Not watching this one - too busy reading the Green Party Manifesto - but does that mean he and Rishi has switched roles from the last one? We shall see.
This is exactly what I thought. Sky wasn't around when he was in his teens.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 3h I launched Sky TV in 1989, by which time Starmer was 27 — so obviously he didn’t have Sky growing up. Nobody his age did since it didn’t exist. Also, as the first Executive Chairman of Sky I can tell you with authority that working class families were the first to adopt it.
Not sure what the point is here.
It's Sunak who said he didn't have Sky in his teens.
Sunak was born in May 1980. Sky TV launched in Feb 1989 so he would have been 8 at the time.
Live Premier League on Sky began in Aug 1992 when Sunak was 12.
It was a trap he shouldn’t have fallen into. His point - essentially that he didn’t have a spoiled childhood - is a perfectly reasonable one; even if his parents were comfortably off, there are plenty of children from such backgrounds who don’t get everything they want. Many well off parents restrict their children’s access to phones and computer games and TV.
But the journalist knew that pushing for a specific example of something he didn’t get would generate a story, since any one thing he cited would sound ridiculous when considered against the experience of children growing up in genuine poverty or neglect. A more able political would have managed to avoid being specific and retreated to the general.
Not sure about that, if he had avoided any specifics then the interviewer would start saying, “are you not telling us anything in particular because you actually didn’t miss out on anything”. He couldn’t win, he was straightforward (I thought we wanted that in politicians) and so he gets pilloried.
Say nothing “Rishi had everything as a kid”, say something “oh poor little Rishi didn’t have x, well we didn’t have x or y or z”.
It’s the wankery of political interviews that people should have a bigger problem with.
Rishi avoiding giving a specific example isn’t a story, and isn’t going to cut through, in the way that ‘poor Rishi didn’t even have Sky TV as a child’ will. Looking bad for a moment in an interview that will be watched in full by a tiny handful of voters isn’t nearly so much a deal as gifting the media, and your opponents, a catchy line that could run and run.
Police say they are aware an internet prankster has seemingly been registered to stand as a general election candidate in multiple constituencies.
The name of YouTuber Niko Omilana, who stood in the London mayoral election three years ago, is on the ballot as an independent in at least 11 constituencies.
Sorry, pb. This could have been our scoop. I vaguely noticed it when looking at where RefUK was not standing the other day, but did not realise it was verboten and just cursed Niko for screwing up my planned post on the most common first and surnames among candidates.
The Green Party is fundamentally opposed to all blood sports and would campaign to introduce a ban on all hunting in the first year of a new parliament. This includes trophy hunting, trail hunting, where dogs are used to track foxes, and the commercial shooting of game birds.
Thanks. Yet AUIU the term 'blood sports' includes fishing. I assume that would be *after* the first year...
Completely incoherent from the Greens. Trophy hunting in this sense happens in Southern Africa where we don't have much legislative power these days, and does a shot bird mind less as long as it wasn't done commercially?
Those stage lights are making Starmer look washed out. Rigby is also giving him a good mauling.
Properly mauled already, it’s only 2 questions in.
The problem is he’s waffley.
First time I’ve ever watched Starmer. I think he’s doing rather well.
I’m impressed.
I don't think he's doing badly, though he's got a tough crowd, and Beth Rigby is going tough at him. Will be interesting to see what she dishes out to Rishi.
What is a “Welsh style garden” and do enough people have them for the tax to cover the spending plans?
The plan is to re-evaluate your house using data like satellite images i.e. if you tarted up your house or garden etc, your council tax bill probably going to go up.
Not watching this one - too busy reading the Green Party Manifesto - but does that mean he and Rishi has switched roles from the last one? We shall see.
Green Party Manifesto 2024 Part 3 Making work fair
Workers being exploited. Repeal anti-union legislation. 10:1 pay ratio for all private and public sector organisations.
Minimum wage of £15, employment allowance to 10k, full employment rights day one
Pay gap protections
Support 4 day weeks
Giving everyone a fairer, greener deal
Universal credit up 40 a week
End 5 week wait for benefits
Abolish 2 child benefit gap
Carers increased at least 10% a month
Scrap bedroom tax
‘long term’ push for universal basic income
A fairer and greener approach to public finances
Investment income taxed same rate as earned income.
No increase in basic rate of income tax
Rejecting ‘straitjacket of conventional fiscal rules’ (note – sounds like something Truss would say)
Wealth tax – 1% for those with assets above 10m, 2% for those over a billion
Reform inheritance tax to be more fair (note – no idea what this means in practice)
Green party always opposed council tax – long term goal land value tax
Windfall tax increase for oil and gas
Carbon tax – 120 per tonne, to 500 per tonne within 10 years – ‘deliberately’ to make it cheaper to reduce emissions than pay tax. Estimate it will raise £80bn by end of parliament
‘never allow an obsession with fiscal rules to stop us investing’ (note - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So basically if something looks like a bad idea, never mind)
Brining nature back to life
Nature more than just its economic value.
Water privtisation a disaster.
New right to nature act – legal personhood to nature (note – and that helps things how? – says cannot be exploited for financial gain, does that mean farming is out?)
30% land and seas set aside
everyone can live 15 minutes from a nature rich green space
3bn annually to support returning to nature
Protecting animals
Commission on animal protection
ban on all blood suports
new laws to tackle when companion animals are stolen (note - gimmick, why is a new law needed?)
'work toward' ban on lab monkey testing
oppose badger culling
push for ban on bottom trawling
There's some more sensible stuff in there (like taxing investment income at the same rate as earned income), alongside some things which are simply bonkers.
If you have 50 pages some of them will have sensible things on just by random chance.
I love that Private Eye has *by far* the lowest rate of people who don't know who they will vote for. People who read Private Eye are clearly exceptionally well-informed and decisive. I expect they are also good-looking and witty.
This is exactly what I thought. Sky wasn't around when he was in his teens.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 3h I launched Sky TV in 1989, by which time Starmer was 27 — so obviously he didn’t have Sky growing up. Nobody his age did since it didn’t exist. Also, as the first Executive Chairman of Sky I can tell you with authority that working class families were the first to adopt it.
Not sure what the point is here.
It's Sunak who said he didn't have Sky in his teens.
Sunak was born in May 1980. Sky TV launched in Feb 1989 so he would have been 8 at the time.
Live Premier League on Sky began in Aug 1992 when Sunak was 12.
It was a trap he shouldn’t have fallen into. His point - essentially that he didn’t have a spoiled childhood - is a perfectly reasonable one; even if his parents were comfortably off, there are plenty of children from such backgrounds who don’t get everything they want. Many well off parents restrict their children’s access to phones and computer games and TV.
But the journalist knew that pushing for a specific example of something he didn’t get would generate a story, since any one thing he cited would sound ridiculous when considered against the experience of children growing up in genuine poverty or neglect. A more able political would have managed to avoid being specific and retreated to the general.
Not sure about that, if he had avoided any specifics then the interviewer would start saying, “are you not telling us anything in particular because you actually didn’t miss out on anything”. He couldn’t win, he was straightforward (I thought we wanted that in politicians) and so he gets pilloried.
Say nothing “Rishi had everything as a kid”, say something “oh poor little Rishi didn’t have x, well we didn’t have x or y or z”.
It’s the wankery of political interviews that people should have a bigger problem with.
Rishi avoiding giving a specific example isn’t a story, and isn’t going to cut through, in the way that ‘poor Rishi didn’t even have Sky TV as a child’ will. Looking bad for a moment in an interview that will be watched in full by a tiny handful of voters isn’t nearly so much a deal as gifting the media, and your opponents, a catchy line that could run and run.
It’s a bit weird though that a man saying he didn’t have sky tv as a kid is a bigger deal than someone saying they wouldn’t use private healthcare to fix a loved one but I guess that’s where the Tories are.
Green Party Manifesto Part 5 Sharing a fairer green welcome
Fast and fair asylum process – and permitted to work during process
Abolish ten year route to settlement
End to migration detention as migration is not a criminal offence under any circumstances (note – so…no limit on migration at all?)
All visa holding residents have right to vote in all elections (note – why? Does any country do this?)
Dismantle home office and create department of migration (note why? If you can’t detain illegal migrants why have any rules?)
Remove minimum income requirements
Access to art sport and culture for all
5bn investment in community support
Reinstate second part of Leveson review
Exempt cultural events from VAT
Enable local authorities to maintain key sporting infrastructure including pools (note – they already can, they just don’t have money for it)
No individual or company to own more than 20% of media market
Bringing Justice to crime and policing
2.5bn on courts (note – good idea)
End to routine stop and search
Not scrapping PCCs like LDs
Restorative justice
Misogyny to be a hate crime
Decriminalise sex work
11bn in ministry of justice – legal aid, repair court buildings, more judges
Building a fairer, greener, safer world
Support Ukraine (note – genuinely surprised me)
Immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza (permanent one, not sure how that is enforced)
Recognise state of Palestine
End uk arms exports and cooperation with Israel
High share of historic global emissions means uK has responsibility to support others
1% GDP on aid by 2033
Law against ecocide
Ensure people of the global south take lead on how aid is spent (and direct support to populations not corrupt governments). (note – what if the global south have different ideas about things?)
Supports reparations for slave trade
Rejoin the EU ‘as soon as domestic political situation is favourable and EU member states are willing’ (note – oddly coy – this is a theoretical Green government, why would it not be the right time)
Dismantle nuclear weapons
Does NOT commit to leave NATO, but to reform its operations.
Coda
Brief ‘statistical index’ (note – always makes me feel better) and an epilogue
Supporting Ukraine surprised me. I thought they’d want a military alliance with Cuba.
Insider betting is not a thing that the gambling commission should be concerned about - Its nothing like insider trading on shares for example which is rightfully a crime . Unlike public shares , no bookie is forced to offer a market and bookies should think carefully of the potential for insider betting in forming markets if they really have a problem with it - its their risk.
Not watching this one - too busy reading the Green Party Manifesto - but does that mean he and Rishi has switched roles from the last one? We shall see.
Pity that the audience will be a tenth of the ITV one...
So many things rest upon whether Starmer and his team are emboldened by a big win, or spend five years quivering inside the fence they have erected around themselves.
It’ll be the latter viz T. Blair.
The one certainty in life is the Tories will push whatever they want as hard as they can with a majority of 1 whereas Labour will cower and equivocate with a majority of 200.
Thing is, why do people assume toolmakers are poor? There’s a house for sale designed and owned by the man who invented the Black and Decker workmate - he didn’t even invent the tools just the table they use the tools on. It’s not my style but it’s quite expensive.
Beth Rigby is a good interviewer. She’s managing to make it combative but fun, with a twinkle in her eye.
She is, her questions are getting Starmer from the left and right. She hits him with a right hook on tax rises and then she swings from the left with the child benefit cap. Leaves a very narrow path for Starmer to navigate. I think he's bruised but getting through.
Interestingly he did the tool maker dad line and got a very derisive laugh from within the audience but, to my ear, it sounded quite localised. I'm thinking was maybe one or two people in the audience being deliberately loud. He was able to come back about not making ends meet is not a laughing matter. Looking at the faces of the audience, I think that landed.
Insider betting is not a thing that the gambling commission should be concerned about - Its nothing like insider trading on shares for example which is rightfully a crime . Unlike public shares , no bookie is forced to offer a market and bookies should think carefully of the potential for insider betting in forming markets if they really have a problem with it - its their risk.
All valid and fair but the damage to the Tories will land anyway. Drip, drip, drip,...
This is exactly what I thought. Sky wasn't around when he was in his teens.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 3h I launched Sky TV in 1989, by which time Starmer was 27 — so obviously he didn’t have Sky growing up. Nobody his age did since it didn’t exist. Also, as the first Executive Chairman of Sky I can tell you with authority that working class families were the first to adopt it.
Not sure what the point is here.
It's Sunak who said he didn't have Sky in his teens.
Sunak was born in May 1980. Sky TV launched in Feb 1989 so he would have been 8 at the time.
Live Premier League on Sky began in Aug 1992 when Sunak was 12.
It was a trap he shouldn’t have fallen into. His point - essentially that he didn’t have a spoiled childhood - is a perfectly reasonable one; even if his parents were comfortably off, there are plenty of children from such backgrounds who don’t get everything they want. Many well off parents restrict their children’s access to phones and computer games and TV.
But the journalist knew that pushing for a specific example of something he didn’t get would generate a story, since any one thing he cited would sound ridiculous when considered against the experience of children growing up in genuine poverty or neglect. A more able political would have managed to avoid being specific and retreated to the general.
Not sure about that, if he had avoided any specifics then the interviewer would start saying, “are you not telling us anything in particular because you actually didn’t miss out on anything”. He couldn’t win, he was straightforward (I thought we wanted that in politicians) and so he gets pilloried.
Say nothing “Rishi had everything as a kid”, say something “oh poor little Rishi didn’t have x, well we didn’t have x or y or z”.
It’s the wankery of political interviews that people should have a bigger problem with.
Rishi avoiding giving a specific example isn’t a story, and isn’t going to cut through, in the way that ‘poor Rishi didn’t even have Sky TV as a child’ will. Looking bad for a moment in an interview that will be watched in full by a tiny handful of voters isn’t nearly so much a deal as gifting the media, and your opponents, a catchy line that could run and run.
It’s a bit weird though that a man saying he didn’t have sky tv as a kid is a bigger deal than someone saying they wouldn’t use private healthcare to fix a loved one but I guess that’s where the Tories are.
I see someone has already started a fund-raiser on GoFundMe to raise money for "poor little Rishi's Sky TV package".
IIRC from 2019 all the parties had a variation on 'we will work on a cross party basis to fix social care'. You'd think that would have made doing so simpler, but we've gotten nowhere in 5 years.
I am not optimstic about them saying the right thing as a result.
Not watching this one - too busy reading the Green Party Manifesto - but does that mean he and Rishi has switched roles from the last one? We shall see.
No. Starmer always waffley, never answers.
You’re talking crap. He has kept this on his message about growing the wealth of this country.
Good job by Starmer against a combative, and constantly interrupting, interviewer.
I love that Private Eye has *by far* the lowest rate of people who don't know who they will vote for. People who read Private Eye are clearly exceptionally well-informed and decisive. I expect they are also good-looking and witty.
I thought that was a really shaky start from Starmer but he really pulled it round at the end. The answers about his wife and children were charming and honest.
No wonder that Tories aren't crowing about Brexit when only a third of their own supporters think it as has done more good than harm.
And opposition parties should note that this sort of polling cannot be ignored forever.
Brexit, the great unflushed turd of British politics.
As a point here, the claim was those that voted brexit were too thick to know what they voted for.....now they are bright enough to say what they voted for hasn't worked out.....make your mind up
This is exactly what I thought. Sky wasn't around when he was in his teens.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 3h I launched Sky TV in 1989, by which time Starmer was 27 — so obviously he didn’t have Sky growing up. Nobody his age did since it didn’t exist. Also, as the first Executive Chairman of Sky I can tell you with authority that working class families were the first to adopt it.
Not sure what the point is here.
It's Sunak who said he didn't have Sky in his teens.
Sunak was born in May 1980. Sky TV launched in Feb 1989 so he would have been 8 at the time.
Live Premier League on Sky began in Aug 1992 when Sunak was 12.
It was a trap he shouldn’t have fallen into. His point - essentially that he didn’t have a spoiled childhood - is a perfectly reasonable one; even if his parents were comfortably off, there are plenty of children from such backgrounds who don’t get everything they want. Many well off parents restrict their children’s access to phones and computer games and TV.
But the journalist knew that pushing for a specific example of something he didn’t get would generate a story, since any one thing he cited would sound ridiculous when considered against the experience of children growing up in genuine poverty or neglect. A more able political would have managed to avoid being specific and retreated to the general.
Not sure about that, if he had avoided any specifics then the interviewer would start saying, “are you not telling us anything in particular because you actually didn’t miss out on anything”. He couldn’t win, he was straightforward (I thought we wanted that in politicians) and so he gets pilloried.
Say nothing “Rishi had everything as a kid”, say something “oh poor little Rishi didn’t have x, well we didn’t have x or y or z”.
It’s the wankery of political interviews that people should have a bigger problem with.
Rishi avoiding giving a specific example isn’t a story, and isn’t going to cut through, in the way that ‘poor Rishi didn’t even have Sky TV as a child’ will. Looking bad for a moment in an interview that will be watched in full by a tiny handful of voters isn’t nearly so much a deal as gifting the media, and your opponents, a catchy line that could run and run.
It’s a bit weird though that a man saying he didn’t have sky tv as a kid is a bigger deal than someone saying they wouldn’t use private healthcare to fix a loved one but I guess that’s where the Tories are.
I thought that was a really shaky start from Starmer but he really pulled it round at the end. The answers about his wife and children were charming and honest.
Yeah it started underwhelming but ended very well.
Prediction: this audience is going to be absolutely livid with Sunak and there's a chance we could get a moment that makes D-Day gate look small by comparison...
The stuff from Starmer about his family sounds sincere. He sounds like he cares and that’s all he needs
He's so far ahead so long as he doesn't suddenly declare himself to be a neo-nazi who punches everyone's beloved grandmothers in his spare time, I think he'll be seen as ok.
This is exactly what I thought. Sky wasn't around when he was in his teens.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 3h I launched Sky TV in 1989, by which time Starmer was 27 — so obviously he didn’t have Sky growing up. Nobody his age did since it didn’t exist. Also, as the first Executive Chairman of Sky I can tell you with authority that working class families were the first to adopt it.
Not sure what the point is here.
It's Sunak who said he didn't have Sky in his teens.
Sunak was born in May 1980. Sky TV launched in Feb 1989 so he would have been 8 at the time.
Live Premier League on Sky began in Aug 1992 when Sunak was 12.
It was a trap he shouldn’t have fallen into. His point - essentially that he didn’t have a spoiled childhood - is a perfectly reasonable one; even if his parents were comfortably off, there are plenty of children from such backgrounds who don’t get everything they want. Many well off parents restrict their children’s access to phones and computer games and TV.
But the journalist knew that pushing for a specific example of something he didn’t get would generate a story, since any one thing he cited would sound ridiculous when considered against the experience of children growing up in genuine poverty or neglect. A more able political would have managed to avoid being specific and retreated to the general.
Not sure about that, if he had avoided any specifics then the interviewer would start saying, “are you not telling us anything in particular because you actually didn’t miss out on anything”. He couldn’t win, he was straightforward (I thought we wanted that in politicians) and so he gets pilloried.
Say nothing “Rishi had everything as a kid”, say something “oh poor little Rishi didn’t have x, well we didn’t have x or y or z”.
It’s the wankery of political interviews that people should have a bigger problem with.
Rishi avoiding giving a specific example isn’t a story, and isn’t going to cut through, in the way that ‘poor Rishi didn’t even have Sky TV as a child’ will. Looking bad for a moment in an interview that will be watched in full by a tiny handful of voters isn’t nearly so much a deal as gifting the media, and your opponents, a catchy line that could run and run.
It’s a bit weird though that a man saying he didn’t have sky tv as a kid is a bigger deal than someone saying they wouldn’t use private healthcare to fix a loved one but I guess that’s where the Tories are.
I thought that was a really shaky start from Starmer but he really pulled it round at the end. The answers about his wife and children were charming and honest.
Yeah it started underwhelming but ended very well.
Prediction: this audience is going to be absolutely livid with Sunak and there's a chance we could get a moment that makes D-Day gate look small by comparison...
I think the D Day question is going to be box office. Sunak might not be able to handle this audience.
I thought that was a really shaky start from Starmer but he really pulled it round at the end. The answers about his wife and children were charming and honest.
Yeah it started underwhelming but ended very well.
Prediction: this audience is going to be absolutely livid with Sunak and there's a chance we could get a moment that makes D-Day gate look small by comparison...
The thing is having a hostile audience can actually be a positive. Blair seemed pretty good when people came at him. Cameron did well with some. People have respect for leaders who can take incoming and give a clear answer measured answer back. They don't even need to agree, it can be we disagree, but.
I thought that was a really shaky start from Starmer but he really pulled it round at the end. The answers about his wife and children were charming and honest.
Yeah it started underwhelming but ended very well.
Prediction: this audience is going to be absolutely livid with Sunak and there's a chance we could get a moment that makes D-Day gate look small by comparison...
I think the D Day question is going to be box office. Sunak might not be able to handle this audience.
He's already tried apologising, it hasn't helped, even if he gets on his knees to beg forgiveness with the audience it will probably just inflame.
I get the impression that Starmer is a bit hampered by not having released his manifesto yet. It’s making his answers on the future a bit waffely. That was a pleasantly honest answer on the junior doctors though.
I thought that was a really shaky start from Starmer but he really pulled it round at the end. The answers about his wife and children were charming and honest.
Yeah it started underwhelming but ended very well.
Prediction: this audience is going to be absolutely livid with Sunak and there's a chance we could get a moment that makes D-Day gate look small by comparison...
I think the D Day question is going to be box office. Sunak might not be able to handle this audience.
He's already tried apologising, it hasn't helped, even if he gets on his knees to beg forgiveness with the audience it will probably just inflame.
Sunak will play the role of crippled child, in the hope that the audience will pity him. He really is a long streak of piss.
Green Party Manifesto Part 4 A greener and fairer food and farming system
Ultra processed food is bad. Climate change threatens food supply.
Support farmers to transition to nature friendly farming
Improve soil health
Offer sustainable employment, decent livelihoods, food conditions, to those growing food (note – how?)
End unfair trade deals
All children to have daily free school meal
‘rebalance power dynamic’ between big food manufacturers and local alternatives
Putting small and family farms ‘back in the room’ to develop farming policy (note – eh?)
Creating a fairer green education system
1.4bn per year in sure start centres
Extend ‘outgoing government’s officer of 35 hours per week childcare
8bn for schools
2.5bn to tackle RAAC concrete scandal
Ensure effective deliver of new natural history GCSE (note – oddly specific)
Academies back to local authority control, remove charitable status of private schools
5bm in SEND provision
12bn in skills and lifelong learning
Restore role of school nurse – all schools have on site medical professional
‘fully fund every higher education student, restore maintenance grants, and scrap undergraduate tuition fees. Long term plans to cancel graduate debt (note – this seems really, really, really expensive)
Investing in fairer greener transport
Air pollution leads to 40k deaths per year
19bn over 5 years to improve public transport
Local authorities control over improved bus services
2,5bn a year in new cycleways and footpaths
‘approach to identifying’ rails lines which could be identified (note – guff)
End to sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2027, end to use on the road by 2035
20mph default speed limit in built up areas
Frequent flyer levy
Halt to airport expansion
A fairer greener democracy
Corporations mean we don’t see action we need (note – pretty sure its people not voting for you)
Fair politics act – removes voter ID, get rid of FPTP (not clear with what, just something proportional), ‘fair’ system of funding parties, go after think tanks, 16 year olds to vote
Amend online safety act to ‘prevent political debate from being manipulated by falsehoods, fakes, and half truths (note – you what?! This is so unworkable)
Support self determination of devolved nations.
Give local government powers they need (note – just as vague as all parties)
Restore local aid, scrap anti protest laws
Supports self ID
Perhaps you should just post the green manifesto....so unworkable
I thought that was a really shaky start from Starmer but he really pulled it round at the end. The answers about his wife and children were charming and honest.
Yeah it started underwhelming but ended very well.
Prediction: this audience is going to be absolutely livid with Sunak and there's a chance we could get a moment that makes D-Day gate look small by comparison...
I think the D Day question is going to be box office. Sunak might not be able to handle this audience.
He's already tried apologising, it hasn't helped, even if he gets on his knees to beg forgiveness with the audience it will probably just inflame.
Sunak will play the role of crippled child, in the hope that the audience will pity him. He really is a long short streak of piss.
Someone was asking yesterday about constituencies where there might be odd results. May I give you two possible examples
1. Bromsgrove where Dr David Nicholl is a very well known local personality and already on the Council. Apparently the Labour candidate did a no show at the hustings last night. I have put some money on David at 150-1 on Ladbrokes
2. Hackney North, which has 30,000 ultraorthodox Jews in the constituency and one of their own is standing for the Conservatives. At 50-1 on Bet365
I was wondering where the Labour activists in East London would go given there aren't too many marginal seats in the vicinity (apart from East Ham and its 33,000 majority of course).
Would they go to Romford or to Hornchurch & Upminster?
It seems not - the Newham Mayor and the Labour candidates for Stratford & Bow and West Ham & Beckton have headed to Colchester.
James Cracknell, the new Conservative candidate, is defending a 9,400 majority - Labour needs a swing of 8.8% to take the seat so should be quite achievable on current numbers. It is the 136th most marginal Conservvative seat (or the 236th safest if you prefer).
A very thin excuse for a jolly if you ask me, Stodge.
Colchester can be pretty wild on a Wednesday night.
You seem to speak from experience.
I wouldn't know - one place I wouldn't be next Wednesday is Ascot. I can't remember if Flat racing was your interest or whether it was the jumps.
It'll be a welcome break from the election to do some proper punting.
To me the flat was always just a way of passing time through the summer until the proper stuff started.
Always hated Ascot. The rebuild was a disaster. For flat racing, you can't see anything unless you are in the Royal Box. Perversely it wasn't so bad for the jumps because you had such small crowds you could easily find a decent spot. They always treated us jumps fans as plebs though, so I generally avoided the place.
I was always a Sandown man. Has everything, although it is probably due for a rebuild soon.
I agree with your assessments of Sandown and Ascot. Sandown is top drawer viewing. Ascot gets away with it for the jumps. Newbury is a car crash.
But I’m a Ludlow man first and foremost. Tremendous view off the stands.
The Green Party is fundamentally opposed to all blood sports and would campaign to introduce a ban on all hunting in the first year of a new parliament. This includes trophy hunting, trail hunting, where dogs are used to track foxes, and the commercial shooting of game birds.
The Green manifesto is very far left.
Particularly like the idea of mandating that private business must have a 10:1 salary ratio. Public sector as a government is up to the government, but private companies? Feck off. They really are just a bunch of communists masquerading as green warriors.
Police say they are aware an internet prankster has seemingly been registered to stand as a general election candidate in multiple constituencies.
The name of YouTuber Niko Omilana, who stood in the London mayoral election three years ago, is on the ballot as an independent in at least 11 constituencies.
I never knew it was illegal to stand in more than one constituency. Seems a bit much.
Electoral commission cites 1983 edition of Representation of the People Act.
Note that in 1918 general election, Eamon de Valera ran for and was elected SF MP for East Clare (his home seat which he was still representing as FF TD until 1959 when he was elected President) and also Mayo East, where he defeated John Dillon who was leader (briefly) of the rival (and soon defunct) Irish Parliamentary Party.
I know you and I have each been following the Irish local elections this weekend - where plural candidacies are very much a thing.
https://www.rte.ie/news/elections-2024/2024/0610/1454032-election-2024-south-dublin-co-council-results-round-up/ "Former MMA (mixed martial arts) fighter and Independent Councillor Patrick Holohan enjoyed huge success, topping the vote in Tallaght South and claiming a second seat in Tallaght Central. This creates an interesting situation for South Dublin Council, as Mr Holohan will now have the option to co-opt someone to occupy the seat he chooses not to take. However, they will have to be ratified by their fellow councillors."
What happens if an Independent councilor dies? By-election or does some randomer get co-opted in?
It appears that each council must make standing orders about how to co-opt a replacement for a non-party councillor. You'd imagine they talk to the election agent, political campaign team, next of kin, etc.
I'm a few minutes behind now, but Starmer seems to be connecting well with the general public. He seems to be dealing with the VAT question pretty well and, sensitively.
Starmer is so much better with the audience questions than he is with Beth’s. Sky clearly picked the questions most likely to embarrass him and he’s being admirably honest with them.
This is exactly what I thought. Sky wasn't around when he was in his teens.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 3h I launched Sky TV in 1989, by which time Starmer was 27 — so obviously he didn’t have Sky growing up. Nobody his age did since it didn’t exist. Also, as the first Executive Chairman of Sky I can tell you with authority that working class families were the first to adopt it.
Not sure what the point is here.
It's Sunak who said he didn't have Sky in his teens.
Sunak was born in May 1980. Sky TV launched in Feb 1989 so he would have been 8 at the time.
Live Premier League on Sky began in Aug 1992 when Sunak was 12.
Neil is shitstirring, for those not paying attention.
The not allowed to stand in more than one constituency thing came in later than I thought (I was sure I remembered that was why Sutch didn't stand in the 1997GE as I was working Yeovil and hoping that I would get to meet him). It's in the Representation of the People Act 1983, but that clause was inserted due to the Electoral Administration Act 2006.
Candidate not to stand in more than one constituency In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules), in rule 8(3) (candidate's consent to nomination), after paragraph (b) insert— “(c)shall state that he is not a candidate at an election for any other constituency the poll for which is to be held on the same day as that for the election to which the consent relates,”.
Came into effect 1st January 2007 for England, Wales and Scotland, 1st July 2008 for Northern Ireland.
I'm a few minutes behind now, but Starmer seems to be connecting well with the general public. He seems to be dealing with the VAT question pretty well and, sensitively.
His politics just doesn’t understand aspiration though, does it. State or nothing.
Starmer is so much better with the audience questions than he is with Beth’s. Sky clearly picked the questions most likely to embarrass him and he’s being admirably honest with them.
Till he uturns on those answers not like he hasn't got form for it, but then he is a politician and they are all lying little bitches
Is that true. Boris got absolutely massive incoming all the time about Eton, Bullingdon, etc etc etc. What Boris did right was basically lean into it and what...well's your posh and stuff...right...and...your a fat posho...and....
The problem Sunak is he gets in a mess. When they really should have a positive story prepped about this, one that is true but sounds aspirational etc.
Someone was asking yesterday about constituencies where there might be odd results. May I give you two possible examples
1. Bromsgrove where Dr David Nicholl is a very well known local personality and already on the Council. Apparently the Labour candidate did a no show at the hustings last night. I have put some money on David at 150-1 on Ladbrokes
2. Hackney North, which has 30,000 ultraorthodox Jews in the constituency and one of their own is standing for the Conservatives. At 50-1 on Bet365
I have put my money where my mouth is on both.
Before anyone rushes to follow you, I am pretty sure there aren't 30,000 Jews in Hackney North.
I'm a few minutes behind now, but Starmer seems to be connecting well with the general public. He seems to be dealing with the VAT question pretty well and, sensitively.
His politics just doesn’t understand aspiration though, does it. State or nothing.
I don't agree, but it doesn't matter; if that's where the public are, that's a good place for a politician to be!
Comments
I think Rishi's going to face a very hostile audience later...
It really went wild in the second half.
They will be asking: "So what on earth is Lab going to do?"
I suspect many such people will be attracted by Reform - simply because they think Farage would actually do something.
But at first glance it is the best designed - simple lists of policies not walls of text.
The one certainty in life is the Tories will push whatever they want as hard as they can with a majority of 1 whereas Labour will cower and equivocate with a majority of 200.
Ed Davey
@EdwardJDavey
Everywhere I go across our United Kingdom, I meet people working hard and caring for loved ones.
But too often they are being let down. Carers not getting the support they need. Cancer patients forced to wait.
We have to change things.
https://x.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1800950690753413306
I like it
(And his lovely smile, obvs
https://www.broadlandsjersey.com/property/villa-devereaux/
So I think we need to re-evaluate how wealthy toolmakers are.
Interestingly he did the tool maker dad line and got a very derisive laugh from within the audience but, to my ear, it sounded quite localised. I'm thinking was maybe one or two people in the audience being deliberately loud. He was able to come back about not making ends meet is not a laughing matter. Looking at the faces of the audience, I think that landed.
Edit, but constantly interrupting
He isn't going to hear the end of this, now.
I am not optimstic about them saying the right thing as a result.
Give it a break MR
Also great (and clearly true) answer about fears for his family,
Good job by Starmer against a combative, and constantly interrupting, interviewer.
He’s done well
Still a limp answer though.
Prediction: this audience is going to be absolutely livid with Sunak and there's a chance we could get a moment that makes D-Day gate look small by comparison...
"My dad was a tool..."
People watching for themselves heard it.
But Sunak is rubbish, so he won't.
Applause for Beth for intervening and shutting him up.
May I give you two possible examples
1. Bromsgrove where Dr David Nicholl is a very well known local personality and already on the Council. Apparently the Labour candidate did a no show at the hustings last night.
I have put some money on David at 150-1 on Ladbrokes
2. Hackney North, which has 30,000 ultraorthodox Jews in the constituency and one of their own is standing for the Conservatives. At 50-1 on Bet365
I have put my money where my mouth is on both.
But I’m a Ludlow man first and foremost. Tremendous view off the stands.
Individual and State socialism.
Will Jennings @drjennings June 12 2024: It says a lot about British society/politics that Rishi Sunak is subject to very different commentary than Boris Johnson on class/privilege.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/22/section/22
In Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules), in rule 8(3) (candidate's consent to nomination), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(c)shall state that he is not a candidate at an election for any other constituency the poll for which is to be held on the same day as that for the election to which the consent relates,”.
But historians often point out there wasn't a huge amount of Blair enthusiasm at the time either.
It wouldn't surprise me if, after a potential Labour 450+ seat victory, everyone for years to come will lionise Starmer.
The problem Sunak is he gets in a mess. When they really should have a positive story prepped about this, one that is true but sounds aspirational etc.
How many watched the last one? Does anyone know?