Weird how I just keep getting lucky. Yet I travel abroad more than anyone on this forum. Its almost as if all this Brexit delay travel stuff is just bullshit
I’ve encountered Brexity passport queues twice since Brexit and I travel incessantly
Firstly travel to a non EU country doesn't count as obviously nothing has changed. So trips to Thailand or USA are unaffected.
Secondly it has to be an EU airport that is an International hub ie not one that is taking local traffic or mainly UK holidaymakers and nobody else because the situation that causes the problem doesn't arise. So trips to Faro or Alicante are pretty much unaffected except for it being slightly slower.
However if you go to a main airport and happen to land at the same time as a large flight from the USA or from anywhere outside of the EU you will be stuffed.
So I have experienced numerous flights to small airports and the USA without any issues at all. However a flight to Lisbon which landed at the same time as two flights from the USA and it was a 3 hour wait to get through passport control. Counting the length and width of the snake I reckon it was 1000 people. All gates were open and they used the EU gate and priority gate as well to clear us. EU citizens just waltzed through the EU gate.
I travel far more often that you. To the EU and everywhere else
Since Brexit I have encountered really annoying Brexit related delays (ie an hour+ extra queue) exactly twice. Once in Iceland once in Switzerland (for the reasons you say). And both a while ago
I’ve had smaller delays - 10-20 minutes - 3 or 4 times and none recently. That’s it. My god. The pain
Well if it’s £45bn a year to have @kjh avoid an extra 20 minutes in a queue now and then that has to be value.
3 hrs and the cost of the unnecessary hotel in Paris every year for my bike trip plus fast processing a vet and pet passport ( not sure that one is possible) and I'll be happy so if you can all chip in for the cost 👍
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
How on earth can Houchen win ? I get Street, but Houchen. Even ignoring the OTT partisan criticism in some parts he clearly has not delivered and there are many questions that need answering from his second term.
Local media has been bought by the Houchen team feeding them stories. You have the biggest grift / incompetence story in their back yard and none of them got it. So there is a moron vote who lap up whatever he says despite all the evidence of their own senses demonstrating that its a big lie.
Plus, Labour had a looooong way to come back after the fiasco of selecting Jessie Jessie Jessie Jessie Joe Jacobs as the Momentum candidate last time.
Weird how I just keep getting lucky. Yet I travel abroad more than anyone on this forum. Its almost as if all this Brexit delay travel stuff is just bullshit
I’ve encountered Brexity passport queues twice since Brexit and I travel incessantly
Firstly travel to a non EU country doesn't count as obviously nothing has changed. So trips to Thailand or USA are unaffected.
Secondly it has to be an EU airport that is an International hub ie not one that is taking local traffic or mainly UK holidaymakers and nobody else because the situation that causes the problem doesn't arise. So trips to Faro or Alicante are pretty much unaffected except for it being slightly slower.
However if you go to a main airport and happen to land at the same time as a large flight from the USA or from anywhere outside of the EU you will be stuffed.
So I have experienced numerous flights to small airports and the USA without any issues at all. However a flight to Lisbon which landed at the same time as two flights from the USA and it was a 3 hour wait to get through passport control. Counting the length and width of the snake I reckon it was 1000 people. All gates were open and they used the EU gate and priority gate as well to clear us. EU citizens just waltzed through the EU gate.
I travel far more often that you. To the EU and everywhere else
Since Brexit I have encountered really annoying Brexit related delays (ie an hour+ extra queue) exactly twice. Once in Iceland once in Switzerland (for the reasons you say). And both a while ago
I’ve had smaller delays - 10-20 minutes - 3 or 4 times and none recently. That’s it. My god. The pain
Yes I know you do. But you shouldn't have those delays and if you are an infrequent traveller and unlucky it is really annoying. In your case you are taking it with the flow. You travel hugely. You know shit will happen occasionally (usually not Brexit related) and live with it. If you do it once or twice a year and are unlucky and wait 3 hours while you see an empty EU gate you really get pissed.
Sure, but as one of those people who doesn't travel a lot, is it that big a deal then?
@leon posted about missing a flight recently from the far east. He took it in his stride as a seasoned travel. Imagine if that was your flight back from a 2 week holiday. You would be beside yourself.
I’ve missed 5 flights in my adult life, which I believe is quite an unusual achievement:
1. Stansted to Malmo, because of traffic jam on the M11 2. Paris CDG to home: traffic jam on périphérique 3. Heathrow to Hamburg: got to the gate and realised I had my sons passport 4. Schipol to home: delayed flight so sat in the bar, relaxed, and missed final call 5. Dar es Salaam to home via Bahrain: didn’t reconfirm, flight overbooked, had to spend another 3 days in Tanzania before the next flight
I almost made it 6 on a return from Miami. Sat in the lounge, flight delayed, have a few drinks, then suddenly flight closing. They fitted me on but with a downgrade from business to economy right at the back.
My worst experience was arriving penniless and strung out on heroin at Tenerife airport - I didn’t mind being penniless and strung out as I expected to fly home to friends immediately
Then I realised I was two days EARLY
I had no money to get a new flight or change the flight I had and there was nothing else I could do and so I spent two days living in Tenerife airport drinking from the water fountains and eating leftover sandwiches, as I went cold turkey
After about the 27th hour, Tenerife airport gets quite boring
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
I imagine Labour will underperform where they are the incumbents.
We’re off to book a holiday. Appreciate I’m not a posho like many here so we will be limited somewhat by cash but any views on Cape Verde, Lake Garda and Praia Da Rocha ?
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
He only needs one. Of course the majority of the jury will find him guilty, because he is guilty and Trump will give ludicrous defences. But he will get his mistrial and call it being acquitted.
A true MAGA would not consider reading the NYT even once, the fact even the foreman does suggests he is reasonably balanced (in fact probably more so than the others as they mainly follow and read liberal media, he reads a mixture of conservative and liberal media).
Even if the verdict was not unanimous that is not an acquittal any more than it is a guilty verdict and charges can be reinstated
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Her approvals are roughly same as Sunak favourable, far far fewer unfavourable (and many DKs), its not 'attractive' its lack of drag
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
How on earth can Houchen win ? I get Street, but Houchen. Even ignoring the OTT partisan criticism in some parts he clearly has not delivered and there are many questions that need answering from his second term.
Local media has been bought by the Houchen team feeding them stories. You have the biggest grift / incompetence story in their back yard and none of them got it. So there is a moron vote who lap up whatever he says despite all the evidence of their own senses demonstrating that its a big lie.
Plus, Labour had a looooong way to come back after the fiasco of selecting Jessie Jessie Jessie Jessie Joe Jacobs as the Momentum candidate last time.
Was she momentum ?
I remember one of her election videos. It was comically bad. I ended up feeling sorry for her. She did one photo call with Jet from Gladiators. Ended up on all the Alan Partridge Facebook groups. Being mocked.
She Tried for a Stockton seat in the upcoming election. Failed.
I’m in Durham so don’t see the local tees press but the local politics shows here do hold him to account, even if he doesn’t appear personally.
Having said that I once had a very pleasant chat with him about the 87 cup final on Facebook. Coventry city striker, Keith,was his uncle. Still is if he’s still with us.
The Tories must shoulder some of the blame for this. They have been in power for 14 years and they've had ample opportunity to extirpate this vile, damaging Woke nonsense, to drive it out of public life and to punish those that proselytise it. Instead they have actively let it spread, it has got worse, to the extent that we now refuse to deport known sex offenders back to Afghanistan, because they might suffer for being sex offenders, and so they rape and murder British people instead. That is where we are. That is what the Tories have allowed to flourish, that level of insanity
The only way we retrieve the situation is something close to revolution. An entire class of people needs to be exiled from power forever, and a grotesque ideology needs to be forcibly eliminated. We need the Labour party to fuck up massively and a proper right wing party to assume power
Either that or let the machines take over
"Fourteen years of Tory rule have left Britain a lazy, dangerous, Left-wing mess It hardly matters that Labour will be worse, when voters feel so betrayed by the Tories
Imagine being called lazy by someone who writes newspaper columns for a living.
Have you ever had the job of newspaper columnist? I doubt it. Do you think they just sit there and toss out any old crap in half an hour and pocket £2k per column, ta very much? If it is that easy, surely everyone would do it? eg You?
But of course they don't. Because it is hard. And only a few people can do it and make it really pay
Is it really hard in the same way as, say, managing a big construction project is? Or running a hospital? Or successfully integrating a merger of two companies?
In fact I'll go further and illustrate my point. Your comparison is absurd, because you are making a category error
You're essentially asking which is harder, running a health trust, or being a brilliant premier league striker?
The query makes no sense. The latter requires skills which are much rarer than the former, even though the former is surely very hard work. But if you have the skills to be a great striker, if you are Erling Haaland, you will make it look effortless, but that is because you are very talented, and almost no one else has your talent. You might even appear "lazy" to people who don't understand football
Erling Haaland runs two 5km runs back to back every 3 days. Plus all the training and weightlifting behind the scenes. I am going to go out on a limb and declare him less lazy than an OpEd writer.
That's what I am saying. Haaland will look lazy to people who don't understand football. Those that do, know that Yes he's bloody talented, but he still has to train like a bastard because the competition is insane
I actually KNOW some newspaper columnists. They will spend days raging for an idea, exploring themes, engaging concepts, rejecting duds. They have to read tons of news and books and other stuff, to gather material. Vanishingly few - in fact, probably none - can constantly toss out brilliant columns in half an hour then piss off to the swimming pool
You really don't know what you're talking about, on this point
I have written 349 columns since March 2016 - not just for here but for other forums - some paid and some for trade journals. Not quite 1 a week (there have been 420 weeks since March 2016) but getting bloody close.
And, frankly, better than a lot of the dross in newspapers.
Well then off you go to the Telegraph or the Times and demand £200k a year
The Telegraph is crap; glance at the Times. Long time since I actually read a paper properly. Quite like Matthew Syed though.
Don't have the connections. And that's what counts these days after all.
Might the Knappers Gazette want something? I don't fit the usual mould after all - so would do wonders for their diversity stats. And I'd promise not to steal ideas from the "let me tell you about my brothel experiences" crowd.
The "Why deadheading roses is like delaying your orgasm" column would be more up my street.
It really is NOT "all about the connections". Sure your Daddy might get you a job for a year or two but if you can't do it, you're gone. Journalism is fiercely competitive
1. Your money/CV gets you the interview 2. Your blagging ability gets you the job 3. Your talent gives you the ability to keep it
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Hall is still polling worse than any London Tory Mayoral candidate since Steve Norris, her vote is more an anti Khan vote than a pro Tory vote
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
She is quite dreadful. She even got skewered by the Khan hating Nick Ferrari over the "theft" on the tube of her purse.
Khan is very unpopular in Mail and GBNews circles, being both a socialist and Muslim. There is also a negative incumbency effect from some of his bolder transport policies.
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Her approvals are roughly same as Sunak favourable, far far fewer unfavourable (and many DKs), its not 'attractive' its lack of drag
Edit, and Khan is uber gash
And, compared with Sunak, she's shored up her right flank better.
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Her approvals are roughly same as Sunak favourable, far far fewer unfavourable (and many DKs), its not 'attractive' its lack of drag
Edit, and Khan is uber gash
I asked google what that meant and also googled it. It came up with Uber cash. !!!
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Her approvals are roughly same as Sunak favourable, far far fewer unfavourable (and many DKs), its not 'attractive' its lack of drag
Edit, and Khan is uber gash
I asked google what that meant and also googled it. It came up with Uber cash. !!!
Don’t want to trigger Anabobazina
I take it Uber gash is not a compliment.
It is not. It means utterly crapulent. Imo of course, other opinions exist
Weird how I just keep getting lucky. Yet I travel abroad more than anyone on this forum. Its almost as if all this Brexit delay travel stuff is just bullshit
I’ve encountered Brexity passport queues twice since Brexit and I travel incessantly
Firstly travel to a non EU country doesn't count as obviously nothing has changed. So trips to Thailand or USA are unaffected.
Secondly it has to be an EU airport that is an International hub ie not one that is taking local traffic or mainly UK holidaymakers and nobody else because the situation that causes the problem doesn't arise. So trips to Faro or Alicante are pretty much unaffected except for it being slightly slower.
However if you go to a main airport and happen to land at the same time as a large flight from the USA or from anywhere outside of the EU you will be stuffed.
So I have experienced numerous flights to small airports and the USA without any issues at all. However a flight to Lisbon which landed at the same time as two flights from the USA and it was a 3 hour wait to get through passport control. Counting the length and width of the snake I reckon it was 1000 people. All gates were open and they used the EU gate and priority gate as well to clear us. EU citizens just waltzed through the EU gate.
I travel far more often that you. To the EU and everywhere else
Since Brexit I have encountered really annoying Brexit related delays (ie an hour+ extra queue) exactly twice. Once in Iceland once in Switzerland (for the reasons you say). And both a while ago
I’ve had smaller delays - 10-20 minutes - 3 or 4 times and none recently. That’s it. My god. The pain
Well if it’s £45bn a year to have @kjh avoid an extra 20 minutes in a queue now and then that has to be value.
3 hrs and the cost of the unnecessary hotel in Paris every year for my bike trip plus fast processing a vet and pet passport ( not sure that one is possible) and I'll be happy so if you can all chip in for the cost 👍
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Hall is still polling worse than any London Tory Mayoral candidate since Steve Norris, her vote is more an anti Khan vote than a pro Tory vote
How did they compare to,the Tories nationally though. Your camp are low 20s consistently. If she’s that terrible wouldn’t she be lower than the average ?
Yeah, being disabled and living on benefits is sheer luxury, I can attest to that. We all aspire to poor health and subsistence with the government determining your worth as a resource to invest peanuts in.
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Her approvals are roughly same as Sunak favourable, far far fewer unfavourable (and many DKs), its not 'attractive' its lack of drag
Edit, and Khan is uber gash
I asked google what that meant and also googled it. It came up with Uber cash. !!!
Don’t want to trigger Anabobazina
I take it Uber gash is not a compliment.
It is not. It means utterly crapulent. Imo of course, other opinions exist
Cheers. I feel I’m getting down wiv da yoof. I may use it at work now. I was worried it was a vaginal reference.
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Her approvals are roughly same as Sunak favourable, far far fewer unfavourable (and many DKs), its not 'attractive' its lack of drag
Edit, and Khan is uber gash
I asked google what that meant and also googled it. It came up with Uber cash. !!!
Don’t want to trigger Anabobazina
I take it Uber gash is not a compliment.
It is not. It means utterly crapulent. Imo of course, other opinions exist
Cheers. I feel I’m getting down wiv da yoof. I may use it at work now. I was worried it was a vaginal reference.
Hmmmmm, it might be. I use it to mean garbage/rubbish etc but it does also have 'that' aspect I'm in my fifties, I cannot speak for yoofs
Would be a clear shift to a US style welfare system if true, albeit it only seems to apply to those not complying with Jobcentre conditions. 'He said the Tory manifesto would pledge legislation that will mean people will have 'their claim closed and their benefits removed entirely' after 12 months on the dole if they are failing to comply with Jobcentre conditions, such as accepting available work.
Mr Sunak dismissed concerns the move could leave people destitute, saying that pushing people into work would leave them better off by an average of £7,000 a year. He added: 'There is an enormous amount of support available to these people, and no medical reason why they can't work, but we have half a million currently on benefits for a very long time.
'And I worry very much about this becoming a lifestyle choice. It's a basic matter of fairness.'
The fact is a Tory manifesto pledge rather than something to be legislated for now suggests it is also a bit of redmeat thrown in the direction of Reform voters than something the government expects to deliver
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
If the jury is to be representative and fair then they can't all read only the NYT and watch CNN (especially given US wide more watch Fox than either). Indeed the fact even the Foreman reads the NYT alongside Fox and is the only Fox watching juror suggests the jury leans against Trump if anything
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Hall is still polling worse than any London Tory Mayoral candidate since Steve Norris, her vote is more an anti Khan vote than a pro Tory vote
How did they compare to,the Tories nationally though. Your camp are low 20s consistently. If she’s that terrible wouldn’t she be lower than the average ?
She is squeezing Reform better than Rishi and gets an anti incumbent vote other Tories don't
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
If the jury is to be representative and fair then they can't all read only the NYT and watch CNN (especially given US wide more watch Fox than either). Indeed the fact even the Foreman reads the NYT alongside Fox and is the only Fox watching juror suggests the jury leans against Trump if anything
Fair point. But isn't the NYT kind of a default for New Yorkers?
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Hall is still polling worse than any London Tory Mayoral candidate since Steve Norris, her vote is more an anti Khan vote than a pro Tory vote
How did they compare to,the Tories nationally though. Your camp are low 20s consistently. If she’s that terrible wouldn’t she be lower than the average ?
She is squeezing Reform better than Rishi and gets an anti incumbent vote other Tories don't
Is that because she is a pro-Trump uber right winger?
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
Err. Not quite. Only if you aren't complying with the rules such as not accepting a job offer. Well. You'll already get sanctioned for that. So. No change there then.
Weird how I just keep getting lucky. Yet I travel abroad more than anyone on this forum. Its almost as if all this Brexit delay travel stuff is just bullshit
I’ve encountered Brexity passport queues twice since Brexit and I travel incessantly
Firstly travel to a non EU country doesn't count as obviously nothing has changed. So trips to Thailand or USA are unaffected.
Secondly it has to be an EU airport that is an International hub ie not one that is taking local traffic or mainly UK holidaymakers and nobody else because the situation that causes the problem doesn't arise. So trips to Faro or Alicante are pretty much unaffected except for it being slightly slower.
However if you go to a main airport and happen to land at the same time as a large flight from the USA or from anywhere outside of the EU you will be stuffed.
So I have experienced numerous flights to small airports and the USA without any issues at all. However a flight to Lisbon which landed at the same time as two flights from the USA and it was a 3 hour wait to get through passport control. Counting the length and width of the snake I reckon it was 1000 people. All gates were open and they used the EU gate and priority gate as well to clear us. EU citizens just waltzed through the EU gate.
I travel far more often that you. To the EU and everywhere else
Since Brexit I have encountered really annoying Brexit related delays (ie an hour+ extra queue) exactly twice. Once in Iceland once in Switzerland (for the reasons you say). And both a while ago
I’ve had smaller delays - 10-20 minutes - 3 or 4 times and none recently. That’s it. My god. The pain
Yes I know you do. But you shouldn't have those delays and if you are an infrequent traveller and unlucky it is really annoying. In your case you are taking it with the flow. You travel hugely. You know shit will happen occasionally (usually not Brexit related) and live with it. If you do it once or twice a year and are unlucky and wait 3 hours while you see an empty EU gate you really get pissed.
Sure, but as one of those people who doesn't travel a lot, is it that big a deal then?
@leon posted about missing a flight recently from the far east. He took it in his stride as a seasoned travel. Imagine if that was your flight back from a 2 week holiday. You would be beside yourself.
I’ve missed 5 flights in my adult life, which I believe is quite an unusual achievement:
1. Stansted to Malmo, because of traffic jam on the M11 2. Paris CDG to home: traffic jam on périphérique 3. Heathrow to Hamburg: got to the gate and realised I had my sons passport 4. Schipol to home: delayed flight so sat in the bar, relaxed, and missed final call 5. Dar es Salaam to home via Bahrain: didn’t reconfirm, flight overbooked, had to spend another 3 days in Tanzania before the next flight
I almost made it 6 on a return from Miami. Sat in the lounge, flight delayed, have a few drinks, then suddenly flight closing. They fitted me on but with a downgrade from business to economy right at the back.
My worst experience was arriving penniless and strung out on heroin at Tenerife airport - I didn’t mind being penniless and strung out as I expected to fly home to friends immediately
Then I realised I was two days EARLY
I had no money to get a new flight or change the flight I had and there was nothing else I could do and so I spent two days living in Tenerife airport drinking from the water fountains and eating leftover sandwiches, as I went cold turkey
After about the 27th hour, Tenerife airport gets quite boring
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
If the jury is to be representative and fair then they can't all read only the NYT and watch CNN (especially given US wide more watch Fox than either). Indeed the fact even the Foreman reads the NYT alongside Fox and is the only Fox watching juror suggests the jury leans against Trump if anything
The problem you have is you only need one or two Trumpsters out of 12 and the trial fails, not on its merits but on partisanship. 6 Fox News viewers and 6 CNN viewers may be balanced, but it doesn't lead to a fair trial.
Maybe the government could look at why so many of its own employees are on long-term benefits? And possibly at who is so steadfastly determined that they can't be paid enough to be off them.
Good afternoon everybody. I'm a bit later than usual, due to catching up on assorted correspondence and keeping an eye on assorted sport, especially Essex vs Lancashire, which seems to be avoiding the few showers we've had this morning. One of these days I'll be able to get to Chelmsford again, I hope. Also keeping an occasional eye on the blue-tits in our TV accessible nest box, where after what appeared to be a slow start there are now seven eggs, so in a couple of weeks time we should see a great deal of chick-feeding activity.
On topic, sort of, Sunak's policy re benefits appears to be the sort of cruel, heartless scheme which appeals to retired Daily Mail readers. In particular, the attack on part-time workers seems to lack any thought of compassion or understanding.
Weird how I just keep getting lucky. Yet I travel abroad more than anyone on this forum. Its almost as if all this Brexit delay travel stuff is just bullshit
I’ve encountered Brexity passport queues twice since Brexit and I travel incessantly
Firstly travel to a non EU country doesn't count as obviously nothing has changed. So trips to Thailand or USA are unaffected.
Secondly it has to be an EU airport that is an International hub ie not one that is taking local traffic or mainly UK holidaymakers and nobody else because the situation that causes the problem doesn't arise. So trips to Faro or Alicante are pretty much unaffected except for it being slightly slower.
However if you go to a main airport and happen to land at the same time as a large flight from the USA or from anywhere outside of the EU you will be stuffed.
So I have experienced numerous flights to small airports and the USA without any issues at all. However a flight to Lisbon which landed at the same time as two flights from the USA and it was a 3 hour wait to get through passport control. Counting the length and width of the snake I reckon it was 1000 people. All gates were open and they used the EU gate and priority gate as well to clear us. EU citizens just waltzed through the EU gate.
I travel far more often that you. To the EU and everywhere else
Since Brexit I have encountered really annoying Brexit related delays (ie an hour+ extra queue) exactly twice. Once in Iceland once in Switzerland (for the reasons you say). And both a while ago
I’ve had smaller delays - 10-20 minutes - 3 or 4 times and none recently. That’s it. My god. The pain
Yes I know you do. But you shouldn't have those delays and if you are an infrequent traveller and unlucky it is really annoying. In your case you are taking it with the flow. You travel hugely. You know shit will happen occasionally (usually not Brexit related) and live with it. If you do it once or twice a year and are unlucky and wait 3 hours while you see an empty EU gate you really get pissed.
Sure, but as one of those people who doesn't travel a lot, is it that big a deal then?
@leon posted about missing a flight recently from the far east. He took it in his stride as a seasoned travel. Imagine if that was your flight back from a 2 week holiday. You would be beside yourself.
I’ve missed 5 flights in my adult life, which I believe is quite an unusual achievement:
1. Stansted to Malmo, because of traffic jam on the M11 2. Paris CDG to home: traffic jam on périphérique 3. Heathrow to Hamburg: got to the gate and realised I had my sons passport 4. Schipol to home: delayed flight so sat in the bar, relaxed, and missed final call 5. Dar es Salaam to home via Bahrain: didn’t reconfirm, flight overbooked, had to spend another 3 days in Tanzania before the next flight
I almost made it 6 on a return from Miami. Sat in the lounge, flight delayed, have a few drinks, then suddenly flight closing. They fitted me on but with a downgrade from business to economy right at the back.
I've only missed one of any distance and it worked out great. Tokyo back to London, I got "embroiled" (as it were) and missed my BA flight. So they put me on one a few hours later and sat me in a completely empty 1st class cabin. It was like having my own luxury plane. Can't remember how the finances worked, whether they charged a penalty or not, but it was expenses so no extra cost to me.
F1: planning to put up the pre-race ramble in the afternoon/evening but limited time and some other matters means there's an off-chance it won't be there.
The stuff on benefits recently suggests he's decided to pursue what Paul Scully called the "bell-end" strategy.
He's after the 'they are all scroungers' vote without having to actually do anything Not so much 'look, squirrel' as 'look, thieving, lazy squirrel'
Between O levels and A levels in 1978, the benefits system was so generous one could sign on and get just shy of £30 a week. It never dawned on me or my dickhead friends to sign on until I realised all the ultra poshos like the Bank Manager's daughter and the Sales Director's son had signed on weeks earlier. The day after their last exam was completed in fact.
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
I'd assume it's because the party is polling just so badly that even a moderately poor candidate is better than the general impression, and that Khan has had two terms and, as far as I can see, hasn't had all that much to shout about, so they may be a bit l ukewarm about a third term (whilst still seeing it as the best option).
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
Good afternoon everybody. I'm a bit later than usual, due to catching up on assorted correspondence and keeping an eye on assorted sport, especially Essex vs Lancashire, which seems to be avoiding the few showers we've had this morning. One of these days I'll be able to get to Chelmsford again, I hope. Also keeping an occasional eye on the blue-tits in our TV accessible nest box, where after what appeared to be a slow start there are now seven eggs, so in a couple of weeks time we should see a great deal of chick-feeding activity.
On topic, sort of, Sunak's policy re benefits appears to be the sort of cruel, heartless scheme which appeals to retired Daily Mail readers. In particular, the attack on part-time workers seems to lack any thought of compassion or understanding.
An excellent post with which I thoroughly agree, OKC, although I am puzzled by the blue-tits watching TV.
Do they pay their own licence fee, or can they piggy-back on yours?
The stuff on benefits recently suggests he's decided to pursue what Paul Scully called the "bell-end" strategy.
He's after the 'they are all scroungers' vote without having to actually do anything Not so much 'look, squirrel' as 'look, thieving, lazy squirrel'
Between O levels and A levels in 1978, the benefits system was so generous one could sign on and get just shy of £30 a week. It never dawned on me or my dickhead friends to sign on until I realised all the ultra poshos like the Bank Manager's daughter and the Sales Director's son had signed on weeks earlier. The day after their last exam was completed in fact.
I signed on after A levels in 1978. I recall it was £12 a week. But then I got a job as an assistant in a menswear shop for the princely sum of £27 a week.
Good afternoon everybody. I'm a bit later than usual, due to catching up on assorted correspondence and keeping an eye on assorted sport, especially Essex vs Lancashire, which seems to be avoiding the few showers we've had this morning. One of these days I'll be able to get to Chelmsford again, I hope. Also keeping an occasional eye on the blue-tits in our TV accessible nest box, where after what appeared to be a slow start there are now seven eggs, so in a couple of weeks time we should see a great deal of chick-feeding activity.
On topic, sort of, Sunak's policy re benefits appears to be the sort of cruel, heartless scheme which appeals to retired Daily Mail readers. In particular, the attack on part-time workers seems to lack any thought of compassion or understanding.
An excellent post with which I thoroughly agree, OKC, although I am puzzled by the blue-tits watching TV.
Do they pay their own licence fee, or can they piggy-back on yours?
Btw there seems to be a bit of a Sam Cook for England campaign going on. He is doing this no harm by showing that in addition to his bowling skills, he's no mug with the bat either.
The stuff on benefits recently suggests he's decided to pursue what Paul Scully called the "bell-end" strategy.
He's after the 'they are all scroungers' vote without having to actually do anything Not so much 'look, squirrel' as 'look, thieving, lazy squirrel'
Between O levels and A levels in 1978, the benefits system was so generous one could sign on and get just shy of £30 a week. It never dawned on me or my dickhead friends to sign on until I realised all the ultra poshos like the Bank Manager's daughter and the Sales Director's son had signed on weeks earlier. The day after their last exam was completed in fact.
I signed on after A levels in 1978. I recall it was £12 a week. But then I got a job as an assistant in a menswear shop for the princely sum of £27 a week.
You may be correct. I seemed to remember 26 quid. Did they pay fortnightly?
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
How on earth can Houchen win ? I get Street, but Houchen. Even ignoring the OTT partisan criticism in some parts he clearly has not delivered and there are many questions that need answering from his second term.
He's on plus 8 good job/bad job in the poll, the polled appear to moderately like him (although it's 25/17 with 21 'neither' rest DK)
I heard a bit of feedback which suggested the canvassing was very positive for Houchen. People in Teesside want someone active on jobs and investment, and who is "on their side". Houchen seems to fit that bill. Whether he will win I've no idea. But for a Tory to be even vaguely competitive in a place like Teesside at a time like this shows he isn't lacking political skills. The GE will be a different story.
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
If the jury is to be representative and fair then they can't all read only the NYT and watch CNN (especially given US wide more watch Fox than either). Indeed the fact even the Foreman reads the NYT alongside Fox and is the only Fox watching juror suggests the jury leans against Trump if anything
The case is being tried in the New York State jurisdiction.
The catchment area for jury selection may be even more localised. In any case, jurors are required to be impartial and one day Trump will stop whingeing like a baby. That will probably be when he dies.
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job.
I've seen it reported that in New York the first juror selected is automatically made the foreman.
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
I don't suppose he'll testify?
How does that work in NYS? Can he decline to go into the witness box, as a defendant can in England, or does he have to go into it and then plead the Fifth?
Good afternoon everybody. I'm a bit later than usual, due to catching up on assorted correspondence and keeping an eye on assorted sport, especially Essex vs Lancashire, which seems to be avoiding the few showers we've had this morning. One of these days I'll be able to get to Chelmsford again, I hope. Also keeping an occasional eye on the blue-tits in our TV accessible nest box, where after what appeared to be a slow start there are now seven eggs, so in a couple of weeks time we should see a great deal of chick-feeding activity.
On topic, sort of, Sunak's policy re benefits appears to be the sort of cruel, heartless scheme which appeals to retired Daily Mail readers. In particular, the attack on part-time workers seems to lack any thought of compassion or understanding.
An excellent post with which I thoroughly agree, OKC, although I am puzzled by the blue-tits watching TV.
Do they pay their own licence fee, or can they piggy-back on yours?
No, Peter, we watch the birds. And, thanks to this Conservative government, even OAPs like the Cole’s have to pay the licence fee. Whether or not the blue-tits need an Equity card I’m not sure!
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
If the jury is to be representative and fair then they can't all read only the NYT and watch CNN (especially given US wide more watch Fox than either). Indeed the fact even the Foreman reads the NYT alongside Fox and is the only Fox watching juror suggests the jury leans against Trump if anything
Is representativeness actually a requirement? It's a "right to trial by a jury of your peers", not "by a jury of a statistically balanced sample of your peers". And in practice the jury selection process applies heavy filtering to the initial random selection of possible jurors, both implicit (some groups of people more likely to wangle their way out of jury duty than others) and explicit (excluding jurors based on their answers to questions, social media history, etc). So it's pretty unlikely that the Trump jurors will have opinions that match a randomly selected polling of Manhattan voters, I think; the lawyers between them will have done their best to exclude the most partisan at both ends of the spectrum.
I see someone has set themselves alight and killed themselves outside Trumps trial. Apparently thought Trump was in league with Biden to organise a coup. Thats a new angle!
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
I don't suppose he'll testify?
How does that work in NYS? Can he decline to go into the witness box, as a defendant can in England, or does he have to go into it and then plead the Fifth?
I think he can just choose - they've been holding a hearing about what things the prosecutors can ask him about in terms of prior misconduct (like his other court cases) in the event he testifies, so I assume it's his choice and he'd end up pleading the fifth a lot on those bits if he does (which it sounds like he would be silly to do).
Good afternoon everybody. I'm a bit later than usual, due to catching up on assorted correspondence and keeping an eye on assorted sport, especially Essex vs Lancashire, which seems to be avoiding the few showers we've had this morning. One of these days I'll be able to get to Chelmsford again, I hope. Also keeping an occasional eye on the blue-tits in our TV accessible nest box, where after what appeared to be a slow start there are now seven eggs, so in a couple of weeks time we should see a great deal of chick-feeding activity.
On topic, sort of, Sunak's policy re benefits appears to be the sort of cruel, heartless scheme which appeals to retired Daily Mail readers. In particular, the attack on part-time workers seems to lack any thought of compassion or understanding.
An excellent post with which I thoroughly agree, OKC, although I am puzzled by the blue-tits watching TV.
Do they pay their own licence fee, or can they piggy-back on yours?
Btw there seems to be a bit of a Sam Cook for England campaign going on. He is doing this no harm by showing that in addition to his bowling skills, he's no mug with the bat either.
Aka ‘Little Chef’; a tribute to the now-retired Sir Alastair, known to the Essex cognoscenti as ‘Chef’!
I was having a pint last night and ended up talking to a bloke who’s recently left 30 years of shift working to do 30 hours a week as a postie. He loves the job in itself - fresh air, 20,000 steps a day, he’s dropped three stone in three months - but says the Royal Mail is a terrible company to work for. The guys that have been there for 20 or 30 years say it used to be a great job but since privatisation everything’s gone tits up.
It’s the Tory way - the enshittification of the UK for the masses as long as they and their financial services paymasters are getting richer. Fuck the plebs, right? Your letters might be delayed by a few days but, y’know, that’s not really important, right? ‘Cos the billionaires are getting richer. Why, a cityam article linked here yesterday said that economic growth is being driven by financial services in the city. So that’s nice.
Reading the comments on here today from Leavers, it’s the same thing with Brexit. Sure, it’s a little bit harder to get into the EU - and will get harder still soon - but we’re doing just fine. Sure, it’s a little bit harder to study in Europe, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, fresh food only lasts a couple of days and shelves are a little bit emptier, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, that parcel you ordered from Germany takes a week longer to arrive than it used to, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, there’s a bit more shit on the beaches and in the rivers, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, our small and medium sized businesses have been grievously impacted by Brexit red-tape, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, your weekly shop is a little more expensive, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, immigration is higher than ever, but we’re doing just fine. Sure the NHS is on its knees, in large part caused by a GP shortage thanks to Brexit, but we’re doing just fine.
And amongst all those little bits of encroaching enshittification (which apparently we should be grateful for as the price of sovereignty, like we should be pleased with food banks as an example of communities coming together) is the continued refusal to acknowledge the foundational lie of Brexit: There are no downsides, only considerable upsides.
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
If the jury is to be representative and fair then they can't all read only the NYT and watch CNN (especially given US wide more watch Fox than either). Indeed the fact even the Foreman reads the NYT alongside Fox and is the only Fox watching juror suggests the jury leans against Trump if anything
Is representativeness actually a requirement? It's a "right to trial by a jury of your peers", not "by a jury of a statistically balanced sample of your peers". And in practice the jury selection process applies heavy filtering to the initial random selection of possible jurors, both implicit (some groups of people more likely to wangle their way out of jury duty than others) and explicit (excluding jurors based on their answers to questions, social media history, etc). So it's pretty unlikely that the Trump jurors will have opinions that match a randomly selected polling of Manhattan voters, I think; the lawyers between them will have done their best to exclude the most partisan at both ends of the spectrum.
They will have tried but Manhattan is so overwhelmingly Democrat (indeed almost 90% for Biden in 2020) and New York state also voted heavily for Biden so the jury is bound to lean against Trump overall. It is one of the worst places in the US for Trump to have a jury trial on that basis
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
If the jury is to be representative and fair then they can't all read only the NYT and watch CNN (especially given US wide more watch Fox than either). Indeed the fact even the Foreman reads the NYT alongside Fox and is the only Fox watching juror suggests the jury leans against Trump if anything
Fair point. But isn't the NYT kind of a default for New Yorkers?
The stuff on benefits recently suggests he's decided to pursue what Paul Scully called the "bell-end" strategy.
He's after the 'they are all scroungers' vote without having to actually do anything Not so much 'look, squirrel' as 'look, thieving, lazy squirrel'
Between O levels and A levels in 1978, the benefits system was so generous one could sign on and get just shy of £30 a week. It never dawned on me or my dickhead friends to sign on until I realised all the ultra poshos like the Bank Manager's daughter and the Sales Director's son had signed on weeks earlier. The day after their last exam was completed in fact.
I signed on after A levels in 1978. I recall it was £12 a week. But then I got a job as an assistant in a menswear shop for the princely sum of £27 a week.
You may be correct. I seemed to remember 26 quid. Did they pay fortnightly?
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
I don't suppose he'll testify?
Not unless he has gone full gaga.
I expect .his lawyers will discourage him. Could be disastrous!
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
If the jury is to be representative and fair then they can't all read only the NYT and watch CNN (especially given US wide more watch Fox than either). Indeed the fact even the Foreman reads the NYT alongside Fox and is the only Fox watching juror suggests the jury leans against Trump if anything
Is representativeness actually a requirement? It's a "right to trial by a jury of your peers", not "by a jury of a statistically balanced sample of your peers". And in practice the jury selection process applies heavy filtering to the initial random selection of possible jurors, both implicit (some groups of people more likely to wangle their way out of jury duty than others) and explicit (excluding jurors based on their answers to questions, social media history, etc). So it's pretty unlikely that the Trump jurors will have opinions that match a randomly selected polling of Manhattan voters, I think; the lawyers between them will have done their best to exclude the most partisan at both ends of the spectrum.
Exactly. There's going to be some Trump voters in there, as there almost certainly was in his other (civil) jury trials, but in itself that doesn't mean its impossible for them to be fair, nor for probably Biden voters to be, to not convict if they are not persuaded by the facts.
The lawyers do their best to scratch out the most likely to be biased, and they have equal ability to do that, so it's inherently fair.
In this case the facts seem fairly straightforward, though it's the lower level of felony (and there's a question about the counting of secondary crimes to make it a felony, which will surely be appealed) and involving some shady people. He may well be able to persuade one or more, he may not - but it is the easiest of the trials he faces (not that he will face the others before November), so it is his best chance.
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
I don't suppose he'll testify?
How does that work in NYS? Can he decline to go into the witness box, as a defendant can in England, or does he have to go into it and then plead the Fifth?
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job.
I've seen it reported that in New York the first juror selected is automatically made the foreman.
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
I don't suppose he'll testify?
Not unless he has gone full gaga.
Yes, Trump in the dock would be a bloodsport for any good prosecution lawyer.
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
If the jury is to be representative and fair then they can't all read only the NYT and watch CNN (especially given US wide more watch Fox than either). Indeed the fact even the Foreman reads the NYT alongside Fox and is the only Fox watching juror suggests the jury leans against Trump if anything
Fair point. But isn't the NYT kind of a default for New Yorkers?
No, the NY Post is more pro Trump than the NYT
You're raising my hopes now. What chance do you give of a guilty?
The stuff on benefits recently suggests he's decided to pursue what Paul Scully called the "bell-end" strategy.
He's after the 'they are all scroungers' vote without having to actually do anything Not so much 'look, squirrel' as 'look, thieving, lazy squirrel'
Between O levels and A levels in 1978, the benefits system was so generous one could sign on and get just shy of £30 a week. It never dawned on me or my dickhead friends to sign on until I realised all the ultra poshos like the Bank Manager's daughter and the Sales Director's son had signed on weeks earlier. The day after their last exam was completed in fact.
I signed on after A levels in 1978. I recall it was £12 a week. But then I got a job as an assistant in a menswear shop for the princely sum of £27 a week.
You may be correct. I seemed to remember 26 quid. Did they pay fortnightly?
I'd say the biggest barrier would be the EU letting us back in not a desirn from us to get back in, given there will probably always be a residual level of Brexit feeling which could resurface. Why go through that potential hassle again when they could have some kind of enhanced partnership agreement where we follow rules without getting to vote for them or something?
A generation at least I'd say.
Why do you assume that must be necessarily where we end up, with the only variable being the function of time?
Rather oddly the sensible next step to leaving the EU and the sensible step to joining the rest of Europe for practical purposes is the Norway or the Swiss option.
In reality only FoM prevented this earlier. Now we know that 'controlling our borders' means inward migration of over 1 million a year, and net migration of 700K this has little significance.
Now that the new £37,500 k Visa requirement has been brought in by the government this month that should reduce non EU immigration. EU/EEA immigration has already fallen to the UK since free movement was ended.
At the moment only the LDs, SNP and Greens back even rejoining the EEA Norway style.
Starmer Labour is too afraid of allowing the Conservatives to hold redwall seats by restoring free movement and that will probably remain the case for some time
You say the new visa requirement should reduce immigration, but the Govt has been saying it will reduce immigration for 14 years and yet it is at record highs. Do you think this Govt has any credibility on immigration?
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
I don't suppose he'll testify?
Not unless he has gone full gaga.
Yes, Trump in the dock would be a bloodsport for any good prosecution lawyer.
Since Trump (no doubt against his own legal advice) seems incapable of stopping himself threatening a judge's relatives, further defaming people he's already been convicted of defaming and generally ignoring direct instructions from judges, might he not be able to resist the temptation of letting the court experience his unique genius? Here's hoping.
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
I don't suppose he'll testify?
Not unless he has gone full gaga.
Yes, Trump in the dock would be a bloodsport for any good prosecution lawyer.
Since Trump (no doubt against his own legal advice) seems incapable of stopping himself threatening a judge's relatives, further defaming people he's already been convicted of defaming and generally ignoring direct instructions from judges, might he not be able to resist the temptation of letting the court experience his unique genius? Here's hoping.
I think he retains just about self-preservation instincts to not do so. He's threatened judges relatives and witnesses because so far he has been able to get away with it, and after what will probably be a finding of contempt and a fine I think he will actually dial that aspect back, if the judge unambigously threatens jail if he does it again - he will have Fox News and others to do the digging and threatening thereon anyway.
I'd say the biggest barrier would be the EU letting us back in not a desirn from us to get back in, given there will probably always be a residual level of Brexit feeling which could resurface. Why go through that potential hassle again when they could have some kind of enhanced partnership agreement where we follow rules without getting to vote for them or something?
A generation at least I'd say.
Why do you assume that must be necessarily where we end up, with the only variable being the function of time?
Rather oddly the sensible next step to leaving the EU and the sensible step to joining the rest of Europe for practical purposes is the Norway or the Swiss option.
In reality only FoM prevented this earlier. Now we know that 'controlling our borders' means inward migration of over 1 million a year, and net migration of 700K this has little significance.
Now that the new £37,500 k Visa requirement has been brought in by the government this month that should reduce non EU immigration. EU/EEA immigration has already fallen to the UK since free movement was ended.
At the moment only the LDs, SNP and Greens back even rejoining the EEA Norway style.
Starmer Labour is too afraid of allowing the Conservatives to hold redwall seats by restoring free movement and that will probably remain the case for some time
You say the new visa requirement should reduce immigration, but the Govt has been saying it will reduce immigration for 14 years and yet it is at record highs. Do you think this Govt has any credibility on immigration?
Until this month migrants coming to the UK on the Skilled Worker route currently need to earn £26,200, and Brits or settled people who want to live in the UK with their partners must currently earn £18,600. Now both will need a minimum salary of £38,700.
That will make a big change so by autumn non EU immigration should have fallen, EU immigration has already fallen after FoM ended
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
If the jury is to be representative and fair then they can't all read only the NYT and watch CNN (especially given US wide more watch Fox than either). Indeed the fact even the Foreman reads the NYT alongside Fox and is the only Fox watching juror suggests the jury leans against Trump if anything
Fair point. But isn't the NYT kind of a default for New Yorkers?
No, the NY Post is more pro Trump than the NYT
You're raising my hopes now. What chance do you give of a guilty?
High on at least one count. Though probably he may get probation even if convicted as no previous criminal convictions but the impact will be with Independent voters if convicted. Then if he faces further criminal trials he risks jail time if convicted due to a previous conviction
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
I don't suppose he'll testify?
Not unless he has gone full gaga.
Yes, Trump in the dock would be a bloodsport for any good prosecution lawyer.
Since Trump (no doubt against his own legal advice) seems incapable of stopping himself threatening a judge's relatives, further defaming people he's already been convicted of defaming and generally ignoring direct instructions from judges, might he not be able to resist the temptation of letting the court experience his unique genius? Here's hoping.
He has made an assessment that the judges are too afraid of him and that their threats are just words, maybe some irrelevant fines. Proven correct so far and probably will be for the foreseeable, but could push it too far and end up in the slammer. Doubt it though, just small fines for threatening a judges daughter, its pathetic.
Confirmation by the Welsh Labour government of changes to the 20mph which should make the policy acceptable and should have been done from the beginning
Redfield Tees Valley Mayoral poll has Houchen tied at 47% with Labour, 5% ahead on most stringent certain to vote factor, indeed a chunk of Labour's vote intention is 'did not vote in 21', a very tight race again! Westminster Tees Valley 49 26 to Lab, I make that about a 13% swing meaning the two holds the Tories would be targeting would be Middlesborough South and Cleveland and Stockton West (both about 11.5% swing required). 13% swing nationally is lower than the national polling and would suggest 180 to 200 Tory seats. They'd bite your hand off for that
If Houchen and Street win then CCHQ would spin those results heavily even despite losses elsewhere, much as the Tories spun holds in Wandsworth and Westminster despite heavy losses elsewhere in the 1990 local elections
Houchen/Street wins and Hall within 10 to 15% probably saves Sunak and drives an election call immediately after a Rwanda flight takes off imo, we will see though
By all accounts Hall is an awful candidate yet polls far higher than her party.
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Her approvals are roughly same as Sunak favourable, far far fewer unfavourable (and many DKs), its not 'attractive' its lack of drag
Edit, and Khan is uber gash
I asked google what that meant and also googled it. It came up with Uber cash. !!!
Don’t want to trigger Anabobazina
I take it Uber gash is not a compliment.
It is not. It means utterly crapulent. Imo of course, other opinions exist
Indeed. It's originally RN slang for rubbish, redundant, waste. The gash chute was the canvas tube rigged over the side of a battleship and emptying into the gash barge (USN: garbage scow) moored below when in harbour.
I was having a pint last night and ended up talking to a bloke who’s recently left 30 years of shift working to do 30 hours a week as a postie. He loves the job in itself - fresh air, 20,000 steps a day, he’s dropped three stone in three months - but says the Royal Mail is a terrible company to work for. The guys that have been there for 20 or 30 years say it used to be a great job but since privatisation everything’s gone tits up.
It’s the Tory way - the enshittification of the UK for the masses as long as they and their financial services paymasters are getting richer. Fuck the plebs, right? Your letters might be delayed by a few days but, y’know, that’s not really important, right? ‘Cos the billionaires are getting richer. Why, a cityam article linked here yesterday said that economic growth is being driven by financial services in the city. So that’s nice.
Reading the comments on here today from Leavers, it’s the same thing with Brexit. Sure, it’s a little bit harder to get into the EU - and will get harder still soon - but we’re doing just fine. Sure, it’s a little bit harder to study in Europe, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, fresh food only lasts a couple of days and shelves are a little bit emptier, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, that parcel you ordered from Germany takes a week longer to arrive than it used to, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, there’s a bit more shit on the beaches and in the rivers, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, our small and medium sized businesses have been grievously impacted by Brexit red-tape, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, your weekly shop is a little more expensive, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, immigration is higher than ever, but we’re doing just fine. Sure the NHS is on its knees, in large part caused by a GP shortage thanks to Brexit, but we’re doing just fine.
And amongst all those little bits of encroaching enshittification (which apparently we should be grateful for as the price of sovereignty, like we should be pleased with food banks as an example of communities coming together) is the continued refusal to acknowledge the foundational lie of Brexit: There are no downsides, only considerable upsides.
Have you considered that the Royal Mail may have been affected by a changing world including such things as email and texting ?
Likewise your previous whine about the decline of Castleford Market - perhaps you'd prefer to return to the era when Ena Sharples and Albert Tatlock were in their prime but most people are happy to use supermarkets or the internet.
The world changes, sometimes for the worse but usually for the better, sometimes people lose out but usually they gain.
Wallowing in pretend misery is just a tedious variant of nostalgia for a crap past of harder work and fewer opportunities.
"Some roads in Wales are set to go back to 30mph after nearly half a million people called for an end to the national 20mph speed limit.
Ken Skates, the Welsh government's new transport minister, said "there will be a change" to legislation introduced in September which changed the speed limit on nearly all roads from 30mph to 20mph."
Raynergate might not be cutting through, but I am sensing restlessness in the remainer camp. There is a tacit contract that rejoiners (who are 60% of the electorate) will vote tory with the prospect of initiating a long term process towards SM an eventually rejoining. But Starmer basically might as well be Farage with good PR when it comes to the EU. If the GE comes and goes and the mask doesn't drop on the EU there will be FURY. My guess is that this very fluid and illoyal electorate will find new pastures. Just to illustrate yougov found that only 12% strongly oppose SM.
Omnisis/WeThink10-11.4.24Rejoin/Stay Out62/38
Brexiteerism is a dying movement married to the declining boomer segment. Rejoin enjoud huge majorities in the under 60 year olds. Labour is making a huge error if it remains so rigid on the eu. Everybody i talk to is betting that this brexit kabuki theater from labour is just electoral strategy and will fall away.... it better or labour support will drop like a rock in government.
I don't think it's quite as simple as that, but it does point to a significant, just possible very large opportunity for the LibDems in the next Parliament.
Rejoin is not on the table this GE in England, even though both LDs and Greens have it as a longer term goal.
A large part of Rejoinism is because of Brexits strong association with this failing government. The two are conjoined twins. What happens next parliament is unclear. Will that transfer to Starmers Brexit? Or will it become a separate political cause?
After another 4 years we may have sufficient groundswell to rejoin the SM, while negotiating full Rejoin. Voters cannot be ignored forever.
Nah. The world is going to be transformed in the next 5-10 years. We will be dealing with so much economic change the idea of a massively difficult and painful referendum to rejoin a rigid trading bloc will appear insane. No prime minister will go for it
I do see some form of free movement coming back tho. Both sides want it
It's basically men in their 50s and 60s who are still irritable they lost to people they despise and want to completely turn the tables as the ultimate revenge. From that confirmation bias follows.
We won't be going back to the status quo ante bellum. The world has moved on, so has the UK and so very definitely has the EU.
It's the fantasy - one of the heroic Lost Cause.
But that's not what the polling data say, is it? Brexit is only popular with the retired. People in their 50s and 60s are roughly equally split, but younger than that it's as popular as a poo on the carpet.
And there is no sign at all of people coming to terms with Brexit, or it embedding as the new normal. Of course that might change in the future. But it needs to change a lot to overcome the crude demographics.
Otherwise, the will of the people eventually becomes overwhelming. And at some point, the Conservatives have to soften on Europe or cap their support at thirty percent, then twenty five, then twenty...
No, it's the middle aged /retired Remainer men who are most angry about it - we see lots of them on here. I don't think younger people give a shit - what they care about is jobs, the economy and homes.
Most people got bored of Brexit a long time ago. Even on this site. And there is no popular movement desperate for reascension regardless of how many people on here might wish it to be so.
My anecdata suggests your anecdata is wrong.
That there is no 'popular movement' just reflects the fact that for now it would be futile. It's entirely possible that changes - or doesn't. Neither you nor I can be sure about that.
I am sure. Work through the imponderables. An incredible sequence of events would have to align for a rejoin vote to happen and for rejoin to win
The EU would have to be doing way better than us economically. That’s not obviously true now. There would have to be no mitigations of what Brexit frictions we do have - unlikely, things will be smoothed. The world would have to be at peace so people feel confident. Hmm
The EU would have to want us in. There wouid have to be zero chance of a veto from 27 nations. The UK would surely be obliged to accept the euro and all the rest
The party calling the vote would have to be massively popular (so early in a term after a landslide win?). The leader would also have to be popular and extremely confident of winning. The leader would have to be prepared to expend two years and tons of capital to get the vote through
And so on and so on. And still it could go wrong. Referendums very often do
When you think about it like that it is never going to happen. Less than 1% chance. 0.1%. Put your dreams aside. It’s done
Ok - will you 'do' me @ 1000/1 then? Just a small one. A tenner say.
No of course not. But I’m right and you know it. Rejoiners don’t just need to get their ducks in a row they need a flock of about 200 ducks flying in random but perfect linear formation with the world’s best duck shooter using a pair of million pound Purdeys who just happens to be passing because he’s en route to the once a decade duck shoot competition which has been postponed eight times
For a rejoin referendum to be simultaneously desirable, feasible. callable and very very winnable needs a political miracle
Then the British right are in deep trouble for a very long time.
There's a poo on the carpet that isn't vanishing. No amount of air freshener, or telling people that is doesn't smell that bad is taking the pong away. And even if it's not actually smelling- it's a poo. That someone did. On the carpet.
And we all know who did it, because it was done in public view. In fact, the person responsible was proud of it at the time and thought we would be grateful.
(If this isn't the plot of an unwatchable surrealist play, it ought to be.)
And that is why I anticipate Labour nervously slicing away some bits of Brexit, though more in 2028-32 than 2024-28. But the next Conservative PM, sometimes in the late 2030s, is likely to embrace Brejoin as their sign that the party has changed.
(See also Prohibition in America. Seemed unassailable, it was in the Constitution dammit, until it wasn't.)
That analogy doesn't work. It frames the EU as a kind of state of nature from which we have artificially deviated, but the opposite is closer to the truth.
We can't abolish or repeal Brexit because it's not like that. What would we be 'slicing away' if we gave up having our own approach to AI and handed it over to Brussels?
The problem is that for anyone below the age of 50 being part of the EU was the state of nature, and from their point of the view the country seems significantly shittier than it was before 2016. That and since the fall of Boris, it's primarily associated with figures such as Braverman, Truss, Patel, Mogg, Bridgen etc. and other NatCon associated loons who enjoy hanging out with Steve Bannon. As Meeks has pointed out, working age people quite frankly think still being pro-Brexit is a bit weird. Having said all that, it's possible Brexit's present unpopularity is associated with the present Tory government being incredibly unpopular. That once Starmer gets in and his government inevitably loses support mid-term, support for Rejoin may decrease. But I wouldn't count on in because Brexit supporters really don't have much have of a clue to how to win across younger, pro-EU voters.
I'd say the biggest barrier would be the EU letting us back in not a desirn from us to get back in, given there will probably always be a residual level of Brexit feeling which could resurface. Why go through that potential hassle again when they could have some kind of enhanced partnership agreement where we follow rules without getting to vote for them or something?
A generation at least I'd say.
Why do you assume that must be necessarily where we end up, with the only variable being the function of time?
Rather oddly the sensible next step to leaving the EU and the sensible step to joining the rest of Europe for practical purposes is the Norway or the Swiss option.
In reality only FoM prevented this earlier. Now we know that 'controlling our borders' means inward migration of over 1 million a year, and net migration of 700K this has little significance.
Now that the new £37,500 k Visa requirement has been brought in by the government this month that should reduce non EU immigration. EU/EEA immigration has already fallen to the UK since free movement was ended.
At the moment only the LDs, SNP and Greens back even rejoining the EEA Norway style.
Starmer Labour is too afraid of allowing the Conservatives to hold redwall seats by restoring free movement and that will probably remain the case for some time
You say the new visa requirement should reduce immigration, but the Govt has been saying it will reduce immigration for 14 years and yet it is at record highs. Do you think this Govt has any credibility on immigration?
Until this month migrants coming to the UK on the Skilled Worker route currently need to earn £26,200, and Brits or settled people who want to live in the UK with their partners must currently earn £18,600. Now both will need a minimum salary of £38,700.
That will make a big change so by autumn non EU immigration should have fallen, EU immigration has already fallen after FoM ended
Those who voted Brexit expected immigration in total to fall, not for EU immigration to fall, but to be replaced by more non-EU immigration.
There are various exceptions to the Skilled Worker income rules, so I think you are overselling it. Whatever the pros and cons of the scheme, that wasn’t my question, however. My question was whether this Govt has any credibility on immigration. They could introduce the best ever policy and no-one would believe it.
If Sunak had another 3 years, he could maybe turn opinion around… but he doesn’t.
I'd say the biggest barrier would be the EU letting us back in not a desirn from us to get back in, given there will probably always be a residual level of Brexit feeling which could resurface. Why go through that potential hassle again when they could have some kind of enhanced partnership agreement where we follow rules without getting to vote for them or something?
A generation at least I'd say.
Why do you assume that must be necessarily where we end up, with the only variable being the function of time?
Rather oddly the sensible next step to leaving the EU and the sensible step to joining the rest of Europe for practical purposes is the Norway or the Swiss option.
In reality only FoM prevented this earlier. Now we know that 'controlling our borders' means inward migration of over 1 million a year, and net migration of 700K this has little significance.
Now that the new £37,500 k Visa requirement has been brought in by the government this month that should reduce non EU immigration. EU/EEA immigration has already fallen to the UK since free movement was ended.
At the moment only the LDs, SNP and Greens back even rejoining the EEA Norway style.
Starmer Labour is too afraid of allowing the Conservatives to hold redwall seats by restoring free movement and that will probably remain the case for some time
You say the new visa requirement should reduce immigration, but the Govt has been saying it will reduce immigration for 14 years and yet it is at record highs. Do you think this Govt has any credibility on immigration?
Until this month migrants coming to the UK on the Skilled Worker route currently need to earn £26,200, and Brits or settled people who want to live in the UK with their partners must currently earn £18,600. Now both will need a minimum salary of £38,700.
That will make a big change so by autumn non EU immigration should have fallen, EU immigration has already fallen after FoM ended
Those who voted Brexit expected immigration in total to fall, not for EU immigration to fall, but to be replaced by more non-EU immigration.
There are various exceptions to the Skilled Worker income rules, so I think you are overselling it. Whatever the pros and cons of the scheme, that wasn’t my question, however. My question was whether this Govt has any credibility on immigration. They could introduce the best ever policy and no-one would believe it.
If Sunak had another 3 years, he could maybe turn opinion around… but he doesn’t.
If non EU migration falls by October, that will shift some Reform voters back to the Tories
It is hard to follow Raynergate, especially since James Daly for the Conservatives refused to say just what she was accused of. (Snip)
Have Labour mentioned exactly what they think Menzies did, since they reported him to the police?
Answered in two TSE posts. One imagines the public will find it easier to understand Menzies, than the largely technical allegations against Rayner which as described in the header are not cutting through.
I do find it interesting this idea of third parties making referrals to the police
AIUI (not that interested so haven’t followed closely) Menzies got himself into a difficult position - presumably doing something he shouldn’t have - and needed money quickly
So he was the victim in this case (although potentially there was an underlying crime I suppose)
Then he used funds from the Tory party/ campaign fund (ignoring the interim step as she seems to have been refunded)
So the Tory party is the victim
If the Tories and/or Menzies don’t want to press charges what is Labour’s standing to make a police report and trigger an investigation?
An odd feature of the affair is that allegedly the Conservative Party was advised that it was fraud but decided not to inform the police because the money belonged to donors rather than to the Conservative Party (?!?).
There’s never a duty to report a crime when you are the victim though
I don’t understand the point on donor vs Tory party funds unless it was in a segregated fund possibly? But in that situation they should have told the donor - and perhaps they did.
I'd say the biggest barrier would be the EU letting us back in not a desirn from us to get back in, given there will probably always be a residual level of Brexit feeling which could resurface. Why go through that potential hassle again when they could have some kind of enhanced partnership agreement where we follow rules without getting to vote for them or something?
A generation at least I'd say.
Why do you assume that must be necessarily where we end up, with the only variable being the function of time?
Rather oddly the sensible next step to leaving the EU and the sensible step to joining the rest of Europe for practical purposes is the Norway or the Swiss option.
In reality only FoM prevented this earlier. Now we know that 'controlling our borders' means inward migration of over 1 million a year, and net migration of 700K this has little significance.
Now that the new £37,500 k Visa requirement has been brought in by the government this month that should reduce non EU immigration. EU/EEA immigration has already fallen to the UK since free movement was ended.
At the moment only the LDs, SNP and Greens back even rejoining the EEA Norway style.
Starmer Labour is too afraid of allowing the Conservatives to hold redwall seats by restoring free movement and that will probably remain the case for some time
You say the new visa requirement should reduce immigration, but the Govt has been saying it will reduce immigration for 14 years and yet it is at record highs. Do you think this Govt has any credibility on immigration?
Until this month migrants coming to the UK on the Skilled Worker route currently need to earn £26,200, and Brits or settled people who want to live in the UK with their partners must currently earn £18,600. Now both will need a minimum salary of £38,700.
That will make a big change so by autumn non EU immigration should have fallen, EU immigration has already fallen after FoM ended
Is there an election due perchance? I wonder what it would be post election if they somehow won? Best guess is they would avoid indexing it and grant a load of special exemptions to get the workers we need in, most of which end up working in state funded sectors like health and care.
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
I don't suppose he'll testify?
Not unless he has gone full gaga.
Yes, Trump in the dock would be a bloodsport for any good prosecution lawyer.
Since Trump (no doubt against his own legal advice) seems incapable of stopping himself threatening a judge's relatives, further defaming people he's already been convicted of defaming and generally ignoring direct instructions from judges, might he not be able to resist the temptation of letting the court experience his unique genius? Here's hoping.
I think he retains just about self-preservation instincts to not do so. He's threatened judges relatives and witnesses because so far he has been able to get away with it, and after what will probably be a finding of contempt and a fine I think he will actually dial that aspect back, if the judge unambigously threatens jail if he does it again - he will have Fox News and others to do the digging and threatening thereon anyway.
His corner of the court room will be noisy in any case, what with the expostulating, snoring and farting. Can one be charged with involuntary contempt of court?
I was having a pint last night and ended up talking to a bloke who’s recently left 30 years of shift working to do 30 hours a week as a postie. He loves the job in itself - fresh air, 20,000 steps a day, he’s dropped three stone in three months - but says the Royal Mail is a terrible company to work for. The guys that have been there for 20 or 30 years say it used to be a great job but since privatisation everything’s gone tits up.
It’s the Tory way - the enshittification of the UK for the masses as long as they and their financial services paymasters are getting richer. Fuck the plebs, right? Your letters might be delayed by a few days but, y’know, that’s not really important, right? ‘Cos the billionaires are getting richer. Why, a cityam article linked here yesterday said that economic growth is being driven by financial services in the city. So that’s nice.
Reading the comments on here today from Leavers, it’s the same thing with Brexit. Sure, it’s a little bit harder to get into the EU - and will get harder still soon - but we’re doing just fine. Sure, it’s a little bit harder to study in Europe, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, fresh food only lasts a couple of days and shelves are a little bit emptier, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, that parcel you ordered from Germany takes a week longer to arrive than it used to, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, there’s a bit more shit on the beaches and in the rivers, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, our small and medium sized businesses have been grievously impacted by Brexit red-tape, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, your weekly shop is a little more expensive, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, immigration is higher than ever, but we’re doing just fine. Sure the NHS is on its knees, in large part caused by a GP shortage thanks to Brexit, but we’re doing just fine.
And amongst all those little bits of encroaching enshittification (which apparently we should be grateful for as the price of sovereignty, like we should be pleased with food banks as an example of communities coming together) is the continued refusal to acknowledge the foundational lie of Brexit: There are no downsides, only considerable upsides.
Have you considered that the Royal Mail may have been affected by a changing world including such things as email and texting ?
Likewise your previous whine about the decline of Castleford Market - perhaps you'd prefer to return to the era when Ena Sharples and Albert Tatlock were in their prime but most people are happy to use supermarkets or the internet.
The world changes, sometimes for the worse but usually for the better, sometimes people lose out but usually they gain.
Wallowing in pretend misery is just a tedious variant of nostalgia for a crap past of harder work and fewer opportunities.
We’re off to book a holiday. Appreciate I’m not a posho like many here so we will be limited somewhat by cash but any views on Cape Verde, Lake Garda and Praia Da Rocha ?
I’m very surprised nobody has responded to this yet. Usually holiday questions get a deluge of advice.
Maybe like me nobody’s been to either of those 3. I’ve been nearby to Praia da Rocha though and it’s pleasant enough. Not the most exciting. Have wanted to visit Cape Verde for years but never gone, though not the islands that I think have direct flights, Sal and Boa Vista, as they’re deserts.
An interestingly eclectic selection of 3 destinations!
You forgot to add the fiercely anti Trump NYT 'Juror number one hails from Ireland. The jury foreperson, tasked with overseeing deliberations, he now works in sales and is married. In his spare time, he enjoys anything "outdoorsy", and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail and Fox News.'
In fact the most common media mentioned for jurors to read or watch are the NYT followed by CNN, neither of which are pro Trump in any shape or form.
The case is taking place in Manhattan and Manhattan voted 86% for Biden in 2020, this jury is extremely unlikely to be pro Trump. Indeed the foreman might be the only one on the jury who even considered voting for him looking at the profiles
I'm happy enough with the Jury as a whole - esp the group description of them as "highly educated" - but that Foreman does give me a queasy feeling. Fox News and the Daily Mail is a worrying combination. I'm hoping he only tunes into those for a giggle (as we all do sometimes).
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Yes the "problem" isnt that there is a cross section of society its that in this trial you need 12/12 whereas others accept majority verdicts. This is obviously a feature as well as a bug as it reduces the chance of an innocent person being found guilty at the same time as increasing the chance of the guilty getting off. Worth it or not is a matter of preference.
You can argue the pros and cons in general but for cases against Trump my hard preference is for permissible majority guilty verdict. My (already slim) hopes for this one sank a little further when I saw it had to be unanimous. But let's see. It's a strong case.
I don't suppose he'll testify?
Not unless he has gone full gaga.
Yes, Trump in the dock would be a bloodsport for any good prosecution lawyer.
Since Trump (no doubt against his own legal advice) seems incapable of stopping himself threatening a judge's relatives, further defaming people he's already been convicted of defaming and generally ignoring direct instructions from judges, might he not be able to resist the temptation of letting the court experience his unique genius? Here's hoping.
He has made an assessment that the judges are too afraid of him and that their threats are just words, maybe some irrelevant fines. Proven correct so far and probably will be for the foreseeable, but could push it too far and end up in the slammer. Doubt it though, just small fines for threatening a judges daughter, its pathetic.
I wonder just how thin the ice is, on which he’s skating? Will the judge warn him, or consider he’s been warned enough?
We’re off to book a holiday. Appreciate I’m not a posho like many here so we will be limited somewhat by cash but any views on Cape Verde, Lake Garda and Praia Da Rocha ?
I’m very surprised nobody has responded to this yet. Usually holiday questions get a deluge of advice.
Maybe like me nobody’s been to either of those 3. I’ve been nearby to Praia da Rocha though and it’s pleasant enough. Not the most exciting. Have wanted to visit Cape Verde for years but never gone, though not the islands that I think have direct flights, Sal and Boa Vista, as they’re deserts.
An interestingly eclectic selection of 3 destinations!
I would have replied but I’m on the Eurostar
I’ve not done Cape Verde but it’s hard to go wrong with lake Garda. One of the most beautiful places on the planet - tho I wouldn’t go in very high season
Btw the weather in northern France is just as bad as the uk. Ditto the forecast. The incredibly shit weather is a Europe wide thing. I’m off to Italy in a couple of weeks and I’ve been checking the weather there. My intended destination is right now 8C
8C. On the med coast of southern Italy. In late April
Comments
Why is that ?
Is it because Khan is a doofus or because Londoners see something in her ?
Plus, Labour had a looooong way to come back after the fiasco of selecting Jessie Jessie Jessie Jessie Joe Jacobs as the Momentum candidate last time.
Then I realised I was two days EARLY
I had no money to get a new flight or change the flight I had and there was nothing else I could do and so I spent two days living in Tenerife airport drinking from the water fountains and eating leftover sandwiches, as I went cold turkey
After about the 27th hour, Tenerife airport gets quite boring
Even if the verdict was not unanimous that is not an acquittal any more than it is a guilty verdict and charges can be reinstated
Edit, and Khan is uber gash
I remember one of her election videos. It was comically bad. I ended up feeling sorry for her. She did one photo call with Jet from Gladiators. Ended up on all the Alan Partridge Facebook groups. Being mocked.
She Tried for a Stockton seat in the upcoming election. Failed.
I’m in Durham so don’t see the local tees press but the local politics shows here do hold him to account, even if he doesn’t appear personally.
Having said that I once had a very pleasant chat with him about the 87 cup final on Facebook. Coventry city striker, Keith,was his uncle. Still is if he’s still with us.
2. Your blagging ability gets you the job
3. Your talent gives you the ability to keep it
Khan is very unpopular in Mail and GBNews circles, being both a socialist and Muslim. There is also a negative incumbency effect from some of his bolder transport policies.
Don’t want to trigger Anabobazina
I take it Uber gash is not a compliment.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13330045/Benefits-axed-year-stop-lifestyle-choice-Prime-Minister.html
https://london2paris.co.uk/
This 5x year old lady did London to Sweden bike-packing on a Brompton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TegW1u_ltsc
I'm in my fifties, I cannot speak for yoofs
Not so much 'look, squirrel' as 'look, thieving, lazy squirrel'
Mr Sunak dismissed concerns the move could leave people destitute, saying that pushing people into work would leave them better off by an average of £7,000 a year. He added: 'There is an enormous amount of support available to these people, and no medical reason why they can't work, but we have half a million currently on benefits for a very long time.
'And I worry very much about this becoming a lifestyle choice. It's a basic matter of fairness.'
The fact is a Tory manifesto pledge rather than something to be legislated for now suggests it is also a bit of redmeat thrown in the direction of Reform voters than something the government expects to deliver
Point is, we need 12 out of 12 here. Just the one guy doing a Henry Fonda would ruin things. And the person best placed to try something like that is probably the Foreman. He must be quite assertive to have got the job. Whatever, it's amazing to have finally got a proper criminal trial of Donald Trump up and running and I'm really looking forward to seeing it play out.
Only if you aren't complying with the rules such as not accepting a job offer.
Well. You'll already get sanctioned for that.
So. No change there then.
And possibly at who is so steadfastly determined that they can't be paid enough to be off them.
Also keeping an occasional eye on the blue-tits in our TV accessible nest box, where after what appeared to be a slow start there are now seven eggs, so in a couple of weeks time we should see a great deal of chick-feeding activity.
On topic, sort of, Sunak's policy re benefits appears to be the sort of cruel, heartless scheme which appeals to retired Daily Mail readers. In particular, the attack on part-time workers seems to lack any thought of compassion or understanding.
F1: planning to put up the pre-race ramble in the afternoon/evening but limited time and some other matters means there's an off-chance it won't be there.
Going under the water into a different country still has a certain magic even to this jaded old travel hack
I don't suppose he'll testify?
Do they pay their own licence fee, or can they piggy-back on yours?
The catchment area for jury selection may be even more localised. In any case, jurors are required to be impartial and one day Trump will stop whingeing like a baby. That will probably be when he dies.
Whether or not the blue-tits need an Equity card I’m not sure!
It’s the Tory way - the enshittification of the UK for the masses as long as they and their financial services paymasters are getting richer. Fuck the plebs, right? Your letters might be delayed by a few days but, y’know, that’s not really important, right? ‘Cos the billionaires are getting richer. Why, a cityam article linked here yesterday said that economic growth is being driven by financial services in the city. So that’s nice.
Reading the comments on here today from Leavers, it’s the same thing with Brexit. Sure, it’s a little bit harder to get into the EU - and will get harder still soon - but we’re doing just fine. Sure, it’s a little bit harder to study in Europe, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, fresh food only lasts a couple of days and shelves are a little bit emptier, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, that parcel you ordered from Germany takes a week longer to arrive than it used to, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, there’s a bit more shit on the beaches and in the rivers, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, our small and medium sized businesses have been grievously impacted by Brexit red-tape, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, your weekly shop is a little more expensive, but we’re doing just fine. Sure, immigration is higher than ever, but we’re doing just fine. Sure the NHS is on its knees, in large part caused by a GP shortage thanks to Brexit, but we’re doing just fine.
And amongst all those little bits of encroaching enshittification (which apparently we should be grateful for as the price of sovereignty, like we should be pleased with food banks as an example of communities coming together) is the continued refusal to acknowledge the foundational lie of Brexit: There are no downsides, only considerable upsides.
The lawyers do their best to scratch out the most likely to be biased, and they have equal ability to do that, so it's inherently fair.
In this case the facts seem fairly straightforward, though it's the lower level of felony (and there's a question about the counting of secondary crimes to make it a felony, which will surely be appealed) and involving some shady people. He may well be able to persuade one or more, he may not - but it is the easiest of the trials he faces (not that he will face the others before November), so it is his best chance.
That will make a big change so by autumn non EU immigration should have fallen, EU immigration has already fallen after FoM ended
https://news.sky.com/story/some-roads-in-wales-to-revert-back-to-30mph-after-half-a-million-call-for-20mph-speed-limit-to-end-13119056
Likewise your previous whine about the decline of Castleford Market - perhaps you'd prefer to return to the era when Ena Sharples and Albert Tatlock were in their prime but most people are happy to use supermarkets or the internet.
The world changes, sometimes for the worse but usually for the better, sometimes people lose out but usually they gain.
Wallowing in pretend misery is just a tedious variant of nostalgia for a crap past of harder work and fewer opportunities.
Ken Skates, the Welsh government's new transport minister, said "there will be a change" to legislation introduced in September which changed the speed limit on nearly all roads from 30mph to 20mph."
https://news.sky.com/story/some-roads-in-wales-to-revert-back-to-30mph-after-half-a-million-call-for-20mph-speed-limit-to-end-13119056
Having said all that, it's possible Brexit's present unpopularity is associated with the present Tory government being incredibly unpopular. That once Starmer gets in and his government inevitably loses support mid-term, support for Rejoin may decrease. But I wouldn't count on in because Brexit supporters really don't have much have of a clue to how to win across younger, pro-EU voters.
There are various exceptions to the Skilled Worker income rules, so I think you are overselling it. Whatever the pros and cons of the scheme, that wasn’t my question, however. My question was whether this Govt has any credibility on immigration. They could introduce the best ever policy and no-one would believe it.
If Sunak had another 3 years, he could maybe turn opinion around… but he doesn’t.
I don’t understand the point on donor vs Tory party funds unless it was in a segregated fund possibly? But in that situation they should have told the donor - and perhaps they did.
Maybe like me nobody’s been to either of those 3. I’ve been nearby to Praia da Rocha though and it’s pleasant enough. Not the most exciting. Have wanted to visit Cape Verde for years but never gone, though not the islands that I think have direct flights, Sal and Boa Vista, as they’re deserts.
An interestingly eclectic selection of 3 destinations!
I’ve not done Cape Verde but it’s hard to go wrong with lake Garda. One of the most beautiful places on the planet - tho I wouldn’t go in very high season
Btw the weather in northern France is just as bad as the uk. Ditto the forecast. The incredibly shit
weather is a Europe wide thing. I’m off to Italy in a couple of weeks and I’ve been checking the weather there. My intended destination is right now 8C
8C. On the med coast of southern Italy. In late April
Astonishing. wtf is going on?