Would Labour had an even bigger majority without this front page and strategy by the SNP?

System

Would Labour had an even bigger majority without this front page and strategy by the SNP? – politicalbetting.com

In the constituency part of next year’s Holyrood election it will make tactical voting. a challenge and blunt a key SNP strategy, if this front page had any impact it makes the result rather impressive for Labour.

Read the full story here

rcs1000

Either that, or it demonstrates that the Scottish people simply can't read, and rely on the little pictures next to the text to work out where to put their Xs.

Mexicanpete

Do you know Swinney's PB moniker? Please let us know so we can avoid his future tips.

Battlebus

If only he had said "Winning here ...."

kinabalu

That was a fib, wasn't it.

rcs1000

kinabalu said:

That was a fib, wasn't it.

To be fair, Swinney gets his tips from @MoonRabbit

Mexicanpete

kinabalu said:

That was a fib, wasn't it.

I suspect there was no Party more surprised at the win than SLab, although in media terms the win has been all Reform's.

rcs1000

rcs1000 said:

Either that, or it demonstrates that the Scottish people simply can't read, and rely on the little pictures next to the text to work out where to put their Xs.

Come you mention it, it may simply demonstrate that no one reads the Daily Record.

eek

Daily record sales are now 45,000 from 100,000 in 2020

https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-newspapers-uk-abc-monthly-circulation-figures-2/

Edit and 615,000 in 2000

nico67

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

Either that, or it demonstrates that the Scottish people simply can't read, and rely on the little pictures next to the text to work out where to put their Xs.

The SNP's logo seems to include a subliminal message. Maybe it should be banned?

TheScreamingEagles

Mexicanpete said:

Do you know Swinney's PB moniker? Please let us know so we can avoid his future tips.

Given the utter shiteness of my tips in this by-election I am in fact John Swinney.

However if anyone mentions those tips again I will deploy the Farage photo.

Dopermean

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

You are assuming that the people who enforce the editorial line at BBC news care about the survival of the BBC,

Mexicanpete

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

The BBC have been incredibly enthusiastic today. They are clearly not supportive of Reform but they like to drive the news agenda forward. Who do we think will feature on Kuennsberg on Sunday?

RochdalePioneers

Swinney was given a gift by the Record. Promote yourself on the front page! Give it your best shot!

It failed. He failed. The SNP failed. Again.

Omnium

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mexicanpete said:

Do you know Swinney's PB moniker? Please let us know so we can avoid his future tips.

Given the utter shiteness of my tips in this by-election I am in fact John Swinney.

However if anyone mentions those tips again I will deploy the Farage photo.

Cheer up - it was just a Scottish sub par example.

RochdalePioneers

Off-topic, I see that @CorrectHorseBattery has made a fast start at Threedafone. I have received a letter! Phone contracts ended, you are out of contract. Please choose:
1) Maintain the existing deal with no contract for £10.83 a month
2) Sign a new deal with us for the same package for £17.00 a month plus no free roaming

Hmmmm, which option should I choose???

OldKingCole

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

Theuniondivvie

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

That was a fib, wasn't it.

To be fair, Swinney gets his tips from @MoonRabbit

Perhaps the tipsters pushing the 45-50% vote share for the SNP fell for that front page.

Scott_xP

Mexicanpete said:

Who do we think will feature on Kuennsberg on Sunday?

Zia Yusuf

williamglenn

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.

Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.

We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.

I prefer a model whereby certain things are verboten regardless of what parliament wants.

The best model for that is cultural, so think twice before destroying cultural norms.

Ok but that's unreliable. I'm talking about international bodies with teeth. We're a way off this vision, I know, but it's disappointing to see things moving away rather than towards it. A blip, I hope (with little confidence).

International bodies are also unreliable from that perspective. They could be taken over by JD Vance-style politics and you'll find that the international body intervenes whenever the national government gets a bit too lefty. There's a strong possibility that this is the future of the European institutions under the influence of Meloni, PiS, et al.

MattW

FPT:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Don’t get me overexcited

By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.

Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like

Howling at the moon, I think.

Yaxley-Lennon declared himself bankrupt in 2021, when he was trying to avoid taking responsibility for himself.

Therefore he is not eligible to be an MP, and therefore not PM.

algarkirk

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

eek

RochdalePioneers said:

Off-topic, I see that @CorrectHorseBattery has made a fast start at Threedafone. I have received a letter! Phone contracts ended, you are out of contract. Please choose:
1) Maintain the existing deal with no contract for £10.83 a month
2) Sign a new deal with us for the same package for £17.00 a month plus no free roaming

Hmmmm, which option should I choose???

If they are claiming option 2 is the same they are lying

BartholomewRoberts

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

RochdalePioneers

eek said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Off-topic, I see that @CorrectHorseBattery has made a fast start at Threedafone. I have received a letter! Phone contracts ended, you are out of contract. Please choose:
1) Maintain the existing deal with no contract for £10.83 a month
2) Sign a new deal with us for the same package for £17.00 a month plus no free roaming

Hmmmm, which option should I choose???

If they are claiming option 2 is the same they are lying

Current package is unlimited everything - which is the same with the proposed new tariff. Thing is, why would I sign a more expensive contract when I can keep the old out of contract one? If they force me to find a new network, I will. But until then I'll keep it rolling.

Big_G_NorthWales

Spurs sack Ange Postecoglu

Dopermean

MattW said:

FPT:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Don’t get me overexcited

By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.

Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like

Howling at the moon, I think.

Yaxley-Lennon declared himself bankrupt in 2021, when he was trying to avoid taking responsibility for himself.

Therefore he is not eligible to be an MP, and therefore not PM.

Sadly once the bankruptcy order is discharged then the person can stand, internet tells me that's typically after 12 months, 5 years maximum. May 2022 in S Y-L's case. UK is overly lenient on people who deliberately evade their financial responsibilities in my opinion.

According to this he's not paid a penny of libel damages or costs to the kid he libelled, plus the 6 figure sum he owed HMRC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

Stuartinromford

eek said:

Daily record sales are now 45,000 from 100,000 in 2020

https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-newspapers-uk-abc-monthly-circulation-figures-2/

Edit and 615,000 in 2000

Isn't the general principle that hardly anyone reads actual newspapers these days? The papers take themselves seriously, and the broadcasters like "tomorrow's front pages" as a predictable filler feature, and that means that the politicians take the papers seriously... but outside that loop, they don't matter much.

OldKingCole

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

algarkirk

Mexicanpete said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

The BBC have been incredibly enthusiastic today. They are clearly not supportive of Reform but they like to drive the news agenda forward. Who do we think will feature on Kuennsberg on Sunday?

Reform surge in Scotland is, politics wise, the new things. It's news. SNP/Lab taking turns isn't. Like it or not, the agenda is not driven by objectivity.

For example, probably the cruellest war currently - though the competition is strong - is that in the Sudan. Regular but casual news watchers/listeners would not know it is happening. Compare this with Gaza. And compare Gaza with the interest we took in the Iran v Iraq war in the 1980s. It killed about 500,000 people.

Mexicanpete

Scott_xP said:

Mexicanpete said:

Who do we think will feature on Kuennsberg on Sunday?

Zia Yusuf

Ooh good call!

Big_G_NorthWales

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

It is not just BBC but Sky have been very much explin8ng the real winner was Reform

As far as the licence fee is concerned I expect it to be abolished irrespective of politics but just the way media is changing

kinabalu

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

kinabalu said:

williamglenn said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

If Tommy Robinson were PM, being subject to the ECHR would be as much of a constraint as it was on Putin, i.e. none at all.

Nor would our courts. So perhaps we should do away with them too.

We should do away with the American concept of checks and balances which is entirely alien to our system of government. Parliament should be able to do essentially anything that it likes, whether that's nationalising the health system or declaring war.

I prefer a model whereby certain things are verboten regardless of what parliament wants.

The best model for that is cultural, so think twice before destroying cultural norms.

Ok but that's unreliable. I'm talking about international bodies with teeth. We're a way off this vision, I know, but it's disappointing to see things moving away rather than towards it. A blip, I hope (with little confidence).

International bodies are also unreliable from that perspective. They could be taken over by JD Vance-style politics and you'll find that the international body intervenes whenever the national government gets a bit too lefty. There's a strong possibility that this is the future of the European institutions under the influence of Meloni, PiS, et al.

They could. But it's better than hurtling back to a 'might is right' model where all that matters is hard power and nation states. This, to me, seems regressive. It's about direction of travel. I want us to move further towards collaboration not retreat from it just because things get frustrating at times. All of the world's biggest challenges require nations working together. If we can't manage that we're toast. And deserve to be.

Leon

London in the blustery sun quite appealing after grey, dull little Luxembourg city. I recommend a trip to Luxembourg for anyone disenchanted with The Smoke

Andy_JS

Owen Jones:

"If you were doubting that Nigel Farage had a serious chance of heading a hard-right British government in 2029, the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse just poured a bucket of particularly icy water over your head. Though Labour won the Scottish parliamentary byelection, defying predictions it would be beaten into third place, Reform UK chalked up more than a quarter of the vote – trailing the victors by an unsubstantial 1,500 voters.

This tells a devastating story. Nigel Farage’s outfit seriously outperformed the level of support indicated by Scottish polling: the last four surveys had Reform on between 12% and 19%, yet it secured 26% of the vote after standing here for the first time. This suggests it is mobilising previous non-voters whom pollsters are not picking up. The latest UK-wide YouGov poll, which asked people how they would vote if there were a general election tomorrow, put Reform in first place, eight points ahead of Labour. Imagine if that polling in fact underestimates their reach."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/06/nigel-farage-kill-tories-reform-uk-surge-scotland-hamilton-byelection

Eabhal

I think we should lay off MoonRabbit. It's a mistake quite a few of us made - I really thought that SNP strategy would work.

The assumption was that Labour are now, in the mind of the people of Hamilton, even worse than the SNP. That has not yet happened - and might not happen at all in the run up the next Holyrood election. Perhaps there really is a deep resentment of this now ancient SNP administration that will outweigh whatever Labour do over the next 12 months.

Indeed, I suspect Labour could keep surprising on the upside. There aren't many alternatives for the non-Reform electorate, and they aren't quite as miserably bad as people make out. Is there a hard Reform ceiling? The Right were still comprehensively beaten in Hamilton.

Will the SNP scramble to find a replacement for Swinney, or leave that to after the election given the lack of presumptive heir?

Eabhal

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Spurs sack Ange Postecoglu

Can't have Spurs winning trophies. Upsets the balance of the universe.

kinabalu

algarkirk said:

Mexicanpete said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

The BBC have been incredibly enthusiastic today. They are clearly not supportive of Reform but they like to drive the news agenda forward. Who do we think will feature on Kuennsberg on Sunday?

Reform surge in Scotland is, politics wise, the new things. It's news. SNP/Lab taking turns isn't. Like it or not, the agenda is not driven by objectivity.

For example, probably the cruellest war currently - though the competition is strong - is that in the Sudan. Regular but casual news watchers/listeners would not know it is happening. Compare this with Gaza. And compare Gaza with the interest we took in the Iran v Iraq war in the 1980s. It killed about 500,000 people.

A standout difference with Gaza is that we're seeing a genocide carried out by a western ally.

algarkirk

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

It seems to me there is a thing worth mainstream parties trying with journalists. Go back to an older style of answer. Take the question, and very exactly and briefly answer it. Then stop. Answers to include 'I don't know but I shall find out', ''I don't know', 'Can't comment', 'Wait and see', 'I'll tell parliament soon, they will be the first to know', 'That question is too vague, 'That is not a question', 'Yes', and 'No'.

The switch off is not only the policy of never answering, but the lengthy trail round the houses as they do so. the current policy of never answering directly also helps lazy journalists who don't need to frame questions properly.

Andy_JS

"France wants more UK money to intercept small boats" (£)

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/france-wants-more-uk-money-to-intercept-small-boats-h3nv5287d

Leon

Andy_JS said:

"France wants more UK money to intercept small boats" (£)

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/france-wants-more-uk-money-to-intercept-small-boats-h3nv5287d

Why the F are we paying them to enforce their laws

TheScreamingEagles

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Spurs sack Ange Postecoglu

Can't have Spurs winning trophies. Upsets the balance of the universe.

Still blows my mind that Spurs have won more European trophies than Arsenal.

kinabalu

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

algarkirk

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Mexicanpete said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

The BBC have been incredibly enthusiastic today. They are clearly not supportive of Reform but they like to drive the news agenda forward. Who do we think will feature on Kuennsberg on Sunday?

Reform surge in Scotland is, politics wise, the new things. It's news. SNP/Lab taking turns isn't. Like it or not, the agenda is not driven by objectivity.

For example, probably the cruellest war currently - though the competition is strong - is that in the Sudan. Regular but casual news watchers/listeners would not know it is happening. Compare this with Gaza. And compare Gaza with the interest we took in the Iran v Iraq war in the 1980s. It killed about 500,000 people.

A standout difference with Gaza is that we're seeing a genocide carried out by a western ally.

I take your point, but I don't suppose the widows and orphans of Sudan will be able to make sense of the point. What makes them matter so much less?

BartholomewRoberts

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

That does not exist though, there is no more reassuring answer.

There are no shortcuts. You don't get to outsource the electorate's responsibilities onto a third party and consider it case closed.

That's why vigilance needs to be eternal. That's the price of liberty. Trying to shortcut that is a road to failure.

sarissa

You missed the far more recent, and probably more influential, Graeme Souness intervention in the same paper on polling day, so QTWTAIN

Theuniondivvie

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Either that, or it demonstrates that the Scottish people simply can't read, and rely on the little pictures next to the text to work out where to put their Xs.

The SNP's logo seems to include a subliminal message. Maybe it should be banned?

I remember the heady days on PB when some sage claimed that the SNP symbol was based on Nazi runes.

rcs1000

eek said:

Daily record sales are now 45,000 from 100,000 in 2020

https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/most-popular-newspapers-uk-abc-monthly-circulation-figures-2/

Edit and 615,000 in 2000

Wow - down 93% since 2000. Now, sure, some of that will have moved online. But it is still a staggering drop.

kinabalu

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

Or you could pop down to my golf club. My bar account is topped up. It'd be an honour.

algarkirk

Andy_JS said:

Owen Jones:

"If you were doubting that Nigel Farage had a serious chance of heading a hard-right British government in 2029, the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse just poured a bucket of particularly icy water over your head. Though Labour won the Scottish parliamentary byelection, defying predictions it would be beaten into third place, Reform UK chalked up more than a quarter of the vote – trailing the victors by an unsubstantial 1,500 voters.

This tells a devastating story. Nigel Farage’s outfit seriously outperformed the level of support indicated by Scottish polling: the last four surveys had Reform on between 12% and 19%, yet it secured 26% of the vote after standing here for the first time. This suggests it is mobilising previous non-voters whom pollsters are not picking up. The latest UK-wide YouGov poll, which asked people how they would vote if there were a general election tomorrow, put Reform in first place, eight points ahead of Labour. Imagine if that polling in fact underestimates their reach."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/06/nigel-farage-kill-tories-reform-uk-surge-scotland-hamilton-byelection

Jones is more or less right, except that Reform will be running a nationalist social democratic government not a hard right one. Free stuff for the people of Clacton, and very closed borders, but not Singapore, not low tax, not low spend. The closest thing we know to old Labour.

Two reasons: the laws of reality; the nature of voters.

The problem will not be their ideas - await the manifesto and see - it will be their uselessness, fractiousness and incompetence.

williamglenn

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding

The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California, an effort which could begin as soon as Friday, according to multiple sources.

Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.

OldKingCole

kinabalu said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

Or you could pop down to my golf club. My bar account is topped up. It'd be an honour.

Thank you for the thought. I haven't been a frequenter of golf clubs for many, many years, although one of my sons and one of my grandsons are.
The son recently managed a 'hole in one' at a course he uses, which I understand is a matter for congratulation.

Chris

Andy_JS said:

Owen Jones:

"If you were doubting that Nigel Farage had a serious chance of heading a hard-right British government in 2029, the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse just poured a bucket of particularly icy water over your head. Though Labour won the Scottish parliamentary byelection, defying predictions it would be beaten into third place, Reform UK chalked up more than a quarter of the vote – trailing the victors by an unsubstantial 1,500 voters.

This tells a devastating story. Nigel Farage’s outfit seriously outperformed the level of support indicated by Scottish polling: the last four surveys had Reform on between 12% and 19%, yet it secured 26% of the vote after standing here for the first time. This suggests it is mobilising previous non-voters whom pollsters are not picking up. The latest UK-wide YouGov poll, which asked people how they would vote if there were a general election tomorrow, put Reform in first place, eight points ahead of Labour. Imagine if that polling in fact underestimates their reach."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/06/nigel-farage-kill-tories-reform-uk-surge-scotland-hamilton-byelection

I think it shows that Owen Jones was only aged 3 when the SDP/LIberal Alliance failed for the second time to sweep to power.

TimS

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

I was talking to a Lib Dem frontbencher about this. She said Sky are usually pretty good at getting Lib Dems on but it’s extremely difficult with the BBC. They face constant pushback and reluctance.

williamglenn

algarkirk said:

Andy_JS said:

Owen Jones:

"If you were doubting that Nigel Farage had a serious chance of heading a hard-right British government in 2029, the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse just poured a bucket of particularly icy water over your head. Though Labour won the Scottish parliamentary byelection, defying predictions it would be beaten into third place, Reform UK chalked up more than a quarter of the vote – trailing the victors by an unsubstantial 1,500 voters.

This tells a devastating story. Nigel Farage’s outfit seriously outperformed the level of support indicated by Scottish polling: the last four surveys had Reform on between 12% and 19%, yet it secured 26% of the vote after standing here for the first time. This suggests it is mobilising previous non-voters whom pollsters are not picking up. The latest UK-wide YouGov poll, which asked people how they would vote if there were a general election tomorrow, put Reform in first place, eight points ahead of Labour. Imagine if that polling in fact underestimates their reach."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/06/nigel-farage-kill-tories-reform-uk-surge-scotland-hamilton-byelection

Jones is more or less right, except that Reform will be running a nationalist social democratic government not a hard right one. Free stuff for the people of Clacton, and very closed borders, but not Singapore, not low tax, not low spend. The closest thing we know to old Labour.

Two reasons: the laws of reality; the nature of voters.

The problem will not be their ideas - await the manifesto and see - it will be their uselessness, fractiousness and incompetence.

A government that seeks to privilege its own citizens is now seen as the definition of hard right for many people.

Benpointer

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

F*ck. We're doomed then.

TimS

williamglenn said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding

The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California, an effort which could begin as soon as Friday, according to multiple sources.

Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.

Secession, season 1.

Leon

kinabalu said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

Or you could pop down to my golf club. My bar account is topped up. It'd be an honour.

Every time I remember you are a member of a golf club I do an inner squeal of mocking delight

Hey. Cut me some slack. It gets me through the day

OldKingCole

TimS said:

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

I was talking to a Lib Dem frontbencher about this. She said Sky are usually pretty good at getting Lib Dems on but it’s extremely difficult with the BBC. They face constant pushback and reluctance.

Discrimination.

Dopermean

TimS said:

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

I was talking to a Lib Dem frontbencher about this. She said Sky are usually pretty good at getting Lib Dems on but it’s extremely difficult with the BBC. They face constant pushback and reluctance.

I'd be surprised if the Greens have got a 1/10th of the BBC airtime given to Reform.
BBC also field Tufton street thinktank people as "independent experts" far more frequently than other thinktanks/lobbyists.

kinabalu

algarkirk said:

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Mexicanpete said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

The BBC have been incredibly enthusiastic today. They are clearly not supportive of Reform but they like to drive the news agenda forward. Who do we think will feature on Kuennsberg on Sunday?

Reform surge in Scotland is, politics wise, the new things. It's news. SNP/Lab taking turns isn't. Like it or not, the agenda is not driven by objectivity.

For example, probably the cruellest war currently - though the competition is strong - is that in the Sudan. Regular but casual news watchers/listeners would not know it is happening. Compare this with Gaza. And compare Gaza with the interest we took in the Iran v Iraq war in the 1980s. It killed about 500,000 people.

A standout difference with Gaza is that we're seeing a genocide carried out by a western ally.

I take your point, but I don't suppose the widows and orphans of Sudan will be able to make sense of the point. What makes them matter so much less?

A very uncomfortable question. We see the same with natural disasters. More media coverage of a little storm in Florida than something ten times bigger in (say) India.

williamglenn

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding

The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California, an effort which could begin as soon as Friday, according to multiple sources.

Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.

Secession, season 1.

There'd be no barrier to Musk becoming President of a hypothetical independent California.

Benpointer

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding

The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California, an effort which could begin as soon as Friday, according to multiple sources.

Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.

Secession, season 1.

There'd be no barrier to Musk becoming President of a hypothetical independent California.

There would: the electorate.

Barnesian

..

rottenborough

Dopermean said:

TimS said:

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

I was talking to a Lib Dem frontbencher about this. She said Sky are usually pretty good at getting Lib Dems on but it’s extremely difficult with the BBC. They face constant pushback and reluctance.

I'd be surprised if the Greens have got a 1/10th of the BBC airtime given to Reform.
BBC also field Tufton street thinktank people as "independent experts" far more frequently than other thinktanks/lobbyists.

When Reform privatise the BBC and end the licence fee or give half of it to GB News, then the Beeb types may realise what a mistake they have made.

algarkirk

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

Andy_JS said:

Owen Jones:

"If you were doubting that Nigel Farage had a serious chance of heading a hard-right British government in 2029, the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse just poured a bucket of particularly icy water over your head. Though Labour won the Scottish parliamentary byelection, defying predictions it would be beaten into third place, Reform UK chalked up more than a quarter of the vote – trailing the victors by an unsubstantial 1,500 voters.

This tells a devastating story. Nigel Farage’s outfit seriously outperformed the level of support indicated by Scottish polling: the last four surveys had Reform on between 12% and 19%, yet it secured 26% of the vote after standing here for the first time. This suggests it is mobilising previous non-voters whom pollsters are not picking up. The latest UK-wide YouGov poll, which asked people how they would vote if there were a general election tomorrow, put Reform in first place, eight points ahead of Labour. Imagine if that polling in fact underestimates their reach."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/06/nigel-farage-kill-tories-reform-uk-surge-scotland-hamilton-byelection

Jones is more or less right, except that Reform will be running a nationalist social democratic government not a hard right one. Free stuff for the people of Clacton, and very closed borders, but not Singapore, not low tax, not low spend. The closest thing we know to old Labour.

Two reasons: the laws of reality; the nature of voters.

The problem will not be their ideas - await the manifesto and see - it will be their uselessness, fractiousness and incompetence.

A government that seeks to privilege its own citizens is now seen as the definition of hard right for many people.

These terms should either be dropped or used according to reasonably clear accounts of what they mean.

For example no-one (eg Farage) who would preserve the post WWII social democratic welfare state etc consensus + the rule of law + a free society is going to count as 'hard right'.

Luckyguy1983

Eabhal said:

I think we should lay off MoonRabbit. It's a mistake quite a few of us made - I really thought that SNP strategy would work.

The assumption was that Labour are now, in the mind of the people of Hamilton, even worse than the SNP. That has not yet happened - and might not happen at all in the run up the next Holyrood election. Perhaps there really is a deep resentment of this now ancient SNP administration that will outweigh whatever Labour do over the next 12 months.

Indeed, I suspect Labour could keep surprising on the upside. There aren't many alternatives for the non-Reform electorate, and they aren't quite as miserably bad as people make out. Is there a hard Reform ceiling? The Right were still comprehensively beaten in Hamilton.

Will the SNP scramble to find a replacement for Swinney, or leave that to after the election given the lack of presumptive heir?

The counter-argument to that is that what has happened in Hamilton is a microcosm of what has happened in the UK. A deeply divided electorate has put a high questionable MP (/PM) in place via an enthusiasm-free election. He isn't liked now; he is very likely to become less liked very quickly if he continues to handle questions as deftly as he handled the WFP one.

Leon

Barnesian said:

..

Bad for Nige, good for Kemi

I wonder why?

Stuartinromford

TimS said:

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

I was talking to a Lib Dem frontbencher about this. She said Sky are usually pretty good at getting Lib Dems on but it’s extremely difficult with the BBC. They face constant pushback and reluctance.

Politics is showbiz for ugly people.

Whatever else they are, Reform are interesting, in much the same way that a cat mauling a bird is.

kinabalu

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

That does not exist though, there is no more reassuring answer.

There are no shortcuts. You don't get to outsource the electorate's responsibilities onto a third party and consider it case closed.

That's why vigilance needs to be eternal. That's the price of liberty. Trying to shortcut that is a road to failure.

Courts and the electorate are complementary not alternatives.

Freggles

Not sure the red states want to set a precedent for stripping federal funding from the outparty....

kinabalu

OldKingCole said:

kinabalu said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

Or you could pop down to my golf club. My bar account is topped up. It'd be an honour.

Thank you for the thought. I haven't been a frequenter of golf clubs for many, many years, although one of my sons and one of my grandsons are.
The son recently managed a 'hole in one' at a course he uses, which I understand is a matter for congratulation.

Yes, that's massive. I've had one. 21 Sep 2021. I told everybody.

BartholomewRoberts

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

F*ck. We're doomed then.

We are with that attitude.

Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.

Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.

Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.

Eabhal

Luckyguy1983 said:

Eabhal said:

I think we should lay off MoonRabbit. It's a mistake quite a few of us made - I really thought that SNP strategy would work.

The assumption was that Labour are now, in the mind of the people of Hamilton, even worse than the SNP. That has not yet happened - and might not happen at all in the run up the next Holyrood election. Perhaps there really is a deep resentment of this now ancient SNP administration that will outweigh whatever Labour do over the next 12 months.

Indeed, I suspect Labour could keep surprising on the upside. There aren't many alternatives for the non-Reform electorate, and they aren't quite as miserably bad as people make out. Is there a hard Reform ceiling? The Right were still comprehensively beaten in Hamilton.

Will the SNP scramble to find a replacement for Swinney, or leave that to after the election given the lack of presumptive heir?

The counter-argument to that is that what has happened in Hamilton is a microcosm of what has happened in the UK. A deeply divided electorate has put a high questionable MP (/PM) in place via an enthusiasm-free election. He isn't liked now; he is very likely to become less liked very quickly if he continues to handle questions as deftly as he handled the WFP one.

True... but he still won despite the WFP interview. A bit like Starmer, he doesn't have a problem with expectation management.

A balanced take is that Labour might be more resilient than we assume, Reform probably have a hard and low ceiling, and tactical voting is going to be much more limited than we might think.

At Holyrood, that's good for everyone but the SNP and SCons. At Westminster... chaos. Reform could still come up through the middle.

Dopermean

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

Andy_JS said:

Owen Jones:

"If you were doubting that Nigel Farage had a serious chance of heading a hard-right British government in 2029, the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse just poured a bucket of particularly icy water over your head. Though Labour won the Scottish parliamentary byelection, defying predictions it would be beaten into third place, Reform UK chalked up more than a quarter of the vote – trailing the victors by an unsubstantial 1,500 voters.

This tells a devastating story. Nigel Farage’s outfit seriously outperformed the level of support indicated by Scottish polling: the last four surveys had Reform on between 12% and 19%, yet it secured 26% of the vote after standing here for the first time. This suggests it is mobilising previous non-voters whom pollsters are not picking up. The latest UK-wide YouGov poll, which asked people how they would vote if there were a general election tomorrow, put Reform in first place, eight points ahead of Labour. Imagine if that polling in fact underestimates their reach."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/06/nigel-farage-kill-tories-reform-uk-surge-scotland-hamilton-byelection

Jones is more or less right, except that Reform will be running a nationalist social democratic government not a hard right one. Free stuff for the people of Clacton, and very closed borders, but not Singapore, not low tax, not low spend. The closest thing we know to old Labour.

Two reasons: the laws of reality; the nature of voters.

The problem will not be their ideas - await the manifesto and see - it will be their uselessness, fractiousness and incompetence.

A government that seeks to privilege its own citizens is now seen as the definition of hard right for many people.

These terms should either be dropped or used according to reasonably clear accounts of what they mean.

For example no-one (eg Farage) who would preserve the post WWII social democratic welfare state etc consensus + the rule of law + a free society is going to count as 'hard right'.

NHS moving to an "insurance based model" will not preserve the NHS in its current form, I'd suspect the rule of law and free society would also take a significant Trump-like battering

kinabalu

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

Or you could pop down to my golf club. My bar account is topped up. It'd be an honour.

Every time I remember you are a member of a golf club I do an inner squeal of mocking delight

Hey. Cut me some slack. It gets me through the day

It's full of reactionary old soaks. You'd love it.

Big_G_NorthWales

OldKingCole said:

kinabalu said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

Or you could pop down to my golf club. My bar account is topped up. It'd be an honour.

Thank you for the thought. I haven't been a frequenter of golf clubs for many, many years, although one of my sons and one of my grandsons are.
The son recently managed a 'hole in one' at a course he uses, which I understand is a matter for congratulation.

As a lifetime golfer, until about 10 years ago due to osteoarthritis, and in single figures I never achieved a hole in one ( close on several occasions) but at least it saved me from buying a drink for all the members

TimS

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding

The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California, an effort which could begin as soon as Friday, according to multiple sources.

Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.

Secession, season 1.

There'd be no barrier to Musk becoming President of a hypothetical independent California.

I see the obvious response to this has already been given.

An independent California in reality would be very problematic, given major US military resources in the state including one of its largest naval bases. A bit like the Russian base at Sevastopol in Crimea, I suppose.

Texas succession is another problem given its stranglehold on the oil and gas industry and several strategic ports, but I suppose that’s more like Scotland vis a vis RUK.

scampi25

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

Ah ok. I was hoping you'd come up with something slightly more reassuring.

God forbid that a liberal lefty might trust the people.

rottenborough

Freddie Sayers
@freddiesayers
·
30m
Steve Bannon tells me:

- this is a great day for the MAGA movement
- Musk is a security risk and should be investigated/deported
- his companies SpaceX and Starlink should be seized by the government
- Musk is the Communist, not him

https://x.com/freddiesayers/status/1931022491515822408

IanB2

Barnesian said:

..

Old news

OldKingCole

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/06/politics/trump-california-federal-funding

The Trump administration is preparing to cancel a large swath of federal funding for California, an effort which could begin as soon as Friday, according to multiple sources.

Agencies are being told to start identifying grants the administration can withhold from California. On Capitol Hill, at least one committee was told recently by a whistleblower that all research grants to the state were going to be cancelled, according to one of the sources familiar with the matter.

Secession, season 1.

There'd be no barrier to Musk becoming President of a hypothetical independent California.

I see the obvious response to this has already been given.

An independent California in reality would be very problematic, given major US military resources in the state including one of its largest naval bases. A bit like the Russian base at Sevastopol in Crimea, I suppose.

Texas succession is another problem given its stranglehold on the oil and gas industry and several strategic ports, but I suppose that’s more like Scotland vis a vis RUK.

Doesn't a State wishing to secede have to gain significant support from the other States? Seem to recall reading that something like that was enacted after the Civil War.

Fairliered

rottenborough said:

Dopermean said:

TimS said:

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

I was talking to a Lib Dem frontbencher about this. She said Sky are usually pretty good at getting Lib Dems on but it’s extremely difficult with the BBC. They face constant pushback and reluctance.

I'd be surprised if the Greens have got a 1/10th of the BBC airtime given to Reform.
BBC also field Tufton street thinktank people as "independent experts" far more frequently than other thinktanks/lobbyists.

When Reform privatise the BBC and end the licence fee or give half of it to GB News, then the Beeb types may realise what a mistake they have made.

It’s the only Reform policy I’m in favour of.

Big_G_NorthWales

Fairliered said:

rottenborough said:

Dopermean said:

TimS said:

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

I was talking to a Lib Dem frontbencher about this. She said Sky are usually pretty good at getting Lib Dems on but it’s extremely difficult with the BBC. They face constant pushback and reluctance.

I'd be surprised if the Greens have got a 1/10th of the BBC airtime given to Reform.
BBC also field Tufton street thinktank people as "independent experts" far more frequently than other thinktanks/lobbyists.

When Reform privatise the BBC and end the licence fee or give half of it to GB News, then the Beeb types may realise what a mistake they have made.

It’s the only Reform policy I’m in favour of.

I think it is a view held by many across the political divide

rottenborough

Fairliered said:

rottenborough said:

Dopermean said:

TimS said:

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

I was talking to a Lib Dem frontbencher about this. She said Sky are usually pretty good at getting Lib Dems on but it’s extremely difficult with the BBC. They face constant pushback and reluctance.

I'd be surprised if the Greens have got a 1/10th of the BBC airtime given to Reform.
BBC also field Tufton street thinktank people as "independent experts" far more frequently than other thinktanks/lobbyists.

When Reform privatise the BBC and end the licence fee or give half of it to GB News, then the Beeb types may realise what a mistake they have made.

It’s the only Reform policy I’m in favour of.

You may be as may many others, but actual Beeb people presumably wont be. They will rue the day they gave so much time to Farage.

algarkirk

Dopermean said:

algarkirk said:

williamglenn said:

algarkirk said:

Andy_JS said:

Owen Jones:

"If you were doubting that Nigel Farage had a serious chance of heading a hard-right British government in 2029, the people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse just poured a bucket of particularly icy water over your head. Though Labour won the Scottish parliamentary byelection, defying predictions it would be beaten into third place, Reform UK chalked up more than a quarter of the vote – trailing the victors by an unsubstantial 1,500 voters.

This tells a devastating story. Nigel Farage’s outfit seriously outperformed the level of support indicated by Scottish polling: the last four surveys had Reform on between 12% and 19%, yet it secured 26% of the vote after standing here for the first time. This suggests it is mobilising previous non-voters whom pollsters are not picking up. The latest UK-wide YouGov poll, which asked people how they would vote if there were a general election tomorrow, put Reform in first place, eight points ahead of Labour. Imagine if that polling in fact underestimates their reach."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/06/nigel-farage-kill-tories-reform-uk-surge-scotland-hamilton-byelection

Jones is more or less right, except that Reform will be running a nationalist social democratic government not a hard right one. Free stuff for the people of Clacton, and very closed borders, but not Singapore, not low tax, not low spend. The closest thing we know to old Labour.

Two reasons: the laws of reality; the nature of voters.

The problem will not be their ideas - await the manifesto and see - it will be their uselessness, fractiousness and incompetence.

A government that seeks to privilege its own citizens is now seen as the definition of hard right for many people.

These terms should either be dropped or used according to reasonably clear accounts of what they mean.

For example no-one (eg Farage) who would preserve the post WWII social democratic welfare state etc consensus + the rule of law + a free society is going to count as 'hard right'.

NHS moving to an "insurance based model" will not preserve the NHS in its current form, I'd suspect the rule of law and free society would also take a significant Trump-like battering

I confidently predict two things: firstly that an insurance based model of NHS, undermining the rule of law and in particular the principle that government must and shall obey its own laws, the law being determined by the judiciary, and undermining the freedoms of society will not be in Reform's 2029 manifesto.

Secondly that a Reform government, though it will be useless, philistinic and incompetent won't try to do any of those things, and won't try to undermine the social democratic high spend, high tax, welfarist consensus which has ruled us since WWII.

Ask the good people of Clacton what they want WRT pensions, disability payments, NHS, and free stuff generally and you will discover what Reform's constraints will be.

Leon

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

F*ck. We're doomed then.

We are with that attitude.

Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.

Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.

Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.

Trouble is, that's not true any more

Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies

Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes

As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-we-too-stupid-for-democracy/

Barnesian

IanB2 said:

Barnesian said:

..

Old news

Just come up on twitter.

ydoethur

Dopermean said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Don’t get me overexcited

By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.

Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like

Howling at the moon, I think.

Yaxley-Lennon declared himself bankrupt in 2021, when he was trying to avoid taking responsibility for himself.

Therefore he is not eligible to be an MP, and therefore not PM.

Sadly once the bankruptcy order is discharged then the person can stand, internet tells me that's typically after 12 months, 5 years maximum. May 2022 in S Y-L's case. UK is overly lenient on people who deliberately evade their financial responsibilities in my opinion.

According to this he's not paid a penny of libel damages or costs to the kid he libelled, plus the 6 figure sum he owed HMRC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

Nikolai Tolstoy did much the same after he lost the Aldington libel case. He continued to live in luxury while Aldington's legal costs nearly bankrupted him.

BartholomewRoberts

rottenborough said:

Fairliered said:

rottenborough said:

Dopermean said:

TimS said:

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

I was talking to a Lib Dem frontbencher about this. She said Sky are usually pretty good at getting Lib Dems on but it’s extremely difficult with the BBC. They face constant pushback and reluctance.

I'd be surprised if the Greens have got a 1/10th of the BBC airtime given to Reform.
BBC also field Tufton street thinktank people as "independent experts" far more frequently than other thinktanks/lobbyists.

When Reform privatise the BBC and end the licence fee or give half of it to GB News, then the Beeb types may realise what a mistake they have made.

It’s the only Reform policy I’m in favour of.

You may be as may many others, but actual Beeb people presumably wont be. They will rue the day they gave so much time to Farage.

You know, I rued the day once. Didn't get a whole lot else done.

kle4

RochdalePioneers said:

Swinney was given a gift by the Record. Promote yourself on the front page! Give it your best shot!

It failed. He failed. The SNP failed. Again.

Holyrood success still likely with split votes though?

kle4

rottenborough said:

Freddie Sayers
@freddiesayers
·
30m
Steve Bannon tells me:

- this is a great day for the MAGA movement
- Musk is a security risk and should be investigated/deported
- his companies SpaceX and Starlink should be seized by the government
- Musk is the Communist, not him

https://x.com/freddiesayers/status/1931022491515822408

The world's richest man is a communist?

rcs1000

ydoethur said:

Dopermean said:

MattW said:

FPT:

Leon said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Don’t get me overexcited

By now in the day the booze has usually done that already.

Tommy Robinson would actually make a pretty good prime minister. Charismatic, grows an OK beard. There’s lots to like

Howling at the moon, I think.

Yaxley-Lennon declared himself bankrupt in 2021, when he was trying to avoid taking responsibility for himself.

Therefore he is not eligible to be an MP, and therefore not PM.

Sadly once the bankruptcy order is discharged then the person can stand, internet tells me that's typically after 12 months, 5 years maximum. May 2022 in S Y-L's case. UK is overly lenient on people who deliberately evade their financial responsibilities in my opinion.

According to this he's not paid a penny of libel damages or costs to the kid he libelled, plus the 6 figure sum he owed HMRC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-60052754

Nikolai Tolstoy did much the same after he lost the Aldington libel case. He continued to live in luxury while Aldington's legal costs nearly bankrupted him.

Errrr.

What are you talking about?

kle4

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Mexicanpete said:

MaxPB said:

noneoftheabove said:

carnforth said:

Kemi:



Don't think it will save her. But it does put clear blue water between the conservatives and the government.

Wishy washy. You don't need a review to decide this. If those are your tests and they are more important than everything else then just say you will leave the ECHR, as Farage has done. There is close to zero market share available that wants a wishy washy exit from the ECHR rather than a bold exit.

This is the setup to a policy that lays out why we should leave the ECHR. Hopefully it gives a well reasoned and researched paper which shows how remote the Strasbourg court is now from member states and how much sovereignty all countries have handed over to this cabal of judges that are simply accountable to no one. This exercise, like the Cass study, may end up becoming one of the major flashpoints with the ECHR across all of Europe. The Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany have all begun signalling their unhappiness with the current status quo and a serious paper that outlines all of the flaws within these specific points could be a game changer, at least for how a new approach could be taken across Europe and potentially pushing the Strasbourg court down to "advisory" status in some scenarios such as deportation hearings etc...

The ECHR was set up by the likes of Churchill as a check and balance to the sort of behaviour that allowed the rise of Hitler. It is quite remarkable that when we leave under Farage/ Jenrick/Badenoch/ Robinson we join a tiny band of dictators from Russia and Belarus, until the next elected right wing nutter takes control of another European state.

Churchill had been retired for years before the Court was established.

And if we leave it, then we would be joining a plethora of democracies including Albanese's Australia and Carney's Canada in not being a member. Is Carney a dictator?

The fact that we are on a different continent to Canada is utterly irrelevant. If its good enough for them, there's no reason it can't be good enough for us.

I know Australia often participate in the Eurovision Song Contest, but since when have they (and Canada) been in Europe? EUROPEAN Convention on Human Rights.

And whoever gave you a "like" needs a geography lesson.

You need a reading comprehension lesson.

I addressed the geography issue already, its utterly irrelevant. It does not matter one jot what continent we are on.

The whole point of HUMAN Rights is they belong to all HUMANS not all Europeans. We share the same humanity as our cousins in Canada and Australia and elsewhere.

If they can have human rights protected without the ECHR, so can we.

You tried to preempt my response, but basically you picked out two compliant non European nations, and I have come back in other posts saying what Court adjudicates on Trump USA misbehaviour? You can't just pick "nice" nations. Tommy Robinson might be our PM by 2029.

Sure you can pick nice nations.

Russia was in the ECHR until its most recent invasion of Ukraine. It wasn't even sanctioned by the Council of Europe in 2019, but do you think it had great human rights then? Or were they better in the nice nations like Canada and Australia?

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. Not outsourcing it to a foreign court.

Who is mounting this eternal vigilance?

The electorate.

F*ck. We're doomed then.

We are with that attitude.

Parliament has a track record of serving us well for the better part of a thousand years, during which time our liberties have typically improved not worsened.

Is democracy perfect? No. Far from it.

Democracy is in fact the worst system of government we could have. Except for all others that have ever been tried.

Trouble is, that's not true any more

Several authoritarian nations are now doing conspicuously better than their equivalent democracies

Singapore does better than democratic Asia. UAE does better than democratic bits of the MENA (such as they are). China has lifted a billion people into the middle class, without bothering with ballot boxes

As society becomes MORE technocratic (not less) democracy will be increasingly seen as a nice-to-have, and as window dressing - same way constitutional monarchy replaced monarchy - as the big decisions are made by other means. See here

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/are-we-too-stupid-for-democracy/

Presumably why the techbros want to jump ahead to being run by AIs already (albeit AIs that in their lifetimes they would own and control).

Leon

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

rcs1000

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

Freddie Sayers
@freddiesayers
·
30m
Steve Bannon tells me:

- this is a great day for the MAGA movement
- Musk is a security risk and should be investigated/deported
- his companies SpaceX and Starlink should be seized by the government
- Musk is the Communist, not him

https://x.com/freddiesayers/status/1931022491515822408

The world's richest man is a communist?

Well d'uh.

If everyone has nothing, and one person (Musk) has everything, then that is communism because 99.999% of people have exactly the same. I.e. nothing.

kle4

Stuartinromford said:

TimS said:

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

OldKingCole said:

nico67 said:

The BBC never misses a chance to big up Reform . What do they think will happen to the organisation if Reform win the next election. Cheering on those who want to end the BBC seems stupid .

Reform came third in a constituency which was more fertile territory than many other parts of Scotland and one would think they won the way the BBC is reporting the result .

There have been complaints from some of us for ages that whenever an opinion on something vaguely political is wanted on BBC, up pops Nigel Farage.
If I want to hear the opinion of an ill-informed public school miseducated older middle-aged man there is a local pub I can go to.

A couple of points: First I think this is exaggerated. Secondly, the leader of the party which on current projections may be the next government is important, and because it would be the first newbie since 1066 or something, is intrinsically newsworthy.

Thirdly, Farage and a couple of other Reform characters are in one sense broadcasters ideal: if you ask them a question they answer it. It's all bogus of course, but it is box office. Try listening to the others. You don't notice how much time the BBC gives to Lab/Con/LD because you switch off. You know that they won't answer any questions. And you switch off with Greems because they are boring. Which Reform isn't.

Finally, the BBC can only interview people who make themselves available. Farage is on tap 24/7 SFAICS. And if Reform do form the next government - awful but not impossible - the BBC will do well to keep in with them.

Point one. Agree; it is exaggerated. A bit, anyway.
Two, and part of my thread, would Farage be in the position referred to if he had not been interviewed, or been on talk shows, morning, noon and night?
Three. Good point, and fair. Although I don't switch off Greens because they do have a different 'take' on issues.
Four. A lesson to the others.

I was talking to a Lib Dem frontbencher about this. She said Sky are usually pretty good at getting Lib Dems on but it’s extremely difficult with the BBC. They face constant pushback and reluctance.

Politics is showbiz for ugly people.

Whatever else they are, Reform are interesting, in much the same way that a cat mauling a bird is.

LDs are not interesting enough, Tories are still unpopular and boring to boot, and government exists only for bashing, which in England at least leaves only Reform to get any attention (the Greens will get a day or so here or there).

rcs1000

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.

They send someone round.

The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.

Leon

rcs1000 said:

Leon said:

I'm buying window blinds for my flat

That is the single most boring thing I have ever written on here, nevertheless it is the case: I am buying window blinds for my flat, which needs a spruce, a spritz and a spunky little makeover

My old metal blinds now looks sad and broken, ergo they are gone. Has anyone ever bought blinds?? What's the rigmarole?

Go to John Lewis. Go to their blinds section.

They send someone round.

The blinds get made and installed, and you are charged a very reasonable price for it.

Ooh. That sounds nice and easy! Ta

wooliedyed

Leon said:

Barnesian said:

..

Bad for Nige, good for Kemi

I wonder why?

Well Survation haven't been polling as regularly, this is compared to the immediate aftermath of the Locals when that surge hit at the expense of the Tories, we don't know what's been in the runes with them twixt then and now.
They also took one straddling Local Election day a few days before which was 26/26/22 RefLabCon
We appear to be drifting gently back towards that situation but with Ref a bit up and Con a bit down generally

Tories will be happy with anything in the 20s atm