Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Ayrshire hotelier and convicted felon remains the favourite for the White House race in November

12357

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,322
    Farooq said:

    Ok, so, from the transcripts at https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-23-2024.pdf

    19 The primary crime that we have alleged is New York
    20 State Election Law Section 17-152. There is conspiracy
    21 language in the statute. In that statute it reads:
    22 "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or
    23 prevent the election of any person to a public office by
    24 unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or
    25 more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a
    26 misdemeanor."


    So the falsification of business records would be regarded as a misdemeanour unless except that it was also with "the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". The crime is the one above, NY State Election Law Section 17-152.
    This is why the prosecution was at pains to demonstrate that the payoff was for the purposes of promoting the election of Trump rather than merely for family reasons or to avoid embarrassment.

    So, my opinion has not changed. Trump's guilty. He's a criminal.

    The key words are "by unlawful means." But I am just repeating myself so I will shut up.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,991
    edited May 31
    Jonathan said:

    Significant news about Aaron Bell. He’s a loss to Parliament. I thought he faced extraordinarily challenging circumstances and conducted himself with integrity. I hope he knows that’s a rare thing and appreciated. Perhaps having left parliament he will have more freedom to achieve his political ambitions.

    Indeed, Aaron was a decent MP and good contributor on here.

    He was though only an MP for five minutes having been first elected only at the last GE in 2019. I do wish more MPs would at least have the courage to face electors again on their record even if the polls turn strongly against their party (that goes for Labour MPs who stood down pre 2010 too). If he lost at least he could have told himself he gave it his best shot and he gave his constituents the chance to re elect him
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,895
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    Definitely not where I'm from. But this would be a great project for someone with some GIS skills - what proportion of the UK population is more than 1 mile from their polling place?
    I was a 1.3 mile walk across town. In Edinburgh, 0.3 miles.
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 874
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Starmer U turns on Abbott

    Which U turn is it Alan, is she "in / out" or "out / in"
    lol

    fuck knows malc. Allegedly shes now allowed to stand for the election.But irs Starmer, if the wind changes direction he'll point somewhere else

    I have principles and if you don't like, well I have others.
    My guess is that now she has been allowed to stand she will choose not to on the grounds of health. Which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
    According to Political Currency (though I confess I was only half listening at the time), that seems to be how it had initially gone down, that Abbott would have the whip restored on the understanding that she wasn't standing again. Since then it's blown up and become this huge issue.

    I generally quite like Starmer and think he's done a very skillful job at manoeuvring the Labour Party into a place of electability, but I think this situation was handled badly. Ed Balls seemed to think someone, somewhere, went off at half-cock and that's what's caused the mess.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,600
    kjh said:

    Farooq said:

    Ok, so, from the transcripts at https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-23-2024.pdf

    19 The primary crime that we have alleged is New York
    20 State Election Law Section 17-152. There is conspiracy
    21 language in the statute. In that statute it reads:
    22 "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or
    23 prevent the election of any person to a public office by
    24 unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or
    25 more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a
    26 misdemeanor."


    So the falsification of business records would be regarded as a misdemeanour unless except that it was also with "the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". The crime is the one above, NY State Election Law Section 17-152.
    This is why the prosecution was at pains to demonstrate that the payoff was for the purposes of promoting the election of Trump rather than merely for family reasons or to avoid embarrassment.

    So, my opinion has not changed. Trump's guilty. He's a criminal.

    Translating it into UK terms, it's as if Keir Starmer secretly employed a voice coach and made them sign an NDA, and people called it a criminal conspiracy to influence the election.
    ???? What ????

    How about in UK terms you incur an election expense and put it through your company books rather than declare it on your election expenses return. If you do and you get caught you go to prison.

    I speak as someone who was a prosecution witness in an election spending case.
    It sounds like we need to find out whether Keir Starmer has had voice coaching and failed to declare it as an election expense.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,322

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Starmer U turns on Abbott

    Which U turn is it Alan, is she "in / out" or "out / in"
    lol

    fuck knows malc. Allegedly shes now allowed to stand for the election.But irs Starmer, if the wind changes direction he'll point somewhere else

    I have principles and if you don't like, well I have others.
    My guess is that now she has been allowed to stand she will choose not to on the grounds of health. Which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
    Maybe, but whichever way you look at it its shooting himself in the foot.
    Whilst that is true Alan IRL only obsessives like us will even have noticed.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,516

    ToryJim said:

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer U turns on Abbott

    Does that mean she's banned or she isn't banned?
    shes allowed to stand apparently

    It’s probably the best decision in the circumstances. However it’s not necessarily the correct decision, particularly for Diane herself as she appears to have lost several steps in recent years.
    Perhaps now she's wrung this concession out of him, she'll be happy to retire on the basis that it would be her decision, and not Starmer's, for her to do so.
    Turd polishing.
    Er, no. Just musing.

    Why do the boring partisans on here have to assume that everyone else is taking a boring partisan position?
    So you think this has been well managed ?
    Just to be controversial I am going to give all 3 leaders the benefit of the doubt on their recent shenanigans:

    Ed Davey playing the clown - Gets the desperately needed attention of the media
    Rishi Sunak coming out with bonkers policies - Got all the media attention and starved the Labour party of it
    Keir Starmer's Diane Abbott fiasco - Makes him look tough on the left and a middle of the road, you can vote for me, guy

    Convinced? I'm not sure I am either.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,674
    Leon said:

    First major error from Kir Royale?

    It won’t change much but it shows a lack of basic competence

    Alternatively, Abbott will say something bonkers and get suspended again. Or endorse Corbyn. Something like that.

    By not allowing her to run, Starmer looks like the bad guy. Allowing her to run and potentially make a fool of herself is a shot to nothing that just might work...

    It's quite cynical, if you believe the rumours that her health isn't what it used to be.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,726
    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    The way I see this is:

    Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.

    Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.

    Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.

    Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?

    You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
    What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.

    The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose.

    What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
    In Bragg's first 15 months on the job, the Manhattan DA's office filed 166 felony counts for falsifying business records against 34 defendants from all walks of life.

    I haven't heard a single Republican politician explain why they think the law shouldn't apply to Donald Trump...

    https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1796370294858490027
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,338
    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    First major error from Kir Royale?

    It won’t change much but it shows a lack of basic competence

    Alternatively, Abbott will say something bonkers and get suspended again. Or endorse Corbyn. Something like that.

    By not allowing her to run, Starmer looks like the bad guy. Allowing her to run and potentially make a fool of herself is a shot to nothing that just might work...

    It's quite cynical, if you believe the rumours that her health isn't what it used to be.
    Being a leader isn't about looking the good or bad guy. Its about making the right decision.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,322

    Very odd line to take from the Tories.

    Yesterday they said Dianne Abbott was now a national treasure and had been treated badly, despite them previously saying she was a threat to national security.

    Now they're saying SKS is weak for letting her stand as an MP.

    He is weak - but I am not sure their line is the one I would have taken.

    They remain the party of Boris which believes in both the having and eating of cake.

    Which, in fairness, is one of the few remaining things I can agree with them on!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,206
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Starmer U turns on Abbott

    Which U turn is it Alan, is she "in / out" or "out / in"
    lol

    fuck knows malc. Allegedly shes now allowed to stand for the election.But irs Starmer, if the wind changes direction he'll point somewhere else

    I have principles and if you don't like, well I have others.
    My guess is that now she has been allowed to stand she will choose not to on the grounds of health. Which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
    Maybe, but whichever way you look at it its shooting himself in the foot.
    Whilst that is true Alan IRL only obsessives like us will even have noticed.
    Normally I'd agree with that, but the Abbott story had a bit more traction than the others because she's well known. It's a mistake but it wont cost him the election. It may however make things more difficult when in government.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,444

    ToryJim said:

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer U turns on Abbott

    Does that mean she's banned or she isn't banned?
    shes allowed to stand apparently

    It’s probably the best decision in the circumstances. However it’s not necessarily the correct decision, particularly for Diane herself as she appears to have lost several steps in recent years.
    Perhaps now she's wrung this concession out of him, she'll be happy to retire on the basis that it would be her decision, and not Starmer's, for her to do so.
    Turd polishing.
    Er, no. Just musing.

    Why do the boring partisans on here have to assume that everyone else is taking a boring partisan position?
    So you think this has been well managed ?
    I did not say that, or imply it.

    Generally speaking, I try to avoid simply repeating what other people say, and so since plenty of other people had said that I didn't feel it necessary to simply parrot it, and the absence of doing so shouldn't be taken as evidence of taking the contrary position. Instead I was trying to think of what else might follow.

    I think it was yesterday, or the day before, that someone said that this episode was one event that showed Starmer had poor people management skills, and I think it's one of the leadership qualities that it's most obvious he is lacking.

    Why would you assume that I thought it had been well-managed? I've plenty criticised Starmer in the past. If I'd been a notably vocal poster in support of Starmer then perhaps making the assumption would be warranted, but as it is it was just annoying.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,322
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    Definitely not where I'm from. But this would be a great project for someone with some GIS skills - what proportion of the UK population is more than 1 mile from their polling place?
    I was a 1.3 mile walk across town. In Edinburgh, 0.3 miles.
    Think of the steps!
  • DavidL said:

    Very odd line to take from the Tories.

    Yesterday they said Dianne Abbott was now a national treasure and had been treated badly, despite them previously saying she was a threat to national security.

    Now they're saying SKS is weak for letting her stand as an MP.

    He is weak - but I am not sure their line is the one I would have taken.

    They remain the party of Boris which believes in both the having and eating of cake.

    Which, in fairness, is one of the few remaining things I can agree with them on!
    As far as I can make out...

    Dianne Abbott said to one journalist she wasn't allowed to stand and then the press ran with that despite Labour not ever saying that. Just that no decisions had been taken.

    So presumably SKS sat on it, had a think and now has decided which way to jump.

    He should have just said, "thank you for your service Dianne but you won't be allowed to stand again."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,991

    Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.

    According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.

    https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=23&LAB=46&LIB=9&Reform=12&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.7&SCOTLAB=37.1&SCOTLIB=7.7&SCOTReform=3.5&SCOTGreen=3.8&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=30.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

    I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.

    66 Tory seats and still main opposition would be a poor Conservative result but not wipeout.

    Indeed it would be even more than the 62 seats the LDs won in 2010
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,204
    Champagne, jacuzzi, USSR




    (Actually Romanian champagne, and it’s not a branded jacuzzi, and it’s transnistria out the window, not the USSR, but still)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,338
    BBC News - All Santander staff and '30 million' customers hacked
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6ppv06e3n8o
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,516
    edited May 31


    kjh said:

    Farooq said:

    Ok, so, from the transcripts at https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-23-2024.pdf

    19 The primary crime that we have alleged is New York
    20 State Election Law Section 17-152. There is conspiracy
    21 language in the statute. In that statute it reads:
    22 "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or
    23 prevent the election of any person to a public office by
    24 unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or
    25 more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a
    26 misdemeanor."


    So the falsification of business records would be regarded as a misdemeanour unless except that it was also with "the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". The crime is the one above, NY State Election Law Section 17-152.
    This is why the prosecution was at pains to demonstrate that the payoff was for the purposes of promoting the election of Trump rather than merely for family reasons or to avoid embarrassment.

    So, my opinion has not changed. Trump's guilty. He's a criminal.

    Translating it into UK terms, it's as if Keir Starmer secretly employed a voice coach and made them sign an NDA, and people called it a criminal conspiracy to influence the election.
    ???? What ????

    How about in UK terms you incur an election expense and put it through your company books rather than declare it on your election expenses return. If you do and you get caught you go to prison.

    I speak as someone who was a prosecution witness in an election spending case.
    It sounds like we need to find out whether Keir Starmer has had voice coaching and failed to declare it as an election expense.
    Now you are on to something. But it has to be after the date that the election spending reporting starts (which coincidentally is Today) and as leader it would almost certainly come under the national, not local, limit, so I don't think it is anything anyone is going to bother with unless he is getting it from King Charles and he is charging King rates.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,726
    It would be more accurate (though still not true) to say that there are "almost no instances" of people being prosecuted for the particular first offence gun crime Hunter Biden has been charged with.
  • After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour

    He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."

    He declines to say if he's spoken to her

    https://x.com/NatashaC/status/1796533365824242021

    What was the point then? Just say you think she's a trailblazer but she can't stand again. Baffling.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,322

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    Starmer U turns on Abbott

    Which U turn is it Alan, is she "in / out" or "out / in"
    lol

    fuck knows malc. Allegedly shes now allowed to stand for the election.But irs Starmer, if the wind changes direction he'll point somewhere else

    I have principles and if you don't like, well I have others.
    My guess is that now she has been allowed to stand she will choose not to on the grounds of health. Which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
    Maybe, but whichever way you look at it its shooting himself in the foot.
    Whilst that is true Alan IRL only obsessives like us will even have noticed.
    Normally I'd agree with that, but the Abbott story had a bit more traction than the others because she's well known. It's a mistake but it wont cost him the election. It may however make things more difficult when in government.
    Those obsessives will definitely include his MPs and various pressure groups, yes.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,444
    HYUFD said:

    Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.

    According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.

    https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=23&LAB=46&LIB=9&Reform=12&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.7&SCOTLAB=37.1&SCOTLIB=7.7&SCOTReform=3.5&SCOTGreen=3.8&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=30.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

    I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.

    66 Tory seats and still main opposition would be a poor Conservative result but not wipeout.

    Indeed it would be even more than the 62 seats the LDs won in 2010
    62 seats was in 2005 - the Lib Dems lost a few seats in 2010 and ended up with 57.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,895
    edited May 31
    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    Definitely not where I'm from. But this would be a great project for someone with some GIS skills - what proportion of the UK population is more than 1 mile from their polling place?
    I was a 1.3 mile walk across town. In Edinburgh, 0.3 miles.
    Think of the steps!
    I'm being silly but it's worth keeping an eye on - it's something the Republicans use in the US to restrict turnout. Polling places only accessible by car.

    Difficult to solve in places like the Highlands but that should be a rare exception.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 68,726
    A sane Republican comments - and gets a load of abuse for it.

    Regardless of the result, I urge all Americans to respect the verdict and the legal process. At this dangerously divided moment in our history, all leaders—regardless of party—must not pour fuel on the fire with more toxic partisanship. We must reaffirm what has made this nation great: the rule of law.
    https://x.com/GovLarryHogan/status/1796283536565014873
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,322
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    The way I see this is:

    Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.

    Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.

    Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.

    Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?

    You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
    What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.

    The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose.

    What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
    In Bragg's first 15 months on the job, the Manhattan DA's office filed 166 felony counts for falsifying business records against 34 defendants from all walks of life.

    I haven't heard a single Republican politician explain why they think the law shouldn't apply to Donald Trump...

    https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1796370294858490027
    My reading has indicated that all or very nearly all, of these related to tax evasion. Which is not alleged here. Was the production of MAGA hats an attempt to influence the election? Yep. Was it illegal? No, very poor taste and more than somewhat fantastical, but no.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,674

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    First major error from Kir Royale?

    It won’t change much but it shows a lack of basic competence

    Alternatively, Abbott will say something bonkers and get suspended again. Or endorse Corbyn. Something like that.

    By not allowing her to run, Starmer looks like the bad guy. Allowing her to run and potentially make a fool of herself is a shot to nothing that just might work...

    It's quite cynical, if you believe the rumours that her health isn't what it used to be.
    Being a leader isn't about looking the good or bad guy. Its about making the right decision.
    Sadly from recent footage I don't believe Diane Abbott is either mentally sharp or physically fit enough to stand as an MP any more.

    But how do you dispatch someone who was once a formidable opponent, who retains an enormous amount of grassroots support?

    It might not be good leadership - but it is good politics. Letting your opponents make fools of themselves is often the right play. Arguably, it's been Starmer's modus operandi from day 1, both in dealing with the Conservatives and his own internal opposition.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,855
    Quincel said:

    Tice and Farage have apparently had a bit of a tiff. Oh dear

    From the Telegraph:

    "Richard Tice has slapped down Nigel Farage over his hint at a possible election pact with the Tories.

    "Mr Tice, the Reform UK leader, said there were “no deals” to be done with the Conservatives after Mr Farage suggested he could be willing to come to an agreement.

    "Mr Farage, the honorary president of Reform UK, said he would be open to “a conversation” with the Conservatives if they give him “something back” for the “huge favours” he has done over the years.

    "In an interview with The Sun’s Never Mind the Ballots show, Mr Farage said: “I’ve done them some huge favours over the years as a party. Give me something back. We might have a conversation.”"
    If Farage wants to run ReformUK then he should run ReformUK, which he's stepped away from and refused to step back into the role. And as long as he is neither an election candidate nor active party leader I daresay the media might want to spend less time interviewing him and more interviewing Reform's candidates and active leader.

    If I were Tice I'd be spitting feathers at the way Farage is treating him, though I can't say I'd be surprised by it.
    He can't spit feathers; Farage is the Gaffer.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,338
    edited May 31
    Election debate featuring all seven main parties announced

    One extreme to the other. You won't get any light from a 7 way debate. Realistically 3-4 is the max where you might actually be able to gain some insight.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,444
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    Definitely not where I'm from. But this would be a great project for someone with some GIS skills - what proportion of the UK population is more than 1 mile from their polling place?
    I was a 1.3 mile walk across town. In Edinburgh, 0.3 miles.
    Think of the steps!
    I'm being silly but it's worth keeping an eye on - it's something the Republicans use in the US to restrict turnout. Polling places only accessible by car.

    Difficult to solve in places like the Highlands but that should be a rare exception.
    There were some suggestions before GE2010 that the cost of holding elections could be cut by reducing the number of polling stations, and I think it's an idea that is often returned to, but I think it would be a pretty bad idea.
  • Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    Definitely not where I'm from. But this would be a great project for someone with some GIS skills - what proportion of the UK population is more than 1 mile from their polling place?
    I was a 1.3 mile walk across town. In Edinburgh, 0.3 miles.
    Think of the steps!
    I'm being silly but it's worth keeping an eye on - it's something the Republicans use in the US to restrict turnout. Polling places only accessible by car.

    Difficult to solve in places like the Highlands but that should be a rare exception.
    A fairly simple equation should sort that: for the catchment area of any particular polling place, a fixed proportion of the electorate should be within a given distance and those that aren't either catered to with additional polling places or offered a guaranteed postal vote. Then you can apply the same standard everywhere.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 80,338
    edited May 31
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    First major error from Kir Royale?

    It won’t change much but it shows a lack of basic competence

    Alternatively, Abbott will say something bonkers and get suspended again. Or endorse Corbyn. Something like that.

    By not allowing her to run, Starmer looks like the bad guy. Allowing her to run and potentially make a fool of herself is a shot to nothing that just might work...

    It's quite cynical, if you believe the rumours that her health isn't what it used to be.
    Being a leader isn't about looking the good or bad guy. Its about making the right decision.
    Sadly from recent footage I don't believe Diane Abbott is either mentally sharp or physically fit enough to stand as an MP any more.

    But how do you dispatch someone who was once a formidable opponent, who retains an enormous amount of grassroots support?

    It might not be good leadership - but it is good politics. Letting your opponents make fools of themselves is often the right play. Arguably, it's been Starmer's modus operandi from day 1, both in dealing with the Conservatives and his own internal opposition.
    The problem is if she does a Red Ken it blows up in his face (nobody believe NEC is making totally independent decisions if the leader makes their position clear). Good leadership would have got ahead of this months ago and promised we clear you, you go quietly, we say very nice things about you, we will give you a place in the HoL.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,271

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,322
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    Definitely not where I'm from. But this would be a great project for someone with some GIS skills - what proportion of the UK population is more than 1 mile from their polling place?
    I was a 1.3 mile walk across town. In Edinburgh, 0.3 miles.
    Think of the steps!
    I'm being silly but it's worth keeping an eye on - it's something the Republicans use in the US to restrict turnout. Polling places only accessible by car.

    Difficult to solve in places like the Highlands but that should be a rare exception.
    You make being silly sound like a bad thing.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,322

    Election debate featuring all seven main parties announced

    One extreme to the other. You won't get any light from a 7 way debate. Realistically 3-4 is the max where you might actually be able to gain some insight.

    If I was Starmer I think I would be otherwise engaged. Can't see what he can hope to get out of that.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,895
    HYUFD said:

    Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.

    According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.

    https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=23&LAB=46&LIB=9&Reform=12&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.7&SCOTLAB=37.1&SCOTLIB=7.7&SCOTReform=3.5&SCOTGreen=3.8&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=30.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

    I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.

    66 Tory seats and still main opposition would be a poor Conservative result but not wipeout.

    Indeed it would be even more than the 62 seats the LDs won in 2010
    We currently have expectations management based on the Conservatives getting 66 seats. "Poor but not wipeout". Eshhht.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,444
    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    Okay, so, obviously there will be some areas where polling stations are more distant (though I think a couple of miles is not really that far).

    One way to benchmark it would be to compare to the shortest distance to the nearest store selling milk. If you're in a remote area where you have to travel 5 miles to pick up a pint of milk, then you can't complain too much about being asked to travel that far to vote.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,991
    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.

    According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.

    https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=23&LAB=46&LIB=9&Reform=12&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.7&SCOTLAB=37.1&SCOTLIB=7.7&SCOTReform=3.5&SCOTGreen=3.8&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=30.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

    I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.

    66 Tory seats and still main opposition would be a poor Conservative result but not wipeout.

    Indeed it would be even more than the 62 seats the LDs won in 2010
    We currently have expectations management based on the Conservatives getting 66 seats. "Poor but not wipeout". Eshhht.
    Given in late October 2022 some polls put the Tories on less than 10 seats, even 62 seats worst case scenario would avoid that wipeout
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,855
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    The way I see this is:

    Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.

    Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.

    Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.

    Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?

    You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
    What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.

    The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose.

    What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
    In Bragg's first 15 months on the job, the Manhattan DA's office filed 166 felony counts for falsifying business records against 34 defendants from all walks of life.

    I haven't heard a single Republican politician explain why they think the law shouldn't apply to Donald Trump...

    https://x.com/jonfavs/status/1796370294858490027
    I don't understand why @DavidL has - imo - comprehensively the wrong end of the stick on this.

    He's normally very sharp.

    The Trump case was and is a slam-dunk.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,991

    HYUFD said:

    Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.

    According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.

    https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=23&LAB=46&LIB=9&Reform=12&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.7&SCOTLAB=37.1&SCOTLIB=7.7&SCOTReform=3.5&SCOTGreen=3.8&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=30.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

    I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.

    66 Tory seats and still main opposition would be a poor Conservative result but not wipeout.

    Indeed it would be even more than the 62 seats the LDs won in 2010
    62 seats was in 2005 - the Lib Dems lost a few seats in 2010 and ended up with 57.
    Still more than the LDs in either 2005 or 2010 then
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,703

    HYUFD said:

    Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.

    According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.

    https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=23&LAB=46&LIB=9&Reform=12&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.7&SCOTLAB=37.1&SCOTLIB=7.7&SCOTReform=3.5&SCOTGreen=3.8&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=30.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

    I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.

    66 Tory seats and still main opposition would be a poor Conservative result but not wipeout.

    Indeed it would be even more than the 62 seats the LDs won in 2010
    62 seats was in 2005 - the Lib Dems lost a few seats in 2010 and ended up with 57.
    I would be very content with 44 to be honest....
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,895
    edited May 31
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.

    According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.

    https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=23&LAB=46&LIB=9&Reform=12&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.7&SCOTLAB=37.1&SCOTLIB=7.7&SCOTReform=3.5&SCOTGreen=3.8&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=30.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

    I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.

    66 Tory seats and still main opposition would be a poor Conservative result but not wipeout.

    Indeed it would be even more than the 62 seats the LDs won in 2010
    We currently have expectations management based on the Conservatives getting 66 seats. "Poor but not wipeout". Eshhht.
    Given in late October 2022 some polls put the Tories on less than 10 seats, even 62 seats worst case scenario would avoid that wipeout
    Correction:10 seats!

    MRP in 6 hours.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,053
    HYUFD said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.

    According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.

    https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=23&LAB=46&LIB=9&Reform=12&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=14.7&SCOTLAB=37.1&SCOTLIB=7.7&SCOTReform=3.5&SCOTGreen=3.8&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=30.5&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase

    I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.

    66 Tory seats and still main opposition would be a poor Conservative result but not wipeout.

    Indeed it would be even more than the 62 seats the LDs won in 2010
    We currently have expectations management based on the Conservatives getting 66 seats. "Poor but not wipeout". Eshhht.
    Given in late October 2022 some polls put the Tories on less than 10 seats, even 62 seats worst case scenario would avoid that wipeout
    Supersonic levels of damage limitation there!
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,516

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    Okay, so, obviously there will be some areas where polling stations are more distant (though I think a couple of miles is not really that far).

    One way to benchmark it would be to compare to the shortest distance to the nearest store selling milk. If you're in a remote area where you have to travel 5 miles to pick up a pint of milk, then you can't complain too much about being asked to travel that far to vote.
    Depends if you have your own cow.

    If you own a cow then do you get your own polling station? I guess to be completely parallel there would have to be some sort of extra do it yourself element to the voting process as well.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,053
    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    A mile and a half is walking distance.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,088
    eristdoof said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    A mile and a half is walking distance.
    Not really.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,204
    I think I might actually be in the best hotel room in the country. Admittedly an extremely poor country of 2m people with virtually zero tourism but still

    *adopts the fast show voice*

    “Then they put me in the best hotel room in the country, which is nice”
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 5,631

    Election debate featuring all seven main parties announced

    One extreme to the other. You won't get any light from a 7 way debate. Realistically 3-4 is the max where you might actually be able to gain some insight.

    Legal minefield. Once you’re at six do you invite Galloway? Salmond?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,271
    edited May 31
    eristdoof said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    A mile and a half is walking distance.
    Indeed it is.
    If you're in reasonable shape.
    And can spare an hour or so without the responsibility of young children.
    Some of the outlying farms were much further away.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,519
    Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

    If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 17,444

    eristdoof said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    A mile and a half is walking distance.
    Not really.
    What's the normal distance between tube stations?
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    May I wish Aaron Bell/Tissue Price all the best in his new career. Despite our politics being different, he always came across as a decent person, very different from the likes of Braverman, Rees-Mogg etc.

    Yes - a lot of respect for him speaking out against Johnson at a time when it was not easy to do so.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,895
    edited May 31
    eristdoof said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    A mile and a half is walking distance.
    Tell that to the motoring lobby.

    But a large number of people with mobility issues depend on lifts from friends, family and neighbours to vote. It must suppress turnout significantly in some low density towns/villages.

    And as MattW has reprimanded me previously, car ownership is still surprisingly low in rural areas (I assumed that was an urban phenomenon).
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,271

    May I wish Aaron Bell/Tissue Price all the best in his new career. Despite our politics being different, he always came across as a decent person, very different from the likes of Braverman, Rees-Mogg etc.

    Me too.
    Maybe we'll see tissueprice back posting?
    Hope so.
  • DM_AndyDM_Andy Posts: 1,127

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    Okay, so, obviously there will be some areas where polling stations are more distant (though I think a couple of miles is not really that far).

    One way to benchmark it would be to compare to the shortest distance to the nearest store selling milk. If you're in a remote area where you have to travel 5 miles to pick up a pint of milk, then you can't complain too much about being asked to travel that far to vote.
    I like that metric - I once lived in a very remote part of the Somerset Levels (only for a year but did vote in that time). It was just over a mile to the polling station in the nearest village but barring setting up a polling station just for about eight electors (two houses and a farm) it had to be that far away. To compare it was 2.5 miles to the next village for the nearest shop and 2.8 miles to the nearest bus stop (except for a 1 service per week service)
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    No dates for manifestos yet, AFAICS.

    Must be soon, presumably?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,271
    Leon said:

    I think I might actually be in the best hotel room in the country. Admittedly an extremely poor country of 2m people with virtually zero tourism but still

    *adopts the fast show voice*

    “Then they put me in the best hotel room in the country, which is nice”

    Int' Moldova brilliant?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,516
    dixiedean said:

    May I wish Aaron Bell/Tissue Price all the best in his new career. Despite our politics being different, he always came across as a decent person, very different from the likes of Braverman, Rees-Mogg etc.

    Me too.
    Maybe we'll see tissueprice back posting?
    Hope so.
    I enjoyed watching him on Only Connect. I didn't see him on the other game shows he did, but I'm sure he was equally entertaining.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,991
    '@TheRoyalistsUK
    The Lord Mayor’s Common Cryer, Major Peter Oweh, read aloud the Royal Proclamation dissolving Parliament and declaring the calling of another at the Royal Exchange this morning.

    Parliament will sit again after the General Election, which will take place on Thursday, 4 July.'
    https://x.com/TheRoyalistsUK/status/1796525815875924429
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,451

    DavidL said:

    Very odd line to take from the Tories.

    Yesterday they said Dianne Abbott was now a national treasure and had been treated badly, despite them previously saying she was a threat to national security.

    Now they're saying SKS is weak for letting her stand as an MP.

    He is weak - but I am not sure their line is the one I would have taken.

    They remain the party of Boris which believes in both the having and eating of cake.

    Which, in fairness, is one of the few remaining things I can agree with them on!
    As far as I can make out...

    Dianne Abbott said to one journalist she wasn't allowed to stand and then the press ran with that despite Labour not ever saying that. Just that no decisions had been taken.

    So presumably SKS sat on it, had a think and now has decided which way to jump.

    He should have just said, "thank you for your service Dianne but you won't be allowed to stand again."

    No, this story blew up because of off the record briefings from Labour HQ to the Times, which has a couple of reporters (Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Poglund) with very good contacts on the right of the party. Abbott was going to stand down, it had all been choreographed and then some little boy briefers decided to blow it out of the water because they did not like what had been decided. This is a problem the leadership created by giving certain people too much, unsupervised back office power. Starmer has to take responsibility. Hopefully, it is a lesson learned.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,204
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    I think I might actually be in the best hotel room in the country. Admittedly an extremely poor country of 2m people with virtually zero tourism but still

    *adopts the fast show voice*

    “Then they put me in the best hotel room in the country, which is nice”

    Int' Moldova brilliant?
    This week i ave mainly been drinkin negra de purcari
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,088

    eristdoof said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    A mile and a half is walking distance.
    Not really.
    What's the normal distance between tube stations?
    1.5 miles is the entire length of the Waterloo und City Line.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,380
    eristdoof said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    A mile and a half is walking distance.
    Indeed. But it's also 'can I really be arsed?' distance, particularly if it's raining. You could understand people not getting around to voting. I remember being pissed, first time I voted in Cardiff, to find the nearest polling station (within about 5 minutes) was not my polling station and having to go down to the correct one another 15 minutes away. Had it not been a seat in play, I might not have bothered. Had I not had flexible hours, I might not have had time before work (I'd likely still have voted after work, I guess).

    Of course, postal votes exist, as do proxies. And do the parties still offer to drive people to polling stations to vote?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,991
    @SebGorka
    ·
    12h
    I’m an American.

    I love the United States.

    And I will be voting for a convicted felon November 5th.

    #OutlawPresident

    PASS IT ON
    https://x.com/SebGorka/status/1796345908290093518
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,204

    Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

    If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

    No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

    “Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,225

    Not going quietly?

    Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour

    https://bbc.in/4c1qc5S


    https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1796507060961440113

    Although I think he’s a total bell end, he does make some good points in the interview.

    Yes. LRM shows that he's perfectly capable of not being bonkers. He interviews well, and is sensible and rational in that clip. He has, actually, grown up quite a lot in the last few years - I've encountered a fair bit of him so I've seen the change.
    I think people really underestimate the extent to which LRM has grown up. When he was first elected, he was little better than a new born baby, sending shit in each and every direction. Now, a few years in, he has all the maturity of a toddler.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,088
    Leon said:

    Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

    If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

    No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

    “Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
    165 seats, not 158.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,051
    @malcolmg
    There's this YouTube about how the Scots version of Wikipedia was hijacked and faked. I think you might know more about the real Scots language than me: care to have a look?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8wfSpSAASQ

  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,204
    edited May 31

    Leon said:

    Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

    If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

    No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

    “Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
    165 seats, not 158.
    Just testing you Sunil
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,452
    Selebian said:

    eristdoof said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    A mile and a half is walking distance.
    Indeed. But it's also 'can I really be arsed?' distance, particularly if it's raining. You could understand people not getting around to voting. I remember being pissed, first time I voted in Cardiff, to find the nearest polling station (within about 5 minutes) was not my polling station and having to go down to the correct one another 15 minutes away. Had it not been a seat in play, I might not have bothered. Had I not had flexible hours, I might not have had time before work (I'd likely still have voted after work, I guess).

    Of course, postal votes exist, as do proxies. And do the parties still offer to drive people to polling stations to vote?
    If you ask the Tories nicely, they will do your voting for you, and all. (Well, not yet: but certainly aiming to do that for expats.)
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,268
    PB Tories on cracking form over the last few days:

    1. Although Abbott is a left-wing lunatic, we all love her and she's a national treasure and Starmer is a heartless bastard for not letting her stand.

    2. Weak, weak, weak of Starmer to let that left-wing lunatic racist Abbott stand.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,600
    The video of the knife attack in Germany is quite shocking. The police try to arrest someone who was tackling the assailant which helped the assailant get free and then stab the policeman in the back of the neck. Then the person who was trying to help ended up being handcuffed.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,451
    New We Think poll (30th and 31st May fieldwork)

    🔴 Lab 46% (-1)
    🔵 Con 21% (-1)
    ⚪ Ref 13% (+1)
    🟠 LD 8% (NC)
    🟢 Green 6% (NC)
    🟡 SNP 3% (NC)

    https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1796542301105233925
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,762
    Stocky said:

    @MarqueeMark

    What's your view on Exmouth and Exeter East? Three parties competing, it looks like.

    They aren't competing very hard it seems, not had a single leaflet through my door, a canvasser knocking or seen an election poster as yet.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,451
    3/ When it comes to who the nation would prefer as the resident at Number 10, Keir Starmer gained another two points to lead by 20.

    🔴 Keir Starmer: 45% (+3)
    🔵 Rishi Sunak: 25% (+1)
    ⚪ Don’t know: 31% (-2)

    https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1796542305211441403
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,380
    HYUFD said:

    @SebGorka
    ·
    12h
    I’m an American.

    I love the United States.

    And I will be voting for a convicted felon November 5th.

    #OutlawPresident

    PASS IT ON
    https://x.com/SebGorka/status/1796345908290093518

    Given that commitment to vote for a convicted felon, the obvious thing for Biden to do - if it gains traction - is to pardon* Trump :wink:

    *He can't, actually, right? As it's a State rather than Federal conviction? Can the State Governor do it?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 50,600

    New We Think poll (30th and 31st May fieldwork)

    🔴 Lab 46% (-1)
    🔵 Con 21% (-1)
    ⚪ Ref 13% (+1)
    🟠 LD 8% (NC)
    🟢 Green 6% (NC)
    🟡 SNP 3% (NC)

    https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1796542301105233925

    It looks increasingly unlikely that the Tories will be able to squeeze the Reform vote.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,452
    viewcode said:

    @malcolmg
    There's this YouTube about how the Scots version of Wikipedia was hijacked and faked. I think you might know more about the real Scots language than me: care to have a look?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8wfSpSAASQ

    All verry odd as there is already an excellent Dictionary of the Scots Language online.

    Though I remember seeing the hacked version of Conservapedia. The entry for East Lothian was quite something.
  • JamarionJamarion Posts: 49
    edited May 31

    DavidL said:

    Very odd line to take from the Tories.

    Yesterday they said Dianne Abbott was now a national treasure and had been treated badly, despite them previously saying she was a threat to national security.

    Now they're saying SKS is weak for letting her stand as an MP.

    He is weak - but I am not sure their line is the one I would have taken.

    They remain the party of Boris which believes in both the having and eating of cake.

    Which, in fairness, is one of the few remaining things I can agree with them on!
    As far as I can make out...

    Dianne Abbott said to one journalist she wasn't allowed to stand and then the press ran with that despite Labour not ever saying that. Just that no decisions had been taken.

    So presumably SKS sat on it, had a think and now has decided which way to jump.

    He should have just said, "thank you for your service Dianne but you won't be allowed to stand again."

    No, this story blew up because of off the record briefings from Labour HQ to the Times, which has a couple of reporters (Patrick Maguire and Gabriel Poglund) with very good contacts on the right of the party. Abbott was going to stand down, it had all been choreographed and then some little boy briefers decided to blow it out of the water because they did not like what had been decided. This is a problem the leadership created by giving certain people too much, unsupervised back office power. Starmer has to take responsibility. Hopefully, it is a lesson learned.
    Somebody wasn't content with Abbott standing down. They wanted to humiliate her.

    If Starmer wanted to take responsibility, he'd sack the briefers.

    If Diane wants to keep her seat, I hope she tells Keir "they have that right" Starmer to fuck off and runs as an independent socialist against genocide and wins.

  • AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 1,415
    eristdoof said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    A mile and a half is walking distance.
    Three miles in total, to get there and back - so almost 5km, and would be a challenge for many. We should certainly do better than that, at least in urban areas.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,599

    malcolmg said:

    Starmer U turns on Abbott

    Which U turn is it Alan, is she "in / out" or "out / in"
    lol

    fuck knows malc. Allegedly shes now allowed to stand for the election.But irs Starmer, if the wind changes direction he'll point somewhere else

    I have principles and if you don't like, well I have others.
    So he is a Marxist then?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,204
    edited May 31
    New York magazine (not known for its Trump sympathies) comes out on the side of @DavidL


    “The charges against Trump are obscure, and almost entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever.”

    If New York magazine is right then New York might just have done the stupidest thing in American history
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 7,895
    edited May 31

    The video of the knife attack in Germany is quite shocking. The police try to arrest someone who was tackling the assailant which helped the assailant get free and then stab the policeman in the back of the neck. Then the person who was trying to help ended up being handcuffed.

    This is one area where I have sympathy with the police. I witnessed a huge bar fight in Poland and it looked just like that - limbs and fists flying everywhere. In the US everyone in that video would be dead.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,251

    New We Think poll (30th and 31st May fieldwork)

    🔴 Lab 46% (-1)
    🔵 Con 21% (-1)
    ⚪ Ref 13% (+1)
    🟠 LD 8% (NC)
    🟢 Green 6% (NC)
    🟡 SNP 3% (NC)

    https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1796542301105233925

    Not a lot happening, is there?

    Maybe we could just fast forward to July 4th and get it over with.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,172
    edited May 31

    PB Tories on cracking form over the last few days:

    1. Although Abbott is a left-wing lunatic, we all love her and she's a national treasure and Starmer is a heartless bastard for not letting her stand.

    2. Weak, weak, weak of Starmer to let that left-wing lunatic racist Abbott stand.

    They were all playing PB Tory hoopla at the equestrian club and have suffered a peculiar incident of mass getting hit over the head with horseshoes. There are conflicting reports regarding whose aim is dangerously off.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,088

    New We Think poll (30th and 31st May fieldwork)

    🔴 Lab 46% (-1)
    🔵 Con 21% (-1)
    ⚪ Ref 13% (+1)
    🟠 LD 8% (NC)
    🟢 Green 6% (NC)
    🟡 SNP 3% (NC)

    https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1796542301105233925

    Broken, sleazy Labour and Tories on the slide!
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366

    After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour

    He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."

    He declines to say if he's spoken to her

    https://x.com/NatashaC/status/1796533365824242021

    What was the point then? Just say you think she's a trailblazer but she can't stand again. Baffling.

    This is bizarre. Diane Abbott is a card carrying racist. Labour are a party that tolerates racism if they allow her to stand.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,088
    Leon said:


    Leon said:

    Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

    If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

    No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

    “Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
    165 seats, not 158.
    Just testing you Sunil
    I forgive you! I only hope my neurologist feels the same!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 120,991
    edited May 31
    Leon said:

    Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

    If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

    No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

    “Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
    Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

    If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
  • WillGWillG Posts: 2,366
    Pro_Rata said:

    PB Tories on cracking form over the last few days:

    1. Although Abbott is a left-wing lunatic, we all love her and she's a national treasure and Starmer is a heartless bastard for not letting her stand.

    2. Weak, weak, weak of Starmer to let that left-wing lunatic racist Abbott stand.

    They were all playing PB Tory quoits at the equestrian club and have suffered a peculiar incident of mass getting hit over the head with horseshoes.
    Not sure if I count as a PB Tory but I was consistent in backing Starmer vs Abbott. It is pathetic for him now to u-turn.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,149
    A bit of a barchart off in Wimbledon

    https://x.com/callumcmason/status/1796529255641460922?s=61
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    darkage said:

    My hypothesis is that the basis for a lot of Trump support is a 'gut feeling' that the current situation is existentially bad and that Trump would be a slightly less worse disaster. That point of view makes a lot of sense to me.

    So, people think electing a lying, corrupt, felon with the morals of an ally cat who tried to overturn a legitimate election result would be a great idea?

    It's a view I suppose but I have zero tolerance for Trump appeasers. If Trump wins his subsequent actions will be on the heads of people who think like that.

    Whatever faults Biden may have Trump deserves unequivocal condemnation not mealy-mouthed "justifications"
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,756

    New We Think poll (30th and 31st May fieldwork)

    🔴 Lab 46% (-1)
    🔵 Con 21% (-1)
    ⚪ Ref 13% (+1)
    🟠 LD 8% (NC)
    🟢 Green 6% (NC)
    🟡 SNP 3% (NC)

    https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1796542301105233925

    It looks increasingly unlikely that the Tories will be able to squeeze the Reform vote.
    I don't know if the Reform vote exists, however. In actual elections, it has not come close to the sorts of votes that UKIP was achieving, despite similar poll ratings.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 61,448

    Bill Kristol
    @BillKristol
    ·
    11m
    "I'm encouraged by the over-the-top hysteria we’re seeing from MAGA world. It suggests worry, even panic. And in any case, there’s nothing like the squealing of stuck pigs (along with your first cup of coffee) to cheer you up in the morning."

    https://x.com/BillKristol
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,452
    AlsoLei said:

    eristdoof said:

    dixiedean said:

    Eabhal said:

    I would pass a law restricting candidates to public transport during the election campaign.

    If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?

    Aren't there enough polling stations that they're all within reasonable walking distance?
    My previous address it was a mile and a half.
    No public transport.
    A mile and a half is walking distance.
    Three miles in total, to get there and back - so almost 5km, and would be a challenge for many. We should certainly do better than that, at least in urban areas.
    Depending on the weather, too. No joke in winter darkness.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,588
    WillG said:

    After days of saying it's a decision for the NEC, Keir Starmer says this afternoon Diane Abbott is "free to stand" for Labour

    He tells pool: "Diane Abbott was elected in 1987, the first black woman MP. She's been a trail blazer, she's carved a path for other people to come into politics. The whip has been restored to her, and she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate... it's formally a matter for the NEC, I've not expressed a view up until now, she is free to go forward as a Labour candidate."

    He declines to say if he's spoken to her

    https://x.com/NatashaC/status/1796533365824242021

    What was the point then? Just say you think she's a trailblazer but she can't stand again. Baffling.

    This is bizarre. Diane Abbott is a card carrying racist. Labour are a party that tolerates racism if they allow her to stand.
    Labour can't afford any more slip ups like this. Owen Jones is already putting it around that Sir Keir is little more than a Labour Boris Johnson (presumably without the entertaining bits). If that notion starts to take hold it could be deadly.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,378
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

    If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

    No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

    “Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
    Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

    If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
    Top marks for the way you've moved your own Overton Window on this one.

    Much as I despise the Party, I admire the dedication to the Tory cause from you, Big_G and a few others.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,204
    edited May 31
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Are we actually discussing the relative merits of getting 60 seats rather than 10?

    If the Tories fall below 150 seats it is catastrophic for them. End of.

    No it’s not. It’s very very bad. Its a 1997 style knockout when they went down to 158 seats

    “Catastrophic” is what the present polls are indicating: something unprecedented. Under 100 seats
    Catastrophic would actually be less than 50 seats and fall behind Reform on voteshare and the LDs on seats.

    If the Tories remain main opposition to Labour on votes and seats even if only polling 50-150 seats, while such a landslide defeat would be very bad it would not be as terminal as would catastrophic
    No, your first scenario deserves the word “apocalyptic”

    The second scenario: 50-100 seats - is “catastrophic”

    100-140 is “horrendous”. 140-165 is “very very
    bad”. Anything over 165 is “omg it could have been worse”
This discussion has been closed.