East Cowes, Briddlesford Road is closed, St John’s Ryde is on flood alert, the pub at Wootton Bridge has closed as its car park is under water, etc etc.
Please give generously when the island disaster appeal is launched nationwide…
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-prefer-britain-remain-monarchy
I would also add it’s not Rishi or team suggesting May, it’s commentators suggesting it based on how quickly tranche one of tax cuts will hit pockets, timing of budget, and how a lot of journalists feel May makes more sense. January’s tax cut is distant memory come November.
Of course the King is also head of state of Australia and NZ too not just here and the idea he should postpone a visit to 2 of his realms just so the UK PM can call a general election on that date rather than wait a fortnight or so is absurd
The effect of forceps delivery on cognitive development
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 169 (5), Nov 1993
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/000293789390261G
As an aside to staying in this harbour the house is directly below a big old castle and it’s quite freaky looking up at it. Firstly you can’t help, despite not believing in ghosts, looking up at the ramparts and sort of expecting to see some spectre of one of the many who have died there over hundreds of years through conflict or other reasons.
Secondly it’s quite amazing thinking how absolutely bleak it must have been in the past living there and especially on sentry before it was floodlit. Bloody freezing and dark couldn’t be good combinations.
This is the view up from the house.
Would save money, too. Could definitely be spun as a political choice by the (sic) careful custodians of the economy*....
*(Ed: biggest tax and spenders in a generation)
I defer to PB’s older posters as to precisely when in the 1940s that was.