AOC for POTUS? – politicalbetting.com

System

AOC for POTUS? – politicalbetting.com

A new poll from the New York Times shows potential Democratic voters want the party to move to the right, are happy with where it is ideologically, and rate socialism highly. Huh?https://t.co/o6mAvLeERS pic.twitter.com/0HFCygS6ot

Read the full story here

algarkirk

First?

ydoethur

That's the only way I could see a Republican win in any sort of free election in 2028.

ydoethur

Incidentally, on SM one thing we may be forgetting is how the companies are increasingly making their own content unusable without premium membership anyway, through ads, poor layout and irrelevant material.

They may actually kill themselves off for those using them for free, which ironically would have much the same effect as a ban for under 16s.

algarkirk

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

tlg86

Just looking at the World Cup betting this morning, I see Scotland are rated a 22% chance to be eliminated in the group stage. I don't want to be negative about their prospects, but I feel that's a tad low. The betting suggests they are a 39% chance to lose to Morocco and Brazil.

Of the other groups, only the Belgium group looks good for Scotland. Five of the other six could easily see the third place team have four points and I wouldn't right off Ecuador from getting four points in the other group. And even if they lose to Germany, I feel Ecuador have more chance of having a better goal difference than Scotland. And then there are four more groups to come.

Also, they are at a disadvantage in being in an early group. The rest get to see what they need to do.

As ever, DYOR.

OnlyLivingBoy

I think AOC would be a great candidate and I can see her winning the presidency.

IanB2

Off topic, except for the polling link, some private polling written up by Freedman about how Labour can take on Reform:

..the most potent attack line of all was linking Reform’s plans to bring back fox hunting to a general message about them only being interested in the rich (a 4.6 point drop).

AnneJGP

LOL at that poll.

Cyclefree

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Yes - it is a good explanation. And shows that it was the defence which asked that the terrorism angle not be put before the jury.

eek

Worth reading https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/11/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-2028-strategy

AOC hasn’t decided what’s she’s doing but the autumn may make it clearer

Remember the other option is a safe senate seat probably for life

IanB2

Surely the takeaway from those polling questions is that while many Dem votes have a positive view of socialism - whatever that might mean in a US context (often just free healthcare, it seems?), they are realistic enough to understand that elections are usually won from the centre?

OnlyLivingBoy

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Cyclefree

Separately, the Post Office Report will be delayed to the autumn at the earliest and maybe later - because of the Maxwellisation process.

Given that the Met has stated that without sufficient money they may not be able to get to the point of sending possible charges to the CPS for a further 5 years, the likelihood of anyone facing any effective accountability for their part in this disgrace is getting lower and lower.

Not only will more sub-postmasters have died but some of the key likely defendants.

This will of course suit the Post Office and government and all the scumbags involved very well indeed.

Endless delay. Everyone dead. Pro forma apology. No more need to compensate. File report and never look at it again. Ignore recommendations.

Then repeat the whole ghastly exercise for the next scandals whose seeds are being sown right now.

Stuartinromford

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I think AOC would be a great candidate and I can see her winning the presidency.

And in some ways, 2028 may be the best chance for someone whose image is a bit Katniss Everdeen; pure fury against the Capitol and President SnowTrump. It just depends on whether the 2028 elections are recognisably free'n'fair (I suspect that any Dem candidate wins) or not (in which case, no Dem candidate wins).

At which point, one starts looking round nervously.

HYUFD

If the Trump administration remains very unpopular by the next presidential election and inflation is high then even AOC could beat Vance or Rubio. She shouldn't push socialism too hard though, while Democrats are more amenable to it the average US voter isn't

BatteryCorrectHorse

All trains should be retrofitted with RF-passing “honeycomb” glass like they have on trains in Germany.

This would improve coverage on mainline trains for millions of people overnight.

algarkirk

The NYT polling uses the terms left, right, centre and socialist but gives no account of what the questioner or the respondents took these to mean out of the multiple and contradictory possibilities. The results in themselves are meaningless.

HYUFD

IanB2 said:

Off topic, except for the polling link, some private polling written up by Freedman about how Labour can take on Reform:

..the most potent attack line of all was linking Reform’s plans to bring back fox hunting to a general message about them only being interested in the rich (a 4.6 point drop).

Which is rubbish, in rural areas many people with ordinary jobs who weren't rich went foxhunting or now go drag or trail hunting

Barnesian

I think AOC is too young and too easy for the Republicans to demonise.

Much better that she runs as VP to Newsom. They get on well, and would make a great team with reach across independents with Newsom, and depth into the core for turnout with AOC.

She will be 38 in 2028 and only 46 in 2036 after two terms of Newsom.

She has plenty of time to become a great President.

Cyclefree

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

turbotubbs

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

All trains should be retrofitted with RF-passing “honeycomb” glass like they have on trains in Germany.

This would improve coverage on mainline trains for millions of people overnight.

Implausible. How many use the trains daily?

Pulpstar

I think an AOC win would be amazing for US foreign policy

Barnesian

Cyclefree said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

If the jury knew that the sentence for sheep stealing was hanging, they would likely acquit, even if they thought that the defendant was guilty.

OnlyLivingBoy

Stuartinromford said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

I think AOC would be a great candidate and I can see her winning the presidency.

And in some ways, 2028 may be the best chance for someone whose image is a bit Katniss Everdeen; pure fury against the Capitol and President SnowTrump. It just depends on whether the 2028 elections are recognisably free'n'fair (I suspect that any Dem candidate wins) or not (in which case, no Dem candidate wins).

At which point, one starts looking round nervously.

People are angry, they know the system is corrupt and stacked against them, yet centrist Democrats think the answer is to promise no real change. You can't beat something with nothing. AOC can deliver change and is charismatic and charming and speaks like a normal person. She would fire up and unite the base while also having crossover appeal to centrist women especially. She would be the best response to the disgusting orgy of corruption unleashed by the Trump crime family. She could run with Shapiro or some other boring centrist dad to reassure folks in the middle.

HYUFD

Barnesian said:

I think AOC is too young and too easy for the Republicans to demonise.

Much better that she runs as VP to Newsom. They get on well, and would make a great team with reach across independents with Newsom, and depth into the core for turnout with AOC.

She will be 38 in 2028 and only 46 in 2036 after two terms of Newsom.

She has plenty of time to become a great President.

Running a California and NYC ticket would not attract middle America over Ohio man Vance.

Buttigieg from Indiana would be better and he already leads early New Hampshire polling amongst Democratic primary voters and of course won the Iowa caucuses in 2020

BatteryCorrectHorse

24% return on Sir Keir 2026 exit. Surely got to be a good investment.

kinabalu

It's a sad thing to feel but if I were the Dems I'd be wary of risking a woman again. I think gender (having a female opponent) was a significant factor in both Trump victories. But in general if you can get a big price on a serious potential candidate, male or female, with a national profile who you pretty much know is going to run it's probably worth doing because when that 'potential' becomes 'actual' the price will collapse and you can lock in a decent profit. I've done this on Harris. I'm on at 100 and plan to exit at around 20. I'm not tempted by a similar trade on AOC at 16. Not enough value there imo.

HYUFD

Cyclefree said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

Plus one of them caused gbh to a police officer

OnlyLivingBoy

Cyclefree said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

I read it. The sentence was increased because "terrorism" (lol) was an aggravating factor. I can read.

BatteryCorrectHorse

Second, in urban areas all masts should be allowed via PD rights.

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

Just looking at the World Cup betting this morning, I see Scotland are rated a 22% chance to be eliminated in the group stage. I don't want to be negative about their prospects, but I feel that's a tad low. The betting suggests they are a 39% chance to lose to Morocco and Brazil.

Of the other groups, only the Belgium group looks good for Scotland. Five of the other six could easily see the third place team have four points and I wouldn't right off Ecuador from getting four points in the other group. And even if they lose to Germany, I feel Ecuador have more chance of having a better goal difference than Scotland. And then there are four more groups to come.

Also, they are at a disadvantage in being in an early group. The rest get to see what they need to do.

As ever, DYOR.

Yes, your last point is key, I said when the draw was made we could be on for another Disgrace of Gijón.

eek

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

All trains should be retrofitted with RF-passing “honeycomb” glass like they have on trains in Germany.

This would improve coverage on mainline trains for millions of people overnight.

And where is that £x00m coming from to do that

BatteryCorrectHorse

Reform appear to be conceding defeat in Makerfield already

TheScreamingEagles

Punter puts $1m on Spain to win... and they draw

Bet on what should have been easy victory in World Cup opener backfires as minnows Cape Verde spring huge shock against European champions

A punter lost a $1m (£745,405) bet after Cape Verde produced one of the biggest World Cup shocks by holding tournament favourites Spain to a goalless draw.

Cape Verde, who are ranked 67th in Fifa’s world rankings, were expected to be thrashed by Spain in their first game at a World Cup finals and one individual was willing to lay a seven-figure sum on the European champions gaining three points.

However, Spain were held by the minnows after 40-year-old keeper Vozinha produced a host of spectacular saves to earn Cape Verde a point.

The bet was placed on Polymarket, an American cryptocurrency-based platform that allows users to place bets and predict markets, and would have won £85,943.48.

Another user named “fishalaive”, however, laid out a $400,000 (£298,000) bet for the Spaniards not to win and it returned $4.7m (£3.5m).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2026/06/15/spain-draw-with-cape-verde-after-punter-puts-million-on-win/

BatteryCorrectHorse

eek said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

All trains should be retrofitted with RF-passing “honeycomb” glass like they have on trains in Germany.

This would improve coverage on mainline trains for millions of people overnight.

And where is that £x00m coming from to do that

They could divert the money they’re currently spending on the BML programme

Andy_JS

"Right now, in Australia, commentators left, right and centre are similarly trying to grasp the bouncing ping-pong ball that is Pauline Hanson’s One Nation which has been hiding in plain sight.

If only journalists had been as quick to catch on to the shortcomings of the major parties as the voters have. This is partly a result of the lack of media resources for ongoing field reporting, but it’s also to do with the media’s own attachment to the two-party system.

And while they now marvel at the rise of a party that’s been a sleeping threat for years, the ping-pong ball has escaped the arena and is already bouncing down the hill."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/15/pauline-hanson-one-nation-borrow-from-trump-grievance-politics-ntwnfb

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Just looking at the World Cup betting this morning, I see Scotland are rated a 22% chance to be eliminated in the group stage. I don't want to be negative about their prospects, but I feel that's a tad low. The betting suggests they are a 39% chance to lose to Morocco and Brazil.

Of the other groups, only the Belgium group looks good for Scotland. Five of the other six could easily see the third place team have four points and I wouldn't right off Ecuador from getting four points in the other group. And even if they lose to Germany, I feel Ecuador have more chance of having a better goal difference than Scotland. And then there are four more groups to come.

Also, they are at a disadvantage in being in an early group. The rest get to see what they need to do.

As ever, DYOR.

Yes, your last point is key, I said when the draw was made we could be on for another Disgrace of Gijón.

That match is almost as far back in time as the actual Anschluss was relative to it.

algarkirk

IanB2 said:

Off topic, except for the polling link, some private polling written up by Freedman about how Labour can take on Reform:

..the most potent attack line of all was linking Reform’s plans to bring back fox hunting to a general message about them only being interested in the rich (a 4.6 point drop).

Sadly that is the only Reform policy I have sympathy for. But I live not all that far from where John Peel is buried with his coat so grey.

Barnesian

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

I think AOC is too young and too easy for the Republicans to demonise.

Much better that she runs as VP to Newsom. They get on well, and would make a great team with reach across independents with Newsom, and depth into the core for turnout with AOC.

She will be 38 in 2028 and only 46 in 2036 after two terms of Newsom.

She has plenty of time to become a great President.

Running a California and NYC ticket would not attract middle America over Ohio man Vance.

Buttigeg from Indiana would be better and he already leads early New Hampshire polling amongst Democratic primary voters and of course won the Iowa caucuses in 2020

Which is more damaging to a US presidential candidate - to be a woman or to be gay? Serious question.

And which is more damaging - geography or sexuality?
Does image trump geography?

Newsom is type cast to be President. Trump recognises that. He even once accidentally called Newsom President!

Barnesian

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

24% return on Sir Keir 2026 exit. Surely got to be a good investment.

Risky. Several known unknowns, and probably some unknown unknowns. I wouldn't bet the house on it.

viewcode

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

All trains should be retrofitted with RF-passing “honeycomb” glass like they have on trains in Germany.

This would improve coverage on mainline trains for millions of people overnight.

As of 31 March 2025, there were 15,348 railway vehicles registered in operation for all passenger train operators. I don't know how many passenger carriages per vehicle on average, but if we assume 1, each with eight windows, that's around 120,000 windows that need replacing.

Or you can drill a hole through the carriage wall and run an aerial through it.

ydoethur

Pulpstar said:

I think an AOC win would be amazing for US foreign policy

I have spent the last thirty years being constantly amazed by US foreign policy. And the only reason it hasn't been amazing me longer is that I took no prior interest in it.

Why would electing somebody who wants to be a Russian useful idiot in place of somebody who is a Russian useful idiot change that?

HYUFD

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

I think AOC is too young and too easy for the Republicans to demonise.

Much better that she runs as VP to Newsom. They get on well, and would make a great team with reach across independents with Newsom, and depth into the core for turnout with AOC.

She will be 38 in 2028 and only 46 in 2036 after two terms of Newsom.

She has plenty of time to become a great President.

Running a California and NYC ticket would not attract middle America over Ohio man Vance.

Buttigeg from Indiana would be better and he already leads early New Hampshire polling amongst Democratic primary voters and of course won the Iowa caucuses in 2020

Which is more damaging to a US presidential candidate - to be a woman or to be gay? Serious question.

And which is more damaging - geography or sexuality?
Does image trump geography?

Newsom is type cast to be GePresident. Trump recognises that. He even once accidentally called Newsom President!

Geography, certainly for a Democratic. The last three Democrat Presidents were all from the South or Midwest. Hillary won the popular vote as a woman and only evangelicals would probably not vote for a gay President and they almost all vote Republican anyway

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Just looking at the World Cup betting this morning, I see Scotland are rated a 22% chance to be eliminated in the group stage. I don't want to be negative about their prospects, but I feel that's a tad low. The betting suggests they are a 39% chance to lose to Morocco and Brazil.

Of the other groups, only the Belgium group looks good for Scotland. Five of the other six could easily see the third place team have four points and I wouldn't right off Ecuador from getting four points in the other group. And even if they lose to Germany, I feel Ecuador have more chance of having a better goal difference than Scotland. And then there are four more groups to come.

Also, they are at a disadvantage in being in an early group. The rest get to see what they need to do.

As ever, DYOR.

Yes, your last point is key, I said when the draw was made we could be on for another Disgrace of Gijón.

Ironically, it could be Austria v Algeria that does it.

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

I think AOC is too young and too easy for the Republicans to demonise.

Much better that she runs as VP to Newsom. They get on well, and would make a great team with reach across independents with Newsom, and depth into the core for turnout with AOC.

She will be 38 in 2028 and only 46 in 2036 after two terms of Newsom.

She has plenty of time to become a great President.

Running a California and NYC ticket would not attract middle America over Ohio man Vance.

Buttigeg from Indiana would be better and he already leads early New Hampshire polling amongst Democratic primary voters and of course won the Iowa caucuses in 2020

Which is more damaging to a US presidential candidate - to be a woman or to be gay? Serious question.

And which is more damaging - geography or sexuality?
Does image trump geography?

Newsom is type cast to be GePresident. Trump recognises that. He even once accidentally called Newsom President!

Geography, certainly for a Democratic. The last three Democrat Presidents were all from the South or Midwest. Hillary won the popular vote as a woman and only evangelicals would probably not vote for a gay President and they almost all vote Republican anyway

Biden was from Delaware (albeit born in Pennsylvania). I wouldn't say that really fitted your category of 'south' even if it was one of the last states to abolish slavery.

Malmesbury

Andy_JS said:

"Right now, in Australia, commentators left, right and centre are similarly trying to grasp the bouncing ping-pong ball that is Pauline Hanson’s One Nation which has been hiding in plain sight.

If only journalists had been as quick to catch on to the shortcomings of the major parties as the voters have. This is partly a result of the lack of media resources for ongoing field reporting, but it’s also to do with the media’s own attachment to the two-party system.

And while they now marvel at the rise of a party that’s been a sleeping threat for years, the ping-pong ball has escaped the arena and is already bouncing down the hill."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/15/pauline-hanson-one-nation-borrow-from-trump-grievance-politics-ntwnfb

Pauline Hanson is actually stupider than Trump. Which takes effort. But she’s put in the hours.

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

Just looking at the World Cup betting this morning, I see Scotland are rated a 22% chance to be eliminated in the group stage. I don't want to be negative about their prospects, but I feel that's a tad low. The betting suggests they are a 39% chance to lose to Morocco and Brazil.

Of the other groups, only the Belgium group looks good for Scotland. Five of the other six could easily see the third place team have four points and I wouldn't right off Ecuador from getting four points in the other group. And even if they lose to Germany, I feel Ecuador have more chance of having a better goal difference than Scotland. And then there are four more groups to come.

Also, they are at a disadvantage in being in an early group. The rest get to see what they need to do.

As ever, DYOR.

Yes, your last point is key, I said when the draw was made we could be on for another Disgrace of Gijón.

Ironically, it could be Austria v Algeria that does it.

Blimey, the fabric of the universe would be torn asunder if they conspired like that.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

That's the only way I could see a Republican win in any sort of free election in 2028.

Perhaps, but OTOH she's a lot smarter than Bernie, and more prepared to trim. She'd be a weaker candidate than (say) Ossoff, but does appeal to much if the base.

That said, lay all the favourites and especially the Republicans. Way too early to put money on a winner.

Malmesbury

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Second, in urban areas all masts should be allowed via PD rights.

Easier to do - anyone who objects to 5G masts gets put on a list that is distributed to the mobile companies. Who then make sure they aren’t radiating those carcinogenic, mutagenic 5G rays at them.

No masts, no TikTok

TheScreamingEagles

Great poll for Labour, only 5% behind in midterm.

Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention, 14-15 June 2026

Reform UK: 24% (-1 from 7-8 Jun)
Labour: 19% (=)
Conservatives: 19% (=)
Greens: 15% (+1)
Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
Restore Britain: 4% (+1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (-1)
Your Party: 0% (-1)

https://x.com/yougov/status/2066800321901260841?s=46

Theuniondivvie

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Cyclefree said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

I read it. The sentence was increased because "terrorism" (lol) was an aggravating factor. I can read.

If only they'd sent letter bombs and thrown an axe at the PM, they wouldn't have been terrorists.

ydoethur

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Cyclefree said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

I read it. The sentence was increased because "terrorism" (lol) was an aggravating factor. I can read.

If only they'd sent letter bombs and thrown an axe at the PM, they wouldn't have been terrorists.

Grass seed to a hayfever sufferer too.

That gets overlooked presumably because as it's clear cut disability discrimination it's very Unwoke.

ydoethur

Malmesbury said:

Andy_JS said:

"Right now, in Australia, commentators left, right and centre are similarly trying to grasp the bouncing ping-pong ball that is Pauline Hanson’s One Nation which has been hiding in plain sight.

If only journalists had been as quick to catch on to the shortcomings of the major parties as the voters have. This is partly a result of the lack of media resources for ongoing field reporting, but it’s also to do with the media’s own attachment to the two-party system.

And while they now marvel at the rise of a party that’s been a sleeping threat for years, the ping-pong ball has escaped the arena and is already bouncing down the hill."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/15/pauline-hanson-one-nation-borrow-from-trump-grievance-politics-ntwnfb

Pauline Hanson is actually stupider than Trump. Which takes effort. But she’s put in the hours.

Does she have his excuse of being 80 and having dementia?

If not it's a still more impressive achievement.

Nigelb

IanB2 said:

Surely the takeaway from those polling questions is that while many Dem votes have a positive view of socialism - whatever that might mean in a US context (often just free healthcare, it seems?), they are realistic enough to understand that elections are usually won from the centre?

Since US conservatives call everyone from Biden down a socialist, and I'm not sure US voters have a good grasp of what it means.

eek

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

eek said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

All trains should be retrofitted with RF-passing “honeycomb” glass like they have on trains in Germany.

This would improve coverage on mainline trains for millions of people overnight.

And where is that £x00m coming from to do that

They could divert the money they’re currently spending on the BML programme

Also I don’t know where the problem is - in my last year of travelling I can’t think of anywhere when I’ve been on a train where signal has been a problem and I’m usually cloud coding when on a train

Malmesbury

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

Andy_JS said:

"Right now, in Australia, commentators left, right and centre are similarly trying to grasp the bouncing ping-pong ball that is Pauline Hanson’s One Nation which has been hiding in plain sight.

If only journalists had been as quick to catch on to the shortcomings of the major parties as the voters have. This is partly a result of the lack of media resources for ongoing field reporting, but it’s also to do with the media’s own attachment to the two-party system.

And while they now marvel at the rise of a party that’s been a sleeping threat for years, the ping-pong ball has escaped the arena and is already bouncing down the hill."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/15/pauline-hanson-one-nation-borrow-from-trump-grievance-politics-ntwnfb

Pauline Hanson is actually stupider than Trump. Which takes effort. But she’s put in the hours.

Does she have his excuse of being 80 and having dementia?

If not it's a still more impressive achievement.

It is quite impressive. Her interviews used to be, essentially, Sideshow Bob and *all* the rakes.

Nigelb

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Barnesian said:

I think AOC is too young and too easy for the Republicans to demonise.

Much better that she runs as VP to Newsom. They get on well, and would make a great team with reach across independents with Newsom, and depth into the core for turnout with AOC.

She will be 38 in 2028 and only 46 in 2036 after two terms of Newsom.

She has plenty of time to become a great President.

Running a California and NYC ticket would not attract middle America over Ohio man Vance.

Buttigeg from Indiana would be better and he already leads early New Hampshire polling amongst Democratic primary voters and of course won the Iowa caucuses in 2020

Which is more damaging to a US presidential candidate - to be a woman or to be gay? Serious question.

And which is more damaging - geography or sexuality?
Does image trump geography?

Newsom is type cast to be President. Trump recognises that. He even once accidentally called Newsom President!

If he runs up against a Democrat with real authenticity, then he's going to struggle.

And he'll be running as an ex-governor.

Stuartinromford

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great poll for Labour, only 5% behind in midterm.

Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention, 14-15 June 2026

Reform UK: 24% (-1 from 7-8 Jun)
Labour: 19% (=)
Conservatives: 19% (=)
Greens: 15% (+1)
Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
Restore Britain: 4% (+1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (-1)
Your Party: 0% (-1)

https://x.com/yougov/status/2066800321901260841?s=46

Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?

It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.

ydoethur

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

Andy_JS said:

"Right now, in Australia, commentators left, right and centre are similarly trying to grasp the bouncing ping-pong ball that is Pauline Hanson’s One Nation which has been hiding in plain sight.

If only journalists had been as quick to catch on to the shortcomings of the major parties as the voters have. This is partly a result of the lack of media resources for ongoing field reporting, but it’s also to do with the media’s own attachment to the two-party system.

And while they now marvel at the rise of a party that’s been a sleeping threat for years, the ping-pong ball has escaped the arena and is already bouncing down the hill."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/15/pauline-hanson-one-nation-borrow-from-trump-grievance-politics-ntwnfb

Pauline Hanson is actually stupider than Trump. Which takes effort. But she’s put in the hours.

Does she have his excuse of being 80 and having dementia?

If not it's a still more impressive achievement.

It is quite impressive. Her interviews used to be, essentially, Sideshow Bob and *all* the rakes.

At least she's not an Englishman.

(Think about it...)

Nigelb

Barnesian said:

I think AOC is too young and too easy for the Republicans to demonise.

Much better that she runs as VP to Newsom. They get on well, and would make a great team with reach across independents with Newsom, and depth into the core for turnout with AOC.

She will be 38 in 2028 and only 46 in 2036 after two terms of Newsom.

She has plenty of time to become a great President.

The amount of time she has is another point of uncertainty this cycle. If she's leading the polls in a year's time, she'll very likely enter the race, but otherwise the Democrats have a very strong potential lineup of contenders, and it would make a lot if sense just to wait and build a record in the Senate.

I'd want much longer odds to bet at this stage.

Nigelb

duped

turbotubbs

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Reform appear to be conceding defeat in Makerfield already

Meaningless - Farage conceded on the night of the Brexit referendum.

Political parties ALL play dirty tricks

theProle

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

All trains should be retrofitted with RF-passing “honeycomb” glass like they have on trains in Germany.

This would improve coverage on mainline trains for millions of people overnight.

Have you any idea what that would cost? It would have to be designed for each type of unit (there are dozens), each type of unit would need its safety case recalculating to see how the different glass altered it's crash performance, then you actually have to get the stuff manufactured and installed.

A younger and more foolish version of myself once tried to get a small modification approved in the railway industry to remove 16 redundant holes filled with rivets that did nothing from a design of bogie frame plate we were refurbishing (we were fitting new plates, drilling the holes and putting rivets in to fill them up again). I was told it was vasty cheaper to keep drilling unwanted holes and fill them with rivets - the design review process costs to approve the "modification" would probably be in six figures.

TheScreamingEagles

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great poll for Labour, only 5% behind in midterm.

Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention, 14-15 June 2026

Reform UK: 24% (-1 from 7-8 Jun)
Labour: 19% (=)
Conservatives: 19% (=)
Greens: 15% (+1)
Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
Restore Britain: 4% (+1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (-1)
Your Party: 0% (-1)

https://x.com/yougov/status/2066800321901260841?s=46

Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?

It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.

If we accept the premise that 25% wins the most votes at the next general election then we need recalibrate our usual expectations for what constitutes decent midterm polling for the government.

LostPassword

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great poll for Labour, only 5% behind in midterm.

Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention, 14-15 June 2026

Reform UK: 24% (-1 from 7-8 Jun)
Labour: 19% (=)
Conservatives: 19% (=)
Greens: 15% (+1)
Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
Restore Britain: 4% (+1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (-1)
Your Party: 0% (-1)

https://x.com/yougov/status/2066800321901260841?s=46

Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?

It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.

The lowest polling share for Labour under Gordon Brown was 18% (once), and the second-lowest share was 20%.

The lowest polling share for the Tories under Truss was 14% (once) and 19% (three times). In the week before Truss announced her resignation as leader and PM the shares for the Tories were: 25, 24, 28, 22, 20, 23, 23, 19.

The polling shares for Labour in June, under Starmer, have been: 22, 18, 15, 20, 20, 19, 20, 16, 19.

Now, sure, five-party politics means that a winning vote share is a lot lower these days, but it's still fair to act appropriately to Labour receiving the worst polling scores of any government in recorded British history. Particularly as an election campaign often reduces down to the question of whether to kick the government out, or stick with them for now. Not hard to see a lot of anti-Labour tactical voting to kick the most unpopular government in recorded British history out of office.

And, additional to that, the government isn't pursuing a clear policy agenda which might be hoped to be showing signs of progress that could be defended at the next general election campaign. It does not have a clear reason for being.

another_richard

By 'socialism' many American might mean European style social democracy.

By 'rightwards' many Americans might mean away from wokery.

Put them together and it suggests the sweet spot for the Dems is economically left and socially right of where they are.

Scott_xP

@chadbourn.bsky.social‬

Ukrainian drones have hit the Moscow oil refinery. It’s burning. This is a big one - the refinery provides 40% of fuel for Moscow and the wider oblast.

#explodey

One of Russia’s largest fuel retailers Tatneft has just announced fuel rationing across its entire network. This is huge. The whole country is now facing shortages.

Kremlin: “If Zelenskyy is ready to talk responsibly and seriously, he can always come to Moscow, where he will be received.”

dixiedean

Barnesian said:

I think AOC is too young and too easy for the Republicans to demonise.

Much better that she runs as VP to Newsom. They get on well, and would make a great team with reach across independents with Newsom, and depth into the core for turnout with AOC.

She will be 38 in 2028 and only 46 in 2036 after two terms of Newsom.

She has plenty of time to become a great President.

So a 2076 run then by recent American standards?

rottenborough

Scott_xP said:

@chadbourn.bsky.social‬

Ukrainian drones have hit the Moscow oil refinery. It’s burning. This is a big one - the refinery provides 40% of fuel for Moscow and the wider oblast.

#explodey

One of Russia’s largest fuel retailers Tatneft has just announced fuel rationing across its entire network. This is huge. The whole country is now facing shortages.

Kremlin: “If Zelenskyy is ready to talk responsibly and seriously, he can always come to Moscow, where he will be received.”

Russia holds all the cards latest.

Morris_Dancer

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

@chadbourn.bsky.social‬

Ukrainian drones have hit the Moscow oil refinery. It’s burning. This is a big one - the refinery provides 40% of fuel for Moscow and the wider oblast.

#explodey

One of Russia’s largest fuel retailers Tatneft has just announced fuel rationing across its entire network. This is huge. The whole country is now facing shortages.

Kremlin: “If Zelenskyy is ready to talk responsibly and seriously, he can always come to Moscow, where he will be received.”

Russia holds all the cards latest.

Unfortunately, three of the cards are currently on fire.

And with that, I must be off. Stay safe, fellow non-verified persons.

Malmesbury

Scott_xP said:

@chadbourn.bsky.social‬

Ukrainian drones have hit the Moscow oil refinery. It’s burning. This is a big one - the refinery provides 40% of fuel for Moscow and the wider oblast.

#explodey

One of Russia’s largest fuel retailers Tatneft has just announced fuel rationing across its entire network. This is huge. The whole country is now facing shortages.

Kremlin: “If Zelenskyy is ready to talk responsibly and seriously, he can always come to Moscow, where he will be received.”

“Your offer of a meeting is refused. I have ofttimes met your treachery and this all men know."

Eabhal

Cyclefree said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

I don’t think anyone on PB is arguing that the judge made some sort of flat error. Not do we think that juries should have a role in sentencing. Hiding behind those arguments is useful though because it means you don’t need to confront the underlying injustice, which would be uncomfortable for you because it affects people you instinctively dislike. There are multiple issues here:

1) Terrorism as an aggravating factor for something like criminal damage is absurd. The implications and consequences of each crime are entirely different, and should be prosecuted separately
2) Happily, Terrorism exists as a crime in isolation - that the CPS didn’t charge them with that indicates there was little chance of a conviction for the crime for which they have been sentenced
3) The motivation for the crime was concealed from the jury, but influenced the sentence. An important element of jury trials is to let citizens consider the facts and actually have a say - they have been hoodwinked into a conviction. The inconsistency is the problem.
4) It undermines all jury trials if the jury can’t know of what they are deciding. You should vote to acquit in all instances now, lest your careless driving decision morphs into murder.

And separately, but linked:
5)Wearing a t-shirt isn’t terrorism. It just isn’t. It’s the least aggressive form of political activism imaginable. The PA prohibition makes it so.
6) There are multiple examples of other politically motivated criminal damage (ULEZ cameras, for a start) not sentenced for terrorism. Why are the CPS picking favourites?

FF43

On yesterday's discussion about whether social media platforms such as X, Facebook and TikTok are responsible for the content they host in the same way as newspapers with editors. This judgement that's just come out of the EU Court gets to the nub of the matter in my view.

the operator of an information society service cannot be exempted from its liability for the information stored and rebroadcast over which it has control. That is the case where the operator determines, by means of an algorithm, under what conditions, how and in which order of priority that information is or is not rebroadcast.

https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-06/cp260087en.pdf

In other words the moment a platform curates content in any way, that content becomes its own and it has responsibility for it.

williamglenn

Scott_xP said:

@chadbourn.bsky.social‬

Ukrainian drones have hit the Moscow oil refinery. It’s burning. This is a big one - the refinery provides 40% of fuel for Moscow and the wider oblast.

#explodey

One of Russia’s largest fuel retailers Tatneft has just announced fuel rationing across its entire network. This is huge. The whole country is now facing shortages.

Kremlin: “If Zelenskyy is ready to talk responsibly and seriously, he can always come to Moscow, where he will be received.”

"Putin's schedule is very busy, but he can find a window for Zelensky."

stodge

Morning all

Back to more important matters and my selections for the opening day at Ascot:

Queen Anne: MORE THUNDER

Coventry: CUT A DASH (each way)

King Charles III: OVERPASS

St James's Palace: BOW ECHO

Cookie

another_richard said:

By 'socialism' many American might mean European style social democracy.

By 'rightwards' many Americans might mean away from wokery.

Put them together and it suggests the sweet spot for the Dems is economically left and socially right of where they are.

I'd say this is also the sweet spot for electorates in Europe.

turbotubbs

Eabhal said:

Cyclefree said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

I don’t think anyone on PB is arguing that the judge made some sort of flat error. Not do we think that juries should have a role in sentencing. Hiding behind those arguments is useful though because it means you don’t need to confront the underlying injustice, which would be uncomfortable for you because it affects people you instinctively dislike. There are multiple issues here:

1) Terrorism as an aggravating factor for something like criminal damage is absurd. The implications and consequences of each crime are entirely different, and should be prosecuted separately
2) Happily, Terrorism exists as a crime in isolation - that the CPS didn’t charge them with that indicates there was little chance of a conviction for the crime for which they have been sentenced
3) The motivation for the crime was concealed from the jury, but influenced the sentence. An important element of jury trials is to let citizens consider the facts and actually have a say - they have been hoodwinked into a conviction. The inconsistency is the problem.
4) It undermines all jury trials if the jury can’t know of what they are deciding. You should vote to acquit in all instances now, lest your careless driving decision morphs into murder.

And separately, but linked:
5)Wearing a t-shirt isn’t terrorism. It just isn’t. It’s the least aggressive form of political activism imaginable. The PA prohibition makes it so.
6) There are multiple examples of other politically motivated criminal damage (ULEZ cameras, for a start) not sentenced for terrorism. Why are the CPS picking favourites?

What is the status of an "I support Adolf Hitler" T-shirt?

Are juries expected to decide on motivation or on the facts presented? Lucy Letby was convicted without any rationale for the murders being put to the jury.

turbotubbs

williamglenn said:

Scott_xP said:

@chadbourn.bsky.social‬

Ukrainian drones have hit the Moscow oil refinery. It’s burning. This is a big one - the refinery provides 40% of fuel for Moscow and the wider oblast.

#explodey

One of Russia’s largest fuel retailers Tatneft has just announced fuel rationing across its entire network. This is huge. The whole country is now facing shortages.

Kremlin: “If Zelenskyy is ready to talk responsibly and seriously, he can always come to Moscow, where he will be received.”

"Putin's schedule is very busy, but he can find a window for Zelensky."

I find the idea that the leader of a nation that has been invaded would be inclined to travel to the capital city of the invading country for a chat risible. And given the shockingly high number of 'accidents' in said place too.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great poll for Labour, only 5% behind in midterm.

Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention, 14-15 June 2026

Reform UK: 24% (-1 from 7-8 Jun)
Labour: 19% (=)
Conservatives: 19% (=)
Greens: 15% (+1)
Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
Restore Britain: 4% (+1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (-1)
Your Party: 0% (-1)

https://x.com/yougov/status/2066800321901260841?s=46

Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?

It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.

If we accept the premise that 25% wins the most votes at the next general election then we need recalibrate our usual expectations for what constitutes decent midterm polling for the government.

Perhaps.
But a distribution of votes like that is surely subject to large and unpredictable effects from fairly minor swings (whether tactical voting or otherwise).

A "decent" polling number sits on foundations of sand.

FF43

On topic, the next US president needs to be ruthless in restoring democratic institutions after Trump's wanton vandalism. It feels like a conservative gig. I'm not sure how interested AOC would be in institutional reform.

PeterCairns

The fact that Republicans and the likes of Fox have convinced most Americans that “Socialism” means “North Korea” would be AOC’s biggest obstacle.

To win the Democrats need to Voldemort it; the name that cannot be spoken.

Secondly when confronted by;

“That’s Socialism!”

They need to ask the interviewer what they mean by that, let them lay out their dying in the corridors in London hospitals narrative and then say

“ Well if that’s what it is it’s not what we’re offering!”

Before giving examples like Danish Healthcare!”

Basically the standard don’t let your opponent define you!

Peter.

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great poll for Labour, only 5% behind in midterm.

Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention, 14-15 June 2026

Reform UK: 24% (-1 from 7-8 Jun)
Labour: 19% (=)
Conservatives: 19% (=)
Greens: 15% (+1)
Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
Restore Britain: 4% (+1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (-1)
Your Party: 0% (-1)

https://x.com/yougov/status/2066800321901260841?s=46

Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?

It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.

If we accept the premise that 25% wins the most votes at the next general election then we need recalibrate our usual expectations for what constitutes decent midterm polling for the government.

I thought one of the mantras on here was: "look at the shares, not the gap."

BatteryCorrectHorse

viewcode said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

All trains should be retrofitted with RF-passing “honeycomb” glass like they have on trains in Germany.

This would improve coverage on mainline trains for millions of people overnight.

As of 31 March 2025, there were 15,348 railway vehicles registered in operation for all passenger train operators. I don't know how many passenger carriages per vehicle on average, but if we assume 1, each with eight windows, that's around 120,000 windows that need replacing.

Or you can drill a hole through the carriage wall and run an aerial through it.

It’s not an aerial you want but a repeater. Some mainline trains did have these but since removed. Either would be fine but DfT should mandate them on all trains.

BatteryCorrectHorse

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great poll for Labour, only 5% behind in midterm.

Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention, 14-15 June 2026

Reform UK: 24% (-1 from 7-8 Jun)
Labour: 19% (=)
Conservatives: 19% (=)
Greens: 15% (+1)
Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
Restore Britain: 4% (+1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (-1)
Your Party: 0% (-1)

https://x.com/yougov/status/2066800321901260841?s=46

Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?

It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.

It’s why I think Burnham led Labour should be strong favourite for a second term.

LostPassword

FF43 said:

On topic, the next US president needs to be ruthless in restoring democratic institutions after Trump's wanton vandalism. It feels like a conservative gig. I'm not sure how interested AOC would be in institutional reform.

It would be pretty hard for any President to restore democratic institutions without bipartisan support, and the GOP was in a mood of reflexively opposing everything suggested by a Democratic President for years before Trump. It was the modus operandi for the GOP since Gingrich won the House when Clinton was President.

Trump is the symptom of something that has been building in US politics for a long time. I am very doubtful that all the poison will be removed if Trump does leave office as scheduled in January 2029.

TheScreamingEagles

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great poll for Labour, only 5% behind in midterm.

Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention, 14-15 June 2026

Reform UK: 24% (-1 from 7-8 Jun)
Labour: 19% (=)
Conservatives: 19% (=)
Greens: 15% (+1)
Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
Restore Britain: 4% (+1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (-1)
Your Party: 0% (-1)

https://x.com/yougov/status/2066800321901260841?s=46

Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?

It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.

If we accept the premise that 25% wins the most votes at the next general election then we need recalibrate our usual expectations for what constitutes decent midterm polling for the government.

I thought one of the mantras on here was: "look at the shares, not the gap."

Yes but does that apply when we're 5 party GB wide politics? I genuinely do not know. We might be in 6 party GB wide politics after Thursday depending on how well Restore do.

I still prefer still prefer Ipsos satisfaction ratings over VI at this stage in the cycle however there's a disconnect developing there too which I can only explain due to the Tory brand being tainted/seen as a wasted vote.

All the previous assumptions held true when we were in 2 to 3.5 party politics.

another_richard

Cookie said:

another_richard said:

By 'socialism' many American might mean European style social democracy.

By 'rightwards' many Americans might mean away from wokery.

Put them together and it suggests the sweet spot for the Dems is economically left and socially right of where they are.

I'd say this is also the sweet spot for electorates in Europe.

What the Dems need to talk about is jobs, housing, health costs, student debt, inequality and opportunity.

What they need to shut up about is trans, abortion and illegal immigrants.

Pulpstar

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great poll for Labour, only 5% behind in midterm.

Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention, 14-15 June 2026

Reform UK: 24% (-1 from 7-8 Jun)
Labour: 19% (=)
Conservatives: 19% (=)
Greens: 15% (+1)
Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
Restore Britain: 4% (+1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (-1)
Your Party: 0% (-1)

https://x.com/yougov/status/2066800321901260841?s=46

Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?

It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.

If we accept the premise that 25% wins the most votes at the next general election then we need recalibrate our usual expectations for what constitutes decent midterm polling for the government.

I thought one of the mantras on here was: "look at the shares, not the gap."

Yes but does that apply when we're 5 party GB wide politics? I genuinely do not know. We might be in 6 party GB wide politics after Thursday depending on how well Restore do.

I still prefer still prefer Ipsos approval ratings over VI at this stage in the cycle however there's a disconnect developing there too which I can only explain due to the Tory brand being tainted/seen as a wasted vote.

All the previous assumptions held true when we were in 2 to 3.5 party politics.

Still look at the shares but lower shares are needed. 19% is not terrible with 5-6 party politics. Also see historic French presidential ratings, all utterly dire even for the winner.

PeterCairns

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

On topic, the next US president needs to be ruthless in restoring democratic institutions after Trump's wanton vandalism. It feels like a conservative gig. I'm not sure how interested AOC would be in institutional reform.

It would be pretty hard for any President to restore democratic institutions without bipartisan support, and the GOP was in a mood of reflexively opposing everything suggested by a Democratic President for years before Trump. It was the modus operandi for the GOP since Gingrich won the House when Clinton was President.

Trump is the symptom of something that has been building in US politics for a long time. I am very doubtful that all the poison will be removed if Trump does leave office as scheduled in January 2029.

I disagree.

Given the power the SCOUS has given Trump and how he has used it the last thing the Republicans will want is that power wielded against them.

Not least because if the DOJ opens up Trumps records and sees what they have been up, to a good few could be heading to Rikers Island!

Peter.

TheScreamingEagles

One of OGH's golden rules was the most accurate poll is the poll that has Labour doing the worst was pretty accurate but the exceptions were in 2010 and 2017.

That golden rule came back with a vengeance in 2024.

TheScreamingEagles

Uh oh, wait until he's been PM for 3 months.

Andy Burnham's net favourability rating has slumped to -11, having slipped significantly in mid-late May as Labour leadership rows have intensified

12-13 May
Favourable: 34%
Unfavourable: 30%
Net: +4

14-15 June
Favourable: 30%
Unfavourable: 41%
Net: -11

https://x.com/YouGov/status/2066828014659281179

Cyclefree

Eabhal said:

Cyclefree said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

I don’t think anyone on PB is arguing that the judge made some sort of flat error. Not do we think that juries should have a role in sentencing. Hiding behind those arguments is useful though because it means you don’t need to confront the underlying injustice, which would be uncomfortable for you because it affects people you instinctively dislike. There are multiple issues here:

1) Terrorism as an aggravating factor for something like criminal damage is absurd. The implications and consequences of each crime are entirely different, and should be prosecuted separately
2) Happily, Terrorism exists as a crime in isolation - that the CPS didn’t charge them with that indicates there was little chance of a conviction for the crime for which they have been sentenced
3) The motivation for the crime was concealed from the jury, but influenced the sentence. An important element of jury trials is to let citizens consider the facts and actually have a say - they have been hoodwinked into a conviction. The inconsistency is the problem.
4) It undermines all jury trials if the jury can’t know of what they are deciding. You should vote to acquit in all instances now, lest your careless driving decision morphs into murder.

And separately, but linked:
5)Wearing a t-shirt isn’t terrorism. It just isn’t. It’s the least aggressive form of political activism imaginable. The PA prohibition makes it so.
6) There are multiple examples of other politically motivated criminal damage (ULEZ cameras, for a start) not sentenced for terrorism. Why are the CPS picking favourites?

3) The motivation was concealed because the defence asked for this.

4) The jury convicted on the charges brought. The charges were NOT changed after conviction. This is a flat out lie. Your analogy is a stupid one. Aggravating and mitigating factors are always factors in sentencing.

The complaint here is that something the defence chose to conceal from the jury because they thought it would prejudice the jury was lawfully used as one of the factors which the judge, in accordance with the law, The Sentencing Act of 2020, took into account in sentencing. If any hoodwinking was going on, it was the defence which tried to do this.

As for your point 1 this is equally stupid. Try saying that racial hatred as an aggravating factor for criminal damage is absurd. It isn't. Nor is terror.

There are different charges which can be brought on the basis of particular facts. Deciding which charges to be brought is an art. Saying that because something can be used as an aggravating factor means only a certain charge should be brought is absurdly reductive and not how the process of charging works.

What all these complaints boil down to is this: the defendants thought that because they were right to do what they did they should be acquitted and should face no consequences for their actions and are now learning that the law, which has been clear for some time, should not apply to them. And they - and some of their supporters - think this because they were doing this for Palestine. That is the heart of the complaint. Not the jury system or inconsistency in the law or anything else. It's because you like their cause that you are complaining. If these people had been attacking mosques because they hated the Taliban or pharmaceutical factories because they hated vaccines or black churches because they hated the slaughter of Christians in some parts of Africa there wouldn't be this concern about unfair trials.

As for me, I thought the judge was wrong to try to bring contempt of court proceedings against the defence barrister and am glad that this was dropped. I read the defence barrister's speech (have you?). It went into a lot of detail about motivation, Palestine, their reasons for doing what they did, why it was an injustice etc, etc. The jury had ample evidence and advocacy on which if they had wanted to they could have acquitted. They chose not to.


There is a separate argument to be made about whether the legal provision which allows a court to take into account something which might be deemed to be terrorism should have been passed. This was debated in Parliament at the time. Only one Lib Dem Lord raised a concern. If you want to debate that we can have a debate about removing all aggravating and mitigating factors from sentencing and just charging people with the most serious possible offence.

And finally if the judge has got the law wrong here then this will be appealed.

Eabhal

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

Cyclefree said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

I don’t think anyone on PB is arguing that the judge made some sort of flat error. Not do we think that juries should have a role in sentencing. Hiding behind those arguments is useful though because it means you don’t need to confront the underlying injustice, which would be uncomfortable for you because it affects people you instinctively dislike. There are multiple issues here:

1) Terrorism as an aggravating factor for something like criminal damage is absurd. The implications and consequences of each crime are entirely different, and should be prosecuted separately
2) Happily, Terrorism exists as a crime in isolation - that the CPS didn’t charge them with that indicates there was little chance of a conviction for the crime for which they have been sentenced
3) The motivation for the crime was concealed from the jury, but influenced the sentence. An important element of jury trials is to let citizens consider the facts and actually have a say - they have been hoodwinked into a conviction. The inconsistency is the problem.
4) It undermines all jury trials if the jury can’t know of what they are deciding. You should vote to acquit in all instances now, lest your careless driving decision morphs into murder.

And separately, but linked:
5)Wearing a t-shirt isn’t terrorism. It just isn’t. It’s the least aggressive form of political activism imaginable. The PA prohibition makes it so.
6) There are multiple examples of other politically motivated criminal damage (ULEZ cameras, for a start) not sentenced for terrorism. Why are the CPS picking favourites?

What is the status of an "I support Adolf Hitler" T-shirt?

Are juries expected to decide on motivation or on the facts presented? Lucy Letby was convicted without any rationale for the murders being put to the jury.

On Hitler t-shirts I would consider it a public order offence at the very most, and I’d still feel deeply uncomfortable with that.

Letby was charged with murder, not child neglect - the jury were aware of the stakes. And motivation is a very important part of that decision, even in strict liability cases - e.g. you run a red rushing someone seriously injured to hospital.

Eabhal

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

Cyclefree said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

I don’t think anyone on PB is arguing that the judge made some sort of flat error. Not do we think that juries should have a role in sentencing. Hiding behind those arguments is useful though because it means you don’t need to confront the underlying injustice, which would be uncomfortable for you because it affects people you instinctively dislike. There are multiple issues here:

1) Terrorism as an aggravating factor for something like criminal damage is absurd. The implications and consequences of each crime are entirely different, and should be prosecuted separately
2) Happily, Terrorism exists as a crime in isolation - that the CPS didn’t charge them with that indicates there was little chance of a conviction for the crime for which they have been sentenced
3) The motivation for the crime was concealed from the jury, but influenced the sentence. An important element of jury trials is to let citizens consider the facts and actually have a say - they have been hoodwinked into a conviction. The inconsistency is the problem.
4) It undermines all jury trials if the jury can’t know of what they are deciding. You should vote to acquit in all instances now, lest your careless driving decision morphs into murder.

And separately, but linked:
5)Wearing a t-shirt isn’t terrorism. It just isn’t. It’s the least aggressive form of political activism imaginable. The PA prohibition makes it so.
6) There are multiple examples of other politically motivated criminal damage (ULEZ cameras, for a start) not sentenced for terrorism. Why are the CPS picking favourites?

What is the status of an "I support Adolf Hitler" T-shirt?

Are juries expected to decide on motivation or on the facts presented? Lucy Letby was convicted without any rationale for the murders being put to the jury.

On Hitler t-shirts I would consider it a public order offence at the very most, and I’d still feel deeply uncomfortable with that. Certainly not terrorism.

Letby was charged with murder, not child neglect - the jury were aware of the stakes. And motivation is a very important part of any decision, even in strict liability cases - e.g. you run a red rushing someone seriously injured to hospital - and not normally concealed from a jury.

eek

PeterCairns said:

LostPassword said:

FF43 said:

On topic, the next US president needs to be ruthless in restoring democratic institutions after Trump's wanton vandalism. It feels like a conservative gig. I'm not sure how interested AOC would be in institutional reform.

It would be pretty hard for any President to restore democratic institutions without bipartisan support, and the GOP was in a mood of reflexively opposing everything suggested by a Democratic President for years before Trump. It was the modus operandi for the GOP since Gingrich won the House when Clinton was President.

Trump is the symptom of something that has been building in US politics for a long time. I am very doubtful that all the poison will be removed if Trump does leave office as scheduled in January 2029.

I disagree.

Given the power the SCOUS has given Trump and how he has used it the last thing the Republicans will want is that power wielded against them.

Not least because if the DOJ opens up Trumps records and sees what they have been up, to a good few could be heading to Rikers Island!

Peter.

That would require everyone in the DOJ to both grew a pair and had a backup plan in case the current lot ever returned to power

TheScreamingEagles

Wes Streeting's haven't fallen as much as Burnham's.

Wes Streeting has likewise seen his net favourability ratings worsen following his resignation as health secretary

12-13 May
Favourable: 16%
Unfavourable: 44%
Net: -28

14-15 June
Favourable: 12%
Unfavourable: 50%
Net: -38

TheScreamingEagles

turbotubbs said:

Eabhal said:

Cyclefree said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

WRT to discussions recently over sentencing and how the defence was allowed and not allowed to run its defence in the palestine action case, it is worth looking at the excellent Joshua Rozenberg's balanced comment. IMHO he gets it exactly right. Including this:

Anyone reading this might think that the activists were convicted of terrorism offences or, at the very least, that their sentences were substantially increased because Palestine Action was subsequently banned as a terrorist organisation. Neither is true.

https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/activists-not-terrorists?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=201979337&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Their sentences were increased because so-called "terrorism" (disrupting an Israeli arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and to kill innocent women and children) was an aggravating factor in the case, as the article notes in the judge's sentencing remarks.

Try reading it again. The judge took account of aggravating and mitigating factors, which largely balanced each other out. Anyone causing criminal damage of over a million pounds would have faced sentences of this length. They are entirely in line with what would be expected for such offences. The judge's sentencing was in line with the relevant laws which have been in place for some time. And the terror angle has been used in another recent case about arson (which had nothing to do with arms factories).

Defence counsel's closing speech for one of the defendants went into very great detail about the defendant's political motivations / concern for victims etc and why he should be acquitted so the idea that the jury was not made fully aware of why the defendants did what they did is for the birds.

As for the claim that the jury was not told about sentencing and what an outrage this all is, juries play no role in sentencing at all. Ever. It is utterly irrelevant to their role.

I don’t think anyone on PB is arguing that the judge made some sort of flat error. Not do we think that juries should have a role in sentencing. Hiding behind those arguments is useful though because it means you don’t need to confront the underlying injustice, which would be uncomfortable for you because it affects people you instinctively dislike. There are multiple issues here:

1) Terrorism as an aggravating factor for something like criminal damage is absurd. The implications and consequences of each crime are entirely different, and should be prosecuted separately
2) Happily, Terrorism exists as a crime in isolation - that the CPS didn’t charge them with that indicates there was little chance of a conviction for the crime for which they have been sentenced
3) The motivation for the crime was concealed from the jury, but influenced the sentence. An important element of jury trials is to let citizens consider the facts and actually have a say - they have been hoodwinked into a conviction. The inconsistency is the problem.
4) It undermines all jury trials if the jury can’t know of what they are deciding. You should vote to acquit in all instances now, lest your careless driving decision morphs into murder.

And separately, but linked:
5)Wearing a t-shirt isn’t terrorism. It just isn’t. It’s the least aggressive form of political activism imaginable. The PA prohibition makes it so.
6) There are multiple examples of other politically motivated criminal damage (ULEZ cameras, for a start) not sentenced for terrorism. Why are the CPS picking favourites?

What is the status of an "I support Adolf Hitler" T-shirt?

Are juries expected to decide on motivation or on the facts presented? Lucy Letby was convicted without any rationale for the murders being put to the jury.

Depends on the context.

Wearing that t-shirt in Golders Green or outside a synagogue, definitely getting charged.

Wearing that t-shirt at vegetarian convention, all good.

LostPassword

TheScreamingEagles said:

Wes Streeting's haven't fallen as much as Burnham's.

Wes Streeting has likewise seen his net favourability ratings worsen following his resignation as health secretary

12-13 May
Favourable: 16%
Unfavourable: 44%
Net: -28

14-15 June
Favourable: 12%
Unfavourable: 50%
Net: -38

Circular firing squads are entertaining, but everyone ends up shot.

Stuartinromford

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Great poll for Labour, only 5% behind in midterm.

Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention, 14-15 June 2026

Reform UK: 24% (-1 from 7-8 Jun)
Labour: 19% (=)
Conservatives: 19% (=)
Greens: 15% (+1)
Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
Restore Britain: 4% (+1)
SNP: 2% (-1)
Plaid Cymru: 1% (-1)
Your Party: 0% (-1)

https://x.com/yougov/status/2066800321901260841?s=46

Put like that: government in second place, 3 percent swing behind the leading party, still the leading party on their side of the left-right fence... the current hand-wringing is bonkers... Isn't it?

It's as if we've all driven ourselves mad by getting an image of the world that focuses on second-by-second twitches, rather than year-by-year tectonic movements. For some reason.

If we accept the premise that 25% wins the most votes at the next general election then we need recalibrate our usual expectations for what constitutes decent midterm polling for the government.

I thought one of the mantras on here was: "look at the shares, not the gap."

Yes but does that apply when we're 5 party GB wide politics? I genuinely do not know. We might be in 6 party GB wide politics after Thursday depending on how well Restore do.

I still prefer still prefer Ipsos satisfaction ratings over VI at this stage in the cycle however there's a disconnect developing there too which I can only explain due to the Tory brand being tainted/seen as a wasted vote.

All the previous assumptions held true when we were in 2 to 3.5 party politics.

I suspect that a key difference at the moment is that Labour are still the leading party on the left-of-centre, whereas the Conservatives aren't leading on the right-of-centre. If either of those changes, then a lot of bricks might shuffle quite rapidly into a different pattern.

It's certainly possible- though a Restore effect, or Farage getting bored, seems more likely than anything the current Conservative leadership achieve. And Polanski is just as capable of self-combusting as Farage.

bondegezou

ydoethur said:

Incidentally, on SM one thing we may be forgetting is how the companies are increasingly making their own content unusable without premium membership anyway, through ads, poor layout and irrelevant material.

They may actually kill themselves off for those using them for free, which ironically would have much the same effect as a ban for under 16s.

The classic enshittification process. I find Facebook increasingly unusable. X is a mess. YouTube did some recent updates to the phone app that makes numerous things harder, and they keep pushing Shorts. I've become a moderator of a subreddit to help battle a wave of spam.