If the Conservatives have retargeted their campaigning efforts into seats with majorities of over 20,000 in 2019 to ensure that they come 2nd in the number of seats won, what evidence is there of a shift in the other parties changing their priorities?
The Greens appear to be focusing on North Herefordshire and Waveney Valley, but what about Labour and the Lib Dems?
At a guess, Labour won't be changing its strategy to pursue ultra-safe Tory seats. Picking up a few more if they're already heading for an immense majority won't be as important to them as keeping the effort going in places that may be vulnerable to a measure of swingback - even if that now feels unlikely.
The Liberal Democrats will have finite resources so couldn't go on the offensive in 200 seats even if they wanted to.
How many seats do we reckon the LDs are targeting?
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
I’m more surprised that Mercer is saying that people in the MOD can look at a database of which soldiers are doing what and who is in special forces. There is clearly no way at all that could be a security risk. No way. No chance of a spy for a foreign country providing lists and numbers and operations of British personnel.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
Odd wording, [edit] about Mr M being a minister, speaking out loud at the hustings presumably. But that's what it seems to say. (The other interpretation is that Mr Thomas was never a minister in the department, but that doesn't really make sense in the context.)
I am convinced that REFORM are in second place and we are in for a big suprise on July 5th!
Only if Labour are in third....
Bong! And the exit poll predicts the Tories will be opposition to Nigel Farages Reform Party with Keir Starmers Labour reduced to their Liverpool redout just behind Sir Edward Daveys Liberal Democrats and George Galloways Workers Party
America's extremism is in large part driven by 3 things we don't have.
1: A directly elected President outside of Congress, not answerable to their Representatives, our PM is part of the Commons. 2: A directly elected Upper House that often conflicts with their President and or their Representatives, our Upper House knows its place and the Parliament Act can override it. 3: An appointed for life SCOTUS that can set laws as it deems appropriate that elected Representatives can not change. Our Supreme Court can issue rulings, but our Commons can then change the law if it wants to.
Our MPs in the Commons are mightily powerful compared America's Representatives. If the PM or the courts get out of line too far, the Commons can (and do) course correct rather than having decades-long battles to corrupt those institutions because elected representatives have no say in them.
America's separation of powers is its downfall. It is a mistake.
it is possible to override the SCOTUS, it just takes changing the constitution.
Yes and no. Ultimately, the Constitution is a relatively limited document in terms of scope and both federal and state governments have very wide discretion in their areas of responsibility. Additionally, in many cases, the states or federal government can, when a law is struck down, achieve pretty much the same result in a slightly different way.
What you can't do (or you can but you'll get very little change) is just say "I don't like this law so I'm going to the Supreme Court for a second opinion" - you do actually need a serious argument that it is unconstitutional. There are a load of laws the right wing majority now on the court probably disagree with on a personal level, but they are entirely safe.
None of that is to downplay the Supreme Court's pivotal importance in SOME areas. But the scope of that is actually quite limited.
Part of the thing with the cases involving Trump being held off the ballot in some states was the Supreme Court said you CAN legislate on this under the Constitution at the federal level... but haven't. The Constitution doesn't need changing to do that - it needs a simple majority (which is unlikely to happen in the near future but isn't a constitutional amendment).
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
What a fucking appeaser.
Any vote for Farage/Reform is a vote for Putin.
Tories need to hammer this until 4th July.
It should not be hard to dig up dozens of clips of Trump saying mad stuff about Russia and Ukraine, and put them alongside lots of clips of Farage praising Trump and hanging out with him.
Any CCHQ wonks reading, this is piss easy stuff, so get to work.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
What a fucking appeaser.
Any vote for Farage/Reform is a vote for Putin.
Nigel Farage has reiterated that he blames the West and NATO for the Russian invasion of Ukraine - as he confirmed that he previously said he "admired" Vladimir Putin as a statesman.
Speaking to the BBC, the Reform UK leader was asked about his previous comments on Russia and Ukraine.
Asked about the Russia invading Ukraine in 2022, Mr Farage told Nick Robinson that he has been saying since Berlin Wall fell there would be a war in Ukraine due to the "ever-eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union".
He said this was giving this Putin a reason to say to the Russian people "'They're coming for us again,' and to go to war".
The Reform leader confirmed his belief the West "provoked" the conflict - but did say it was Putin's "fault".
On Putin himself, previous comments Mr Farage had made were put to him.
He was asked about comments he made previously stating that Putin was the statesman he most admired.
Mr Farage said he disliked the Russian leader - but "I admired him as a political operator because he's managed to take control of running Russia".
"This is the nonsense, you know, you can pick any figure, current or historical, and say, you know, did they have good aspects?" he added.
"And if you said, well, they were very talented in one area, then suddenly you're the biggest supporter."
How many deposits will the Lib Dems lose and in how many seats will the Greens beat them? If the Lib Dems come out of this with, what 30, 40,50, 60 seats what happens then. They will have virtually nothing to build on in the other 600 plus. It could be the final nail in their coffin as the Cons will inevitable rise again and take back all their southern losses.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
What a fucking appeaser.
Any vote for Farage/Reform is a vote for Putin.
Nigel Farage has reiterated that he blames the West and NATO for the Russian invasion of Ukraine - as he confirmed that he previously said he "admired" Vladimir Putin as a statesman.
Speaking to the BBC, the Reform UK leader was asked about his previous comments on Russia and Ukraine.
Asked about the Russia invading Ukraine in 2022, Mr Farage told Nick Robinson that he has been saying since Berlin Wall fell there would be a war in Ukraine due to the "ever-eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union".
He said this was giving this Putin a reason to say to the Russian people "'They're coming for us again,' and to go to war".
The Reform leader confirmed his belief the West "provoked" the conflict - but did say it was Putin's "fault".
On Putin himself, previous comments Mr Farage had made were put to him.
He was asked about comments he made previously stating that Putin was the statesman he most admired.
Mr Farage said he disliked the Russian leader - but "I admired him as a political operator because he's managed to take control of running Russia".
"This is the nonsense, you know, you can pick any figure, current or historical, and say, you know, did they have good aspects?" he added.
"And if you said, well, they were very talented in one area, then suddenly you're the biggest supporter."
Both Lib Dems and Reform are immune from the “don’t give Labour a supermajority” nonsense, in fact they might even benefit from it if people reply “fair enough, we won’t. But we’re not voting for you lot”.
Still think Tories end up above 26% though.
Based on......? Gut feel, only
Based on many elections as a Lib Dem getting excited about us surging during the campaign and then being disappointed when at the end of the day the big two close ranks and burst our bubble.
Happened to us in 1983, 2010 and 2019 and to an extent also in 2005.
Happened to UKIP in 2015, and happens to the Greens every time.
It didn't happen to UKIP, they got 13% close to what the polls are saying it is FPTP that screwed them
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
Odd wording, [edit] about Mr M being a minister, speaking out loud at the hustings presumably. But that's what it seems to say. (The other interpretation is that Mr Thomas was never a minister in the department, but that doesn't really make sense in the context.)
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
That’s….. interesting. A public servant can have access to all sorts of private information, and indeed often needs to in order to do their job. But the various legal powers plus GDPR are almost always couched in “for a specific purpose” provisions. You need to be careful if you use such data for anything else.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
Odd wording, [edit] about Mr M being a minister, speaking out loud at the hustings presumably. But that's what it seems to say. (The other interpretation is that Mr Thomas was never a minister in the department, but that doesn't really make sense in the context.)
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
Odd wording, [edit] about Mr M being a minister, speaking out loud at the hustings presumably. But that's what it seems to say. (The other interpretation is that Mr Thomas was never a minister in the department, but that doesn't really make sense in the context.)
Perhaps Mercer just thinks that being a government minister is something particularly heroic, requiring more bravery than leading troops in combat.
The silly thing is that Mercer has been at the sharp end and should know better than to cast aspersions on someone who cannot respond by saying what he actually did, where and when he was on operations et. It’s a really dickish move but he’s always come across as someone very much high on his own supply.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
What a fucking appeaser.
Any vote for Farage/Reform is a vote for Putin.
Nigel Farage has reiterated that he blames the West and NATO for the Russian invasion of Ukraine - as he confirmed that he previously said he "admired" Vladimir Putin as a statesman.
Speaking to the BBC, the Reform UK leader was asked about his previous comments on Russia and Ukraine.
Asked about the Russia invading Ukraine in 2022, Mr Farage told Nick Robinson that he has been saying since Berlin Wall fell there would be a war in Ukraine due to the "ever-eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union".
He said this was giving this Putin a reason to say to the Russian people "'They're coming for us again,' and to go to war".
The Reform leader confirmed his belief the West "provoked" the conflict - but did say it was Putin's "fault".
On Putin himself, previous comments Mr Farage had made were put to him.
He was asked about comments he made previously stating that Putin was the statesman he most admired.
Mr Farage said he disliked the Russian leader - but "I admired him as a political operator because he's managed to take control of running Russia".
"This is the nonsense, you know, you can pick any figure, current or historical, and say, you know, did they have good aspects?" he added.
"And if you said, well, they were very talented in one area, then suddenly you're the biggest supporter."
I am convinced that REFORM are in second place and we are in for a big suprise on July 5th!
Only if Labour are in third....
Bong! And the exit poll predicts the Tories will be opposition to Nigel Farages Reform Party with Keir Starmers Labour reduced to their Liverpool redout just behind Sir Edward Daveys Liberal Democrats and George Galloways Workers Party
If things do properly escalate between Russia and the West in the coming few years, I can see Nigel becoming so hated he gets run out of the country - Perhaps he'll seek asylum in Moscow?
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
Odd wording, [edit] about Mr M being a minister, speaking out loud at the hustings presumably. But that's what it seems to say. (The other interpretation is that Mr Thomas was never a minister in the department, but that doesn't really make sense in the context.)
If labour do fall into the 30s on polling day, there are going to be a lot of seats won on a much lower share of the vote than 2019 where it was mostly 40s and up winning seats. That means some unlikely gains but also probably some holds on 'buttons' for the Tories
Well, if that's what keeps your hopes up.
Let's knock some numbers around - let's assume Stodge-on-the-Wold has 75,000 electors so last time 50,000 voted and split 32,000 Conservative, 12,000 Labour and 6,000 everyone else. That's 64% Conservative, 24% Labour and 12% the rest leaving Labour needing a 20% swing to win the seat.
Let's assume 50,000 vote this time as well - it won't be the same 50,000 naturally but it makes the maths easier. Let's be kind and assume the Conservatives lose half their vote (based on the polls) so that's 16,000. Where do those 16,000 voters go? If Reform are getting a quarter of the 2019 Conservative vote, let's put 8,000 in the others column and let's also assume 4,000 are going to Labour with 4,000 going to the LDs, Greens and others including that nice Independent chap who runs the bookshop in the High Street.
Conservative 16,000, Labour 16,000, Rest 18,000. We can split the Rest between Reform (10,000) and the Others (8,000) but Labour are polling 5 points higher than last time (minimum) so between that and tactical voting we can move another 3,500 out of the others column so the actual result:
ALSO, didn’t the Conservatives do away with PR for the London mayorality?
They dumped the Supplementary Vote system and moved it to FPTP.
Was Tim Stanley complaining then?
For those of us who have long supported PR (sometimes in different ways), fairweather supporters of PR, or rather poor weather critics of FPTP, are a constant nuisance.
No electoral system is perfect, and each has positives and negatives, and of course many electoral changes are proposed by people who think they will benefit, but they could be less blatant.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
Odd wording, [edit] about Mr M being a minister, speaking out loud at the hustings presumably. But that's what it seems to say. (The other interpretation is that Mr Thomas was never a minister in the department, but that doesn't really make sense in the context.)
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
It's a good point. Indeed, it's probably best for Mercer if he was, in fact, bullshitting about seeing the file.
It's a really serious breach of data protection to go looking files of sensitive personal data for information of political interest to Mercer. The MOD would be data controller and would need to use the information exclusively for the purpose for which it was held - which very plainly isn't that.
Could be serious questions for MOD officials too if, as I say, Mercer isn't simply bullshitting (which is pretty possible).
I am confused by this, since how could anyone not see this coming?
Bestselling writer Naomi Klein has called Baillie Gifford “thin-skinned” for putting literary festivals in jeopardy, as she defended her decision to support Fossil Free Books’ campaign against the investment manager.
...Klein said she believed people should pull their money from Baillie Gifford and that the investment manager couldn’t expect to gain the clout from association with the arts, without also engaging with the ideas of artists and writers...Klein was one of the 800+ signatories of the recent contentious letter spearheaded by Fossil Free Books which called on Baillie Gifford, a prominent sponsor of arts festivals including Hay and the Edinburgh Fringe, to pull its investments from the fossil fuel industry as well as from companies “that profit from Israeli apartheid, occupation and genocide”.
The resulting pressure saw Hay Festival sever its ties to Baillie Gifford, and the investment manager has since cancelled all its remaining sponsorships of literary festivals.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
I’m more surprised that Mercer is saying that people in the MOD can look at a database of which soldiers are doing what and who is in special forces. There is clearly no way at all that could be a security risk. No way. No chance of a spy for a foreign country providing lists and numbers and operations of British personnel.
More prosaically, it could be the goat-shagger attack. Make an accusation, not because you think it's true, but because your opponent can't rebut it.
Unfortunately, that's how far down the road to Hell some politicians have got.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
Fuck off Nigel.
It's an amazingly persistent line, even from previously sensible people. No matter what Putin says or does that make it clear conquest was his aim, you get the 'NATO Promised not to expand' etc etc kind of thing, and other arguments that amount to free countries not being able to choose their own path without deserving to be invaded.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
That’s….. interesting. A public servant can have access to all sorts of private information, and indeed often needs to in order to do their job. But the various legal powers plus GDPR are almost always couched in “for a specific purpose” provisions. You need to be careful if you use such data for anything else.
If he'd done what he seems to be implying, I'm sure it would be a major scandal.
Perhaps more likely it's just bravado. But implying he'd accessed personal data and misused it to attack a political opponent would be amazingly stupid.
People are't really listening to what Reform or the Tories or Labour are saying.
They know they are furious at the Tories, and they are voting accordingly by selecting Labour or Reform. And when someone has said as many things that upset people as Farage has over the years, offending some people will not change the direction of travel.
If labour do fall into the 30s on polling day, there are going to be a lot of seats won on a much lower share of the vote than 2019 where it was mostly 40s and up winning seats. That means some unlikely gains but also probably some holds on 'buttons' for the Tories
Well, if that's what keeps your hopes up.
Let's knock some numbers around - let's assume Stodge-on-the-Wold has 75,000 electors so last time 50,000 voted and split 32,000 Conservative, 12,000 Labour and 6,000 everyone else. That's 64% Conservative, 24% Labour and 12% the rest leaving Labour needing a 20% swing to win the seat.
Let's assume 50,000 vote this time as well - it won't be the same 50,000 naturally but it makes the maths easier. Let's be kind and assume the Conservatives lose half their vote (based on the polls) so that's 16,000. Where do those 16,000 voters go? If Reform are getting a quarter of the 2019 Conservative vote, let's put 8,000 in the others column and let's also assume 4,000 are going to Labour with 4,000 going to the LDs, Greens and others including that nice Independent chap who runs the bookshop in the High Street.
Conservative 16,000, Labour 16,000, Rest 18,000. We can split the Rest between Reform (10,000) and the Others (8,000) but Labour are polling 5 points higher than last time (minimum) so between that and tactical voting we can move another 3,500 out of the others column so the actual result:
The point is if Labour are getting 39% in Stodge on the wold they aren't getting 37% nationally unless their vote in safe seats is collapsing. And it's absolutely nothing to do with 'hopes' its to do with maths, if Labour win a huge majority on 37% of the vote then by necessity they'll be winning some with a very low % comparatively. It's merely a product of votes available across seats won (or defended) Obviously none of this applies if Labour get a much more robust total vote.
If things do properly escalate between Russia and the West in the coming few years, I can see Nigel becoming so hated he gets run out of the country - Perhaps he'll seek asylum in Moscow?
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
It's a good point. Indeed, it's probably best for Mercer if he was, in fact, bullshitting about seeing the file.
It's a really serious breach of data protection to go looking files of sensitive personal data for information of political interest to Mercer. The MOD would be data controller and would need to use the information exclusively for the purpose for which it was held - which very plainly isn't that.
Could be serious questions for MOD officials too if, as I say, Mercer isn't simply bullshitting (which is pretty possible).
Could be knowledge which he had retained in his memory, let's say, rather than actual file-riffling. But that still falls down on the revelation of official knowledge, GDPR etc. Because he's the, or a, very senior responsible person at MoD.
Edit: and still is, till July 4, isn't he? So "someone else told me" doesn't work, either.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
That’s….. interesting. A public servant can have access to all sorts of private information, and indeed often needs to in order to do their job. But the various legal powers plus GDPR are almost always couched in “for a specific purpose” provisions. You need to be careful if you use such data for anything else.
If he'd done what he seems to be implying, I'm sure it would be a major scandal.
Perhaps more likely it's just bravado. But implying he'd accessed personal data and misused it to attack a political opponent would be amazingly stupid.
Thinking charitably, he could have asked a few people who know the bloke.
I am confused by this, since how could anyone not see this coming?
Bestselling writer Naomi Klein has called Baillie Gifford “thin-skinned” for putting literary festivals in jeopardy, as she defended her decision to support Fossil Free Books’ campaign against the investment manager.
...Klein said she believed people should pull their money from Baillie Gifford and that the investment manager couldn’t expect to gain the clout from association with the arts, without also engaging with the ideas of artists and writers...Klein was one of the 800+ signatories of the recent contentious letter spearheaded by Fossil Free Books which called on Baillie Gifford, a prominent sponsor of arts festivals including Hay and the Edinburgh Fringe, to pull its investments from the fossil fuel industry as well as from companies “that profit from Israeli apartheid, occupation and genocide”.
The resulting pressure saw Hay Festival sever its ties to Baillie Gifford, and the investment manager has since cancelled all its remaining sponsorships of literary festivals.
"Either you totally change your whole business model to one that fits in with my world view but shafts your bottom line, or stop sponsoring book festivals!"
"Hmmm. Let's think about that. What was the second option again?"
Everyone saying it's impossible for FPTP to be changed, how did other countries manage it?
From what I can see there's a mixed record for it being changed. India and US* haven't, Australia and Ireland have, for example. So it's clearly doable.
*I don't consider US a good example of how to/how not to change anything cause of their fetishisation of their constitution
Ireland have used STV since the beginning. When you have a war of independence it tends to encourage a bit of utopian thinking when writing a new constitution. It's a bit harder to make the change to an established system.
STV in Ireland was imposed by the BRITISH administration, as means of attempting to blunt the domination of most Irish constituencies by Sinn Fein under FPTP.
However, the Irish in the Free State then the Republic have retained STV ever since; up North the Unionists ditched it ASAP for FPTP, in order to lock in their dominance, along with gerrymandering & other sharp practice(s).
I don't think that's right? The last pre-independence general election in Ireland, in 1918, was on FPTP.
But the UK had already been using STV for parliamentary elections, in some university seats (one of which was Dublin).
The Parliament of Southern Ireland elections were STV in the (only) elections held in 1921. Irrelevant though as all consituencies were elected unopposed (4 Unionst 124 SF) and SF refused to turn up.
The reality is that had all the unpleasntness that followed not happened and the Southern Ireland Parliament functioned, the place would have become a dominion within ten years and adpoted the current flag. It is possible it might not have later become a republic (although I suspect it would after India did, but the only difference is that the word Republic wouldn't have been in the name of the country and the person in Dublin Castle called Governor General not President.
Farage on Ukraine also already leading Guardian and Telegraph websites.
Most of the time he keeps up the chummy act, and its pretty effective as he's likeable enough, but every now and then he reminds you that for once a Trump comparison is accurate.
His criticisms of Putin are clearly grudging and, unlike most of what he says, do not come across as authentic, when he parrots a Putin talking point the very next sentence.
Everything is going for him right now, it's like he cannot help himself from telling his honest opinion when a fudge would be better.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
It’s stuff like this that makes me think having the fool in parliament would be okay. People need to see what he actually says on sensible issues over a period of time. At the moment people just see him as their friend and a good bloke to have a pint with. But the fact is his views are daft and do not work in the real world. It’s about time that was exposed.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
I’m more surprised that Mercer is saying that people in the MOD can look at a database of which soldiers are doing what and who is in special forces. There is clearly no way at all that could be a security risk. No way. No chance of a spy for a foreign country providing lists and numbers and operations of British personnel.
I would be shocked if a civil servant would give operational access to a database to go fishing. That's gross misconduct, and something I doubt many senior civil servants are going to be risking for a minster with a couple of weeks left in the job.
I hope Rishi has written his thankyou letter to the Panorama editor?
Only helps him if it moves votes to the Tories. This is when he needs Boris to appear, attack Farage on Ukraine, and implore those voters to come home.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
Odd wording, [edit] about Mr M being a minister, speaking out loud at the hustings presumably. But that's what it seems to say. (The other interpretation is that Mr Thomas was never a minister in the department, but that doesn't really make sense in the context.)
Perhaps Mercer just thinks that being a government minister is something particularly heroic, requiring more bravery than leading troops in combat.
The silly thing is that Mercer has been at the sharp end and should know better than to cast aspersions on someone who cannot respond by saying what he actually did, where and when he was on operations et. It’s a really dickish move but he’s always come across as someone very much high on his own supply.
The 11 tour of duty guy who asked the question sounded like a retired RM officer who would presumably know what is what. It's possible that Thomas is swinging the lead a bit but not to an extent that is going to register with the general public. Ok perhaps he was the cook, but he was stil a special forces cook in a warzone.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
That’s….. interesting. A public servant can have access to all sorts of private information, and indeed often needs to in order to do their job. But the various legal powers plus GDPR are almost always couched in “for a specific purpose” provisions. You need to be careful if you use such data for anything else.
If he'd done what he seems to be implying, I'm sure it would be a major scandal.
Perhaps more likely it's just bravado. But implying he'd accessed personal data and misused it to attack a political opponent would be amazingly stupid.
Thinking charitably, he could have asked a few people who know the bloke.
And none of these people have come forward to dispute his service in all the time since he was declared as candidate - in Plymouth if Thomas hadn’t had the record the press has ascribed to him - there would be many who would be angry and go to the media to say he’s a Walt. The only person who has is, funnily enough, the chap who might be losing his job to Thomas and also funnily enough has left it until now to start making such claims.
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
That’s….. interesting. A public servant can have access to all sorts of private information, and indeed often needs to in order to do their job. But the various legal powers plus GDPR are almost always couched in “for a specific purpose” provisions. You need to be careful if you use such data for anything else.
If he'd done what he seems to be implying, I'm sure it would be a major scandal.
Perhaps more likely it's just bravado. But implying he'd accessed personal data and misused it to attack a political opponent would be amazingly stupid.
Thinking charitably, he could have asked a few people who know the bloke.
And none of these people have come forward to dispute his service in all the time since he was declared as candidate - in Plymouth if Thomas hadn’t had the record the press has ascribed to him - there would be many who would be angry and go to the media to say he’s a Walt. The only person who has is, funnily enough, the chap who might be losing his job to Thomas and also funnily enough has left it until now to start making such claims.
Yes, sorry that reads like I’m supporting the ****. I mean that at this stage that would be the only excuse he could deploy that doesn’t come with… issues. And I don’t think he can deploy it.
I hope Rishi has written his thankyou letter to the Panorama editor?
Personally I am not convinced reform voters will defect to the Tories. They think the Tories have failed, why would they vote for failure? They are just as likely in my view to go to Labour or the Lib Dem’s.
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
How can they now accept him into the party come 5th July?
Surely that would mean the conservatives splitting?
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Foreign affairs is, oddly considering being anti-EU made his career, an achilles heel for Farage, much as it was for Corbyn. He doesn't know when the hide his support for unpalatable people.
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
Option B is that he actually gains votes from Corbynites who haven’t seen the rest of the manifesto…
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
That’s….. interesting. A public servant can have access to all sorts of private information, and indeed often needs to in order to do their job. But the various legal powers plus GDPR are almost always couched in “for a specific purpose” provisions. You need to be careful if you use such data for anything else.
If he'd done what he seems to be implying, I'm sure it would be a major scandal.
Perhaps more likely it's just bravado. But implying he'd accessed personal data and misused it to attack a political opponent would be amazingly stupid.
Thinking charitably, he could have asked a few people who know the bloke.
And none of these people have come forward to dispute his service in all the time since he was declared as candidate - in Plymouth if Thomas hadn’t had the record the press has ascribed to him - there would be many who would be angry and go to the media to say he’s a Walt. The only person who has is, funnily enough, the chap who might be losing his job to Thomas and also funnily enough has left it until now to start making such claims.
Yes, sorry that reads like I’m supporting the ****. I mean that at this stage that would be the only excuse he could deploy that doesn’t come with… issues. And I don’t think he can deploy it.
Still doesn't work. He's still MoD minister. *For Veterans' Affairs*.
I hope Rishi has written his thankyou letter to the Panorama editor?
Personally I am not convinced reform voters will defect to the Tories. They think the Tories have failed, why would they vote for failure? They are just as likely in my view to go to Labour or the Lib Dem’s.
Or stay at home. Lay the turnout, I reckon 60% now.
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
How can they now accept him into the party come 5th July?
Surely that would mean the conservatives splitting?
Anyone who would support Farage joining the Conservative Party might be a party member but they sure as hell aren't really a Conservative.
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
Option B is that he actually gains votes from Corbynites who haven’t seen the rest of the manifesto…
I hope Rishi has written his thankyou letter to the Panorama editor?
Personally I am not convinced reform voters will defect to the Tories. They think the Tories have failed, why would they vote for failure? They are just as likely in my view to go to Labour or the Lib Dem’s.
Or stay at home. Lay the turnout, I reckon 60% now.
Makes note to self: Do not bet on the turnout market.
Wasn't Mercer complaining about claims he was a combatant? He could have had a glorious seven years behind a desk.
No, senior special forces bods have vouched for Thomas’ service and it wasn’t behind a desk.
You have to wonder why Mercer is repeating this claim then. Pretty low.
Firstly he is desperate and secondly he knows that Thomas cannot come out and say, “actually I did this, this and this” etc which is why it’s pretty despicable of Mercer to call him a Walter Mitty as he knows what the rules are.
Mercer will potentially be in a spot of bother should he win narrowly in July. Many here will recall Phil Woolas being unseated by an election petition in 2010, due to making false statements about a candidate's character and conduct contrary to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, and the result being close enough conceivably to have been decisive.
Quite apart from any defamation issues, he's potentially given himself quite a big problem.
Has Mercer explained how he is in a position to know whether what Thomas says about his service is true or not?
Yup. He says "I was a minister in the department" (MOD presumably). Though he must have gone looking, to know career details of an obscure junior officer. Which I think is atrocious, using civil service resources to dig political dirt.
Well, I was wondering about that as a possibility, but I'm flabbergasted if Mercer has actually admitted he obtained the information through his ministerial office.
Surely Mercer will be in a lot more than a "spot of bother"? It strikes me as much worse than the shenanigans over Tories having a flutter on the date of the election.
Odd wording, [edit] about Mr M being a minister, speaking out loud at the hustings presumably. But that's what it seems to say. (The other interpretation is that Mr Thomas was never a minister in the department, but that doesn't really make sense in the context.)
Perhaps Mercer just thinks that being a government minister is something particularly heroic, requiring more bravery than leading troops in combat.
The silly thing is that Mercer has been at the sharp end and should know better than to cast aspersions on someone who cannot respond by saying what he actually did, where and when he was on operations et. It’s a really dickish move but he’s always come across as someone very much high on his own supply.
The 11 tour of duty guy who asked the question sounded like a retired RM officer who would presumably know what is what. It's possible that Thomas is swinging the lead a bit but not to an extent that is going to register with the general public. Ok perhaps he was the cook, but he was stil a special forces cook in a warzone.
As Casey Rybeck showed us, the cook is the most dangerous special forces soldier around.
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
Option B is that he actually gains votes from Corbynites who haven’t seen the rest of the manifesto…
They have fewer candidates, but surely those people have Galloway's lot to support dictators if they want. It's classic 'those defending themselves are far worse than those doing the attacking' stuff.
Our position on Ukraine centres on a condemnation of the expansionary provocation of NATO in alliance with another ethno-nationalist government that throws its own people into a perpetual meat grinder
Since I don't think Nigel's Putin apologism (which is what 'It's his fault, but we gave him a reason' is, despite his denials) will move the dial at all politically, I am more curious as to whether the Tories will feel it gives them an opening to make an actual concerted attack on Reform.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
How can they now accept him into the party come 5th July?
Surely that would mean the conservatives splitting?
The one bit of good news is this kills any ambitions Farage may have had of a reverse takeover of the Conservative Party. It's actually quite a significant development in that respect.
NEW: Nigel Farage says the West "provoked" Vladimir Putin into invading Ukraine.
FFS. This is why noone should vote Reform.
What a dickhead.
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
Farage on Ukraine also already leading Guardian and Telegraph websites.
Most of the time he keeps up the chummy act, and its pretty effective as he's likeable enough, but every now and then he reminds you that for once a Trump comparison is accurate.
His criticisms of Putin are clearly grudging and, unlike most of what he says, do not come across as authentic, when he parrots a Putin talking point the very next sentence.
Everything is going for him right now, it's like he cannot help himself from telling his honest opinion when a fudge would be better.
I wish it would hurt him, but it won't.
What Farage is saying about Putin will appeal to some of the electorate and probably more than 20%, I would guess.
If the Tories hadn't got rid of Boris then Farage's views on Ukraine would be irrelevant.
They didn't get rid of Boris - he got rid of himself.
He was also kicked out of parliament.
No he wasn't, he quit Parliament.
Had he stayed, he had a chance to have have victory over his parliamentary opponents by having the public return him.
They wouldn't have though and he knew it.
Maybe. Which just shows he was a chicken. He tries so hard and his supporters try to hard to make it look like he was tossed out so that it means he wasn't a chicken, but there's no getting around that he didn't even give his constituents a chance to judge him and reject Parliament's view.
These comments by Farage why a merger between Reform & the Tories won't happen.
Yes, that's my main takeaway.
I'm not sure his comments will shift many votes (not in Con's favour anyway) but it surely means whatever is left of the Conservative Party on 5th July couldn't possibly consider a merger with Reform.
Comments
Hopefully this leads the news tonight, and knocks a dozen points off the Reform score.
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2024-06-21/johnny-mercer-accuses-labour-opponent-of-lying-about-military-service
This Government's support for Ukraine is one of the few things they've done the bulk of voters can get behind.
What you can't do (or you can but you'll get very little change) is just say "I don't like this law so I'm going to the Supreme Court for a second opinion" - you do actually need a serious argument that it is unconstitutional. There are a load of laws the right wing majority now on the court probably disagree with on a personal level, but they are entirely safe.
None of that is to downplay the Supreme Court's pivotal importance in SOME areas. But the scope of that is actually quite limited.
Part of the thing with the cases involving Trump being held off the ballot in some states was the Supreme Court said you CAN legislate on this under the Constitution at the federal level... but haven't. The Constitution doesn't need changing to do that - it needs a simple majority (which is unlikely to happen in the near future but isn't a constitutional amendment).
Any CCHQ wonks reading, this is piss easy stuff, so get to work.
Speaking to the BBC, the Reform UK leader was asked about his previous comments on Russia and Ukraine.
Asked about the Russia invading Ukraine in 2022, Mr Farage told Nick Robinson that he has been saying since Berlin Wall fell there would be a war in Ukraine due to the "ever-eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union".
He said this was giving this Putin a reason to say to the Russian people "'They're coming for us again,' and to go to war".
The Reform leader confirmed his belief the West "provoked" the conflict - but did say it was Putin's "fault".
On Putin himself, previous comments Mr Farage had made were put to him.
He was asked about comments he made previously stating that Putin was the statesman he most admired.
Mr Farage said he disliked the Russian leader - but "I admired him as a political operator because he's managed to take control of running Russia".
"This is the nonsense, you know, you can pick any figure, current or historical, and say, you know, did they have good aspects?" he added.
"And if you said, well, they were very talented in one area, then suddenly you're the biggest supporter."
https://news.sky.com/story/general-election-2024-sunak-starmer-conservatives-labour-reform-davey-lib-dem-12593360?postid=7854097#liveblog-body
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news
If the Lib Dems come out of this with, what 30, 40,50, 60 seats what happens then. They will have virtually nothing to build on in the other 600 plus. It could be the final nail in their coffin as the Cons will inevitable rise again and take back all their southern losses.
Full interview on BBC1 at 7pm.
As it's a BBC interview, I think good chance it leads BBC1 10pm news.
Could be a big moment.
I hope their fall is precipitous.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hu9_BeiKs0
This clown is a perfect poster child of a goddamn less-than-zero labor-faker.
Let's knock some numbers around - let's assume Stodge-on-the-Wold has 75,000 electors so last time 50,000 voted and split 32,000 Conservative, 12,000 Labour and 6,000 everyone else. That's 64% Conservative, 24% Labour and 12% the rest leaving Labour needing a 20% swing to win the seat.
Let's assume 50,000 vote this time as well - it won't be the same 50,000 naturally but it makes the maths easier. Let's be kind and assume the Conservatives lose half their vote (based on the polls) so that's 16,000. Where do those 16,000 voters go? If Reform are getting a quarter of the 2019 Conservative vote, let's put 8,000 in the others column and let's also assume 4,000 are going to Labour with 4,000 going to the LDs, Greens and others including that nice Independent chap who runs the bookshop in the High Street.
Conservative 16,000, Labour 16,000, Rest 18,000. We can split the Rest between Reform (10,000) and the Others (8,000) but Labour are polling 5 points higher than last time (minimum) so between that and tactical voting we can move another 3,500 out of the others column so the actual result:
Labour 19,500 (39%)
Conservative 16,000 (32%)
Reform 10,000 (20%)
Others 4,500 (9%)
Swing of 23.5%.
No electoral system is perfect, and each has positives and negatives, and of course many electoral changes are proposed by people who think they will benefit, but they could be less blatant.
It's a really serious breach of data protection to go looking files of sensitive personal data for information of political interest to Mercer. The MOD would be data controller and would need to use the information exclusively for the purpose for which it was held - which very plainly isn't that.
Could be serious questions for MOD officials too if, as I say, Mercer isn't simply bullshitting (which is pretty possible).
Bestselling writer Naomi Klein has called Baillie Gifford “thin-skinned” for putting literary festivals in jeopardy, as she defended her decision to support Fossil Free Books’ campaign against the investment manager.
...Klein said she believed people should pull their money from Baillie Gifford and that the investment manager couldn’t expect to gain the clout from association with the arts, without also engaging with the ideas of artists and writers...Klein was one of the 800+ signatories of the recent contentious letter spearheaded by Fossil Free Books which called on Baillie Gifford, a prominent sponsor of arts festivals including Hay and the Edinburgh Fringe, to pull its investments from the fossil fuel industry as well as from companies “that profit from Israeli apartheid, occupation and genocide”.
The resulting pressure saw Hay Festival sever its ties to Baillie Gifford, and the investment manager has since cancelled all its remaining sponsorships of literary festivals.
https://www.cityam.com/naomi-klein-thin-skinned-baillie-gifford-has-put-arts-festivals-in-jeopardy/
Unfortunately, that's how far down the road to Hell some politicians have got.
Perhaps more likely it's just bravado. But implying he'd accessed personal data and misused it to attack a political opponent would be amazingly stupid.
They know they are furious at the Tories, and they are voting accordingly by selecting Labour or Reform. And when someone has said as many things that upset people as Farage has over the years, offending some people will not change the direction of travel.
And it's absolutely nothing to do with 'hopes' its to do with maths, if Labour win a huge majority on 37% of the vote then by necessity they'll be winning some with a very low % comparatively. It's merely a product of votes available across seats won (or defended)
Obviously none of this applies if Labour get a much more robust total vote.
Edit: and still is, till July 4, isn't he? So "someone else told me" doesn't work, either.
"Hmmm. Let's think about that. What was the second option again?"
The reality is that had all the unpleasntness that followed not happened and the Southern Ireland Parliament functioned, the place would have become a dominion within ten years and adpoted the current flag. It is possible it might not have later become a republic (although I suspect it would after India did, but the only difference is that the word Republic wouldn't have been in the name of the country and the person in Dublin Castle called Governor General not President.
His criticisms of Putin are clearly grudging and, unlike most of what he says, do not come across as authentic, when he parrots a Putin talking point the very next sentence.
Everything is going for him right now, it's like he cannot help himself from telling his honest opinion when a fudge would be better.
I wish it would hurt him, but it won't.
What a dickhead.
As up until now the criticism seems fairly muted, mostly about how please don't follow your heart and vote Reform, because you will let in Labour.
Which makes sense, since even more Tories would like to vote Reform than those already saying they will, but means they are fighting with an arm tied behind their back.
LAB still win big but CON get a reasonable Parliamentary group 175?
Surely that would mean the conservatives splitting?
He was also kicked out of parliament.
Had he stayed, he had a chance to have have victory over his parliamentary opponents by having the public return him.
Vote Conservative.
Our position on Ukraine centres on a condemnation of the expansionary provocation of NATO in alliance with another ethno-nationalist government that throws its own people into a perpetual meat grinder
https://workerspartybritain.org/manifesto-britain-deserves-better/
Quoting the Torygraph:
"The leader of Reform UK said that the expansion of Nato and the European Union gave Vladimir Putin “an excuse” to go to war with Ukraine."
Sorry, but that is an inconvenient truth.
The Pope, hardly a Putin Toady, said the same the thick end of two years ago.
What do you think the US would have done if Cuba had joined the Warsaw pact and actually stationed USSR missiles there?
Similiarly what do you think the US would do if Mexico made a military pact with China and opened Chinese Military bases there?
He has done it again, got the Great and Good howling with outrage and giving vast publicity to him while people sit at home, quietly nodding "I agree with Nigel".
These comments have disgusted me.
I'm not sure his comments will shift many votes (not in Con's favour anyway) but it surely means whatever is left of the Conservative Party on 5th July couldn't possibly consider a merger with Reform.