Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
OT Deliveroo has a functional outage but there is no obvious communication with customers, workers or restaurants, and their AI chatbots are clearly just making stuff up.
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
It’s a debate about democracy.
The King is stopping a manifesto commitment of his elected government.
It won't and if he gets through COVID relatively unscathed at over 80 he can use that to boost his health status claims
Didn't think of that, but that's a good point too.
I think he is too big at 2.6 now for the nomination, we basically have heard via social media that he's told Pelosi where to go.
I fear that you're right. There's too much of a temptation to assume that the Democrats are somehow collectively capable of taking the blindingly obvious course necessary to stay in the game and factor that in to the odds, and I think the 2.6 reflects that.
The problem is that there is no mechanism to force him to go if he doesn’t want to. He can just say “nah, I’m staying in” and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Even if the whole Democratic establishment turns on him and tells him it’s a bad idea.
I still think there’s a chance they do get him to bow out (based on current media reports), but it is going to be a close run thing and the longer he clings on the more unedifying and difficult it becomes to avoid political damage. The best way would have been for a period of reflection after the debate followed by a calm handover. As it is he’s being dragged out kicking and screaming, and it’s not very edifying.
There is a mechanism, in the constitution. The 25th Amendment, Article 4.
The problem is it requires Kamala to wield the knife herself, and the Cabinet to agree with her. No hiding spot to let someone else do it.
Except it pretty obvious that dilapidated and diminished as he is, Biden is not without capacity. And its a mechanism potentially subject to the whims of Trump's appointees on the SC.
Only those wishing to see a complete shit show are advocating that route.
He looks just about as if he has capacity, with the backing of the entire propping up Joe team. There's no particular reason to think he can dress himself, unassisted. Seriously, one way or another he is history by end July.
"No one has had a full beard in American politics since the late 19th century. The last time facial hair was an issue in that realm was in 1968, when allies of Democratic candidate Eugene McCarthy urged his hippie supporters to “get clean for Gene” and trim their hirsute display of defiance, in order to try to appeal to the calls for law and order from the other side.
Vance’s beard is a whole other level of symbolic meaning. It makes him look, above all, like a Civil War general — from either side — right out of one of Matthew Brady’s famous photographs. Or it could be the beard of a pre-modern American president, presiding over America at a time when Christianity and traditional mores held sway. Or is it a hint of the countercultural type, a hippie for all seasons, after all?"
On a bus in front of a person who literally hasn't stopped talking for 45 minutes. It's a stream of consciousness of every single thought that enters her head. How does she think? What does she do when alone?
Question: will lords now be eligible to stand for election?
Lords can already stand for election to the Commons if they renounce their right to sit in the Lords, so presumably the answer will be yes, now that the latter decision is being made for them. It came up during the speculation around David Cameron being able to take over as Prime Minister from Rishi.
On a bus in front of a person who literally hasn't stopped talking for 45 minutes. It's a stream of consciousness of every single thought that enters her head. How does she think? What does she do when alone?
So strange to be represented, not by some narcissistic sociopath that makes everything about him, or someone impenetrably stupid who thinks "the jury is out" on whether France is an ally, or someone so tin-eared and indifferent he leaves halfway through. To not feel shame. ~AA
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
It’s a debate about democracy.
The King is stopping a manifesto commitment of his elected government.
Give it a rest. The increasingly insane telegraph has asked an embarrassingly stupid question, is all. There is a Mr Dymoke who is hereditary king's champion at coronations. If he can do it as a mister so can these other two blokes.
Yes, yes, it's all politics and aren't the Liberal Democrats nasty and unscrupulous?
Seriously?
Ed Davey and the LDs played a system they neither like nor want nor does them any favours for maximum advantage and all we now hear is moaning from the "losers" including an activist for a Party which won over 400 seats.
Labour has occasionally "talked" about change to the electoral system - usually when they've been on the wrong end of an election defeat. We may now hear the Conservatives begin to "think aloud" about PR. Neither is sincere - the duopoly has survived fairly comfortably - 58% of the vote has got the two parties 84% of the seats in England, Scotland and Wales so the current system works fine for both Conservative and Labour and for that reason alone there'll be no change until one or both of them is decisively defeated.
Farage and Davey can shout into the dark calling for PR but it will get them nowhere.
As for the "let's add Reform and the Conservatives and call it a single bloc" - that was widely derided on here months ago by the more thoughtful commentators and analysts. There was never any polling evidence of a direct transfer - at most a third of Reform voters would support a Conservative in the absence of a Reform candidate.
The Conservatives lost votes to Reform, to Labour and in some places to the Liberal Democrats and the Greens and also suffered considerable abstention (as did Labour). Until we get more definitive research on what happened to the Conservative vote and why 47% of the 2019 vote disappeared, we're speculating. We can all have our pet theories and I suspect the answer will vary from region to region and even from seat to seat.
I wouldn't disagree with anything you've written here but...
Doing a ton of analysis I am sure is valuable and will yield some insights, but really - what is it really going to reveal? Some small tweak of messaging around housing or the environment or immigration that would bring back a few voters? They were just unpopular and the electorate were determined to give them a punishement beating.
And over-analysis always runs the risk that you end up fighting the last war.
Politics is often about momentum (the Tories have none) and a big idea over the longer term (the Tories have to find one). If I was running this (I wouldn't want to) then merging with Reform (aka "New Tory" or Conservative+) has the potential to deliver momentum (but not without risk).
In terms of the big idea, if we can all agree that the Empire 2.0 project is dead, then we have to decide who to hitch our wagon to.
I'd look to get back into the EU but that's not going to wash with Conservative+
So that leaves the US, and specifically Trump and Project 2025. The Project 2025 stuff leaves me utterly cold (Project Handmaid might be a better title) and I would fight it tooth and nail, but for Conservative+ and US-backing some sort of 'Project 2029' might yield strong results:
- return to family values and what the US calls under the Orwellian phrase 'headship' (strong male head of the family, women very much in supporting/child-rearing role) - massive bonfire of eco-laws - pun very much intended - DoJ under direct parliamentary control - a version of unitary executive theory to attenuate the 'enemies of the people' judges - extreme anti-immigration (read John Lanchester's 'The Wall' for ideas on how a Net Zero Immigration policy would have to work)
You get the idea.
Just typing all this makes me feel extremely queasy. It's a dystopian wishlist. But there must be conversations like this going on, Truss and JRM have the time and contacts to work in the background to make it happen.
Be interested to get others' opinions. I hope everyone else is as queasy as I am reading this...
First, thanks for the thoughtful response and please feel free to contribute a little more. I don't think you're the only "Bookseller" in these parts.
You're not wrong would be my simplistic response.
It is the fundamental question with which we've struggled since 1945 - what is or should be Britain's place in the world?
MacMillan and Heath decided Europe was the political and economic future and that was the prevailing belief in Government from 1956 to 2016. Yet our membership of the EU was often half hearted and rebate obsessed - yes, we enjoyed free trade (and in truth most would happily sign up to the old "Common Market" now) but Europe wanted monetary and eventually political union. We didn't want to be a part of Europe so we choose to be apart from Europe.
I don't know what "Global Britain" was meant to be in 2016 and I still don't know. Clearly, trying to resurrect some kind of post-Imperial relationship with Canada, Australia and New Zealand (why not South Africa or India?) doesn't work - these countries have other geo-strategic concerns.
We're then dead in the water - I argued for framing a new EFTA as an economic counterweight to the EU bringing in countries like Switzerland, Norway and others but that went nowhere.
If we try to re-engage with the EU we're going to have to swallow a double portion of humble pie with a side order of humiliation (it may be the EU is entering a more pragmatic phase as leaders change) but that's an option. We can hope the Democrats prevail in November but even if they do the pull of the Pacific and China will still be there.
I think the UK - EU terms of political trade have shifted on both sides.
Brussels still has to adapt to the increased weight of Eastern European countries and absorb the changes, we have out learnings from a Conservative Govt not competent enough to run a bath. And if the USA elects Trump, and he follows through on his policies, it will be shooting itself through the head, and Europe - including the EU and the UK - will have to stand on our own feet.
I think the Conservatives first need a philosophy and some principles, before they can get onto an idea.
Amused to see Starmer is meeting European leaders at Blenheim Palace. The War of the Spanish Succession was of course a great example of European cooperation... but I am not sure what Macron will make of it
One of Dave's best acts as Foreign Secretary was to choose Blenheim Palace as the location.
Any party that decides to change the Eurostar terminus from St. Pancras back to Waterloo station will win my vote for life.
Bugger that last for a game of commuters on the Tube. It's bad enough not having direct connections with Eurostar from the north *in the same station* without having that added as well.
I say that as somebody who is from Sheffield and uses St Pancras a lot.
Plus, hang on, you use the Tube? You utter peasant, use Uber Luxury, that's the way to travel in London.
To my slightly off-kilter way of thinking, there's nothing more interesting and futuristic than using the Tube in London.
It used to be. But after the New Labour years it began to deteriorate, and things like growths seeping thru the tunnel walls on the Jubilee Line take the sci-fi edge off it. Some of the lines during hot-weather are quite unpleasant and overcrowding still is a problem at the wrong time.
There was a Quatermass film that was set in a tube station - top SF!
For many visitors to London in the 1900s it must have been an astonishing thing. (They wouldn't really have seen very much of it in photographs, and not on film)
It won't and if he gets through COVID relatively unscathed at over 80 he can use that to boost his health status claims
Didn't think of that, but that's a good point too.
I think he is too big at 2.6 now for the nomination, we basically have heard via social media that he's told Pelosi where to go.
I fear that you're right. There's too much of a temptation to assume that the Democrats are somehow collectively capable of taking the blindingly obvious course necessary to stay in the game and factor that in to the odds, and I think the 2.6 reflects that.
The problem is that there is no mechanism to force him to go if he doesn’t want to. He can just say “nah, I’m staying in” and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Even if the whole Democratic establishment turns on him and tells him it’s a bad idea.
I still think there’s a chance they do get him to bow out (based on current media reports), but it is going to be a close run thing and the longer he clings on the more unedifying and difficult it becomes to avoid political damage. The best way would have been for a period of reflection after the debate followed by a calm handover. As it is he’s being dragged out kicking and screaming, and it’s not very edifying.
There is a mechanism, in the constitution. The 25th Amendment, Article 4.
The problem is it requires Kamala to wield the knife herself, and the Cabinet to agree with her. No hiding spot to let someone else do it.
Except it pretty obvious that dilapidated and diminished as he is, Biden is not without capacity. And its a mechanism potentially subject to the whims of Trump's appointees on the SC.
Only those wishing to see a complete shit show are advocating that route.
He looks just about as if he has capacity, with the backing of the entire propping up Joe team. There's no particular reason to think he can dress himself, unassisted. Seriously, one way or another he is history by end July.
He's managed hour long interviews and live press conferences with some semblance of coherence. While he doesn't look like someone you'd back to do another full year, let alone four, the 25th A suggestion is just malice from the opponents of the Democrats. It's not a practical proposition - and if the cabinet did attempt it, the GOP would probably enjoy arguing that it was improperly invoked.
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
It’s a debate about democracy.
The King is stopping a manifesto commitment of his elected government.
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
It’s a debate about democracy.
The King is stopping a manifesto commitment of his elected government.
Give it a rest. The increasingly insane telegraph has asked an embarrassingly stupid question, is all. There is a Mr Dymoke who is hereditary king's champion at coronations. If he can do it as a mister so can these other two blokes.
Not only that, the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain can keep their hereditary titles without the right to sit and vote in the HoL. Most other hereditary peers are already in that position.
So strange to be represented, not by some narcissistic sociopath that makes everything about him, or someone impenetrably stupid who thinks "the jury is out" on whether France is an ally, or someone so tin-eared and indifferent he leaves halfway through. To not feel shame. ~AA
I mentioned my car was stolen last week and that the police didn’t bother going to check the last tracked location until the next morning by which time it had gone.
Well, after processing the insurance claim, ordering a replacement car, sending the keys back and starting to move on I get a call from the Met police today saying they’ve found it. Parked a few hundred metres from where we live, but with the plates changed and the inside damaged and tracker removed.
Mixed news, and more faff. But at least now they have a good chance of catching the crooks. Right?
Because the theft was not aggravated (there was no violence or RTA involved) they are “not doing any forensics on it”.
That’s right, car theft remains a legal activity so long as you drive carefully and don’t punch anybody.
It won't and if he gets through COVID relatively unscathed at over 80 he can use that to boost his health status claims
Didn't think of that, but that's a good point too.
I think he is too big at 2.6 now for the nomination, we basically have heard via social media that he's told Pelosi where to go.
I fear that you're right. There's too much of a temptation to assume that the Democrats are somehow collectively capable of taking the blindingly obvious course necessary to stay in the game and factor that in to the odds, and I think the 2.6 reflects that.
The problem is that there is no mechanism to force him to go if he doesn’t want to. He can just say “nah, I’m staying in” and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Even if the whole Democratic establishment turns on him and tells him it’s a bad idea.
I still think there’s a chance they do get him to bow out (based on current media reports), but it is going to be a close run thing and the longer he clings on the more unedifying and difficult it becomes to avoid political damage. The best way would have been for a period of reflection after the debate followed by a calm handover. As it is he’s being dragged out kicking and screaming, and it’s not very edifying.
There is a mechanism, in the constitution. The 25th Amendment, Article 4.
The problem is it requires Kamala to wield the knife herself, and the Cabinet to agree with her. No hiding spot to let someone else do it.
Except it pretty obvious that dilapidated and diminished as he is, Biden is not without capacity. And its a mechanism potentially subject to the whims of Trump's appointees on the SC.
Only those wishing to see a complete shit show are advocating that route.
He looks just about as if he has capacity, with the backing of the entire propping up Joe team. There's no particular reason to think he can dress himself, unassisted. Seriously, one way or another he is history by end July.
He's managed hour long interviews and live press conferences with some semblance of coherence. While he doesn't look like someone you'd back to do another full year, let alone four, the 25th A suggestion is just malice from the opponents of the Democrats. It's not a practical proposition - and if the cabinet did attempt it, the GOP would probably enjoy arguing that it was improperly invoked.
Well I am a supporter of the Democrats. 25th Amendment is a terrible idea but it is what we are left with given bidens stupidity and the avarice of his family.
So strange to be represented, not by some narcissistic sociopath that makes everything about him, or someone impenetrably stupid who thinks "the jury is out" on whether France is an ally, or someone so tin-eared and indifferent he leaves halfway through. To not feel shame. ~AA
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
The are two blue fits happening here - at Chez-T and Chez-TSE.
The Telegraph has am unsourced piece with a series of speculations, and is less reliable than the Beano as a newspaper of record - as we know.
And I think TSE is missing PB's answer to Napoleon Solo, and is putting on a panto himself in the absence of a guest performance.
If Putin is determined to hold on to Crimea, he ought to have thought twice before royally fucking its future for human habitation.
A year after the destruction of Ukraine's Kakhovka Dam, vegetation cover in formerly irrigated parts of the southern Kherson region and Crimea has fallen by 85% or more. It's a sign that the former breadbasket region is reverting rapidly to its previous semi-desert state... https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1813685955217572188
It's another data point which suggests that any permanent ceasefire deal is highly unlikely to be kept.
It won't and if he gets through COVID relatively unscathed at over 80 he can use that to boost his health status claims
Didn't think of that, but that's a good point too.
I think he is too big at 2.6 now for the nomination, we basically have heard via social media that he's told Pelosi where to go.
I fear that you're right. There's too much of a temptation to assume that the Democrats are somehow collectively capable of taking the blindingly obvious course necessary to stay in the game and factor that in to the odds, and I think the 2.6 reflects that.
The problem is that there is no mechanism to force him to go if he doesn’t want to. He can just say “nah, I’m staying in” and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Even if the whole Democratic establishment turns on him and tells him it’s a bad idea.
I still think there’s a chance they do get him to bow out (based on current media reports), but it is going to be a close run thing and the longer he clings on the more unedifying and difficult it becomes to avoid political damage. The best way would have been for a period of reflection after the debate followed by a calm handover. As it is he’s being dragged out kicking and screaming, and it’s not very edifying.
There is a mechanism, in the constitution. The 25th Amendment, Article 4.
The problem is it requires Kamala to wield the knife herself, and the Cabinet to agree with her. No hiding spot to let someone else do it.
Except it pretty obvious that dilapidated and diminished as he is, Biden is not without capacity. And its a mechanism potentially subject to the whims of Trump's appointees on the SC.
Only those wishing to see a complete shit show are advocating that route.
He looks just about as if he has capacity, with the backing of the entire propping up Joe team. There's no particular reason to think he can dress himself, unassisted. Seriously, one way or another he is history by end July.
He's managed hour long interviews and live press conferences with some semblance of coherence. While he doesn't look like someone you'd back to do another full year, let alone four, the 25th A suggestion is just malice from the opponents of the Democrats. It's not a practical proposition - and if the cabinet did attempt it, the GOP would probably enjoy arguing that it was improperly invoked.
Well I am a supporter of the Democrats. 25th Amendment is a terrible idea but it is what we are left with given bidens stupidity and the avarice of his family.
The LibDems are the least scrupulous party of the mainstream in GB, perhaps because they feel so sure they're right and the system is unfair that they have to manipulate it in any way they can? The level of misleading leaflets (espcially in quoting polls. sometimes omitting the Y-axis or relating to a different area) completely dwarfs what the other main parties offer, though none of the parties are squeaky clean. It's quite successful at a local level and they're hard to dislike in any other way so they get away with it. But arguably there are invisible drawbacks in reluctance to give way even when they are clearly the main local alternative to the Tories,
Oh come off it Nick. You should have seen some of the bar charts Lab and the Tories put out in Guildford at this election. Lab trying to claim it was neck and neck between them and the Tories. Tories did similarly. On polling day there was a good morning leaflet with two bars of equal length for the Tories and Labour with the LDs hardly registering and no reference as to where that came from at all and we can't think of anything it can possibly represent.
And the result was?
Oh and I remember Lab doing a bar chart and only Lab can win here and a vote for the LDs is a wasted vote in a Euro election with PR!!! Unscrupulous?
I've only experienced the LibDems seriously in 3 constituencies - Broxtowe (where objectively they were and are a distant 3rd), Godalming and Ash (where objectively they're 2nd and challenging for 1st) and Didcot and Wantage (where they've been 2nd for a while). In all three they've played the "only we can win here" card, but in G&A more mildly ("so we'd like to borrow your vote"), as they included Labour as junior partners in coalition, and in return the Labour vote at GEs has sunk to 5%. There's a case for saying that being less unscrupulous pays off.
Obviously the real villain of the piece is the electoral system. But the way it's played has subtle effects on later cooperation.
I have only ever been in LD/Tory battles so obviously we have used it a lot. I have only ever been honest, but admittedly that has been easy because I haven't had to manipulate as the message was true because of where I was. I have to say (and this might me being biased here) that the LD manipulation is usually quite clever i.e. true but misleading, as opposed to an outright lie as we were getting in Guildford by both the Tories and Labour. For example in Suffolk Coastal the LD leaflet identified us as the challengers based upon the last local election results in wards in the constituency (not sure if it used gains or overall). Perfectly factual. The Greens could have made a similar slightly different claim. We came 4th and they came 5th in the end in the GE.. Not lying, but relevant? No.
@NickPalmer if you ever speak to anyone involved in the Labour campaign in Guildford I would love to know what was going through their minds? I accept locals will want to campaign locally but why did they spend so much on massive bus adverts and why was the candidate apparently working it full time and not in Aldershot and why all the misleading stuff. It is not like they even tried in reality. They didn't take advantage of the free addressed Royal Mail delivery. Just a bog standard one and outside of a very, very small area they didn't do anything. Those working it seemed hell bent on returning a Tory to Guildford.
A couple of days before Polling Day, I got shouted at by an elderly gentleman in my own ward when leafleting. He went on about us lying on our bar chart.
I did ask if he had an issue with the scale, but he said no: the numbers we were using were an outright lie.
We'd published the Rallings & Thrasher notionals for the new constituency as per the Parliament website, and this gentleman was adamant that these were just us taking some random figures, because "you can get different ones from different sites, can't you!?" and apparently other notional figures had Labour in second.
I think this was based on a Labour leaflet from earlier in the campaign which he'd misinterpreted from a bar chart (without numbers on the bar or chart) claiming that Labour had about a 33% chance of winning and fractionally higher than the LDs, around which Nick had put a commentary on the constituency having changed hugely since the last election [spoiler: the notionals were statistically all-but-identical to the former constituency, but we'd switched to using the notionals early in the campaign, anyway].
But I was called a liar and a "bloody idiot" due to our bar chart using the official notional figures.
@Andy_Cooke - Andy I sent you a private message, I think yesterday. Did you see it?
It won't and if he gets through COVID relatively unscathed at over 80 he can use that to boost his health status claims
Didn't think of that, but that's a good point too.
I think he is too big at 2.6 now for the nomination, we basically have heard via social media that he's told Pelosi where to go.
I fear that you're right. There's too much of a temptation to assume that the Democrats are somehow collectively capable of taking the blindingly obvious course necessary to stay in the game and factor that in to the odds, and I think the 2.6 reflects that.
The problem is that there is no mechanism to force him to go if he doesn’t want to. He can just say “nah, I’m staying in” and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Even if the whole Democratic establishment turns on him and tells him it’s a bad idea.
I still think there’s a chance they do get him to bow out (based on current media reports), but it is going to be a close run thing and the longer he clings on the more unedifying and difficult it becomes to avoid political damage. The best way would have been for a period of reflection after the debate followed by a calm handover. As it is he’s being dragged out kicking and screaming, and it’s not very edifying.
There is a mechanism, in the constitution. The 25th Amendment, Article 4.
The problem is it requires Kamala to wield the knife herself, and the Cabinet to agree with her. No hiding spot to let someone else do it.
Except it pretty obvious that dilapidated and diminished as he is, Biden is not without capacity. And its a mechanism potentially subject to the whims of Trump's appointees on the SC.
Only those wishing to see a complete shit show are advocating that route.
He looks just about as if he has capacity, with the backing of the entire propping up Joe team. There's no particular reason to think he can dress himself, unassisted. Seriously, one way or another he is history by end July.
He's managed hour long interviews and live press conferences with some semblance of coherence. While he doesn't look like someone you'd back to do another full year, let alone four, the 25th A suggestion is just malice from the opponents of the Democrats. It's not a practical proposition - and if the cabinet did attempt it, the GOP would probably enjoy arguing that it was improperly invoked.
Well I am a supporter of the Democrats. 25th Amendment is a terrible idea but it is what we are left with given bidens stupidity and the avarice of his family.
I appreciate your POV - I'm just saying it won't happen. Either he accepts (or is persuaded to accept) that it's time to go, or the Democrats are screwed.
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
Some-one should ask Starmer that, if he is thinks 80 is too hold to cope with a sinecure in the House of Lords, what is his opinion on an over-80-year-old having the slightly more onerous task of being "leader of the free world"
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
The are two blue fits happening here - at Chez-T and Chez-TSE.
The Telegraph has am unsourced piece with a series of speculations, and is less reliable than the Beano as a newspaper of record - as we know.
And I think TSE is missing PB's answer to Napoleon Solo, and is putting on a panto himself in the absence of a guest performance.
Not entirely fair. The Tel was saying basically that Lord Snooty's fellow hereditary peers remaining in the HoL was so important to the realm that it shoulod subvert a democratically elected manifesto anbd principles central to the UK constitution for over a century.
So strange to be represented, not by some narcissistic sociopath that makes everything about him, or someone impenetrably stupid who thinks "the jury is out" on whether France is an ally, or someone so tin-eared and indifferent he leaves halfway through. To not feel shame. ~AA
It won't and if he gets through COVID relatively unscathed at over 80 he can use that to boost his health status claims
Didn't think of that, but that's a good point too.
I think he is too big at 2.6 now for the nomination, we basically have heard via social media that he's told Pelosi where to go.
I fear that you're right. There's too much of a temptation to assume that the Democrats are somehow collectively capable of taking the blindingly obvious course necessary to stay in the game and factor that in to the odds, and I think the 2.6 reflects that.
The problem is that there is no mechanism to force him to go if he doesn’t want to. He can just say “nah, I’m staying in” and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Even if the whole Democratic establishment turns on him and tells him it’s a bad idea.
I still think there’s a chance they do get him to bow out (based on current media reports), but it is going to be a close run thing and the longer he clings on the more unedifying and difficult it becomes to avoid political damage. The best way would have been for a period of reflection after the debate followed by a calm handover. As it is he’s being dragged out kicking and screaming, and it’s not very edifying.
There is a mechanism, in the constitution. The 25th Amendment, Article 4.
The problem is it requires Kamala to wield the knife herself, and the Cabinet to agree with her. No hiding spot to let someone else do it.
Except it pretty obvious that dilapidated and diminished as he is, Biden is not without capacity. And its a mechanism potentially subject to the whims of Trump's appointees on the SC.
Only those wishing to see a complete shit show are advocating that route.
He looks just about as if he has capacity, with the backing of the entire propping up Joe team. There's no particular reason to think he can dress himself, unassisted. Seriously, one way or another he is history by end July.
He's managed hour long interviews and live press conferences with some semblance of coherence. While he doesn't look like someone you'd back to do another full year, let alone four, the 25th A suggestion is just malice from the opponents of the Democrats. It's not a practical proposition - and if the cabinet did attempt it, the GOP would probably enjoy arguing that it was improperly invoked.
Well I am a supporter of the Democrats. 25th Amendment is a terrible idea but it is what we are left with given bidens stupidity and the avarice of his family.
What "avarice"?
It's all those deals Hunter is looking forward to signing with the Saudis...
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
Some-one should ask Starmer that, if he is thinks 80 is too hold to cope with a sinecure in the House of Lords, what is his opinion on an over-80-year-old having the slightly more onerous task of being "leader of the free world"
They already did. He said the Lord policy was directed at reducing the numbers in a fair way, or some such guff, rather than a comment on capacity,
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
The are two blue fits happening here - at Chez-T and Chez-TSE.
The Telegraph has am unsourced piece with a series of speculations, and is less reliable than the Beano as a newspaper of record - as we know.
And I think TSE is missing PB's answer to Napoleon Solo, and is putting on a panto himself in the absence of a guest performance.
Rubbish, I am a huge fan of David McCallum (RIP), I am more Illya Kuryakin.
It won't and if he gets through COVID relatively unscathed at over 80 he can use that to boost his health status claims
Didn't think of that, but that's a good point too.
I think he is too big at 2.6 now for the nomination, we basically have heard via social media that he's told Pelosi where to go.
I fear that you're right. There's too much of a temptation to assume that the Democrats are somehow collectively capable of taking the blindingly obvious course necessary to stay in the game and factor that in to the odds, and I think the 2.6 reflects that.
The problem is that there is no mechanism to force him to go if he doesn’t want to. He can just say “nah, I’m staying in” and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Even if the whole Democratic establishment turns on him and tells him it’s a bad idea.
I still think there’s a chance they do get him to bow out (based on current media reports), but it is going to be a close run thing and the longer he clings on the more unedifying and difficult it becomes to avoid political damage. The best way would have been for a period of reflection after the debate followed by a calm handover. As it is he’s being dragged out kicking and screaming, and it’s not very edifying.
There is a mechanism, in the constitution. The 25th Amendment, Article 4.
The problem is it requires Kamala to wield the knife herself, and the Cabinet to agree with her. No hiding spot to let someone else do it.
Except it pretty obvious that dilapidated and diminished as he is, Biden is not without capacity. And its a mechanism potentially subject to the whims of Trump's appointees on the SC.
Only those wishing to see a complete shit show are advocating that route.
He looks just about as if he has capacity, with the backing of the entire propping up Joe team. There's no particular reason to think he can dress himself, unassisted. Seriously, one way or another he is history by end July.
He's managed hour long interviews and live press conferences with some semblance of coherence. While he doesn't look like someone you'd back to do another full year, let alone four, the 25th A suggestion is just malice from the opponents of the Democrats. It's not a practical proposition - and if the cabinet did attempt it, the GOP would probably enjoy arguing that it was improperly invoked.
Well I am a supporter of the Democrats. 25th Amendment is a terrible idea but it is what we are left with given bidens stupidity and the avarice of his family.
What "avarice"?
I thought of all the possible motives for propping up a corpse like this. Avarice came out top.
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
Some-one should ask Starmer that, if he is thinks 80 is too hold to cope with a sinecure in the House of Lords, what is his opinion on an over-80-year-old having the slightly more onerous task of being "leader of the free world"
To which the quick, simple answer is "that's a matter for the American People in November". ETA: And if he wishes to be more positive in a follow-up, then he can provide a few generic platitudes about 'Biden's Achievements'.
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
The are two blue fits happening here - at Chez-T and Chez-TSE.
The Telegraph has am unsourced piece with a series of speculations, and is less reliable than the Beano as a newspaper of record - as we know.
And I think TSE is missing PB's answer to Napoleon Solo, and is putting on a panto himself in the absence of a guest performance.
Fi!
Your suggestion that The Beano is anything other than The Sacred Publication Of Truth And Record is an abomination.
This matter can only be settled in the old way.
Pistols for two upon Hyde Park. Breakfast for one at Wilton’s.
On a bus in front of a person who literally hasn't stopped talking for 45 minutes. It's a stream of consciousness of every single thought that enters her head. How does she think? What does she do when alone?
I mentioned my car was stolen last week and that the police didn’t bother going to check the last tracked location until the next morning by which time it had gone.
Well, after processing the insurance claim, ordering a replacement car, sending the keys back and starting to move on I get a call from the Met police today saying they’ve found it. Parked a few hundred metres from where we live, but with the plates changed and the inside damaged and tracker removed.
Mixed news, and more faff. But at least now they have a good chance of catching the crooks. Right?
Because the theft was not aggravated (there was no violence or RTA involved) they are “not doing any forensics on it”.
That’s right, car theft remains a legal activity so long as you drive carefully and don’t punch anybody.
Our van was broken into electronically in Dorset and if we hadn't had an old school Stoplock fitted to it, I think it would have been nicked. The thieves had pulled all the right fuses and messed with the OBD port, probably to to bypass the immobiliser, but had clearly been spooked or forgotten their battery angle grinder. They were caught on a neighbouring Airbnb apartment cctv, and had successfully nicked another Transporter just down the road. I couldn't speak to the rozzers to report it as they don't have staff to record crimes and it had to be done online. Literally 6 hours later, I get an automated email telling me the crime will be filed as "Undetected". I doubt any human spent more than a couple of minutes looking into it.
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
Some-one should ask Starmer that, if he is thinks 80 is too hold to cope with a sinecure in the House of Lords, what is his opinion on an over-80-year-old having the slightly more onerous task of being "leader of the free world"
Someone has asked Starmer this, in this interview with CNN, just after 1 min 30 secs.
You mean that you were unaware of the ridiculousness of the MAGA crowd previously? Compared to their usual schtick, ear bandages in sympathy with The Donald are quite tame. Approaching weird, rather than eye bleeding insanity.
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
Some-one should ask Starmer that, if he is thinks 80 is too hold to cope with a sinecure in the House of Lords, what is his opinion on an over-80-year-old having the slightly more onerous task of being "leader of the free world"
Someone has asked Starmer this, in this interview with CNN, just after 1 min 30 secs.
Leon. Leon. Leon. Leon. Leon. Leon. For someone who a sizeable chunk of PBers find distasteful/annoying/horrible and some would like to see run off the site, you sure do spend a lot of time talking about the fella when he's not around.
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
It’s a debate about democracy.
The King is stopping a manifesto commitment of his elected government.
Nope, thats just you warped view of it. Thankfully it is not a view shared by anyone sane.
I mentioned my car was stolen last week and that the police didn’t bother going to check the last tracked location until the next morning by which time it had gone.
Well, after processing the insurance claim, ordering a replacement car, sending the keys back and starting to move on I get a call from the Met police today saying they’ve found it. Parked a few hundred metres from where we live, but with the plates changed and the inside damaged and tracker removed.
Mixed news, and more faff. But at least now they have a good chance of catching the crooks. Right?
Because the theft was not aggravated (there was no violence or RTA involved) they are “not doing any forensics on it”.
That’s right, car theft remains a legal activity so long as you drive carefully and don’t punch anybody.
I'm giving this a like but I really don't like it. What are our men and women in blue for?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/17/senator-biden-pass-the-torch-00168784 ...After one address, I believe in 1994, one of the lawmakers I pigeonholed was Sen. Joe Biden, who was then in his early 50s. I’d interviewed him a few times before, but certainly not enough to expect him to lower his guard. We chatted about President Bill Clinton’s speech. And then the topic turned to Biden’s ambition to become chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The then-holder of that office, Claiborne Pell, was in his late 70s and showing signs of the Parkinson’s disease that he’d later disclose.
I asked Biden if given Pell’s diminished capacity, he’d make a move to replace him. “That poor son of a bitch,” Biden replied. Pell was no longer up for the job, he told me, but like so many of his elderly colleagues, Pell couldn’t imagine a life outside Congress.
I was stunned by Biden’s comments. Not by his analysis of Pell, which was spot on. But what surprised me was Biden’s casual willingness to share candid thoughts with a reporter whom he didn’t know well and had no reason to trust. It was the type of indiscretion that has followed Biden to this day. In this case, it didn’t do any harm. I had no intention of writing about Pell. But it’s not every day a senator refers to a colleague with that kind of language, so the moment stayed with me...
The LibDems are the least scrupulous party of the mainstream in GB, perhaps because they feel so sure they're right and the system is unfair that they have to manipulate it in any way they can? The level of misleading leaflets (espcially in quoting polls. sometimes omitting the Y-axis or relating to a different area) completely dwarfs what the other main parties offer, though none of the parties are squeaky clean. It's quite successful at a local level and they're hard to dislike in any other way so they get away with it. But arguably there are invisible drawbacks in reluctance to give way even when they are clearly the main local alternative to the Tories,
Oh come off it Nick. You should have seen some of the bar charts Lab and the Tories put out in Guildford at this election. Lab trying to claim it was neck and neck between them and the Tories. Tories did similarly. On polling day there was a good morning leaflet with two bars of equal length for the Tories and Labour with the LDs hardly registering and no reference as to where that came from at all and we can't think of anything it can possibly represent.
And the result was?
Oh and I remember Lab doing a bar chart and only Lab can win here and a vote for the LDs is a wasted vote in a Euro election with PR!!! Unscrupulous?
I've only experienced the LibDems seriously in 3 constituencies - Broxtowe (where objectively they were and are a distant 3rd), Godalming and Ash (where objectively they're 2nd and challenging for 1st) and Didcot and Wantage (where they've been 2nd for a while). In all three they've played the "only we can win here" card, but in G&A more mildly ("so we'd like to borrow your vote"), as they included Labour as junior partners in coalition, and in return the Labour vote at GEs has sunk to 5%. There's a case for saying that being less unscrupulous pays off.
Obviously the real villain of the piece is the electoral system. But the way it's played has subtle effects on later cooperation.
I have only ever been in LD/Tory battles so obviously we have used it a lot. I have only ever been honest, but admittedly that has been easy because I haven't had to manipulate as the message was true because of where I was. I have to say (and this might me being biased here) that the LD manipulation is usually quite clever i.e. true but misleading, as opposed to an outright lie as we were getting in Guildford by both the Tories and Labour. For example in Suffolk Coastal the LD leaflet identified us as the challengers based upon the last local election results in wards in the constituency (not sure if it used gains or overall). Perfectly factual. The Greens could have made a similar slightly different claim. We came 4th and they came 5th in the end in the GE.. Not lying, but relevant? No.
@NickPalmer if you ever speak to anyone involved in the Labour campaign in Guildford I would love to know what was going through their minds? I accept locals will want to campaign locally but why did they spend so much on massive bus adverts and why was the candidate apparently working it full time and not in Aldershot and why all the misleading stuff. It is not like they even tried in reality. They didn't take advantage of the free addressed Royal Mail delivery. Just a bog standard one and outside of a very, very small area they didn't do anything. Those working it seemed hell bent on returning a Tory to Guildford.
A couple of days before Polling Day, I got shouted at by an elderly gentleman in my own ward when leafleting. He went on about us lying on our bar chart.
I did ask if he had an issue with the scale, but he said no: the numbers we were using were an outright lie.
We'd published the Rallings & Thrasher notionals for the new constituency as per the Parliament website, and this gentleman was adamant that these were just us taking some random figures, because "you can get different ones from different sites, can't you!?" and apparently other notional figures had Labour in second.
I think this was based on a Labour leaflet from earlier in the campaign which he'd misinterpreted from a bar chart (without numbers on the bar or chart) claiming that Labour had about a 33% chance of winning and fractionally higher than the LDs, around which Nick had put a commentary on the constituency having changed hugely since the last election [spoiler: the notionals were statistically all-but-identical to the former constituency, but we'd switched to using the notionals early in the campaign, anyway].
But I was called a liar and a "bloody idiot" due to our bar chart using the official notional figures.
@Andy_Cooke - Andy I sent you a private message, I think yesterday. Did you see it?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/17/senator-biden-pass-the-torch-00168784 ...After one address, I believe in 1994, one of the lawmakers I pigeonholed was Sen. Joe Biden, who was then in his early 50s. I’d interviewed him a few times before, but certainly not enough to expect him to lower his guard. We chatted about President Bill Clinton’s speech. And then the topic turned to Biden’s ambition to become chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The then-holder of that office, Claiborne Pell, was in his late 70s and showing signs of the Parkinson’s disease that he’d later disclose.
I asked Biden if given Pell’s diminished capacity, he’d make a move to replace him. “That poor son of a bitch,” Biden replied. Pell was no longer up for the job, he told me, but like so many of his elderly colleagues, Pell couldn’t imagine a life outside Congress.
I was stunned by Biden’s comments. Not by his analysis of Pell, which was spot on. But what surprised me was Biden’s casual willingness to share candid thoughts with a reporter whom he didn’t know well and had no reason to trust. It was the type of indiscretion that has followed Biden to this day. In this case, it didn’t do any harm. I had no intention of writing about Pell. But it’s not every day a senator refers to a colleague with that kind of language, so the moment stayed with me...
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
It’s a debate about democracy.
The King is stopping a manifesto commitment of his elected government.
Nope, thats just you warped view of it. Thankfully it is not a view shared by anyone sane.
Amused to see Starmer is meeting European leaders at Blenheim Palace. The War of the Spanish Succession was of course a great example of European cooperation... but I am not sure what Macron will make of it
One of Dave's best acts as Foreign Secretary was to choose Blenheim Palace as the location.
Any party that decides to change the Eurostar terminus from St. Pancras back to Waterloo station will win my vote for life.
Bugger that last for a game of commuters on the Tube. It's bad enough not having direct connections with Eurostar from the north *in the same station* without having that added as well.
I say that as somebody who is from Sheffield and uses St Pancras a lot.
Plus, hang on, you use the Tube? You utter peasant, use Uber Luxury, that's the way to travel in London.
in a related matter, I will probably be using Eurostar a couple of times coming from Edinburgh soon. Is 50 mins to transfer and check in enough?
Amused to see Starmer is meeting European leaders at Blenheim Palace. The War of the Spanish Succession was of course a great example of European cooperation... but I am not sure what Macron will make of it
One of Dave's best acts as Foreign Secretary was to choose Blenheim Palace as the location.
Any party that decides to change the Eurostar terminus from St. Pancras back to Waterloo station will win my vote for life.
Bugger that last for a game of commuters on the Tube. It's bad enough not having direct connections with Eurostar from the north *in the same station* without having that added as well.
I say that as somebody who is from Sheffield and uses St Pancras a lot.
Plus, hang on, you use the Tube? You utter peasant, use Uber Luxury, that's the way to travel in London.
in a related matter, I will probably be using Eurostar a couple of times coming from Edinburgh soon. Is 50 mins to transfer and check in enough?
I'd give myself longer than that. Catch the previous train from Edinburgh?
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/17/senator-biden-pass-the-torch-00168784 ...After one address, I believe in 1994, one of the lawmakers I pigeonholed was Sen. Joe Biden, who was then in his early 50s. I’d interviewed him a few times before, but certainly not enough to expect him to lower his guard. We chatted about President Bill Clinton’s speech. And then the topic turned to Biden’s ambition to become chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The then-holder of that office, Claiborne Pell, was in his late 70s and showing signs of the Parkinson’s disease that he’d later disclose.
I asked Biden if given Pell’s diminished capacity, he’d make a move to replace him. “That poor son of a bitch,” Biden replied. Pell was no longer up for the job, he told me, but like so many of his elderly colleagues, Pell couldn’t imagine a life outside Congress.
I was stunned by Biden’s comments. Not by his analysis of Pell, which was spot on. But what surprised me was Biden’s casual willingness to share candid thoughts with a reporter whom he didn’t know well and had no reason to trust. It was the type of indiscretion that has followed Biden to this day. In this case, it didn’t do any harm. I had no intention of writing about Pell. But it’s not every day a senator refers to a colleague with that kind of language, so the moment stayed with me...
More interesting the more you read it. Pigeonholed in the first sentence is an error for buttonholed, so perhaps the author is showing early signs of something himself. Thereafter it is carefully dressed up to make it look as if he's not betraying a confidence when I think that's exactly what he is doing - whether it was an unexpected confidence is neither here nor there.
Yes, yes, it's all politics and aren't the Liberal Democrats nasty and unscrupulous?
Seriously?
Ed Davey and the LDs played a system they neither like nor want nor does them any favours for maximum advantage and all we now hear is moaning from the "losers" including an activist for a Party which won over 400 seats.
Labour has occasionally "talked" about change to the electoral system - usually when they've been on the wrong end of an election defeat. We may now hear the Conservatives begin to "think aloud" about PR. Neither is sincere - the duopoly has survived fairly comfortably - 58% of the vote has got the two parties 84% of the seats in England, Scotland and Wales so the current system works fine for both Conservative and Labour and for that reason alone there'll be no change until one or both of them is decisively defeated.
Farage and Davey can shout into the dark calling for PR but it will get them nowhere.
As for the "let's add Reform and the Conservatives and call it a single bloc" - that was widely derided on here months ago by the more thoughtful commentators and analysts. There was never any polling evidence of a direct transfer - at most a third of Reform voters would support a Conservative in the absence of a Reform candidate.
The Conservatives lost votes to Reform, to Labour and in some places to the Liberal Democrats and the Greens and also suffered considerable abstention (as did Labour). Until we get more definitive research on what happened to the Conservative vote and why 47% of the 2019 vote disappeared, we're speculating. We can all have our pet theories and I suspect the answer will vary from region to region and even from seat to seat.
I wouldn't disagree with anything you've written here but...
Doing a ton of analysis I am sure is valuable and will yield some insights, but really - what is it really going to reveal? Some small tweak of messaging around housing or the environment or immigration that would bring back a few voters? They were just unpopular and the electorate were determined to give them a punishement beating.
And over-analysis always runs the risk that you end up fighting the last war.
Politics is often about momentum (the Tories have none) and a big idea over the longer term (the Tories have to find one). If I was running this (I wouldn't want to) then merging with Reform (aka "New Tory" or Conservative+) has the potential to deliver momentum (but not without risk).
In terms of the big idea, if we can all agree that the Empire 2.0 project is dead, then we have to decide who to hitch our wagon to.
I'd look to get back into the EU but that's not going to wash with Conservative+
So that leaves the US, and specifically Trump and Project 2025. The Project 2025 stuff leaves me utterly cold (Project Handmaid might be a better title) and I would fight it tooth and nail, but for Conservative+ and US-backing some sort of 'Project 2029' might yield strong results:
- return to family values and what the US calls under the Orwellian phrase 'headship' (strong male head of the family, women very much in supporting/child-rearing role) - massive bonfire of eco-laws - pun very much intended - DoJ under direct parliamentary control - a version of unitary executive theory to attenuate the 'enemies of the people' judges - extreme anti-immigration (read John Lanchester's 'The Wall' for ideas on how a Net Zero Immigration policy would have to work)
You get the idea.
Just typing all this makes me feel extremely queasy. It's a dystopian wishlist. But there must be conversations like this going on, Truss and JRM have the time and contacts to work in the background to make it happen.
Be interested to get others' opinions. I hope everyone else is as queasy as I am reading this...
First, thanks for the thoughtful response and please feel free to contribute a little more. I don't think you're the only "Bookseller" in these parts.
You're not wrong would be my simplistic response.
It is the fundamental question with which we've struggled since 1945 - what is or should be Britain's place in the world?
MacMillan and Heath decided Europe was the political and economic future and that was the prevailing belief in Government from 1956 to 2016. Yet our membership of the EU was often half hearted and rebate obsessed - yes, we enjoyed free trade (and in truth most would happily sign up to the old "Common Market" now) but Europe wanted monetary and eventually political union. We didn't want to be a part of Europe so we choose to be apart from Europe.
I don't know what "Global Britain" was meant to be in 2016 and I still don't know. Clearly, trying to resurrect some kind of post-Imperial relationship with Canada, Australia and New Zealand (why not South Africa or India?) doesn't work - these countries have other geo-strategic concerns.
We're then dead in the water - I argued for framing a new EFTA as an economic counterweight to the EU bringing in countries like Switzerland, Norway and others but that went nowhere.
If we try to re-engage with the EU we're going to have to swallow a double portion of humble pie with a side order of humiliation (it may be the EU is entering a more pragmatic phase as leaders change) but that's an option. We can hope the Democrats prevail in November but even if they do the pull of the Pacific and China will still be there.
Up to a point, Governments can operate without a long-term objective for "place in the world" - the current position of being somewhere in between the EU and the US is a workable approach that copes with 80% of international issues. Obviusly if the US goes for Trump it becomes significantly harder, and the case for working as closely as possible with the EU becomes very strong. Labour's stance is basically to work closely with them where it doesn't require a treaty. The EU isn't without its problems either and drifting to being closely associated with them without rejoining may be the least bad option for the next 10 years.
Thanks for the encouraging words stodge, and on the half-hearted approach to the EU, and what we would need to do to get back in: I think about the question Chris Patten was (most likely apocryphally) asked by a member of the air crew on his way back from meeting the Japanese Prime Minister just after the official Eurozone currency changeover: "Do you think Britain will ever actually join Europe"?
Like climate change, I think things would have to get a lot worse for the majority in the UK before that would happen. We'll have to take a double helping of Euro+Schengen to be admitted back in. And as much as I am a rejoiner I just can't see that happening in the current climate.
Some form of non-US European NATO-follower organisations might be one route back.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/17/senator-biden-pass-the-torch-00168784 ...After one address, I believe in 1994, one of the lawmakers I pigeonholed was Sen. Joe Biden, who was then in his early 50s. I’d interviewed him a few times before, but certainly not enough to expect him to lower his guard. We chatted about President Bill Clinton’s speech. And then the topic turned to Biden’s ambition to become chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The then-holder of that office, Claiborne Pell, was in his late 70s and showing signs of the Parkinson’s disease that he’d later disclose.
I asked Biden if given Pell’s diminished capacity, he’d make a move to replace him. “That poor son of a bitch,” Biden replied. Pell was no longer up for the job, he told me, but like so many of his elderly colleagues, Pell couldn’t imagine a life outside Congress.
I was stunned by Biden’s comments. Not by his analysis of Pell, which was spot on. But what surprised me was Biden’s casual willingness to share candid thoughts with a reporter whom he didn’t know well and had no reason to trust. It was the type of indiscretion that has followed Biden to this day. In this case, it didn’t do any harm. I had no intention of writing about Pell. But it’s not every day a senator refers to a colleague with that kind of language, so the moment stayed with me...
More interesting the more you read it. Pigeonholed in the first sentence is an error for buttonholed, so perhaps the author is showing early signs of something himself. Thereafter it is carefully dressed up to make it look as if he's not betraying a confidence when I think that's exactly what he is doing - whether it was an unexpected confidence is neither here nor there.
Well he's clearly talked about it (if not written it up) for years.
And it wasn't off the record, so entirely fair game, I think. There's no such thing as a 'confidence' between politician and journalist if you're not explicitly off the record, whether unexpected or not.
The very well paid chair of a government quango being held to account for gross incompetence? Surely that is not the way this sort of thing is done?
Sigh. This is the process, when unambiguous guilt is proven.
Don't worry. She will be removed from her post. But then
1) be given a golden goodbye under "the rules" 2) a gold plated pension 3) accidentally given a more responsible job, elsewhere, with a pay rise and a golden hello. 4) do an interview fro the glossy magazine, in a year or 2 time. Set in a photo shoot of her lovely house in the country, it will explain her troubles and travails as the victim in the whole matter.
Yes, yes, it's all politics and aren't the Liberal Democrats nasty and unscrupulous?
Seriously?
Ed Davey and the LDs played a system they neither like nor want nor does them any favours for maximum advantage and all we now hear is moaning from the "losers" including an activist for a Party which won over 400 seats.
Labour has occasionally "talked" about change to the electoral system - usually when they've been on the wrong end of an election defeat. We may now hear the Conservatives begin to "think aloud" about PR. Neither is sincere - the duopoly has survived fairly comfortably - 58% of the vote has got the two parties 84% of the seats in England, Scotland and Wales so the current system works fine for both Conservative and Labour and for that reason alone there'll be no change until one or both of them is decisively defeated.
Farage and Davey can shout into the dark calling for PR but it will get them nowhere.
As for the "let's add Reform and the Conservatives and call it a single bloc" - that was widely derided on here months ago by the more thoughtful commentators and analysts. There was never any polling evidence of a direct transfer - at most a third of Reform voters would support a Conservative in the absence of a Reform candidate.
The Conservatives lost votes to Reform, to Labour and in some places to the Liberal Democrats and the Greens and also suffered considerable abstention (as did Labour). Until we get more definitive research on what happened to the Conservative vote and why 47% of the 2019 vote disappeared, we're speculating. We can all have our pet theories and I suspect the answer will vary from region to region and even from seat to seat.
I wouldn't disagree with anything you've written here but...
Doing a ton of analysis I am sure is valuable and will yield some insights, but really - what is it really going to reveal? Some small tweak of messaging around housing or the environment or immigration that would bring back a few voters? They were just unpopular and the electorate were determined to give them a punishement beating.
And over-analysis always runs the risk that you end up fighting the last war.
Politics is often about momentum (the Tories have none) and a big idea over the longer term (the Tories have to find one). If I was running this (I wouldn't want to) then merging with Reform (aka "New Tory" or Conservative+) has the potential to deliver momentum (but not without risk).
In terms of the big idea, if we can all agree that the Empire 2.0 project is dead, then we have to decide who to hitch our wagon to.
I'd look to get back into the EU but that's not going to wash with Conservative+
So that leaves the US, and specifically Trump and Project 2025. The Project 2025 stuff leaves me utterly cold (Project Handmaid might be a better title) and I would fight it tooth and nail, but for Conservative+ and US-backing some sort of 'Project 2029' might yield strong results:
- return to family values and what the US calls under the Orwellian phrase 'headship' (strong male head of the family, women very much in supporting/child-rearing role) - massive bonfire of eco-laws - pun very much intended - DoJ under direct parliamentary control - a version of unitary executive theory to attenuate the 'enemies of the people' judges - extreme anti-immigration (read John Lanchester's 'The Wall' for ideas on how a Net Zero Immigration policy would have to work)
You get the idea.
Just typing all this makes me feel extremely queasy. It's a dystopian wishlist. But there must be conversations like this going on, Truss and JRM have the time and contacts to work in the background to make it happen.
Be interested to get others' opinions. I hope everyone else is as queasy as I am reading this...
First, thanks for the thoughtful response and please feel free to contribute a little more. I don't think you're the only "Bookseller" in these parts.
You're not wrong would be my simplistic response.
It is the fundamental question with which we've struggled since 1945 - what is or should be Britain's place in the world?
MacMillan and Heath decided Europe was the political and economic future and that was the prevailing belief in Government from 1956 to 2016. Yet our membership of the EU was often half hearted and rebate obsessed - yes, we enjoyed free trade (and in truth most would happily sign up to the old "Common Market" now) but Europe wanted monetary and eventually political union. We didn't want to be a part of Europe so we choose to be apart from Europe.
I don't know what "Global Britain" was meant to be in 2016 and I still don't know. Clearly, trying to resurrect some kind of post-Imperial relationship with Canada, Australia and New Zealand (why not South Africa or India?) doesn't work - these countries have other geo-strategic concerns.
We're then dead in the water - I argued for framing a new EFTA as an economic counterweight to the EU bringing in countries like Switzerland, Norway and others but that went nowhere.
If we try to re-engage with the EU we're going to have to swallow a double portion of humble pie with a side order of humiliation (it may be the EU is entering a more pragmatic phase as leaders change) but that's an option. We can hope the Democrats prevail in November but even if they do the pull of the Pacific and China will still be there.
Up to a point, Governments can operate without a long-term objective for "place in the world" - the current position of being somewhere in between the EU and the US is a workable approach that copes with 80% of international issues. Obviusly if the US goes for Trump it becomes significantly harder, and the case for working as closely as possible with the EU becomes very strong. Labour's stance is basically to work closely with them where it doesn't require a treaty. The EU isn't without its problems either and drifting to being closely associated with them without rejoining may be the least bad option for the next 10 years.
Thanks for the encouraging words stodge, and on the half-hearted approach to the EU, and what we would need to do to get back in: I think about the question Chris Patten was (most likely apocryphally) asked by a member of the air crew on his way back from meeting the Japanese Prime Minister just after the official Eurozone currency changeover: "Do you think Britain will ever actually join Europe"?
Like climate change, I think things would have to get a lot worse for the majority in the UK before that would happen. We'll have to take a double helping of Euro+Schengen to be admitted back in. And as much as I am a rejoiner I just can't see that happening in the current climate.
Some form of non-US European NATO-follower organisations might be one route back.
I think it's more about how long Europe can remain cut off isn't it?
Yes, yes, it's all politics and aren't the Liberal Democrats nasty and unscrupulous?
Seriously?
Ed Davey and the LDs played a system they neither like nor want nor does them any favours for maximum advantage and all we now hear is moaning from the "losers" including an activist for a Party which won over 400 seats.
Labour has occasionally "talked" about change to the electoral system - usually when they've been on the wrong end of an election defeat. We may now hear the Conservatives begin to "think aloud" about PR. Neither is sincere - the duopoly has survived fairly comfortably - 58% of the vote has got the two parties 84% of the seats in England, Scotland and Wales so the current system works fine for both Conservative and Labour and for that reason alone there'll be no change until one or both of them is decisively defeated.
Farage and Davey can shout into the dark calling for PR but it will get them nowhere.
As for the "let's add Reform and the Conservatives and call it a single bloc" - that was widely derided on here months ago by the more thoughtful commentators and analysts. There was never any polling evidence of a direct transfer - at most a third of Reform voters would support a Conservative in the absence of a Reform candidate.
The Conservatives lost votes to Reform, to Labour and in some places to the Liberal Democrats and the Greens and also suffered considerable abstention (as did Labour). Until we get more definitive research on what happened to the Conservative vote and why 47% of the 2019 vote disappeared, we're speculating. We can all have our pet theories and I suspect the answer will vary from region to region and even from seat to seat.
I wouldn't disagree with anything you've written here but...
Doing a ton of analysis I am sure is valuable and will yield some insights, but really - what is it really going to reveal? Some small tweak of messaging around housing or the environment or immigration that would bring back a few voters? They were just unpopular and the electorate were determined to give them a punishement beating.
And over-analysis always runs the risk that you end up fighting the last war.
Politics is often about momentum (the Tories have none) and a big idea over the longer term (the Tories have to find one). If I was running this (I wouldn't want to) then merging with Reform (aka "New Tory" or Conservative+) has the potential to deliver momentum (but not without risk).
In terms of the big idea, if we can all agree that the Empire 2.0 project is dead, then we have to decide who to hitch our wagon to.
I'd look to get back into the EU but that's not going to wash with Conservative+
So that leaves the US, and specifically Trump and Project 2025. The Project 2025 stuff leaves me utterly cold (Project Handmaid might be a better title) and I would fight it tooth and nail, but for Conservative+ and US-backing some sort of 'Project 2029' might yield strong results:
- return to family values and what the US calls under the Orwellian phrase 'headship' (strong male head of the family, women very much in supporting/child-rearing role) - massive bonfire of eco-laws - pun very much intended - DoJ under direct parliamentary control - a version of unitary executive theory to attenuate the 'enemies of the people' judges - extreme anti-immigration (read John Lanchester's 'The Wall' for ideas on how a Net Zero Immigration policy would have to work)
You get the idea.
Just typing all this makes me feel extremely queasy. It's a dystopian wishlist. But there must be conversations like this going on, Truss and JRM have the time and contacts to work in the background to make it happen.
Be interested to get others' opinions. I hope everyone else is as queasy as I am reading this...
First, thanks for the thoughtful response and please feel free to contribute a little more. I don't think you're the only "Bookseller" in these parts.
You're not wrong would be my simplistic response.
It is the fundamental question with which we've struggled since 1945 - what is or should be Britain's place in the world?
MacMillan and Heath decided Europe was the political and economic future and that was the prevailing belief in Government from 1956 to 2016. Yet our membership of the EU was often half hearted and rebate obsessed - yes, we enjoyed free trade (and in truth most would happily sign up to the old "Common Market" now) but Europe wanted monetary and eventually political union. We didn't want to be a part of Europe so we choose to be apart from Europe.
I don't know what "Global Britain" was meant to be in 2016 and I still don't know. Clearly, trying to resurrect some kind of post-Imperial relationship with Canada, Australia and New Zealand (why not South Africa or India?) doesn't work - these countries have other geo-strategic concerns.
We're then dead in the water - I argued for framing a new EFTA as an economic counterweight to the EU bringing in countries like Switzerland, Norway and others but that went nowhere.
If we try to re-engage with the EU we're going to have to swallow a double portion of humble pie with a side order of humiliation (it may be the EU is entering a more pragmatic phase as leaders change) but that's an option. We can hope the Democrats prevail in November but even if they do the pull of the Pacific and China will still be there.
Up to a point, Governments can operate without a long-term objective for "place in the world" - the current position of being somewhere in between the EU and the US is a workable approach that copes with 80% of international issues. Obviusly if the US goes for Trump it becomes significantly harder, and the case for working as closely as possible with the EU becomes very strong. Labour's stance is basically to work closely with them where it doesn't require a treaty. The EU isn't without its problems either and drifting to being closely associated with them without rejoining may be the least bad option for the next 10 years.
This is I think a pragmatic approach and one I could get behind in the absence of widespread support for rejoining. I think there is a definite route open to our traditional role of US-EU 'bridge' but that may mean some fancy footwork at both ends as political winds change.
Amused to see Starmer is meeting European leaders at Blenheim Palace. The War of the Spanish Succession was of course a great example of European cooperation... but I am not sure what Macron will make of it
One of Dave's best acts as Foreign Secretary was to choose Blenheim Palace as the location.
Any party that decides to change the Eurostar terminus from St. Pancras back to Waterloo station will win my vote for life.
Bugger that last for a game of commuters on the Tube. It's bad enough not having direct connections with Eurostar from the north *in the same station* without having that added as well.
I say that as somebody who is from Sheffield and uses St Pancras a lot.
Plus, hang on, you use the Tube? You utter peasant, use Uber Luxury, that's the way to travel in London.
in a related matter, I will probably be using Eurostar a couple of times coming from Edinburgh soon. Is 50 mins to transfer and check in enough?
No.
It can be hit and miss.
Most times the queues are quite short, but occasionally the queues resemble the first 30 mins of Saving Private Ryan.
If you’re coming down to King’s X then I’d advise getting to King’s X about two hours before your schedule departure.
The very well paid chair of a government quango being held to account for gross incompetence? Surely that is not the way this sort of thing is done?
..After Mr Malkinson’s exoneration, BBC News sought an interview with Ms Pitcher but the CCRC said she couldn’t speak publicly until after this report had been published. Today, she is unavailable for interview for personal reasons...
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/17/senator-biden-pass-the-torch-00168784 ...After one address, I believe in 1994, one of the lawmakers I pigeonholed was Sen. Joe Biden, who was then in his early 50s. I’d interviewed him a few times before, but certainly not enough to expect him to lower his guard. We chatted about President Bill Clinton’s speech. And then the topic turned to Biden’s ambition to become chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The then-holder of that office, Claiborne Pell, was in his late 70s and showing signs of the Parkinson’s disease that he’d later disclose.
I asked Biden if given Pell’s diminished capacity, he’d make a move to replace him. “That poor son of a bitch,” Biden replied. Pell was no longer up for the job, he told me, but like so many of his elderly colleagues, Pell couldn’t imagine a life outside Congress.
I was stunned by Biden’s comments. Not by his analysis of Pell, which was spot on. But what surprised me was Biden’s casual willingness to share candid thoughts with a reporter whom he didn’t know well and had no reason to trust. It was the type of indiscretion that has followed Biden to this day. In this case, it didn’t do any harm. I had no intention of writing about Pell. But it’s not every day a senator refers to a colleague with that kind of language, so the moment stayed with me...
More interesting the more you read it. Pigeonholed in the first sentence is an error for buttonholed, so perhaps the author is showing early signs of something himself. Thereafter it is carefully dressed up to make it look as if he's not betraying a confidence when I think that's exactly what he is doing - whether it was an unexpected confidence is neither here nor there.
Errr.. anything you blab to a reporter can be assumed to be in tomorrow's paper. Unless unambiguously "off the record".
The very well paid chair of a government quango being held to account for gross incompetence? Surely that is not the way this sort of thing is done?
Good. She has about 7 or 8 other jobs. She can go back to flogging timeshares in Montenegro or whatever she was doing there when poor Mr Malkinson was finally released.
Amused to see Starmer is meeting European leaders at Blenheim Palace. The War of the Spanish Succession was of course a great example of European cooperation... but I am not sure what Macron will make of it
One of Dave's best acts as Foreign Secretary was to choose Blenheim Palace as the location.
Any party that decides to change the Eurostar terminus from St. Pancras back to Waterloo station will win my vote for life.
Bugger that last for a game of commuters on the Tube. It's bad enough not having direct connections with Eurostar from the north *in the same station* without having that added as well.
I say that as somebody who is from Sheffield and uses St Pancras a lot.
Plus, hang on, you use the Tube? You utter peasant, use Uber Luxury, that's the way to travel in London.
in a related matter, I will probably be using Eurostar a couple of times coming from Edinburgh soon. Is 50 mins to transfer and check in enough?
And there is an added risk that your train will be delayed getting into Kings Cross..
Were it me I would be getting there at least 1 hour earlier than you are thinking - there are plenty of nice / reasonable places to kill time if you arrive too early.
The very well paid chair of a government quango being held to account for gross incompetence? Surely that is not the way this sort of thing is done?
Sigh. This is the process, when unambiguous guilt is proven.
Don't worry. She will be removed from her post. But then
1) be given a golden goodbye under "the rules" 2) a gold plated pension 3) accidentally given a more responsible job, elsewhere, with a pay rise and a golden hello. 4) do an interview fro the glossy magazine, in a year or 2 time. Set in a photo shoot of her lovely house in the country, it will explain her troubles and travails as the victim in the whole matter.
Amused to see Starmer is meeting European leaders at Blenheim Palace. The War of the Spanish Succession was of course a great example of European cooperation... but I am not sure what Macron will make of it
One of Dave's best acts as Foreign Secretary was to choose Blenheim Palace as the location.
Any party that decides to change the Eurostar terminus from St. Pancras back to Waterloo station will win my vote for life.
Bugger that last for a game of commuters on the Tube. It's bad enough not having direct connections with Eurostar from the north *in the same station* without having that added as well.
I say that as somebody who is from Sheffield and uses St Pancras a lot.
Plus, hang on, you use the Tube? You utter peasant, use Uber Luxury, that's the way to travel in London.
in a related matter, I will probably be using Eurostar a couple of times coming from Edinburgh soon. Is 50 mins to transfer and check in enough?
I'd give myself longer than that. Catch the previous train from Edinburgh?
That's what I thought - being environmentally responsible ain't easy.
The very well paid chair of a government quango being held to account for gross incompetence? Surely that is not the way this sort of thing is done?
Sigh. This is the process, when unambiguous guilt is proven.
Don't worry. She will be removed from her post. But then
1) be given a golden goodbye under "the rules" 2) a gold plated pension 3) accidentally given a more responsible job, elsewhere, with a pay rise and a golden hello. 4) do an interview fro the glossy magazine, in a year or 2 time. Set in a photo shoot of her lovely house in the country, it will explain her troubles and travails as the victim in the whole matter.
The very well paid chair of a government quango being held to account for gross incompetence? Surely that is not the way this sort of thing is done?
Sigh. This is the process, when unambiguous guilt is proven.
Don't worry. She will be removed from her post. But then
1) be given a golden goodbye under "the rules" 2) a gold plated pension 3) accidentally given a more responsible job, elsewhere, with a pay rise and a golden hello. 4) do an interview fro the glossy magazine, in a year or 2 time. Set in a photo shoot of her lovely house in the country, it will explain her troubles and travails as the victim in the whole matter.
NU10K
The great and the good.
Always amazes me just how many jobs these people seem to find time for.
.....Much of it done by Johnson and Truss. Interestingly I count 25 women in the shot and 18 men. That rebalance is one of the great advances of this parliament and something that hints the country might be moving forward on several fronts
Why are people with different genitals a "great advance"? It is neither an advance nor a retreat in itself. What we need are the best people, regardless of their gender.
One of the positive things about May (perhaps unfairly) and especially Truss, is that they prove that women can be just as much a failure, or as incompetent, as men. The idea that putting a woman in charge is a magic solution to an organisation's woes is, I fear, a false one.
Nicola Sturgeon Cressida Dick Dido Harding Helen Pitcher Paula Vennells Alice Perkins Amanda Spielman Hillary Clinton
The very well paid chair of a government quango being held to account for gross incompetence? Surely that is not the way this sort of thing is done?
Sigh. This is the process, when unambiguous guilt is proven.
Don't worry. She will be removed from her post. But then
1) be given a golden goodbye under "the rules" 2) a gold plated pension 3) accidentally given a more responsible job, elsewhere, with a pay rise and a golden hello. 4) do an interview fro the glossy magazine, in a year or 2 time. Set in a photo shoot of her lovely house in the country, it will explain her troubles and travails as the victim in the whole matter.
Check to see in any of that is reduced. It won't be, I bet.
Let us see if she has to step down from "Chair of Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC)" which she has since last year.
Of course she should. It is an obvious conflict of interest.
How Starmer ensures that conflicts of interest - what they are and how damaging they are - are properly understood and either avoided or properly mitigated - will be one of the key tests of whether his government really will improve governance and clean up our politics and public life.
The very well paid chair of a government quango being held to account for gross incompetence? Surely that is not the way this sort of thing is done?
Sigh. This is the process, when unambiguous guilt is proven.
Don't worry. She will be removed from her post. But then
1) be given a golden goodbye under "the rules" 2) a gold plated pension 3) accidentally given a more responsible job, elsewhere, with a pay rise and a golden hello. 4) do an interview fro the glossy magazine, in a year or 2 time. Set in a photo shoot of her lovely house in the country, it will explain her troubles and travails as the victim in the whole matter.
NU10K
The great and the good.
Always amazes me just how many jobs these people seem to find time for.
We live in the world where, in the Kids Company case, the Judge said it would be unfair to hold the trustees legally liable for their legal liabilities since as busy people, they couldn't spend all their time looking into the ascents of the legal liabilities they had *voluntarily* taken on.
Amused to see Starmer is meeting European leaders at Blenheim Palace. The War of the Spanish Succession was of course a great example of European cooperation... but I am not sure what Macron will make of it
One of Dave's best acts as Foreign Secretary was to choose Blenheim Palace as the location.
Any party that decides to change the Eurostar terminus from St. Pancras back to Waterloo station will win my vote for life.
Bugger that last for a game of commuters on the Tube. It's bad enough not having direct connections with Eurostar from the north *in the same station* without having that added as well.
I say that as somebody who is from Sheffield and uses St Pancras a lot.
Plus, hang on, you use the Tube? You utter peasant, use Uber Luxury, that's the way to travel in London.
in a related matter, I will probably be using Eurostar a couple of times coming from Edinburgh soon. Is 50 mins to transfer and check in enough?
No.
It can be hit and miss.
Most times the queues are quite short, but occasionally the queues resemble the first 30 mins of Saving Private Ryan.
If you’re coming down to King’s X then I’d advise getting to King’s X about two hours before your schedule departure.
Eurostar advise arriving 90 mins before check-in.
There are quite pleasant restaurants around that you could plan to visit.
The very well paid chair of a government quango being held to account for gross incompetence? Surely that is not the way this sort of thing is done?
Sigh. This is the process, when unambiguous guilt is proven.
Don't worry. She will be removed from her post. But then
1) be given a golden goodbye under "the rules" 2) a gold plated pension 3) accidentally given a more responsible job, elsewhere, with a pay rise and a golden hello. 4) do an interview fro the glossy magazine, in a year or 2 time. Set in a photo shoot of her lovely house in the country, it will explain her troubles and travails as the victim in the whole matter.
NU10K
The great and the good.
Always amazes me just how many jobs these people seem to find time for.
The lazy and the incurious.
If you do no work at all and just collect your salary there is virtually no limit to the number of "jobs" you can have.
.....Much of it done by Johnson and Truss. Interestingly I count 25 women in the shot and 18 men. That rebalance is one of the great advances of this parliament and something that hints the country might be moving forward on several fronts
Why are people with different genitals a "great advance"? It is neither an advance nor a retreat in itself. What we need are the best people, regardless of their gender.
One of the positive things about May (perhaps unfairly) and especially Truss, is that they prove that women can be just as much a failure, or as incompetent, as men. The idea that putting a woman in charge is a magic solution to an organisation's woes is, I fear, a false one.
Nicola Sturgeon Cressida Dick Dido Harding Helen Pitcher Paula Vennells Alice Perkins Amanda Spielman Hillary Clinton
The NU10K is much more diverse than the Old 10K in their... appearance.
Amused to see Starmer is meeting European leaders at Blenheim Palace. The War of the Spanish Succession was of course a great example of European cooperation... but I am not sure what Macron will make of it
One of Dave's best acts as Foreign Secretary was to choose Blenheim Palace as the location.
Any party that decides to change the Eurostar terminus from St. Pancras back to Waterloo station will win my vote for life.
Bugger that last for a game of commuters on the Tube. It's bad enough not having direct connections with Eurostar from the north *in the same station* without having that added as well.
I say that as somebody who is from Sheffield and uses St Pancras a lot.
Plus, hang on, you use the Tube? You utter peasant, use Uber Luxury, that's the way to travel in London.
in a related matter, I will probably be using Eurostar a couple of times coming from Edinburgh soon. Is 50 mins to transfer and check in enough?
No.
It can be hit and miss.
Most times the queues are quite short, but occasionally the queues resemble the first 30 mins of Saving Private Ryan.
If you’re coming down to King’s X then I’d advise getting to King’s X about two hours before your schedule departure.
Eurostar advise arriving 90 mins before check-in.
There are quite pleasant restaurants around that you could plan to visit.
I used to go to a Carluccio's in St Pancras.
Obvs too downmarket for TSE.
I can also recommend Searcys in St Pancras station, it is a lovely working man’s champagne bar and eatery.
Quite odd that nobody has stated the obvious conclusion that 'Hallett' has been completely pointless. You can see how all the commentators fancy a bit of the future long-running committee action.
I mentioned my car was stolen last week and that the police didn’t bother going to check the last tracked location until the next morning by which time it had gone.
Well, after processing the insurance claim, ordering a replacement car, sending the keys back and starting to move on I get a call from the Met police today saying they’ve found it. Parked a few hundred metres from where we live, but with the plates changed and the inside damaged and tracker removed.
Mixed news, and more faff. But at least now they have a good chance of catching the crooks. Right?
Because the theft was not aggravated (there was no violence or RTA involved) they are “not doing any forensics on it”.
That’s right, car theft remains a legal activity so long as you drive carefully and don’t punch anybody.
Our van was broken into electronically in Dorset and if we hadn't had an old school Stoplock fitted to it, I think it would have been nicked. The thieves had pulled all the right fuses and messed with the OBD port, probably to to bypass the immobiliser, but had clearly been spooked or forgotten their battery angle grinder. They were caught on a neighbouring Airbnb apartment cctv, and had successfully nicked another Transporter just down the road. I couldn't speak to the rozzers to report it as they don't have staff to record crimes and it had to be done online. Literally 6 hours later, I get an automated email telling me the crime will be filed as "Undetected". I doubt any human spent more than a couple of minutes looking into it.
Interesting but somewhat different case recently here.
About 3 weeks ago, 3 or 4 scrotes went through the village one night breaking into cars, sheds and garages and nicking anything they could get their hands on> they were caught on various CCTVs which weer then given to the police.
Within about 24 hours the police had identifed them, arrested them and got a significant portion of the stolen goods back. They were well known to the local cops so it was a fairly straightforward arrest for them.
The problem being of course that it is extremely unlikely they youths will get any sort of sentence that actually serves as a deterent. So of course they will be back at it again soon.
But the police actually did their job and caught them which is all you can ask of them.
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
No he shouldn't, the King has said nothing, the Telegraph has and is absolutely right that Labour has no mandate to remove the Earl Marshal and LGC.
I would expect a non Tory Liberal like you however not to stand up for our hereditary peers but Tory MPs certainly should do, they should oppose this Bill and Tory peers try and delay it as long as possible
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
It’s a debate about democracy.
The King is stopping a manifesto commitment of his elected government.
Nope, thats just you warped view of it. Thankfully it is not a view shared by anyone sane.
House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
I am not arguing against the removal of the hereditaries, just TSE's fanatical and ill informed republicanism.
Another reason to ditch the monarchy, it subverts democracy/the will of the people.
Sir Keir Starmer might be forced to keep two hereditary peers because of their links to the King.
The Prime Minister has pledged to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords by making all those aged 80 and above step down.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will remove their right to sit and vote in Parliament’s upper chamber after officials criticised the “outdated and indefensible” presence of those who were there solely by right of birth.
It is considered the first step in Sir Keir’s efforts to modernise the Lords and make it “fit for the 21st century”.
However, of the 92 remaining hereditary peers, the roles of the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain are likely to be exempt because of the constitutional role they play on state occasions, sources admitted.
The Earl Marshal is a hereditary office that requires him to organise major ceremonial occasions.
No it doesn't, he had no manifesto commitment to remove the monarchy or the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain.
Indeed Tories should oppose all this act of constitutional vandalism, Labour may have had a manifesto commitment to remove the remaining hereditary peers, the Tories didn't
The Salisbury-Addison convention applies, the King should shut the eff up or run for election.
He’s worse than that Nazi lover Edward VIII who actually listened to his government.
Oh dear, the republican virus infects the debate again.
It’s a debate about democracy.
The King is stopping a manifesto commitment of his elected government.
Nope, thats just you warped view of it. Thankfully it is not a view shared by anyone sane.
House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
I am not arguing against the removal of the hereditaries, just TSE's fanatical and ill informed republicanism.
NOBODY expects the Republicans! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to.... something.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
Comments
Nailed on to make it two in a row.
The King is stopping a manifesto commitment of his elected government.
How does she think?
What does she do when alone?
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-public-failed-by-governments-which-prepared-for-wrong-pandemic-ahead-of-covid-19-inquiry-finds-13180197
Link to report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-covid-19-inquiry-resilience-and-preparedness-module-1-report
So strange to be represented, not by some narcissistic sociopath that makes everything about him, or someone impenetrably stupid who thinks "the jury is out" on whether France is an ally, or someone so tin-eared and indifferent he leaves halfway through. To not feel shame. ~AA
https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1813882012496736400
Brussels still has to adapt to the increased weight of Eastern European countries and absorb the changes, we have out learnings from a Conservative Govt not competent enough to run a bath. And if the USA elects Trump, and he follows through on his policies, it will be shooting itself through the head, and Europe - including the EU and the UK - will have to stand on our own feet.
I think the Conservatives first need a philosophy and some principles, before they can get onto an idea.
For many visitors to London in the 1900s it must have been an astonishing thing. (They wouldn't really have seen very much of it in photographs, and not on film)
While he doesn't look like someone you'd back to do another full year, let alone four, the 25th A suggestion is just malice from the opponents of the Democrats. It's not a practical proposition - and if the cabinet did attempt it, the GOP would probably enjoy arguing that it was improperly invoked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Officers_of_State_(United_Kingdom)#Lord_High_Steward
They don't need to sit in the Lords anyway.
I mentioned my car was stolen last week and that the police didn’t bother going to check the last tracked location until the next morning by which time it had gone.
Well, after processing the insurance claim, ordering a replacement car, sending the keys back and starting to move on I get a call from the Met police today saying they’ve found it. Parked a few hundred metres from where we live, but with the plates changed and the inside damaged and tracker removed.
Mixed news, and more faff. But at least now they have a good chance of catching the crooks. Right?
Because the theft was not aggravated (there was no violence or RTA involved) they are “not doing any forensics on it”.
That’s right, car theft remains a legal activity so long as you drive carefully and don’t punch anybody.
The Telegraph has am unsourced piece with a series of speculations, and is less reliable than the Beano as a newspaper of record - as we know.
And I think TSE is missing PB's answer to Napoleon Solo, and is putting on a panto himself in the absence of a guest performance.
A year after the destruction of Ukraine's Kakhovka Dam, vegetation cover in formerly irrigated parts of the southern Kherson region and Crimea has fallen by 85% or more. It's a sign that the former breadbasket region is reverting rapidly to its previous semi-desert state...
https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1813685955217572188
It's another data point which suggests that any permanent ceasefire deal is highly unlikely to be kept.
Either he accepts (or is persuaded to accept) that it's time to go, or the Democrats are screwed.
I don't expect him to recant again on Europe, quite this early.
He said the Lord policy was directed at reducing the numbers in a fair way, or some such guff, rather than a comment on capacity,
Do we have a link?
God, I miss Ducky.
Edit: I just spotted 1951 is highlighted blue when it should be red, apols.
Lunch.
No Socks on the menu
Your suggestion that The Beano is anything other than The Sacred Publication Of Truth And Record is an abomination.
This matter can only be settled in the old way.
Pistols for two upon Hyde Park. Breakfast for one at Wilton’s.
Trump supporters say ear bandages are 'sign of love'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cldy39vpv4qo
is an absolute ringer for @Emilyhewertson on X (Who I presume lives off of either a trust fund somewhere or payments from 'the gram')
I don't think they're the same person !
I doubt any human spent more than a couple of minutes looking into it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pdueqvZV7U
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cger11kjk1jo
At last. A waste of everyone's time that favours the articulate middle classes. Next stop should be to end interviews.
But he's quite diplomatic.
"The trenches were as devoid of cephalopods as they were of comfort."
https://x.com/emollick/status/1813753156431384851
https://x.com/LiviaBellona/status/1813899061210276265
For someone who a sizeable chunk of PBers find distasteful/annoying/horrible and some would like to see run off the site, you sure do spend a lot of time talking about the fella when he's not around.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/17/senator-biden-pass-the-torch-00168784
...After one address, I believe in 1994, one of the lawmakers I pigeonholed was Sen. Joe Biden, who was then in his early 50s. I’d interviewed him a few times before, but certainly not enough to expect him to lower his guard. We chatted about President Bill Clinton’s speech. And then the topic turned to Biden’s ambition to become chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The then-holder of that office, Claiborne Pell, was in his late 70s and showing signs of the Parkinson’s disease that he’d later disclose.
I asked Biden if given Pell’s diminished capacity, he’d make a move to replace him. “That poor son of a bitch,” Biden replied. Pell was no longer up for the job, he told me, but like so many of his elderly colleagues, Pell couldn’t imagine a life outside Congress.
I was stunned by Biden’s comments. Not by his analysis of Pell, which was spot on. But what surprised me was Biden’s casual willingness to share candid thoughts with a reporter whom he didn’t know well and had no reason to trust. It was the type of indiscretion that has followed Biden to this day. In this case, it didn’t do any harm. I had no intention of writing about Pell. But it’s not every day a senator refers to a colleague with that kind of language, so the moment stayed with me...
And (picture of the day) Socks does bear a certain resemblance to a Kitler.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_That_Look_Like_Hitler
Gloriously, the Telegraph reported on a Kitler that could not get adopted because it looked like him, and did Sieg Heils.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8669983/Hitler-cat-overlooked-for-adoption-because-of-markings.html
The very well paid chair of a government quango being held to account for gross incompetence? Surely that is not the way this sort of thing is done?
If you like watching videos about quirky aspects of London's transport system, Jago Hazzard's channel is one of the most interesting imo.
His latest videos is "Abandoned Stations in South London: Commercial Dock and Southwark Park"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K5H_0WSeHs
(15k voters across battleground states.)
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000190-be78-dd41-afb9-fefc35f00000
..BY A NEARLY 2:1 MARGIN, DEMOCRATIC VOTERS SAY THE PARTY SHOULD
CHOOSE ‘THE BEST NOMINEE NO MATTER WHO’ IF BIDEN DOESN'T RUN..
In the light of this, you might consider the odd hedge bet sensible.
Like climate change, I think things would have to get a lot worse for the majority in the UK before that would happen. We'll have to take a double helping of Euro+Schengen to be admitted back in. And as much as I am a rejoiner I just can't see that happening in the current climate.
Some form of non-US European NATO-follower organisations might be one route back.
And it wasn't off the record, so entirely fair game, I think. There's no such thing as a 'confidence' between politician and journalist if you're not explicitly off the record, whether unexpected or not.
Don't worry. She will be removed from her post. But then
1) be given a golden goodbye under "the rules"
2) a gold plated pension
3) accidentally given a more responsible job, elsewhere, with a pay rise and a golden hello.
4) do an interview fro the glossy magazine, in a year or 2 time. Set in a photo shoot of her lovely house in the country, it will explain her troubles and travails as the victim in the whole matter.
NU10K
It can be hit and miss.
Most times the queues are quite short, but occasionally the queues resemble the first 30 mins of Saving Private Ryan.
If you’re coming down to King’s X then I’d advise getting to King’s X about two hours before your schedule departure.
Eurostar advise arriving 90 mins before check-in.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/15/england-european-championship-gareth-southgate-jurgen-klopp
And there is an added risk that your train will be delayed getting into Kings Cross..
Were it me I would be getting there at least 1 hour earlier than you are thinking - there are plenty of nice / reasonable places to kill time if you arrive too early.
Check to see in any of that is reduced. It won't be, I bet.
Let us see if she has to step down from "Chair of Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC)" which she has since last year.
Always amazes me just how many jobs these people seem to find time for.
Cressida Dick
Dido Harding
Helen Pitcher
Paula Vennells
Alice Perkins
Amanda Spielman
Hillary Clinton
How Starmer ensures that conflicts of interest - what they are and how damaging they are - are properly understood and either avoided or properly mitigated - will be one of the key tests of whether his government really will improve governance and clean up our politics and public life.
I used to go to a Carluccio's in St Pancras.
Obvs too downmarket for TSE.
If you do no work at all and just collect your salary there is virtually no limit to the number of "jobs" you can have.
From having met some, the mindset is introduced by a process documented here - https://youtu.be/OrzgxUhnYjY?si=r7JnqYGQoa8mL-Rf
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/18/republican-national-convention-prayer-harmeet-dhillon
I’ve spent a many a happy hour in there.
About 3 weeks ago, 3 or 4 scrotes went through the village one night breaking into cars, sheds and garages and nicking anything they could get their hands on> they were caught on various CCTVs which weer then given to the police.
Within about 24 hours the police had identifed them, arrested them and got a significant portion of the stolen goods back. They were well known to the local cops so it was a fairly straightforward arrest for them.
The problem being of course that it is extremely unlikely they youths will get any sort of sentence that actually serves as a deterent. So of course they will be back at it again soon.
But the police actually did their job and caught them which is all you can ask of them.
I would expect a non Tory Liberal like you however not to stand up for our hereditary peers but Tory MPs certainly should do, they should oppose this Bill and Tory peers try and delay it as long as possible