Really hard to support any party at the minute. For the first time, possibly ever, I went into the voting booth today having no idea whom I was going to vote for.
In the end was swayed by the fact that the only person outside the booth with a badge on was for Reform and I saw multiple people today campaigning for Reform and nobody else. That made me vote Lib Dem.
Logic being that had to vote for whomever would beat the racists, and the incumbent Councillor is a Lib Dem, so vote for them to beat the racists. Feels like as good a logic as any possible.
OK, I'm no Reformer but they're not the BNP or the National Front.
So I find the logic hyperbolic, simplistic and childish. If I'd read it and hadn't voted yet in that constituency I'd now go out and vote Reform.
See how this works??
What's the discernible difference between the BNP and 'zero net migration' 'save our culture' Reform?
Zero net migration implies quite substantial inward migration will continue.
Really hard to support any party at the minute. For the first time, possibly ever, I went into the voting booth today having no idea whom I was going to vote for.
In the end was swayed by the fact that the only person outside the booth with a badge on was for Reform and I saw multiple people today campaigning for Reform and nobody else. That made me vote Lib Dem.
Logic being that had to vote for whomever would beat the racists, and the incumbent Councillor is a Lib Dem, so vote for them to beat the racists. Feels like as good a logic as any possible.
OK, I'm no Reformer but they're not the BNP or the National Front.
So I find the logic hyperbolic, simplistic and childish. If I'd read it and hadn't voted yet in that constituency I'd now go out and vote Reform.
See how this works??
What's the discernible difference between the BNP and 'zero net migration' 'save our culture' Reform?
Zero net migration implies quite substantial inward migration will continue.
That would be an astonishingly good result for Labour. I can't see them gaining seats.
The point is that the results were so bad last time that it really is hard to see how Labour could not make at least some gains. Labour may gain 50-60 seats and that would look good against the idea that they would gain nothing.
The interesting thing is that on this thread, as elsewhere, there seems to be quite a bit of anti RefUk tactical voting. I think Trump may have put a lid on RefUk breaking out from places like Lincs where they already do well. The media expectation, let us not forget, is that RefUK is the prime beneficiary of the Tory collapse.
Yet Runcorn is as solid Labour as it gets, but RefUk are now expected to win- honestly, that is just not a likely result. So, what we may see tomorrow is that RefUK gains quite a few councillors, but does not break out of its Eastern counties areas, and generally underperforms. Even if they win in Lincs, they could fail by the benchmark of overinflated expectations.
The Tories could lose half the seats they are defending and against the benchmark of expectations, it looks good.
Against expectations, the Lib Dems might end up being be the ones that steal RefUk´s thunder- gaining control of a lot more councils, and just possibly winning more councillors than RefUK. Certainly hearing of stronger canvassing than expected in many places where there is now an incumbent Lib Dem MP, and that includes Shropshire as well as Gloucs, Devon, Oxon, Cambs, Warks, Wilts, and Cornwall.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
I have not read the article but there are always further arguments as to how the law (as clarified by the Supreme Court) applies to future novel situations
Really hard to support any party at the minute. For the first time, possibly ever, I went into the voting booth today having no idea whom I was going to vote for.
In the end was swayed by the fact that the only person outside the booth with a badge on was for Reform and I saw multiple people today campaigning for Reform and nobody else. That made me vote Lib Dem.
Logic being that had to vote for whomever would beat the racists, and the incumbent Councillor is a Lib Dem, so vote for them to beat the racists. Feels like as good a logic as any possible.
OK, I'm no Reformer but they're not the BNP or the National Front.
So I find the logic hyperbolic, simplistic and childish. If I'd read it and hadn't voted yet in that constituency I'd now go out and vote Reform.
See how this works??
What's the discernible difference between the BNP and 'zero net migration' 'save our culture' Reform?
BNP wanted an all-white Britain and to repatriate non-whites.
Do Reform want the same?
The former BNP/ EDL wing certainly do.
Suppose there are varying grades of racial disdain in the broad church that is Reform. A bit like Labour, and the radical Tory Blair breaking break with the lunatic fringe Corbyn.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
I have not read the article but there are always further arguments as to how the law (as clarified by the Supreme Court) applies to future novel situations
Which would be a different claim to not being law 'yet' though.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
Really hard to support any party at the minute. For the first time, possibly ever, I went into the voting booth today having no idea whom I was going to vote for.
In the end was swayed by the fact that the only person outside the booth with a badge on was for Reform and I saw multiple people today campaigning for Reform and nobody else. That made me vote Lib Dem.
Logic being that had to vote for whomever would beat the racists, and the incumbent Councillor is a Lib Dem, so vote for them to beat the racists. Feels like as good a logic as any possible.
OK, I'm no Reformer but they're not the BNP or the National Front.
So I find the logic hyperbolic, simplistic and childish. If I'd read it and hadn't voted yet in that constituency I'd now go out and vote Reform.
See how this works??
What's the discernible difference between the BNP and 'zero net migration' 'save our culture' Reform?
Every immigrant to the UK was welcome to join in with British culture, and millions have. The problem is the millions who just continued with their own culture, especially when it clashes with that of the country they came to. The same would stand if it were British people moving en masse to other countries and living as if they were still in the UK; the lager swilling, English breakfast eating, sun reading folk in the Spanish Costas that self declared non racists like to mock, for instance. Imagine if they moved to Sri Lanka and started behaving like that, and 50 years later, large swathes of major Sri Lankan cities were dominated by your stereotypical Reform voting slob. I'd think the Sri Lankans were entitled to say "no more"
Really hard to support any party at the minute. For the first time, possibly ever, I went into the voting booth today having no idea whom I was going to vote for.
In the end was swayed by the fact that the only person outside the booth with a badge on was for Reform and I saw multiple people today campaigning for Reform and nobody else. That made me vote Lib Dem.
Logic being that had to vote for whomever would beat the racists, and the incumbent Councillor is a Lib Dem, so vote for them to beat the racists. Feels like as good a logic as any possible.
OK, I'm no Reformer but they're not the BNP or the National Front.
So I find the logic hyperbolic, simplistic and childish. If I'd read it and hadn't voted yet in that constituency I'd now go out and vote Reform.
See how this works??
What's the discernible difference between the BNP and 'zero net migration' 'save our culture' Reform?
Every immigrant to the UK was welcome to join in with British culture, and millions have. The problem is the millions who just continued with their own culture, especially when it clashes with that of the country they came to. The same would stand if it were British people moving en masse to other countries and living as if they were still in the UK; the lager swilling, English breakfast eating, sun reading folk in the Spanish Costas that self declared non racists like to mock, for instance. Imagine if they moved to Sri Lanka and started behaving like that, and 50 years later, large swathes of major Sri Lankan cities were dominated by your stereotypical Reform voting slob. I'd think the Sri Lankans were entitled to say "no more"
I just watched Trump sitting at an oval table with his ministers who were being unbearably sycophantic. The only thing I remember seeing which was as cringe making and threatening was something involving Stalin or Saddam many years ago before the ministers were taken out to be shot. I can't find it now but does anyone remember the footage?
I just watched Trump sitting at an oval table with his ministers who were being unbearably sycophantic. The only thing I remember seeing which was as cringe making and threatening was something involving Stalin or Saddam many years ago before the ministers were taken out to be shot. I can't find it now but does anyone remember the footage?
Really hard to support any party at the minute. For the first time, possibly ever, I went into the voting booth today having no idea whom I was going to vote for.
In the end was swayed by the fact that the only person outside the booth with a badge on was for Reform and I saw multiple people today campaigning for Reform and nobody else. That made me vote Lib Dem.
Logic being that had to vote for whomever would beat the racists, and the incumbent Councillor is a Lib Dem, so vote for them to beat the racists. Feels like as good a logic as any possible.
OK, I'm no Reformer but they're not the BNP or the National Front.
So I find the logic hyperbolic, simplistic and childish. If I'd read it and hadn't voted yet in that constituency I'd now go out and vote Reform.
See how this works??
What's the discernible difference between the BNP and 'zero net migration' 'save our culture' Reform?
Every immigrant to the UK was welcome to join in with British culture, and millions have. The problem is the millions who just continued with their own culture, especially when it clashes with that of the country they came to. The same would stand if it were British people moving en masse to other countries and living as if they were still in the UK; the lager swilling, English breakfast eating, sun reading folk in the Spanish Costas that self declared non racists like to mock, for instance. Imagine if they moved to Sri Lanka and started behaving like that, and 50 years later, large swathes of major Sri Lankan cities were dominated by your stereotypical Reform voting slob. I'd think the Sri Lankans were entitled to say "no more"
Lots from Reform; oodles of Ashfield Independent; a bit of Labour; one from the Conservatives; and Lib Dems are elsewhere.
(The Conservative one explains that none of the other candidates are really local.)
As you’re in the locale what do you reckon to the chances of the Broxtowe independents ?
It's complicated.
The Broxtowe Independents are the Labour walkouts in Jan 2025, aren't they? They are now called the Broxtowe Alliance.
There's also something else called the Broxtowe Independent Group, which is a different set of independents. They seem well organised and coherent. BIG have I think 4 incumbents.
Broxtowe Alliance are all (except one) at District Level.
This time there are 6 standing from BA, one of whom I think is an incumbent, and 4 standing from BIG. They seem to have a no-compete agreement, formal or not. It looks to me as if BA are not standing where BIG are incumbent. And maybe vice-versa.
So they could do surprisingly well, depending on how much of the former Labour vote they keep. If you look at their website, BA are very much Labour-style independents, not Reform-style.
No change would be Broxtowe Alliance 1 (out of 9 or 10 total seats I think), and BIG 4. I'd say it would be within one either way for both groups.
If they do well they will ally with Ashfield Independents, unless a return to Labour is negotiated.
I just watched Trump sitting at an oval table with his ministers who were being unbearably sycophantic. The only thing I remember seeing which was as cringe making and threatening was something involving Stalin or Saddam many years ago before the ministers were taken out to be shot. I can't find it now but does anyone remember the footage?
Was it the Death of Stalin?
An interesting comparison was made on the latest Rest is Politics with Mao and the Cultural Revolution, especially around loyalty, ritual kow-towing, attacks on institutions to suppress them, especially education and judiciary, undermining civil society, and the rapidity of the assault.
Really hard to support any party at the minute. For the first time, possibly ever, I went into the voting booth today having no idea whom I was going to vote for.
In the end was swayed by the fact that the only person outside the booth with a badge on was for Reform and I saw multiple people today campaigning for Reform and nobody else. That made me vote Lib Dem.
Logic being that had to vote for whomever would beat the racists, and the incumbent Councillor is a Lib Dem, so vote for them to beat the racists. Feels like as good a logic as any possible.
OK, I'm no Reformer but they're not the BNP or the National Front.
So I find the logic hyperbolic, simplistic and childish. If I'd read it and hadn't voted yet in that constituency I'd now go out and vote Reform.
See how this works??
What's the discernible difference between the BNP and 'zero net migration' 'save our culture' Reform?
Every immigrant to the UK was welcome to join in with British culture, and millions have. The problem is the millions who just continued with their own culture, especially when it clashes with that of the country they came to. The same would stand if it were British people moving en masse to other countries and living as if they were still in the UK; the lager swilling, English breakfast eating, sun reading folk in the Spanish Costas that self declared non racists like to mock, for instance. Imagine if they moved to Sri Lanka and started behaving like that, and 50 years later, large swathes of major Sri Lankan cities were dominated by your stereotypical Reform voting slob. I'd think the Sri Lankans were entitled to say "no more"
What they say simply has no meaning. The SC made no law at all, it simply provided a decision about an ambiguity in the pre-existing law.
The question they answered No to was:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
Labour are way in front in North Tyneside mayoral: Karen Clark (Labour) is 1/10.
But it hasn't been polled (?), nobody with a YouTube has gone up to slum it with people who work for a living, Labour are in the toilet nationally, and I'm thinking: is Reform value here? The Reform candidate is 7/1, which seems like a lot. Is there any info from there related to polling, or even vox pops?
Seems like a good idea to put a small bet on Reform winning, an amount you wouldn't mind losing.
It's the posh bits of Tyneside (Whitley Bay, Tynemouth)... I wouldn't put much money on Reform..
I mean it’s also Wallsend, Meadow Well, Percy Main, Shiremoor…
Growing up in Newcastle in the 1980s I struggle to get my head around the idea of Whitley Bay being posh.
Re-opening Spanish City has helped but it is really no longer the poor relation of Cullercoats and Tynemouth.
I was back in Brum at the weekend. Digbeth, a shithole in the eighties and a really unpleasant place at night, is now gentrified. A bit like Ouseburn.
Makes you wonder what areas that are toilets today will be desirable in 20 years.
I did a spot on a day conference panel about the internet and politics there in around 2008, with ... that unmemorable Labour MP who wrote the "Labour will shortly be returned with an increased majority" memorable article, at an ultralocal blogging day conference.
At that time one of the local sites was called "Digbeth is not shit".
The site that has lasted best from those present is probably Ventnor Blog.
What they say simply has no meaning. The SC made no law at all, it simply provided a decision about an ambiguity in the pre-existing law.
The question they answered No to was:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all.
No doubt stonewall know this, they are just deliberately muddying the waters.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
ECHR cannot overrule our SC. Though parliament may want to take account of it in future legislation.
It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?
Looks like the Long Mynd to me, probably from Wenlock Edge?
Perfect for filling with solar panels.
On Wenlock Edge the wood's in trouble; His forest fleece the Wrekin heaves; The gale, it plies the saplings double, And thick on Severn snow the leaves.
'Twould blow like this through holt and hanger When Uricon the city stood: 'Tis the old wind in the old anger, But then it threshed another wood.
Then, 'twas before my time, the Roman At yonder heaving hill would stare: The blood that warms an English yeoman, The thoughts that hurt him, they were there.
It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?
Looks like the Long Mynd to me, probably from Wenlock Edge?
Perfect for filling with solar panels.
On Wenlock Edge the wood's in trouble; His forest fleece the Wrekin heaves; The gale, it plies the saplings double, And thick on Severn snow the leaves.
'Twould blow like this through holt and hanger When Uricon the city stood: 'Tis the old wind in the old anger, But then it threshed another wood.
Then, 'twas before my time, the Roman At yonder heaving hill would stare: The blood that warms an English yeoman, The thoughts that hurt him, they were there.
I just watched Trump sitting at an oval table with his ministers who were being unbearably sycophantic. The only thing I remember seeing which was as cringe making and threatening was something involving Stalin or Saddam many years ago before the ministers were taken out to be shot. I can't find it now but does anyone remember the footage?
Which is a reminder of the incredible lack of courage, conviction and backbone these people have. Every day USA comedians, pundits and commentators openly make merciless fun of this disgusting regime and live to tell the tale, while these people act as if they have to keep clapping to stay alive like in North Korea and Stalin's Russia.
I have some sympathy for the poor slaves caught in the spider's web of power in North Korea. Once there they have no way out in this world. These people, like members of congress could do the right thing at little risk. One day this will so so contemptible.
It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?
Looks like the Long Mynd to me, probably from Wenlock Edge?
Perfect for filling with solar panels.
On Wenlock Edge the wood's in trouble; His forest fleece the Wrekin heaves; The gale, it plies the saplings double, And thick on Severn snow the leaves.
'Twould blow like this through holt and hanger When Uricon the city stood: 'Tis the old wind in the old anger, But then it threshed another wood.
Then, 'twas before my time, the Roman At yonder heaving hill would stare: The blood that warms an English yeoman, The thoughts that hurt him, they were there.
Best accompanied per Vaughan Williams, of course.
Yes. The words and VW's music are, in my brain, not separable.
What they say simply has no meaning. The SC made no law at all, it simply provided a decision about an ambiguity in the pre-existing law.
The question they answered No to was:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all.
No doubt stonewall know this, they are just deliberately muddying the waters.
This pervasive habit of pretty bright people deliberately distorting stuff so that soft minded enthusiasts will believe something that isn't correct is not great.
All they had to do was to accept that the SC is our final arbiter of legal problems and uncertainties, and that a statutory body now has the task of reviewing its statutory guidance in the light of their decision about the meaning of the law, and until then please don't panic.
Trump on his faith advisers: "They work right out of the White House. That's never been done before. No other president allowed that. They say 'separation between church and state.' I said, alright, let's forget about that for one time."
Dr. Phil, at this White House National Day of Prayer event, says of Trump: "I've sat with President Trump with no cameras around, nobody listening, nobody watching. And I'm telling you, this is a man of deep faith, a man of deep conviction."
I just watched Trump sitting at an oval table with his ministers who were being unbearably sycophantic. The only thing I remember seeing which was as cringe making and threatening was something involving Stalin or Saddam many years ago before the ministers were taken out to be shot. I can't find it now but does anyone remember the footage?
Which is a reminder of the incredible lack of courage, conviction and backbone these people have. Every day USA comedians, pundits and commentators openly make merciless fun of this disgusting regime and live to tell the tale, while these people act as if they have to keep clapping to stay alive like in North Korea and Stalin's Russia.
I have some sympathy for the poor slaves caught in the spider's web of power in North Korea. Once there they have no way out in this world. These people, like members of congress could do the right thing at little risk. One day this will so so contemptible.
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.
And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.
If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.
I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
ECHR cannot overrule our SC. Though parliament may want to take account of it in future legislation.
Or they may not as in the case of votes for prisoners.
Comments
NEW THREAD
The interesting thing is that on this thread, as elsewhere, there seems to be quite a bit of anti RefUk tactical voting. I think Trump may have put a lid on RefUk breaking out from places like Lincs where they already do well. The media expectation, let us not forget, is that RefUK is the prime beneficiary of the Tory collapse.
Yet Runcorn is as solid Labour as it gets, but RefUk are now expected to win- honestly, that is just not a likely result. So, what we may see tomorrow is that RefUK gains quite a few councillors, but does not break out of its Eastern counties areas, and generally underperforms. Even if they win in Lincs, they could fail by the benchmark of overinflated expectations.
The Tories could lose half the seats they are defending and against the benchmark of expectations, it looks good.
Against expectations, the Lib Dems might end up being be the ones that steal RefUk´s thunder- gaining control of a lot more councils, and just possibly winning more councillors than RefUK. Certainly hearing of stronger canvassing than expected in many places where there is now an incumbent Lib Dem MP, and that includes Shropshire as well as Gloucs, Devon, Oxon, Cambs, Warks, Wilts, and Cornwall.
Suppose there are varying grades of racial disdain in the broad church that is Reform. A bit like Labour, and the radical Tory Blair breaking break with the lunatic fringe Corbyn.
Heard it in a tv programme and had to search the soundtrack . Wow this song just embodies that era . Absolutely stunning .
Shifty. Gotta watch 'em.
The Broxtowe Independents are the Labour walkouts in Jan 2025, aren't they? They are now called the Broxtowe Alliance.
There's also something else called the Broxtowe Independent Group, which is a different set of independents. They seem well organised and coherent. BIG have I think 4 incumbents.
Broxtowe Alliance are all (except one) at District Level.
This time there are 6 standing from BA, one of whom I think is an incumbent, and 4 standing from BIG. They seem to have a no-compete agreement, formal or not. It looks to me as if BA are not standing where BIG are incumbent. And maybe vice-versa.
So they could do surprisingly well, depending on how much of the former Labour vote they keep. If you look at their website, BA are very much Labour-style independents, not Reform-style.
No change would be Broxtowe Alliance 1 (out of 9 or 10 total seats I think), and BIG 4. I'd say it would be within one either way for both groups.
If they do well they will ally with Ashfield Independents, unless a return to Labour is negotiated.
Ish.
The question they answered No to was:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a
“woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all.
At that time one of the local sites was called "Digbeth is not shit".
The site that has lasted best from those present is probably Ventnor Blog.
Perfect for filling with solar panels.
His forest fleece the Wrekin heaves;
The gale, it plies the saplings double,
And thick on Severn snow the leaves.
'Twould blow like this through holt and hanger
When Uricon the city stood:
'Tis the old wind in the old anger,
But then it threshed another wood.
Then, 'twas before my time, the Roman
At yonder heaving hill would stare:
The blood that warms an English yeoman,
The thoughts that hurt him, they were there.
I have some sympathy for the poor slaves caught in the spider's web of power in North Korea. Once there they have no way out in this world. These people, like members of congress could do the right thing at little risk. One day this will so so contemptible.
All they had to do was to accept that the SC is our final arbiter of legal problems and uncertainties, and that a statutory body now has the task of reviewing its statutory guidance in the light of their decision about the meaning of the law, and until then please don't panic.
Unfortunately.