NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
Surely every bill the government sends up the Lord's has been backed by MPs? What point does Sunak think he's making?
I fail to see any convention that stops the Lord's from amending the teeth out of the Act or rejecting it altogether. This hair brained scheme hadn't even been considered in the last election manifesto so I don't see that he has a leg to stand on.
It doesn't seem to have occurred to Sunak and the Tories that the 20% of voters who think that Stopping the Boats is the number one priority for the country are precisely the same 20% who are going to vote Tory anyway. (Unless some of them slide off to Reform if the Boats aren't Stopped.)
Rishi Sunak’s good night didn’t last long. The Times is reporting a new YouGov puts the Tories on 20% - 27 points behind Labour.
Must be a rogue poll. The fan club repeatedly assured us Starmer would take a big hit for his role in the Post Office scandal. It was all over GBeebies and Guido, it must cut through surely.
Rishi Sunak’s good night didn’t last long. The Times is reporting a new YouGov puts the Tories on 20% - 27 points behind Labour.
Probably just an outlier
If their MRP says a Labour majority of 120 on a 13.5 point lead, a swing of 12.7% identical to that which the BBC says delivered a bare majority on UNC, then what kind of majority do YouGov think a 27 point lead will deliver.
The regionaity of the swings does seem to mean Labour will outperform UNC, lower in Wales and London where target seats are relatively few and often fairly marginal anyway, lower in Scotland where Con-Lab swing isn't the relevant measure, and higher where all those juicy big swing targets are.
60 seats worth of UNC outperformance is a pretty spectacular MRP claim though.
Rishi Sunak’s good night didn’t last long. The Times is reporting a new YouGov puts the Tories on 20% - 27 points behind Labour.
Must be a rogue poll. The fan club repeatedly assured us Starmer would take a big hit for his role in the Post Office scandal. It was all over GBeebies and Guido, it must cut through surely.
The trouble is that the Labour government will be facing all this from day one knowing that the traditional centre-left parties are dying all over Europe. Can they buck the trend? I presume they are hoping that under our system the Tories will be even more unpopular and they can just largely ignore the migration issue because there is no real political competition.
@PippaCrerar · 3m BREAKING: Rishi Sunak's flagship Rwanda deportation bill passes its final Commons hurdle by 320 votes to 276, majority 44.
2 days of disgraceful showboating by the conservative right
From their point of view though, they made their point it’s not beefed up enough to deliver on promise, versus government position it is. How long does the government now have to prove it is before the rebels de facto are proved right?
That in itself could matter in future leadership contests, Braverman v Badenoch for example.
How long does the government now have to prove It hasn’t been over optimistic and over promising under delivering on this one? That’s why I think the governments mere tinkering here points to General Election May 2nd.
On the next GE I see no evidence it will be in May and expect it now in November- December
Sunak needs to move on from Rwanda and talk about economic recovery, tax cuts in March budget and an Autumn statement immediately before calling GE 24
Later Summer statement if he wants the money in people's pockets before a November election.
Possibly but I think even Starmer expects 2 more fiscal events before the election
1 - If a GE 2nd May, Dissolution would be 26th March, 68 days away. 6th March is budget day, 48 days away. 13 working week days in parliament between 6th March and 26th. Should we count Fridays? 🤔
2 - There’s already some substantial elections taking place May 2nd, so party political electioneering mode will ramp up at some point anyway. With Khan and London involved that is an awful lot we will hear about “the anger expressed at Uxbridge”.
Tory client press, and some others, already banged on about beer and curries all through one local election campaign, I suspect if Starmer remains focus of the Tory re-election attacks, what left of the press will be banging on about Sunak betting against UK on the markets and using covid to make money on vaccines. 🫣
If the General Election isn’t 2nd of May, how much never ending politics and bun fighting can the electorate take, before they start blaming the government for it going on and on?
3 - Reasons for May 2nd Inflation battle won still fresh in minds The budget - Tax cuts promise and upbeat “right track - turning corner” fresh in voters minds Dirty Tricks Unit clearly now on steroids and hard at work. How many red bulls can a human consume in 11 months and still be human? May 2nd, coinciding with local and Mayor elections, allows to be have added focus Uxbridge style election focus, the war on motorists and on how Labours £28B Green Contract will screw over UK economy and every taxpayer. Avoids this years expected surge in illegal channel crossings, that would be failure impossible to explain Avoids the damning interim covid report publication Avoids having to get the Rwanda Plan delivering results. Avoids angry PO victims asking for action on the promises Rishi made to them in January Avoids credibility and moral shattering set of locals before General Election Avoids mortgage crisis of key voters actually deepening by switching to higher mortgage deals Avoids the predicted doom and gloom of Q3 economic slowdown Avoids another “zombie conference” before election, last years seems to have properly screwed Tory polling Avoids two year anniversary of Trussterfuck in the news Avoids two year anniversary of PM Sunak in the news, and much reflection how things haven’t got better Avoids opposition fun with “squatting” “frit” narrative and perpetual phoney campaigning, that some believe torpedoed Majors chance of much better result
In favour of June or later Micawberism - something might turn up to shift the polls, despite all the expert predictions of a conveyer belt of ever increasing difficult news for government coming in second half of year Use the spring board of conference to fly straight into the election. 🫣 presumes voters still open minded who to vote for, and actually interested in hearing substance from Labour before deciding Anything else?
Didn't the Princess of Wales have very bad stomach trouble and was sent to bed for weeks prior to her giving birth each time. No idea what that means or if it's related.
She suffered from a very severe form of morning sickness which led to hospitalisation on one occasion.
I spent 2 weeks in hospital after the birth of my first. If you have a related blood condition, as I do, then there all sorts of things to monitor afterwards which cannot easily be done at home.
Anyway hope that it all goes well for her and for @Big_G_NorthWales's son in law.
Here - after the snow yesterday and some truly awful rain - we have been blessed with the most beautiful day with a sharp clear light. Frosty tonight but the sky is clear and the starry sky magnificent.
Sometimes I think it's amazing the human species has managed to survive given how much women are made to suffer for having children.
Indeed. The human advantages of big brain and bipedalism come at a cost of very tricky and painful birth - resulting in a lot of lost children and mothers, relative to other mammals - and children born at a much earlier stage of development relative to other primates, again resulting in high infant mortality and a lot of hard work for mothers. And pregnancy for humans seems rather harder than for other mammals. I don't know why.
As a race, we're doing ok now, but there must have been times back in the first half of human history when brain and bipedalism looked like a bigger cost than a benefit, given all that.
Can anyone explain to me how this would not be legislating from the bench, and a huge political power grab by the Court ?
The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/supreme-court-democrats-president-chevron-precedent.html … The three liberal justices, led by Kagan, mounted an impressive defense of Chevron in the face of their colleagues’ open hostility. At its core, Kagan explained, the doctrine is about respecting democratic choices. Congress (whom the people elect) passes laws that grant the president (whom the people elect) broad discretion to make certain policy choices by assigning key decisions to executive agencies; federal judges (whom the people do not elect) must defer to these decisions so long as the accountable officials interpret the law reasonably. Some choices are highly technical and rely on the agency’s specialized expertise. Others are contentious, allowing the agency to take sides in a public debate.
With Chevron, each new administration provides its own answer to these questions. If the people don’t like the answers, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted, they can vote for a new president. Without Chevron, each administration is handcuffed to the federal judiciary’s answer, replacing a “democratic structure” with “judicial policymaking.” Jackson didn’t say this next part, but everyone knows it: Because SCOTUS is relentlessly hostile to the administrative state, this system stacks the deck in favor of deregulation. Which—let’s be honest—means boosting Republican presidents and hobbling Democratic ones.
And yet, throughout Wednesday’s arguments, the conservative justices condemned Chevron as some kind of anti-accountability chaos agent that sabotages good government. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who dissed Chevron during his audition for SCOTUS, assailed the decision’s democratic traits as a bug, not a feature. “The reality of how this works,” Kavanaugh said, “is Chevron itself ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in—whether it’s communications law or securities law, competition law or environmental law, it goes from pillar to post.” New administrations change policy, Kavanaugh continued, “because they have disagreements with the policy of the prior administration.”
But why is that a bad thing? Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who did a stellar (if futile) job defending Chevron, reminded Kavanaugh: “There’s nothing inherently problematic or incompatible with our system of government to recognize that agencies can carry out” new policies where Congress gave them flexibility. Gorsuch, archenemy of the administrative state, sounded aghast at this arrangement...
@PippaCrerar · 3m BREAKING: Rishi Sunak's flagship Rwanda deportation bill passes its final Commons hurdle by 320 votes to 276, majority 44.
2 days of disgraceful showboating by the conservative right
From their point of view though, they made their point it’s not beefed up enough to deliver on promise, versus government position it is. How long does the government now have to prove it is before the rebels de facto are proved right?
That in itself could matter in future leadership contests, Braverman v Badenoch for example.
How long does the government now have to prove It hasn’t been over optimistic and over promising under delivering on this one? That’s why I think the governments mere tinkering here points to General Election May 2nd.
On the next GE I see no evidence it will be in May and expect it now in November- December
Sunak needs to move on from Rwanda and talk about economic recovery, tax cuts in March budget and an Autumn statement immediately before calling GE 24
Later Summer statement if he wants the money in people's pockets before a November election.
Possibly but I think even Starmer expects 2 more fiscal events before the election
1 - If a GE 2nd May, Dissolution would be 26th March, 68 days away. 6th March is budget day, 48 days away. 13 working week days in parliament between 6th March and 26th. Should we count Fridays? 🤔
2 - There’s already some substantial elections taking place May 2nd, so party political electioneering mode will ramp up at some point anyway. With Khan and London involved that is an awful lot we will hear about “the anger expressed at Uxbridge”.
Tory client press, and some others, already banged on about beer and curries all through one local election campaign, I suspect if Starmer remains focus of the Tory re-election attacks, what left of the press will be banging on about Sunak betting against UK on the markets and using covid to make money on vaccines. 🫣
If the General Election isn’t 2nd of May, how much never ending politics and bun fighting can the electorate take, before they start blaming the government for it going on and on?
3 - Reasons for May 2nd Inflation battle won still fresh in minds The budget - Tax cuts promise and upbeat “right track - turning corner” fresh in voters minds Dirty Tricks Unit clearly now on steroids and hard at work. How many red bulls can a human consume in 11 months and still be human? May 2nd, coinciding with local and Mayor elections, allows to be have added focus Uxbridge style election focus, the war on motorists and on how Labours £28B Green Contract will screw over UK economy and every taxpayer. Avoids this years expected surge in illegal channel crossings, that would be failure impossible to explain Avoids the damning interim covid report publication Avoids having to get the Rwanda Plan delivering results. Avoids angry PO victims asking for action on the promises Rishi made to them in January Avoids credibility and moral shattering set of locals before General Election Avoids mortgage crisis of key voters actually deepening by switching to higher mortgage deals Avoids the predicted doom and gloom of Q3 economic slowdown Avoids another “zombie conference” before election, last years seems to have properly screwed Tory polling Avoids two year anniversary of Trussterfuck in the news Avoids two year anniversary of PM Sunak in the news, and much reflection how things haven’t got better Avoids opposition fun with “squatting” “frit” narrative and perpetual phoney campaigning, that some believe torpedoed Majors chance of much better result
In favour of June or later Micawberism - something might turn up to shift the polls, despite all the expert predictions of a conveyer belt of ever increasing difficult news for government coming in second half of year Use the spring board of conference to fly straight into the election. 🫣 presumes voters still open minded who to vote for, and actually interested in hearing substance from Labour before deciding Anything else?
Can anyone explain to me how this would not be legislating from the bench, and a huge political power grab by the Court ?
The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/supreme-court-democrats-president-chevron-precedent.html … The three liberal justices, led by Kagan, mounted an impressive defense of Chevron in the face of their colleagues’ open hostility. At its core, Kagan explained, the doctrine is about respecting democratic choices. Congress (whom the people elect) passes laws that grant the president (whom the people elect) broad discretion to make certain policy choices by assigning key decisions to executive agencies; federal judges (whom the people do not elect) must defer to these decisions so long as the accountable officials interpret the law reasonably. Some choices are highly technical and rely on the agency’s specialized expertise. Others are contentious, allowing the agency to take sides in a public debate.
With Chevron, each new administration provides its own answer to these questions. If the people don’t like the answers, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted, they can vote for a new president. Without Chevron, each administration is handcuffed to the federal judiciary’s answer, replacing a “democratic structure” with “judicial policymaking.” Jackson didn’t say this next part, but everyone knows it: Because SCOTUS is relentlessly hostile to the administrative state, this system stacks the deck in favor of deregulation. Which—let’s be honest—means boosting Republican presidents and hobbling Democratic ones.
And yet, throughout Wednesday’s arguments, the conservative justices condemned Chevron as some kind of anti-accountability chaos agent that sabotages good government. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who dissed Chevron during his audition for SCOTUS, assailed the decision’s democratic traits as a bug, not a feature. “The reality of how this works,” Kavanaugh said, “is Chevron itself ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in—whether it’s communications law or securities law, competition law or environmental law, it goes from pillar to post.” New administrations change policy, Kavanaugh continued, “because they have disagreements with the policy of the prior administration.”
But why is that a bad thing? Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who did a stellar (if futile) job defending Chevron, reminded Kavanaugh: “There’s nothing inherently problematic or incompatible with our system of government to recognize that agencies can carry out” new policies where Congress gave them flexibility. Gorsuch, archenemy of the administrative state, sounded aghast at this arrangement...
All those people who have cheered on the increasing power of the courts in this country ought to be careful what they wish for.
Didn't the Princess of Wales have very bad stomach trouble and was sent to bed for weeks prior to her giving birth each time. No idea what that means or if it's related.
She suffered from a very severe form of morning sickness which led to hospitalisation on one occasion.
I spent 2 weeks in hospital after the birth of my first. If you have a related blood condition, as I do, then there all sorts of things to monitor afterwards which cannot easily be done at home.
Anyway hope that it all goes well for her and for @Big_G_NorthWales's son in law.
Here - after the snow yesterday and some truly awful rain - we have been blessed with the most beautiful day with a sharp clear light. Frosty tonight but the sky is clear and the starry sky magnificent.
Sometimes I think it's amazing the human species has managed to survive given how much women are made to suffer for having children.
Indeed. The human advantages of big brain and bipedalism come at a cost of very tricky and painful birth - resulting in a lot of lost children and mothers, relative to other mammals - and children born at a much earlier stage of development relative to other primates, again resulting in high infant mortality and a lot of hard work for mothers. And pregnancy for humans seems rather harder than for other mammals. I don't know why.
As a race, we're doing ok now, but there must have been times back in the first half of human history when brain and bipedalism looked like a bigger cost than a benefit, given all that.
We come into this world in blood and screaming. We are extremely fortunate and blessed if we don't leave the same way.
@PippaCrerar · 3m BREAKING: Rishi Sunak's flagship Rwanda deportation bill passes its final Commons hurdle by 320 votes to 276, majority 44.
2 days of disgraceful showboating by the conservative right
From their point of view though, they made their point it’s not beefed up enough to deliver on promise, versus government position it is. How long does the government now have to prove it is before the rebels de facto are proved right?
That in itself could matter in future leadership contests, Braverman v Badenoch for example.
How long does the government now have to prove It hasn’t been over optimistic and over promising under delivering on this one? That’s why I think the governments mere tinkering here points to General Election May 2nd.
On the next GE I see no evidence it will be in May and expect it now in November- December
Sunak needs to move on from Rwanda and talk about economic recovery, tax cuts in March budget and an Autumn statement immediately before calling GE 24
Later Summer statement if he wants the money in people's pockets before a November election.
Possibly but I think even Starmer expects 2 more fiscal events before the election
1 - If a GE 2nd May, Dissolution would be 26th March, 68 days away. 6th March is budget day, 48 days away. 13 working week days in parliament between 6th March and 26th. Should we count Fridays? 🤔
2 - There’s already some substantial elections taking place May 2nd, so party political electioneering mode will ramp up at some point anyway. With Khan and London involved that is an awful lot we will hear about “the anger expressed at Uxbridge”.
Tory client press, and some others, already banged on about beer and curries all through one local election campaign, I suspect if Starmer remains focus of the Tory re-election attacks, what left of the press will be banging on about Sunak betting against UK on the markets and using covid to make money on vaccines. 🫣
If the General Election isn’t 2nd of May, how much never ending politics and bun fighting can the electorate take, before they start blaming the government for it going on and on?
3 - Reasons for May 2nd Inflation battle won still fresh in minds The budget - Tax cuts promise and upbeat “right track - turning corner” fresh in voters minds Dirty Tricks Unit clearly now on steroids and hard at work. How many red bulls can a human consume in 11 months and still be human? May 2nd, coinciding with local and Mayor elections, allows to be have added focus Uxbridge style election focus, the war on motorists and on how Labours £28B Green Contract will screw over UK economy and every taxpayer. Avoids this years expected surge in illegal channel crossings, that would be failure impossible to explain Avoids the damning interim covid report publication Avoids having to get the Rwanda Plan delivering results. Avoids angry PO victims asking for action on the promises Rishi made to them in January Avoids credibility and moral shattering set of locals before General Election Avoids mortgage crisis of key voters actually deepening by switching to higher mortgage deals Avoids the predicted doom and gloom of Q3 economic slowdown Avoids another “zombie conference” before election, last years seems to have properly screwed Tory polling Avoids two year anniversary of Trussterfuck in the news Avoids two year anniversary of PM Sunak in the news, and much reflection how things haven’t got better Avoids opposition fun with “squatting” “frit” narrative and perpetual phoney campaigning, that some believe torpedoed Majors chance of much better result
In favour of June or later Micawberism - something might turn up to shift the polls, despite all the expert predictions of a conveyer belt of ever increasing difficult news for government coming in second half of year Use the spring board of conference to fly straight into the election. 🫣 presumes voters still open minded who to vote for, and actually interested in hearing substance from Labour before deciding Anything else?
2nd May. Anyone not yet convinced?
You've convinced me that any sensible government would be going for 2nd May.
Rishi Sunak’s good night didn’t last long. The Times is reporting a new YouGov puts the Tories on 20% - 27 points behind Labour.
Probably just an outlier
If their MRP says a Labour majority of 120 on a 13.5 point lead, a swing of 12.7% identical to that which the BBC says delivered a bare majority on UNC, then what kind of majority do YouGov think a 27 point lead will deliver.
The regionaity of the swings does seem to mean Labour will outperform UNC, lower in Wales and London where target seats are relatively few and often fairly marginal anyway, lower in Scotland where Con-Lab swing isn't the relevant measure, and higher where all those juicy big swing targets are.
60 seats worth of UNC outperformance is a pretty spectacular MRP claim though.
Didn't the Princess of Wales have very bad stomach trouble and was sent to bed for weeks prior to her giving birth each time. No idea what that means or if it's related.
She suffered from a very severe form of morning sickness which led to hospitalisation on one occasion.
I spent 2 weeks in hospital after the birth of my first. If you have a related blood condition, as I do, then there all sorts of things to monitor afterwards which cannot easily be done at home.
Anyway hope that it all goes well for her and for @Big_G_NorthWales's son in law.
Here - after the snow yesterday and some truly awful rain - we have been blessed with the most beautiful day with a sharp clear light. Frosty tonight but the sky is clear and the starry sky magnificent.
Sometimes I think it's amazing the human species has managed to survive given how much women are made to suffer for having children.
Indeed. The human advantages of big brain and bipedalism come at a cost of very tricky and painful birth - resulting in a lot of lost children and mothers, relative to other mammals - and children born at a much earlier stage of development relative to other primates, again resulting in high infant mortality and a lot of hard work for mothers. And pregnancy for humans seems rather harder than for other mammals. I don't know why.
As a race, we're doing ok now, but there must have been times back in the first half of human history when brain and bipedalism looked like a bigger cost than a benefit, given all that.
We come into this world in blood and screaming. We are extremely fortunate and blessed if we don't leave the same way.
Yes, though given that it's the fate of many animals to leave the world in the talons and jaws of other animals, while human births are trickier than many, on deaths we probably have the better side of the bargain!
At least Liz gave us a laugh - something to giggle about, pork markets, "growth! :-D". Rishi was supposed to be the return to Grown Up Politics but he's just been a very, very dull attempt at a christmas-cracker joke.
Could Reform overtake the Tories before the election?
It goes to show how crazy these times are, that I doubt one in a thousand people in the UK could name two Reform politicians (and I’m including Farage as one even though he’s not) yet they’re 8pts behind the govt in a poll.
- Reform overtake the Tories triggering a meltdown of the party - A big chunk of the remaining Tory vote then switches sides and Reform approaches 30% in the polls - Reform start breaking through in the Red Well leaving Keir Starmer's well planned strategy in disarray - Election ends in a hung parliament with the Tories wiped out
All this Rwanda rubbish is doing is increasing media coverage on the government's own failure on immigration.
It's the equivalent of Lib Dem's in 2015 campaigning solely on a graduate tax to to replace tuition fees.
Or Corbyn 2019 leading every speech on how to improve relations with Russia.
Reminding voters of your own shortcomings as a primary part of a campaign isn't a great strategy. Unless your goal, in this case, is to give Reform an electoral boost.
- Reform overtake the Tories triggering a meltdown of the party - A big chunk of the remaining Tory vote then switches sides and Reform approaches 30% in the polls - Reform start breaking through in the Red Well leaving Keir Starmer's well planned strategy in disarray - Election ends in a hung parliament with the Tories wiped out
Not going to happen and certainly not unless Farage comes back to lead Reform.
Therefore under FPTP the Tories will start to squeeze the Reform vote at least a bit by polling day
But UKIP had a policy, and non stop media coverage. Maybe it’s because I’m not aboard the Reform train yet, but they don’t seem to have any media coverage, or any real policies.
It’s just people preferring Farage to Rishi I suppose
- Reform overtake the Tories triggering a meltdown of the party - A big chunk of the remaining Tory vote then switches sides and Reform approaches 30% in the polls - Reform start breaking through in the Red Well leaving Keir Starmer's well planned strategy in disarray - Election ends in a hung parliament with the Tories wiped out
- Then you wake up and it's all been a dream - Labour have the biggest landslide in history, LDs are the Official Opposition and Reform have precisely zero MPs.
- Reform overtake the Tories triggering a meltdown of the party - A big chunk of the remaining Tory vote then switches sides and Reform approaches 30% in the polls - Reform start breaking through in the Red Well leaving Keir Starmer's well planned strategy in disarray - Election ends in a hung parliament with the Tories wiped out
- Then you wake up and it's all been a dream - Labour have the biggest landslide in history, LDs are the Official Opposition and Reform have precisely zero MPs.
That wouldn't be such a bad result for populists. It would reinforce how broken the system is and how unrepresentative of the public parliament is.
Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · 1h So this vile #RwandaBill passes 320 to 276 and takes a wrecking ball to international law, showcasing a dying government degrading our democratic processes and vilifying some of the world’s most vulnerable people. Britain is better than this
- Reform overtake the Tories triggering a meltdown of the party - A big chunk of the remaining Tory vote then switches sides and Reform approaches 30% in the polls - Reform start breaking through in the Red Well leaving Keir Starmer's well planned strategy in disarray - Election ends in a hung parliament with the Tories wiped out
- Then you wake up and it's all been a dream - Labour have the biggest landslide in history, LDs are the Official Opposition and Reform have precisely zero MPs.
That wouldn't be such a bad result for populists. It would reinforce how broken the system is and how unrepresentative of the public parliament is.
The LibDems have been banging that drum for ages - to no avail at all.
(The link says Tuesday, but it works for Thursday!)
I see austerity Reeves says she wants to cut taxes for those earning over £100k.
No wonder Tories are jumping ship.
I suppose you couldn't bring yourself to write "SKS please explain [a 27% poll lead]"
Anyway, for once Starmer/Reeves are taking a lead from your hero. In 2017 Corbyn went into the election promising that no-one earning under £80k would see an increase in their taxes. With inflation that would be over £100k now.
I didn't believe Corbyn then, and I don't believe Starmer/Reeves now.
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
Surely every bill the government sends up the Lord's has been backed by MPs? What point does Sunak think he's making?
I fail to see any convention that stops the Lord's from amending the teeth out of the Act or rejecting it altogether. This hair brained scheme hadn't even been considered in the last election manifesto so I don't see that he has a leg to stand on.
We’ve seen his attitude towards the judiciary this week. This is just part and parcel.
- Reform overtake the Tories triggering a meltdown of the party - A big chunk of the remaining Tory vote then switches sides and Reform approaches 30% in the polls - Reform start breaking through in the Red Well leaving Keir Starmer's well planned strategy in disarray - Election ends in a hung parliament with the Tories wiped out
A Canada-style wipeout for the Tories seems much more likely than many seem to think.
They are utterly hopeless and clueless.
Not yet, the 1993 Canada result was their populist right Reform party 19%, Canadian Tories 16%, so we are not there at present.
Of course the end result of that was to shift the main right of centre party in Canada even further right. With Reform's successor, the Canadian Alliance effectively taking over the Canadian Tories in 2003 to create today's Conservative Party of Canada
- Reform overtake the Tories triggering a meltdown of the party - A big chunk of the remaining Tory vote then switches sides and Reform approaches 30% in the polls - Reform start breaking through in the Red Well leaving Keir Starmer's well planned strategy in disarray - Election ends in a hung parliament with the Tories wiped out
- Then you wake up and it's all been a dream - Labour have the biggest landslide in history, LDs are the Official Opposition and Reform have precisely zero MPs.
That wouldn't be such a bad result for populists. It would reinforce how broken the system is and how unrepresentative of the public parliament is.
The LibDems have been banging that drum for ages - to no avail at all.
- Reform overtake the Tories triggering a meltdown of the party - A big chunk of the remaining Tory vote then switches sides and Reform approaches 30% in the polls - Reform start breaking through in the Red Well leaving Keir Starmer's well planned strategy in disarray - Election ends in a hung parliament with the Tories wiped out
I don't see how the current situation of Tory 26%, Reform 9% is going to switch around in just a few months.
Labour majority of 410 on those figures, via Electoral Calculus; Tories down to 41 seats.
Suspect we have now reached the Lab high point.
Why?
Surely even this set of tories have a floor?
This was what they were polling pre Boris, and now they’re back there. Maybe this is what they are when they’ve an leader who is unpopular with their voters, whose shoulders Farage is tapping on
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
Probably. Will that stave off disaster, or simply reduce it do you think?
It would need to have the dynamic impact of drastically reducing (all but eliminating frankly) the crossings due to the pull factors not being present. I believe it can, providing there can be lots of flights initially. I forget the actual figures, but you are several more times as likely to have your asylum claim accepted in the UK than in France. That's the pull factor. If you think you're going to be sent to Rwanda, you're not going to set foot on that dinghy.
If that happened (and it's an almighty if), it doesn't just help the Tories on an important issue, it writes their whole election campaign as the party willing to act, take the brickbats, and offer solutions not platitudes.
Could Reform overtake the Tories before the election?
These are getting to close to Canada 1993 numbers.
Tories would only save seats by accidental three-way marginals emerging through this.
This would require large numbers of rural seats to go Lib Dem, no?
Clearly possible, given historical Lib Dem strength in the south west, but doesn't seem likely under Davey.
(Reform percentage is bullshit: willing to take sensible bets at evens on a chosen percentage of votes nationwide)
Why Labour have never made serious attempts to woo rural constituencies a mystery to me. Seems as easy or easier than tories trying to court inner city votes.
Labour majority of 410 on those figures, via Electoral Calculus; Tories down to 41 seats.
Interesting to look at a post near extinction Tory leadership election.
On EC those still standing i would nclude Barclay, Laura Trott, Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Tugendhat and Jayawardena. And Mark Francois. And perhaps someone in on one of the 2+3 new seats that survive
Labour majority of 410 on those figures, via Electoral Calculus; Tories down to 41 seats.
Suspect we have now reached the Lab high point.
Why?
Surely even this set of tories have a floor?
I think the problem is they have a floor of people who will consider themselves Tories in a general sense, but it is looking as though the floor for those will actually always turn out to vote Tory is quite a bit lower than the party thought it was. Closer to that 20 than the 30.
They have to genuinely consider that they could do worse than 1997 (and once that happens they risk an absoltely apocalyptic tipping point where you drop dozens more with small % drops), and might now take such a result if offered. I don't think in the end it will be quite that low, but in terms of seats I think a total reversal of 2019 is now most likely.
Forget the substance of what she says, the way Stella Creasy asks “What does she think NATO is” encapsulates everything I dislike about the modern left.
Hey, Casino, don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate Starmer fans will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx! WVAP! Fry half a Parliamentary constituency with this puppy! We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks, leaflets,extremely dodgy bar charts...
It’s basically a completely uninteresting no change poll. Just how you rearrange your deck chairs on deck.
What trend there is, virtually nothing, but LLG weakening in election year, C&R getting stronger.
This one LLG 62 C&R 32 10th LLG 62. C&R 32 2nd LLG 63. C&R 31
These are the knowns, I’m not letting you dispute what I’m saying so far, as this is Empirical fact.
Now the unknowns. How fluid LLG anti Tory votes and C&R anti Labour votes are on election day.
In fact I suspect some PBers who fancy themselves as psephologists will argue you can’t add all R to C, R tell pollsters when push come to shove at least a third will go Labour if not R.
Unfortunately though this isn’t what happened last election - after starting gun was fired Tories swallowed virtually the lot. So you don’t really know how fluid R to C actually is when push comes to shove, just a lot of speculative buts: but Starmer isn’t Corbyn, but Rishi not Boris, no Brexit to get done etc - against the fact they swallowed the lot late on last time.
You are so lucky to have me, I am so good at this now, all the counting sheep I’ve been doing has me right on my psephological game. 😌
Labour majority of 410 on those figures, via Electoral Calculus; Tories down to 41 seats.
Suspect we have now reached the Lab high point.
Why?
Surely even this set of tories have a floor?
I think the problem is they have a floor of people who will consider themselves Tories in a general sense, but it is looking as though the floor for those will actually always turn out to vote Tory is quite a bit lower than the party thought it was. Closer to that 20 than the 30.
They have to genuinely consider that they could do worse than 1997 (and once that happens they risk an absoltely apocalyptic tipping point where you drop dozens more with small % drops), and might now take such a result if offered. I don't think in the end it will be quite that low, but in terms of seats I think a total reversal of 2019 is now most likely.
I'm sticking to the view that as ever in UK elections there will be a tightening closer to polling day.
Could Reform overtake the Tories before the election?
These are getting to close to Canada 1993 numbers.
Tories would only save seats by accidental three-way marginals emerging through this.
This would require large numbers of rural seats to go Lib Dem, no?
Clearly possible, given historical Lib Dem strength in the south west, but doesn't seem likely under Davey.
(Reform percentage is bullshit: willing to take sensible bets at evens on a chosen percentage of votes nationwide)
Why Labour have never made serious attempts to woo rural constituencies a mystery to me. Seems as easy or easier than tories trying to court inner city votes.
I think Labour have woken up to the rural potential now, following by-election victories in largely rural Selby and Mid-Beds. Even in Tamworth the campaign literature referred to "Tamworth and the Villages".
- Reform overtake the Tories triggering a meltdown of the party - A big chunk of the remaining Tory vote then switches sides and Reform approaches 30% in the polls - Reform start breaking through in the Red Well leaving Keir Starmer's well planned strategy in disarray - Election ends in a hung parliament with the Tories wiped out
Labour in really big trouble then William?
Yes, worrying times for them. If the Tories keep falling they'll really be in trouble.
Can anyone explain to me how this would not be legislating from the bench, and a huge political power grab by the Court ?
The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/supreme-court-democrats-president-chevron-precedent.html … The three liberal justices, led by Kagan, mounted an impressive defense of Chevron in the face of their colleagues’ open hostility. At its core, Kagan explained, the doctrine is about respecting democratic choices. Congress (whom the people elect) passes laws that grant the president (whom the people elect) broad discretion to make certain policy choices by assigning key decisions to executive agencies; federal judges (whom the people do not elect) must defer to these decisions so long as the accountable officials interpret the law reasonably. Some choices are highly technical and rely on the agency’s specialized expertise. Others are contentious, allowing the agency to take sides in a public debate.
With Chevron, each new administration provides its own answer to these questions. If the people don’t like the answers, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted, they can vote for a new president. Without Chevron, each administration is handcuffed to the federal judiciary’s answer, replacing a “democratic structure” with “judicial policymaking.” Jackson didn’t say this next part, but everyone knows it: Because SCOTUS is relentlessly hostile to the administrative state, this system stacks the deck in favor of deregulation. Which—let’s be honest—means boosting Republican presidents and hobbling Democratic ones.
And yet, throughout Wednesday’s arguments, the conservative justices condemned Chevron as some kind of anti-accountability chaos agent that sabotages good government. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who dissed Chevron during his audition for SCOTUS, assailed the decision’s democratic traits as a bug, not a feature. “The reality of how this works,” Kavanaugh said, “is Chevron itself ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in—whether it’s communications law or securities law, competition law or environmental law, it goes from pillar to post.” New administrations change policy, Kavanaugh continued, “because they have disagreements with the policy of the prior administration.”
But why is that a bad thing? Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who did a stellar (if futile) job defending Chevron, reminded Kavanaugh: “There’s nothing inherently problematic or incompatible with our system of government to recognize that agencies can carry out” new policies where Congress gave them flexibility. Gorsuch, archenemy of the administrative state, sounded aghast at this arrangement...
All those people who have cheered on the increasing power of the courts in this country ought to be careful what they wish for.
Are court powers increasing, or is government just finding their insistence on laws as they exist increasingly irksome ?
A government with coherent plans, and parliamentary support to legislate for them, would not be having quite the same problems.
@PippaCrerar · 3m BREAKING: Rishi Sunak's flagship Rwanda deportation bill passes its final Commons hurdle by 320 votes to 276, majority 44.
2 days of disgraceful showboating by the conservative right
From their point of view though, they made their point it’s not beefed up enough to deliver on promise, versus government position it is. How long does the government now have to prove it is before the rebels de facto are proved right?
That in itself could matter in future leadership contests, Braverman v Badenoch for example.
How long does the government now have to prove It hasn’t been over optimistic and over promising under delivering on this one? That’s why I think the governments mere tinkering here points to General Election May 2nd.
On the next GE I see no evidence it will be in May and expect it now in November- December
Sunak needs to move on from Rwanda and talk about economic recovery, tax cuts in March budget and an Autumn statement immediately before calling GE 24
Later Summer statement if he wants the money in people's pockets before a November election.
Possibly but I think even Starmer expects 2 more fiscal events before the election
1 - If a GE 2nd May, Dissolution would be 26th March, 68 days away. 6th March is budget day, 48 days away. 13 working week days in parliament between 6th March and 26th. Should we count Fridays? 🤔
2 - There’s already some substantial elections taking place May 2nd, so party political electioneering mode will ramp up at some point anyway. With Khan and London involved that is an awful lot we will hear about “the anger expressed at Uxbridge”.
Tory client press, and some others, already banged on about beer and curries all through one local election campaign, I suspect if Starmer remains focus of the Tory re-election attacks, what left of the press will be banging on about Sunak betting against UK on the markets and using covid to make money on vaccines. 🫣
If the General Election isn’t 2nd of May, how much never ending politics and bun fighting can the electorate take, before they start blaming the government for it going on and on?
3 - Reasons for May 2nd Inflation battle won still fresh in minds The budget - Tax cuts promise and upbeat “right track - turning corner” fresh in voters minds Dirty Tricks Unit clearly now on steroids and hard at work. How many red bulls can a human consume in 11 months and still be human? May 2nd, coinciding with local and Mayor elections, allows to be have added focus Uxbridge style election focus, the war on motorists and on how Labours £28B Green Contract will screw over UK economy and every taxpayer. Avoids this years expected surge in illegal channel crossings, that would be failure impossible to explain Avoids the damning interim covid report publication Avoids having to get the Rwanda Plan delivering results. Avoids angry PO victims asking for action on the promises Rishi made to them in January Avoids credibility and moral shattering set of locals before General Election Avoids mortgage crisis of key voters actually deepening by switching to higher mortgage deals Avoids the predicted doom and gloom of Q3 economic slowdown Avoids another “zombie conference” before election, last years seems to have properly screwed Tory polling Avoids two year anniversary of Trussterfuck in the news Avoids two year anniversary of PM Sunak in the news, and much reflection how things haven’t got better Avoids opposition fun with “squatting” “frit” narrative and perpetual phoney campaigning, that some believe torpedoed Majors chance of much better result
In favour of June or later Micawberism - something might turn up to shift the polls, despite all the expert predictions of a conveyer belt of ever increasing difficult news for government coming in second half of year Use the spring board of conference to fly straight into the election. 🫣 presumes voters still open minded who to vote for, and actually interested in hearing substance from Labour before deciding Anything else?
2nd May. Anyone not yet convinced?
Not me at all - sorry
No worries Big G.
My argument is, right now is peak delivery on Rishi’s promises. There will be nothing more to harvest from them that helps re-election. Quite the opposite, some key ones look set to go tits up.
in the minds of Team Sunak this election cannot be fought on actual delivery anymore, like fiscal events and tax cuts, or Rwanda flights, or NHS better - but on promise. Promise of better, specifically the threat of Labour to that promise, because Starmer and his team you can’t trust.
The summer boat crossings and growth downturn alone destroys even those foundation stones of promise based campaign. They will no longer have enough substance to mount any type of campaign - delivery or promise - if they go beyond May 2nd. I don’t think many on PB have quite realised this yet.
Wikipedia running a Candidates in the Next United Kingdom General Election page (apols, my share/paste crashing atm)
Second, I make it the Q1 minimum Lab poll lead as 14% at the moment, unless the MRP counts?
i suggest MRP doesn’t count due to different way of doing it and extrapolating the party voting data, compared to the other polls around it, I’m not convinced it should sit where it is in the wiki page and graph.
Can anyone explain to me how this would not be legislating from the bench, and a huge political power grab by the Court ?
The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/supreme-court-democrats-president-chevron-precedent.html … The three liberal justices, led by Kagan, mounted an impressive defense of Chevron in the face of their colleagues’ open hostility. At its core, Kagan explained, the doctrine is about respecting democratic choices. Congress (whom the people elect) passes laws that grant the president (whom the people elect) broad discretion to make certain policy choices by assigning key decisions to executive agencies; federal judges (whom the people do not elect) must defer to these decisions so long as the accountable officials interpret the law reasonably. Some choices are highly technical and rely on the agency’s specialized expertise. Others are contentious, allowing the agency to take sides in a public debate.
With Chevron, each new administration provides its own answer to these questions. If the people don’t like the answers, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted, they can vote for a new president. Without Chevron, each administration is handcuffed to the federal judiciary’s answer, replacing a “democratic structure” with “judicial policymaking.” Jackson didn’t say this next part, but everyone knows it: Because SCOTUS is relentlessly hostile to the administrative state, this system stacks the deck in favor of deregulation. Which—let’s be honest—means boosting Republican presidents and hobbling Democratic ones.
And yet, throughout Wednesday’s arguments, the conservative justices condemned Chevron as some kind of anti-accountability chaos agent that sabotages good government. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who dissed Chevron during his audition for SCOTUS, assailed the decision’s democratic traits as a bug, not a feature. “The reality of how this works,” Kavanaugh said, “is Chevron itself ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in—whether it’s communications law or securities law, competition law or environmental law, it goes from pillar to post.” New administrations change policy, Kavanaugh continued, “because they have disagreements with the policy of the prior administration.”
But why is that a bad thing? Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who did a stellar (if futile) job defending Chevron, reminded Kavanaugh: “There’s nothing inherently problematic or incompatible with our system of government to recognize that agencies can carry out” new policies where Congress gave them flexibility. Gorsuch, archenemy of the administrative state, sounded aghast at this arrangement...
All those people who have cheered on the increasing power of the courts in this country ought to be careful what they wish for.
Are court powers increasing, or is government just finding their insistence on laws as they exist increasingly irksome ?
A government with coherent plans, and parliamentary support to legislate for them, would not be having quite the same problems.
The issues were very clearly set out by Lord Sumption in his Reith lectures. I think he was broadly right.
Nigelb asked: "Can anyone explain to me how this would not be legislating from the bench, and a huge political power grab by the Court?"
Sure.
Oh, did you actually want an answer? Here's one from George Will: "The principle of Chevron deference, first propounded by the court in 1984, is that where legislative language is ambiguous or silent, a court reviewing an agency’s action should defer to the agency if its action is “reasonable.” This expressed progressivism’s core conviction that animates the sprawling administrative state: Modern America’s complexities require minute management by experts, who require — whose expertise justifies — vast discretion barely circumscribed by Congress." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-deference-supreme-court-case/
In short, as the legislative branch, Congress must make the laws, and not defer hard decisions on their meaning to unelected bureaucracies. So, if the Supreme Court over rules "Chevron", they would not be grabbing power for themselves, but moving legislative power from bureaucracies back to the elected representatives, where it belongs.
(You can probably find more from other writers, but that column should get you started.)
Therese Coffey says that she is "shocked" the Shadow Home Secretary "can't even get the country right," because Yvette Cooper made reference to Kigali. Kigali is, of course, the capital of Rwanda
Therese Coffey says that she is "shocked" the Shadow Home Secretary "can't even get the country right," because Yvette Cooper made reference to Kigali. Kigali is, of course, the capital of Rwanda
Nigelb asked: "Can anyone explain to me how this would not be legislating from the bench, and a huge political power grab by the Court?"
Sure.
Oh, did you actually want an answer? Here's one from George Will: "The principle of Chevron deference, first propounded by the court in 1984, is that where legislative language is ambiguous or silent, a court reviewing an agency’s action should defer to the agency if its action is “reasonable.” This expressed progressivism’s core conviction that animates the sprawling administrative state: Modern America’s complexities require minute management by experts, who require — whose expertise justifies — vast discretion barely circumscribed by Congress." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-deference-supreme-court-case/
In short, as the legislative branch, Congress must make the laws, and not defer hard decisions on their meaning to unelected bureaucracies. So, if the Supreme Court over rules "Chevron", they would not be grabbing power for themselves, but moving legislative power from bureaucracies back to the elected representatives, where it belongs.
(You can probably find more from other writers, but that column should get you started.)
Rishi Sunak’s good night didn’t last long. The Times is reporting a new YouGov puts the Tories on 20% - 27 points behind Labour.
Must be a rogue poll. The fan club repeatedly assured us Starmer would take a big hit for his role in the Post Office scandal. It was all over GBeebies and Guido, it must cut through surely.
In fairness the fan club was a group of one - the monotonous @Mexicanpete . I don’t recall many of the traditional PB Tories claiming much would happen to the polling
Rishi Sunak’s good night didn’t last long. The Times is reporting a new YouGov puts the Tories on 20% - 27 points behind Labour.
Must be a rogue poll. The fan club repeatedly assured us Starmer would take a big hit for his role in the Post Office scandal. It was all over GBeebies and Guido, it must cut through surely.
In fairness the fan club was a group of one - the monotonous @Mexicanpete . I don’t recall many of the traditional PB Tories claiming much would happen to the polling
Labour majority of 410 on those figures, via Electoral Calculus; Tories down to 41 seats.
Interesting to look at a post near extinction Tory leadership election.
On EC those still standing i would nclude Barclay, Laura Trott, Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Tugendhat and Jayawardena. And Mark Francois. And perhaps someone in on one of the 2+3 new seats that survive
Williamson would be out if Tories were down to 41 seats, because Bill Cash is retiring, Williamson's going over to Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge which would be a Labour gain. Dudley South's Mike Wood is standing in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire which would survive, Dudley North's Marco Lunghi is standing in Dudley and would lose on these numbers.
Cowardice and complacency is in abundant supply throughout the free world, sadly. It isn't arming itself or Ukraine nearly enough; many European countries seem to have given up on economic growth and nobody seems to care that the average person can't afford the average house any more.
But yes the Democrats do seem to be making the similar mistakes now to those that they make in 2016. And the free world as a whole is worrying similar in its attitude to the 1930s (though at least housing was more affordable then). And that worked out great, obviously.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
IMV (and IANAL) the judge got it wrong. Any evidence coming from the police side was tainted. *Ten* officers and one civilian are believed to have been involved in the mess, and the officers are alleged to have said "right, we can stitch him up". Anything coming from the police was tainted.
It's like the PO and Horizon. IMV any case where Horizon was used as evidence should be voided, as the system is so discredited. LIkewise these officers in this case.
I don't particularly like Mitchell: but if they can do it to him, they can do it to me. Or you.
It's fine you disagree with the judge, but I suspect that, of the three of us, he is best acquainted with all the relevant evidence as to what happened.
Similar to all those postmasters eh? Lots of judges saw lots of ‘evidence’ there too…
Wait...what?!
Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that because one group of judges made errors in the PO scandal, this means JJ and/or SNP is in a better position to decide on Mitchell's libel trial than AN other judge.
That's...bonkers.
I'm not saying I'm 'in a better position'. I'm saying, in my belief, the judge got it wrong, for the reasons I and others have stated. Any evidence from the police was tainted, as there had obviously been a conspiracy of lying - up to ten people inside and outside the police - to get Michell.
I'm alarmed by the way, in the middle of the PO inquiry, people seem to be very keen to argue that judges cannot get it wrong. For, it should be noted, political reasons.
If the police did this to Mitchell, they could do it to you. Or me.
Who are "the democrats"? The incumbent president decides whether to run, and if he decides not to he has no idea whether the primary voters will pick someone electable instead. If any individual runs against the incumbent or supports someone who does, they risk losing but damaging the incumbent in the process.
If pb got to pick the candidate we'd probably get someone more electable than whoever the Dems end up running, but this is true of nearly every election.
Comments
I fail to see any convention that stops the Lord's from amending the teeth out of the Act or rejecting it altogether. This hair brained scheme hadn't even been considered in the last election manifesto so I don't see that he has a leg to stand on.
The regionaity of the swings does seem to mean Labour will outperform UNC, lower in Wales and London where target seats are relatively few and often fairly marginal anyway, lower in Scotland where Con-Lab swing isn't the relevant measure, and higher where all those juicy big swing targets are.
60 seats worth of UNC outperformance is a pretty spectacular MRP claim though.
However much they pay them isn't enough.
"Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (-2)
RFM: 12% (+4)
LDM: 8% (+1)
GRN: 7% (-1)
Via
@YouGov
, tbc.
Changes w/ 10-11 Jan."
EXCLUSIVE:
The Tories have fallen to their lowest level of support since Liz Truss was prime minister, Yougov poll for Times finds
Support for Tories has fallen to 20%, a level not seen since October 2022 just before Truss was forced from office
Labour has a 27 point lead
Just 35% of 2019 Tory voters trust Sunak on migration, compared to 54% who trust Nigel Farage
Labour: 47% (+2)
Conservatives: 20% (-2)
Lib Dems: 8% (-1)
Reform: 12% (+4)
Green: 7% (-1)
2 - There’s already some substantial elections taking place May 2nd, so party political electioneering mode will ramp up at some point anyway. With Khan and London involved that is an awful lot we will hear about “the anger expressed at Uxbridge”.
Tory client press, and some others, already banged on about beer and curries all through one local election campaign, I suspect if Starmer remains focus of the Tory re-election attacks, what left of the press will be banging on about Sunak betting against UK on the markets and using covid to make money on vaccines. 🫣
If the General Election isn’t 2nd of May, how much never ending politics and bun fighting can the electorate take, before they start blaming the government for it going on and on?
3 -
Reasons for May 2nd
Inflation battle won still fresh in minds
The budget - Tax cuts promise and upbeat “right track - turning corner” fresh in voters minds
Dirty Tricks Unit clearly now on steroids and hard at work. How many red bulls can a human consume in 11 months and still be human?
May 2nd, coinciding with local and Mayor elections, allows to be have added focus Uxbridge style election focus, the war on motorists and on how Labours £28B Green Contract will screw over UK economy and every taxpayer.
Avoids this years expected surge in illegal channel crossings, that would be failure impossible to explain
Avoids the damning interim covid report publication
Avoids having to get the Rwanda Plan delivering results.
Avoids angry PO victims asking for action on the promises Rishi made to them in January
Avoids credibility and moral shattering set of locals before General Election
Avoids mortgage crisis of key voters actually deepening by switching to higher mortgage deals
Avoids the predicted doom and gloom of Q3 economic slowdown
Avoids another “zombie conference” before election, last years seems to have properly screwed Tory polling
Avoids two year anniversary of Trussterfuck in the news
Avoids two year anniversary of PM Sunak in the news, and much reflection how things haven’t got better
Avoids opposition fun with “squatting” “frit” narrative and perpetual phoney campaigning, that some believe torpedoed Majors chance of much better result
In favour of June or later
Micawberism - something might turn up to shift the polls, despite all the expert predictions of a conveyer belt of ever increasing difficult news for government coming in second half of year
Use the spring board of conference to fly straight into the election. 🫣
presumes voters still open minded who to vote for, and actually interested in hearing substance from Labour before deciding
Anything else?
2nd May. Anyone not yet convinced?
And pregnancy for humans seems rather harder than for other mammals. I don't know why.
As a race, we're doing ok now, but there must have been times back in the first half of human history when brain and bipedalism looked like a bigger cost than a benefit, given all that.
The Supreme Court Is About to Seize Way More Power From Democratic Presidents
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/01/supreme-court-democrats-president-chevron-precedent.html
… The three liberal justices, led by Kagan, mounted an impressive defense of Chevron in the face of their colleagues’ open hostility. At its core, Kagan explained, the doctrine is about respecting democratic choices. Congress (whom the people elect) passes laws that grant the president (whom the people elect) broad discretion to make certain policy choices by assigning key decisions to executive agencies; federal judges (whom the people do not elect) must defer to these decisions so long as the accountable officials interpret the law reasonably. Some choices are highly technical and rely on the agency’s specialized expertise. Others are contentious, allowing the agency to take sides in a public debate.
With Chevron, each new administration provides its own answer to these questions. If the people don’t like the answers, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted, they can vote for a new president. Without Chevron, each administration is handcuffed to the federal judiciary’s answer, replacing a “democratic structure” with “judicial policymaking.” Jackson didn’t say this next part, but everyone knows it: Because SCOTUS is relentlessly hostile to the administrative state, this system stacks the deck in favor of deregulation. Which—let’s be honest—means boosting Republican presidents and hobbling Democratic ones.
And yet, throughout Wednesday’s arguments, the conservative justices condemned Chevron as some kind of anti-accountability chaos agent that sabotages good government. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who dissed Chevron during his audition for SCOTUS, assailed the decision’s democratic traits as a bug, not a feature. “The reality of how this works,” Kavanaugh said, “is Chevron itself ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in—whether it’s communications law or securities law, competition law or environmental law, it goes from pillar to post.” New administrations change policy, Kavanaugh continued, “because they have disagreements with the policy of the prior administration.”
But why is that a bad thing? Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who did a stellar (if futile) job defending Chevron, reminded Kavanaugh: “There’s nothing inherently problematic or incompatible with our system of government to recognize that agencies can carry out” new policies where Congress gave them flexibility. Gorsuch, archenemy of the administrative state, sounded aghast at this arrangement...
We are extremely fortunate and blessed if we don't leave the same way.
November it is then.
No wonder Tories are jumping ship.
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/TheTimes_VI_240111_W.pdf
- Reform overtake the Tories triggering a meltdown of the party
- A big chunk of the remaining Tory vote then switches sides and Reform approaches 30% in the polls
- Reform start breaking through in the Red Well leaving Keir Starmer's well planned strategy in disarray
- Election ends in a hung parliament with the Tories wiped out
It's the equivalent of Lib Dem's in 2015 campaigning solely on a graduate tax to to replace tuition fees.
Or Corbyn 2019 leading every speech on how to improve relations with Russia.
Reminding voters of your own shortcomings as a primary part of a campaign isn't a great strategy. Unless your goal, in this case, is to give Reform an electoral boost.
Tories would only save seats by accidental three-way marginals emerging through this.
Therefore under FPTP the Tories will start to squeeze the Reform vote at least a bit by polling day
Maybe Ryde?
It’s just people preferring Farage to Rishi I suppose
https://www.isleofwight.com/listing/ventnor-beach-ventnor-isle-of-wight/
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/r2r7ejhs5x/TheTimes_VI_230215_W_.pdf
https://x.com/BritainElects/status/1747753312529588255?s=20
"📊 Labour lead at 27pts
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 47% (+2)
CON: 20% (-2)
REF: 12% (+2)
via
@YouGov
Chgs. w/ 10 Jan"
And it's:
LDM: 8% (-1)
GRN: 7% (-1)
Caroline Lucas
@CarolineLucas
·
1h
So this vile #RwandaBill passes 320 to 276 and takes a wrecking ball to international law, showcasing a dying government degrading our democratic processes and vilifying some of the world’s most vulnerable people. Britain is better than this
They are utterly hopeless and clueless.
Anyway, for once Starmer/Reeves are taking a lead from your hero. In 2017 Corbyn went into the election promising that no-one earning under £80k would see an increase in their taxes. With inflation that would be over £100k now.
I didn't believe Corbyn then, and I don't believe Starmer/Reeves now.
This is just part and parcel.
Of course the end result of that was to shift the main right of centre party in Canada even further right. With Reform's successor, the Canadian Alliance effectively taking over the Canadian Tories in 2003 to create today's Conservative Party of Canada
If that happened (and it's an almighty if), it doesn't just help the Tories on an important issue, it writes their whole election campaign as the party willing to act, take the brickbats, and offer solutions not platitudes.
Clearly possible, given historical Lib Dem strength in the south west, but doesn't seem likely under Davey.
(Reform percentage is bullshit: willing to take sensible bets at evens on a chosen percentage of votes nationwide)
Why Labour have never made serious attempts to woo rural constituencies a mystery to me. Seems as easy or easier than tories trying to court inner city votes.
@carolvorders
Shocker poll for Tories in @thetimes tomorrow with @YouGov
LABOUR LEADS BY 27%
Labour: 47% (+2)
Conservatives: 20% (-2)
Lib Dems: 8% (-1)
Reform: 12% (+4)
Green: 7% (-1)
GENERAL ELECTION NOW "
https://twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1747761501790671251
On EC those still standing i would nclude Barclay, Laura Trott, Zahawi, Gavin Williamson, Tugendhat and Jayawardena. And Mark Francois. And perhaps someone in on one of the 2+3 new seats that survive
They have to genuinely consider that they could do worse than 1997 (and once that happens they risk an absoltely apocalyptic tipping point where you drop dozens more with small % drops), and might now take such a result if offered. I don't think in the end it will be quite that low, but in terms of seats I think a total reversal of 2019 is now most likely.
https://x.com/archrose90/status/1747698848078659652?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Bed time!
But I did.
What trend there is, virtually nothing, but LLG weakening in election year, C&R getting stronger.
This one LLG 62 C&R 32
10th LLG 62. C&R 32
2nd LLG 63. C&R 31
These are the knowns, I’m not letting you dispute what I’m saying so far, as this is Empirical fact.
Now the unknowns. How fluid LLG anti Tory votes and C&R anti Labour votes are on election day.
In fact I suspect some PBers who fancy themselves as psephologists will argue you can’t add all R to C, R tell pollsters when push come to shove at least a third will go Labour if not R.
Unfortunately though this isn’t what happened last election - after starting gun was fired Tories swallowed virtually the lot. So you don’t really know how fluid R to C actually is when push comes to shove, just a lot of speculative buts: but Starmer isn’t Corbyn, but Rishi not Boris, no Brexit to get done etc - against the fact they swallowed the lot late on last time.
You are so lucky to have me, I am so good at this now, all the counting sheep I’ve been doing has me right on my psephological game. 😌
Wikipedia running a Candidates in the Next United Kingdom General Election page (apols, my share/paste crashing atm)
Second, I make it the Q1 minimum Lab poll lead as 14% at the moment, unless the MRP counts?
A government with coherent plans, and parliamentary support to legislate for them, would not be having quite the same problems.
My argument is, right now is peak delivery on Rishi’s promises. There will be nothing more to harvest from them that helps re-election. Quite the opposite, some key ones look set to go tits up.
in the minds of Team Sunak this election cannot be fought on actual delivery anymore, like fiscal events and tax cuts, or Rwanda flights, or NHS better - but on promise. Promise of better, specifically the threat of Labour to that promise, because Starmer and his team you can’t trust.
The summer boat crossings and growth downturn alone destroys even those foundation stones of promise based campaign. They will no longer have enough substance to mount any type of campaign - delivery or promise - if they go beyond May 2nd. I don’t think many on PB have quite realised this yet.
Sure.
Oh, did you actually want an answer? Here's one from George Will:
"The principle of Chevron deference, first propounded by the court in 1984, is that where legislative language is ambiguous or silent, a court reviewing an agency’s action should defer to the agency if its action is “reasonable.” This expressed progressivism’s core conviction that animates the sprawling administrative state: Modern America’s complexities require minute management by experts, who require — whose expertise justifies — vast discretion barely circumscribed by Congress."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-deference-supreme-court-case/
In short, as the legislative branch, Congress must make the laws, and not defer hard decisions on their meaning to unelected bureaucracies. So, if the Supreme Court over rules "Chevron", they would not be grabbing power for themselves, but moving legislative power from bureaucracies back to the elected representatives, where it belongs.
(You can probably find more from other writers, but that column should get you started.)
Therese Coffey says that she is "shocked" the Shadow Home Secretary "can't even get the country right," because Yvette Cooper made reference to Kigali. Kigali is, of course, the capital of Rwanda
https://x.com/bethanymrd/status/1747724106047348882?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://x.com/inglesongrey/status/1747740979233231251?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Sir Christopher Chope for leader?
In failing to look past Joe Biden, Democrats have shown cowardice and complacency"
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/01/04/the-man-supposed-to-stop-donald-trump-is-an-unpopular-81-year-old
But yes the Democrats do seem to be making the similar mistakes now to those that they make in 2016. And the free world as a whole is worrying similar in its attitude to the 1930s (though at least housing was more affordable then). And that worked out great, obviously.
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1747808666739171359
Reform on 12% could be interesting though, if they actually stand in every seat and manage to get anywhere close to that number at the election.
I'm alarmed by the way, in the middle of the PO inquiry, people seem to be very keen to argue that judges cannot get it wrong. For, it should be noted, political reasons.
If the police did this to Mitchell, they could do it to you. Or me.
If pb got to pick the candidate we'd probably get someone more electable than whoever the Dems end up running, but this is true of nearly every election.