Skip to content

Prime Minister Andy Burnham is inevitable – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,248
edited 7:17PM in General
Prime Minister Andy Burnham is inevitable – politicalbetting.com

NEW: Andy Burnham now has the nominations of 349 of approx 400 Labour MPs in the uncontested Labour leadership contest. (Nobody else could throw their hat in the ring now, even if they wanted to.)

Read the full story here

«1

Comments

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,623
    Burnham would. Burnham is!
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 8,050
    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,775

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    The only way to win is by not playing.

    Why on earth would he bother wasting more months on an election ?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,245
    I have a confidence in Burnham.
    Not really sure why, but looking forward to him being PM.

    This is in stark contrast to Trump who terrifies me in both his domestic and international actions.

    Every day I eagerly reach for the headlines to see if he has dropped dead.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,775
    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,775

    It is still quite incredible that a former MP who lost 2 previous leadership elections and ran off to Manchester is about to become PM with no scrutiny, no programme, no mandate.

    It is equally incredible that the Labour benches are so devoid of talent that they couldn't find a credible Starmer replacement from their own ranks.

    How is politics so broken that this is even possible?

    Like it or not, he commands a Commons majority.
    That's how our system works, and has done for quite some time.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,308

    FF43 said:

    I struggle with Roman Numerals until I get to 159.

    Then it just CLIX.

    I tend to MIX up my Roman numerals when I get to 1009.
    I can't remember how to write 1, 1000, 51, 6 and 500 in Roman Numerals.

    I M LIVID
    I was going to be CIVIL, but....
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,661
    FPT:

    carnforth said:

    Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?

    You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.

    But no.

    So we have:

    Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News

    Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?


    * In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing


    This is disingenuous or stupid.

    The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.

    That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.

    I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.

    1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.

    2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
    3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.

    As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.

    Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
    Saying "no evidence of political motive" is un-necessary though. One can just omit it. Except for public order management.
    Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
    You've rather stupidly blown up your own argument there. Your initial claim was that the police just gave the bald facts, but you have now acknowledged that the indication they gave as to the lack of a political motive was necessary to combat right wing speculation. So clearly you do think it was an intervention aimed at managing public opinion.

    Of course, the inner monologue you've failed to conceal is correct. The police did try to promote a particular view of this crime and it was extremely foolish.

    I note that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and Terrorism Legislation for the UK government has said that the police should not have made such comments - 'I don't understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case...they broke one of the golden rules of a live investigation which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge...regrettable'

    But I'm sure you know more than him about it.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,662

    It is still quite incredible that a former MP who lost 2 previous leadership elections and ran off to Manchester is about to become PM with no scrutiny, no programme, no mandate.

    It is equally incredible that the Labour benches are so devoid of talent that they couldn't find a credible Starmer replacement from their own ranks.

    How is politics so broken that this is even possible?

    All politicians come from the population at large.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 80,079
    How soon before we have PB headers about Labour Crashing and Burnham?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,601

    It is still quite incredible that a former MP who lost 2 previous leadership elections and ran off to Manchester is about to become PM with no scrutiny, no programme, no mandate.

    It is equally incredible that the Labour benches are so devoid of talent that they couldn't find a credible Starmer replacement from their own ranks.

    How is politics so broken that this is even possible?

    That's just a function of Mayoralties where you have massive spending power but not much taxation being much more attractive to ambitious politicians than the House of Commons. We already see that in Scotland (stop laughing at the back) - the likes of Salmond and Sturgeon would once upon a time been cabinet ministers in Whitehall, rather than FMs in Bute House. Stephen Flynn is the latest example.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,902
    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    I find that difficult to believe.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,617

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Eh? Sixish months after he was anointed
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 5,001
    edited 7:41PM

    It is still quite incredible that a former MP who lost 2 previous leadership elections and ran off to Manchester is about to become PM with no scrutiny, no programme, no mandate.

    It is equally incredible that the Labour benches are so devoid of talent that they couldn't find a credible Starmer replacement from their own ranks.

    How is politics so broken that this is even possible?

    The main contenders/rivals were either chickenshit, or happy to leverage their rival status for a big cabinet job, presumably. Or both.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,682
    ydoethur said:

    How soon before we have PB headers about Labour Crashing and Burnham?

    Been there done that.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/06/12/is-andy-about-to-crash-and-burn-ham/
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,902
    Quite a remarkable achievement by Andy.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,617
    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    This is why Reform activists are being pulled down to Essex
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 10,245
    DougSeal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    This is why Reform activists are being pulled down to Essex
    I think it's more that Farage fears he might lose to a bin.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,520
    No surprise there and hasn't been since no other candidate challenged Starmer. Burnham will likely now be PM a week today

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,520
    edited 7:45PM
    'Ann Widdecombe assassination suspect is believed to have been caught researching Russian communist literature.
    I can also reveal Ann's WhatsApp was last active at 9.21pm on Wednesday, suggesting the killer took over her phone or that she was held hostage...'

    https://x.com/danwootton/status/2076709140240412944?s=20
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 80,079

    ydoethur said:

    How soon before we have PB headers about Labour Crashing and Burnham?

    Been there done that.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/06/12/is-andy-about-to-crash-and-burn-ham/
    I should have known that Labour electing a Burnham wood be meat and drink for punning chances.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,878
    "The bungled briefings that sowed confusion over Widdecombe killing
    Police face questions over why they repeatedly talked down possibility politician’s death was terror-related

    Martin Evans
    Crime Editor"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/13/police-pressure-ann-widdecombe-killing-not-political/
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,617

    It is still quite incredible that a former MP who lost 2 previous leadership elections and ran off to Manchester is about to become PM with no scrutiny, no programme, no mandate.

    It is equally incredible that the Labour benches are so devoid of talent that they couldn't find a credible Starmer replacement from their own ranks.

    How is politics so broken that this is even possible?

    Have you, or anyone else, read his book? It is, or at least could be regarded as, a "programme"
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,601
    edited 7:50PM
    Andy_JS said:

    "The bungled briefings that sowed confusion over Widdecombe killing
    Police face questions over why they repeatedly talked down possibility politician’s death was terror-related

    Martin Evans
    Crime Editor"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/13/police-pressure-ann-widdecombe-killing-not-political/

    FFS. Is nothing sacred - this is a live murder investigation. I listened to the press conferences and the police did not "talk down" the possibility.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,623
    edited 7:50PM
    HYUFD said:

    'Ann Widdecombe assassination suspect is believed to have been caught researching Russian communist literature.
    I can also reveal Ann's WhatsApp was last active at 9.21pm on Wednesday, suggesting the killer took over her phone or that she was held hostage...'

    https://x.com/danwootton/status/2076709140240412944?s=20

    Edit: I didn't read properly.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,682
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    How soon before we have PB headers about Labour Crashing and Burnham?

    Been there done that.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/06/12/is-andy-about-to-crash-and-burn-ham/
    I should have known that Labour electing a Burnham wood be meat and drink for punning chances.
    Wes Streeting has the greatest potential for punning.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,520
    France, Elabe poll:

    Presidential run-off election

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 67.5%
    Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 32.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 58.5%
    Glucksmann (PS/PP-S&D): 41.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 54%
    Attal (RE-RE): 46%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 52%
    Philippe (HOR-RE): 48%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 56%
    Retailleau (LR-EPP): 44%

    https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/2076576087295889536?s=20
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,113

    FPT:

    carnforth said:

    Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?

    You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.

    But no.

    So we have:

    Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News

    Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?


    * In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing


    This is disingenuous or stupid.

    The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.

    That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.

    I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.

    1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.

    2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
    3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.

    As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.

    Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
    Saying "no evidence of political motive" is un-necessary though. One can just omit it. Except for public order management.
    Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
    You've rather stupidly blown up your own argument there. Your initial claim was that the police just gave the bald facts, but you have now acknowledged that the indication they gave as to the lack of a political motive was necessary to combat right wing speculation. So clearly you do think it was an intervention aimed at managing public opinion.

    Of course, the inner monologue you've failed to conceal is correct. The police did try to promote a particular view of this crime and it was extremely foolish.

    I note that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and Terrorism Legislation for the UK government has said that the police should not have made such comments - 'I don't understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case...they broke one of the golden rules of a live investigation which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge...regrettable'

    But I'm sure you know more than him about it.
    tbh it sounds like the eminent KC has not thought it through unless he expects the public to solve cases for them. Sure there may be reasons for not releasing information but this is not one of them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 104,566
    Bunch of malcontents failing to nominate I see.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,623
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    How soon before we have PB headers about Labour Crashing and Burnham?

    Been there done that.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/06/12/is-andy-about-to-crash-and-burn-ham/
    I should have known that Labour electing a Burnham wood be meat and drink for punning chances.
    No 10 to move to Dunsinane?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 104,566
    HYUFD said:

    France, Elabe poll:

    Presidential run-off election

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 67.5%
    Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 32.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 58.5%
    Glucksmann (PS/PP-S&D): 41.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 54%
    Attal (RE-RE): 46%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 52%
    Philippe (HOR-RE): 48%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 56%
    Retailleau (LR-EPP): 44%

    https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/2076576087295889536?s=20

    4th time the charm? Believe it when I see it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,520
    'Picture you didn’t know you needed to see today:

    Boris Johnson dresses up as Buzz Lightyear for his son Frank’s third birthday.'

    https://x.com/tomhfh/status/2076417363822465223?s=20
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 80,079
    carnforth said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    How soon before we have PB headers about Labour Crashing and Burnham?

    Been there done that.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/06/12/is-andy-about-to-crash-and-burn-ham/
    I should have known that Labour electing a Burnham wood be meat and drink for punning chances.
    No 10 to move to Dunsinane?
    Well, Starmer certainly by self and violent hands took off his own leadership.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 104,566
    Eabhal said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "The bungled briefings that sowed confusion over Widdecombe killing
    Police face questions over why they repeatedly talked down possibility politician’s death was terror-related

    Martin Evans
    Crime Editor"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/13/police-pressure-ann-widdecombe-killing-not-political/

    FFS. Is nothing sacred - this is a live murder investigation. I listened to the press conferences and the police did not "talk down" the possibility.
    Try not to get in the way of a grievance narrative, it only makes people mad. 'Talking down' is usually code for 'did not state with certainty my extreme interpretation'.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 80,079
    HYUFD said:

    'Picture you didn’t know you needed to see today:

    Boris Johnson dresses up as Buzz Lightyear for his son Frank’s third birthday.'

    https://x.com/tomhfh/status/2076417363822465223?s=20

    I think Carrie as Mr Potato Head is worse, TBF.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 6,083

    It is still quite incredible that a former MP who lost 2 previous leadership elections and ran off to Manchester is about to become PM with no scrutiny, no programme, no mandate.

    It is equally incredible that the Labour benches are so devoid of talent that they couldn't find a credible Starmer replacement from their own ranks.

    How is politics so broken that this is even possible?

    The main contenders/rivals were either chickenshit, or happy to leverage their rival status for a big cabinet job, presumably. Or both.
    I know how the mechanics of it all work. It is just the fact this was the best way of any governing party could come up with to replace a failed leader that baffles me.

    I have lived through many leadership changes though am too young to have lived through the elevation of Alec Douglas Home. We have moved on from the days of the Men in Grey Suits making the decision.

    Leaders who get the job after a proper process and have faced a vote of the membership of their party have a greater legitimacy because they have to have made their case.

    This doesn't always work as Truss proved.

    I do wonder whether Labour will now get a taste for defenestration and all future leaders will constantly be looking over their shoulders for the next major rebellion.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,661
    ..

    FPT:

    carnforth said:

    Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?

    You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.

    But no.

    So we have:

    Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News

    Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?


    * In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing


    This is disingenuous or stupid.

    The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.

    That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.

    I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.

    1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.

    2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
    3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.

    As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.

    Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
    Saying "no evidence of political motive" is un-necessary though. One can just omit it. Except for public order management.
    Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
    You've rather stupidly blown up your own argument there. Your initial claim was that the police just gave the bald facts, but you have now acknowledged that the indication they gave as to the lack of a political motive was necessary to combat right wing speculation. So clearly you do think it was an intervention aimed at managing public opinion.

    Of course, the inner monologue you've failed to conceal is correct. The police did try to promote a particular view of this crime and it was extremely foolish.

    I note that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and Terrorism Legislation for the UK government has said that the police should not have made such comments - 'I don't understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case...they broke one of the golden rules of a live investigation which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge...regrettable'

    But I'm sure you know more than him about it.
    tbh it sounds like the eminent KC has not thought it through unless he expects the public to solve cases for them. Sure there may be reasons for not releasing information but this is not one of them.
    I don't understand your comment.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483

    It is still quite incredible that a former MP who lost 2 previous leadership elections and ran off to Manchester is about to become PM with no scrutiny, no programme, no mandate.

    It is equally incredible that the Labour benches are so devoid of talent that they couldn't find a credible Starmer replacement from their own ranks.

    How is politics so broken that this is even possible?

    It is a weird episode in politics but it doesn't indicate a lack of talent in Labour. I mean, there might be but this doesn't show that. The driver was Starmer's unpopularity. So the obvious remedy is to replace him with a Labour politician who is not unpopular and has proved this by hammering all-comers in an election in the sort of seat that is crucial to the party's prospects at the next GE. That was the process. It generated a shortlist of one.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 5,001
    HYUFD said:

    'Picture you didn’t know you needed to see today:

    Boris Johnson dresses up as Buzz Lightyear for his son Frank’s third birthday.'

    https://x.com/tomhfh/status/2076417363822465223?s=20

    Ah so that's what happens if you take the infinity from "infinity and beyond", and divide it by zero.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,113
    Andy_JS said:

    "The bungled briefings that sowed confusion over Widdecombe killing
    Police face questions over why they repeatedly talked down possibility politician’s death was terror-related

    Martin Evans
    Crime Editor"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/13/police-pressure-ann-widdecombe-killing-not-political/

    Does a Fleet Street crime editor really want the police to clam up in future cases?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,321
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    How soon before we have PB headers about Labour Crashing and Burnham?

    Been there done that.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/06/12/is-andy-about-to-crash-and-burn-ham/
    I should have known that Labour electing a Burnham wood be meat and drink for punning chances.
    Anyone who can't come up with puns for this scenario is a real dunce. Inane chitchat is all we can expect from them.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,113
    kinabalu said:

    It is still quite incredible that a former MP who lost 2 previous leadership elections and ran off to Manchester is about to become PM with no scrutiny, no programme, no mandate.

    It is equally incredible that the Labour benches are so devoid of talent that they couldn't find a credible Starmer replacement from their own ranks.

    How is politics so broken that this is even possible?

    It is a weird episode in politics but it doesn't indicate a lack of talent in Labour. I mean, there might be but this doesn't show that. The driver was Starmer's unpopularity. So the obvious remedy is to replace him with a Labour politician who is not unpopular and has proved this by hammering all-comers in an election in the sort of seat that is crucial to the party's prospects at the next GE. That was the process. It generated a shortlist of one.
    Yes, and good luck to the bloke. The country deserves a change of fortune. That said, I remain sceptical of Manchesterism.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 80,079

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    How soon before we have PB headers about Labour Crashing and Burnham?

    Been there done that.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/06/12/is-andy-about-to-crash-and-burn-ham/
    I should have known that Labour electing a Burnham wood be meat and drink for punning chances.
    Anyone who can't come up with puns for this scenario is a real dunce. Inane chitchat is all we can expect from them.
    Witches inevitable.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,113

    ..

    FPT:

    carnforth said:

    Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?

    You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.

    But no.

    So we have:

    Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News

    Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?


    * In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing


    This is disingenuous or stupid.

    The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.

    That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.

    I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.

    1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.

    2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
    3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.

    As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.

    Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
    Saying "no evidence of political motive" is un-necessary though. One can just omit it. Except for public order management.
    Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
    You've rather stupidly blown up your own argument there. Your initial claim was that the police just gave the bald facts, but you have now acknowledged that the indication they gave as to the lack of a political motive was necessary to combat right wing speculation. So clearly you do think it was an intervention aimed at managing public opinion.

    Of course, the inner monologue you've failed to conceal is correct. The police did try to promote a particular view of this crime and it was extremely foolish.

    I note that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and Terrorism Legislation for the UK government has said that the police should not have made such comments - 'I don't understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case...they broke one of the golden rules of a live investigation which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge...regrettable'

    But I'm sure you know more than him about it.
    tbh it sounds like the eminent KC has not thought it through unless he expects the public to solve cases for them. Sure there may be reasons for not releasing information but this is not one of them.
    I don't understand your comment.
    I'm saying that Hall is wrong and it does not matter if you tell the public one set of facts and then some more emerge because the public are not the detectives working on the case.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,956
    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Kemi Badenoch's Conservatives once again "absolutely nailing it" in fifth place I see.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,682
    Disgraceful.

    Palace refused to have post-Brexit deal signed at Windsor Castle

    Officials feared that the King would be dragged into a political minefield if he hosted the signing of the Windsor framework on Northern Ireland


    Buckingham Palace blocked the government from signing a post-Brexit deal at Windsor Castle to protect the King from a political minefield, a book reveals.

    When the framework to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland was reached in February 2023, politicians did not want to sign it in Brussels because it would look like they were kowtowing to Europe, nor did the European Commission want to sign it at No 10.

    Instead, they devised a third option, and sought consent from the King to call it the Windsor Framework. It was hoped that the royal angle would appeal to the EU and make the deal sound “less transactional and more of a settlement”.

    The Palace agreed to the name. But when government officials asked if the deal could be signed at Windsor Castle, courtiers refused, saying that it was “going too far”. The decision to block the government’s plan is revealed in an updated paperback edition of Power and the Palace by Valentine Low, former royal correspondent of The Times.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/windsor-framework-brexit-castle-king-6m9srpwlq
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,453
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    How soon before we have PB headers about Labour Crashing and Burnham?

    Been there done that.

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2026/06/12/is-andy-about-to-crash-and-burn-ham/
    I should have known that Labour electing a Burnham wood be meat and drink for punning chances.
    Which! Burnham!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,682
    Foss said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Picture you didn’t know you needed to see today:

    Boris Johnson dresses up as Buzz Lightyear for his son Frank’s third birthday.'

    https://x.com/tomhfh/status/2076417363822465223?s=20

    A parent looking a bit silly to make their three-year-olds birthday more fun is not the sin Harwood thinks it is.
    Preferred that to being used as a human climbing frame.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 8,050

    FF43 said:

    I struggle with Roman Numerals until I get to 159.

    Then it just CLIX.

    I tend to MIX up my Roman numerals when I get to 1009.
    I can't remember how to write 1, 1000, 51, 6 and 500 in Roman Numerals.

    I M LIVID
    That's almost M years old
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,269
    edited 8:08PM
    Eabhal said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "The bungled briefings that sowed confusion over Widdecombe killing
    Police face questions over why they repeatedly talked down possibility politician’s death was terror-related

    Martin Evans
    Crime Editor"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/13/police-pressure-ann-widdecombe-killing-not-political/

    FFS. Is nothing sacred - this is a live murder investigation. I listened to the press conferences and the police did not "talk down" the possibility.
    The Police did not, the media did.

    https://news.sky.com/video/in-full-latest-police-statement-on-widdecombe-murder-probe-13562758
    Police have arrested a 28-year-old man on suspicion of murdering Ann Widdecombe. Officers say he was arrested in Rotherham and the killing was not politically motivated.

    When the media misreport the Police its hardly surprising that people get the wrong end of the stick.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 2,163

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,734

    FPT:

    carnforth said:

    Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?

    You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.

    But no.

    So we have:

    Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News

    Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?


    * In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing


    This is disingenuous or stupid.

    The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.

    That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.

    I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.

    1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.

    2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
    3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.

    As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.

    Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
    Saying "no evidence of political motive" is un-necessary though. One can just omit it. Except for public order management.
    Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
    You've rather stupidly blown up your own argument there. Your initial claim was that the police just gave the bald facts, but you have now acknowledged that the indication they gave as to the lack of a political motive was necessary to combat right wing speculation. So clearly you do think it was an intervention aimed at managing public opinion.

    Of course, the inner monologue you've failed to conceal is correct. The police did try to promote a particular view of this crime and it was extremely foolish.

    I note that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and Terrorism Legislation for the UK government has said that the police should not have made such comments - 'I don't understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case...they broke one of the golden rules of a live investigation which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge...regrettable'

    But I'm sure you know more than him about it.
    Nope. Hall is wrong and so are you. Oh and by the way he is giving an opinion, not stating facts. The clue is in him opening his comment with 'I don't understand..'

    Police comment on live investogations all the time. I am not sure I have ever seen a high profile investigation where the police have not commented - at least to outline some basic facts. Your mistake, and one you make way too often, is to confuse opinion and fact.

    Nor have I blown up my argument. The police did give bald facts. The reason they gave them does not alter the nature of the facts.

    Like I said, outside of your mind, the real world is not filled with conspiracies. I see nothing to criticise the police over in this investigation so far and plenty to criticise people like you and Reform who are saying 'don't speculate' and in the next sentence are speculating not only about the motives of the killer but those of the police as well.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 8,050

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

    He still went to the people

    There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,269

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

    Try checking your facts.

    Boris called for an election actually, the opposition including those kicked out MPs voted against it.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,623

    Disgraceful.

    Palace refused to have post-Brexit deal signed at Windsor Castle

    Officials feared that the King would be dragged into a political minefield if he hosted the signing of the Windsor framework on Northern Ireland


    Buckingham Palace blocked the government from signing a post-Brexit deal at Windsor Castle to protect the King from a political minefield, a book reveals.

    When the framework to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland was reached in February 2023, politicians did not want to sign it in Brussels because it would look like they were kowtowing to Europe, nor did the European Commission want to sign it at No 10.

    Instead, they devised a third option, and sought consent from the King to call it the Windsor Framework. It was hoped that the royal angle would appeal to the EU and make the deal sound “less transactional and more of a settlement”.

    The Palace agreed to the name. But when government officials asked if the deal could be signed at Windsor Castle, courtiers refused, saying that it was “going too far”. The decision to block the government’s plan is revealed in an updated paperback edition of Power and the Palace by Valentine Low, former royal correspondent of The Times.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/windsor-framework-brexit-castle-king-6m9srpwlq

    I'm surprised they called it the Windsor agreement, given catholic sensitivities in NI.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,520
    edited 8:17PM
    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Kemi Badenoch's Conservatives once again "absolutely nailing it" in fifth place I see.
    Ir is Greater Manchester, the Tories didn't even win the Manchester Mayoralty under Boris in 2021 when the Conservatives had a big lead nationally
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,520
    edited 8:18PM
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    France, Elabe poll:

    Presidential run-off election

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 67.5%
    Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 32.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 58.5%
    Glucksmann (PS/PP-S&D): 41.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 54%
    Attal (RE-RE): 46%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 52%
    Philippe (HOR-RE): 48%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 56%
    Retailleau (LR-EPP): 44%

    https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/2076576087295889536?s=20

    4th time the charm? Believe it when I see it.
    It does look like Le Pen has a good chance of winning this time, probably her last go at the Presidency and should be clear favourite to win the Presidential election against any opponent bar Philippe
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483
    edited 8:19PM

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

    He still went to the people

    There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
    He does have a Divine Right.

    Because under our system God = commanding a majority in the Commons.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,936
    Have any trade unions or CLPs nominated Burnham yet? I think he needs those too, otherwise Labour will find themselves with no valid nominees.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,499
    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Kemi Badenoch's Conservatives once again "absolutely nailing it" in fifth place I see.
    However it is FoN. Not enough Kemi Tories indulging in the Post Code Lottery?
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 8,050
    edited 8:22PM
    kinabalu said:

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

    He still went to the people

    There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
    He does have a Divine Right.

    Because under our system God = commanding a majority in the Commons.
    Of course, but I’m politicking

    Liz and Rishi both needed an election according to the (still) PM
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,520

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Polls in 2019 gave a Boris led Conservatives a big lead over Corbyn Labour whereas polls now show a Burnham led Labour only narrowly ahead of or neck and neck with Reform. In 2019 therefore Boris turned a hung parliament he inherited into a clear Conservative majority, at best Burnham would be turning a big Labour majority into a very narrow Labour majority with 100 Labour MPs still losing their seats
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    France, Elabe poll:

    Presidential run-off election

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 67.5%
    Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 32.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 58.5%
    Glucksmann (PS/PP-S&D): 41.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 54%
    Attal (RE-RE): 46%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 52%
    Philippe (HOR-RE): 48%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 56%
    Retailleau (LR-EPP): 44%

    https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/2076576087295889536?s=20

    4th time the charm? Believe it when I see it.
    It does look like Le Pen has a good chance of winning this time, probably her last go at the Presidency and should be clear favourite to win the Presidential election against any opponent bar Philippe
    The betting agrees with you.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,269
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    France, Elabe poll:

    Presidential run-off election

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 67.5%
    Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 32.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 58.5%
    Glucksmann (PS/PP-S&D): 41.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 54%
    Attal (RE-RE): 46%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 52%
    Philippe (HOR-RE): 48%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 56%
    Retailleau (LR-EPP): 44%

    https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/2076576087295889536?s=20

    4th time the charm? Believe it when I see it.
    It does look like Le Pen has a good chance of winning this time, probably her last go at the Presidency and should be clear favourite to win the Presidential election against any opponent bar Philippe
    The betting agrees with you.
    Betting is often wrong.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 73,188
    Can a police service sue for defamation?


  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 8,050

    kinabalu said:

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

    He still went to the people

    There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
    He does have a Divine Right.

    Because under our system God = commanding a majority in the Commons.
    Of course, but I’m politicking

    Liz and Rishi both needed an election according to the (still) PM
    Did Burnham not believe that we needed an election for either of them?

    If you can find him supporting their ascensions without general elections, then I’ll believe that he didn’t call for them
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 2,163

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

    He still went to the people

    There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
    He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election.
    Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.

    Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951.
    MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959.
    Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964.
    Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise.
    Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992.
    Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010.
    May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that.
    Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs.
    Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error.
    Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.

    Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.

    Burnham won't call a GE.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,953
    FPT: Mutiple women? Yes, possibly. The Loser's first wife accused him of rape -- under oath -- in the divorce proceedings. (Later -- when she was not under oath -- she retracted that accusation.)

    (If he is hiding something in the Epstein files, he may be guilty of statuatory rape. And I wish I didn't have to say this, but his hiding those files should make reasonable people suspicious.)
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,269

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

    He still went to the people

    There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
    He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election.
    Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.

    Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951.
    MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959.
    Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964.
    Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise.
    Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992.
    Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010.
    May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that.
    Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs.
    Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error.
    Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.

    Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.

    Burnham won't call a GE.
    Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.

    He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    France, Elabe poll:

    Presidential run-off election

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 67.5%
    Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 32.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 58.5%
    Glucksmann (PS/PP-S&D): 41.5%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 54%
    Attal (RE-RE): 46%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 52%
    Philippe (HOR-RE): 48%

    Le Pen (RN-PfE): 56%
    Retailleau (LR-EPP): 44%

    https://x.com/EuropeElects/status/2076576087295889536?s=20

    4th time the charm? Believe it when I see it.
    It does look like Le Pen has a good chance of winning this time, probably her last go at the Presidency and should be clear favourite to win the Presidential election against any opponent bar Philippe
    The betting agrees with you.
    Betting is often wrong.
    Yep. Eg it doesn't think football's coming home. Poor behaviour imo.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,471
    kle4 said:

    Bunch of malcontents failing to nominate I see.

    It would be interesting to see who the 50 odd refuseniks are.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 80,079
    carnforth said:

    Disgraceful.

    Palace refused to have post-Brexit deal signed at Windsor Castle

    Officials feared that the King would be dragged into a political minefield if he hosted the signing of the Windsor framework on Northern Ireland


    Buckingham Palace blocked the government from signing a post-Brexit deal at Windsor Castle to protect the King from a political minefield, a book reveals.

    When the framework to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland was reached in February 2023, politicians did not want to sign it in Brussels because it would look like they were kowtowing to Europe, nor did the European Commission want to sign it at No 10.

    Instead, they devised a third option, and sought consent from the King to call it the Windsor Framework. It was hoped that the royal angle would appeal to the EU and make the deal sound “less transactional and more of a settlement”.

    The Palace agreed to the name. But when government officials asked if the deal could be signed at Windsor Castle, courtiers refused, saying that it was “going too far”. The decision to block the government’s plan is revealed in an updated paperback edition of Power and the Palace by Valentine Low, former royal correspondent of The Times.


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/royal-family/article/windsor-framework-brexit-castle-king-6m9srpwlq

    I'm surprised they called it the Windsor agreement, given catholic sensitivities in NI.
    Should have called it the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha agreement.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483

    kinabalu said:

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

    He still went to the people

    There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
    He does have a Divine Right.

    Because under our system God = commanding a majority in the Commons.
    Of course, but I’m politicking

    Liz and Rishi both needed an election according to the (still) PM
    Better to leave that to the politicians imo. Nobody else benefits by doing it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,471
    edited 8:40PM
    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Isn't that second round vote almost exactly what Burnham got last time around in the final round?

    Quite a swing to Green too in the second round. Where does that come from?

    And Cons behind Restore? Oh dear, oh dear.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,813
    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Zeitgeist shift. About three minutes ago the reason why Burnham must stay at Manchester was because Reform would walk the Manchester mayor byelection. IMHO the shift is a straw in the wind about the future of Reform more generally.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,936

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

    He still went to the people

    There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
    The right is conferred by Parliament. Burnham has the confidence of the House. Johnson did not (until the general election gave it to him).

    That's how the British constitution works.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,623
    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Zeitgeist shift. About three minutes ago the reason why Burnham must stay at Manchester was because Reform would walk the Manchester mayor byelection. IMHO the shift is a straw in the wind about the future of Reform more generally.
    Traditional parties on 49%
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,502
    French polls generally over estimate the support for Le Pen.

    Pensioners who as we’ve seen in the UK turnout in much higher numbers will finish off her chances . We see the reverse effect from the UK . In France pensioners are more pro EU and anti the far right .

    As long as Philippe gets in the top 2 then I expect him to beat Le Pen .
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,728
    edited 8:43PM

    Have any trade unions or CLPs nominated Burnham yet? I think he needs those too, otherwise Labour will find themselves with no valid nominees.

    He needs the nominations of a minimum of 3 affiliates, including 2 unions. I think he'll make that.
    He then needs the nominations of a minimum of 5% of CLPs; he'll struggle to get less than 95%.

    What I'm not sure about is whether he needs the TU/CLP nominations at all, as he's the only candidate being put forward by the PLP.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 2,163

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

    He still went to the people

    There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
    He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election.
    Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.

    Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951.
    MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959.
    Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964.
    Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise.
    Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992.
    Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010.
    May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that.
    Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs.
    Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error.
    Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.

    Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.

    Burnham won't call a GE.
    Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.

    He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
    Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019.
    Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,219
    carnforth said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Zeitgeist shift. About three minutes ago the reason why Burnham must stay at Manchester was because Reform would walk the Manchester mayor byelection. IMHO the shift is a straw in the wind about the future of Reform more generally.
    Traditional parties on 49%
    "Legacy parties".

    :):):)
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,623
    nico67 said:

    French polls generally over estimate the support for Le Pen.

    Pensioners who as we’ve seen in the UK turnout in much higher numbers will finish off her chances . We see the reverse effect from the UK . In France pensioners are more pro EU and anti the far right .

    As long as Philippe gets in the top 2 then I expect him to beat Le Pen .

    But, as remainers love to inform us, pensioners are dying off...
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,623
    viewcode said:

    carnforth said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Zeitgeist shift. About three minutes ago the reason why Burnham must stay at Manchester was because Reform would walk the Manchester mayor byelection. IMHO the shift is a straw in the wind about the future of Reform more generally.
    Traditional parties on 49%
    "Legacy parties".

    :):):)
    Rump! As the SNP would say.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,936
    edited 8:50PM
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Isn't that second round vote almost exactly what Burnham got last time around in the final round?

    Quite a swing to Green too in the second round. Where does that come from?

    And Cons behind Restore? Oh dear, oh dear.
    The Green share in the second round is almost exactly* what they would have if there were no transfers to Labour or the Greens. Given that the Lib Dems are only on 3%, I'd expect very few transfers. Not going to be many Reform, Restore or Tory voters putting Labour or Green as their second choice.

    * It's actually a touch lower, suggesting somewhat more Lib Dem transfers to Labour than to Greens.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,728

    Have any trade unions or CLPs nominated Burnham yet? I think he needs those too, otherwise Labour will find themselves with no valid nominees.

    He needs the nominations of a minimum of 3 affiliates, including 2 unions. I think he'll make that.
    He then needs the nominations of a minimum of 5% of CLPs; he'll struggle to get less than 95%.

    What I'm not sure about is whether he needs the TU/CLP nominations at all, as he's the only candidate being put forward by the PLP.
    Edit: just checked, it doesn't go to the CLPs at all if there's just one nomination.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,936

    Have any trade unions or CLPs nominated Burnham yet? I think he needs those too, otherwise Labour will find themselves with no valid nominees.

    He needs the nominations of a minimum of 3 affiliates, including 2 unions. I think he'll make that.
    He then needs the nominations of a minimum of 5% of CLPs; he'll struggle to get less than 95%.

    What I'm not sure about is whether he needs the TU/CLP nominations at all, as he's the only candidate being put forward by the PLP.
    Edit: just checked, it doesn't go to the CLPs at all if there's just one nomination.
    Cheers! Thanks for checking!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,269
    edited 8:51PM

    Boris called an election after he was anointed

    He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely

    Could Burnham even win ugly?

    Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.

    An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.

    He still went to the people

    There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
    He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election.
    Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.

    Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951.
    MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959.
    Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964.
    Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise.
    Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992.
    Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010.
    May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that.
    Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs.
    Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error.
    Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.

    Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.

    Burnham won't call a GE.
    Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.

    He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
    Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019.
    Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
    You are separating the removal of the MPs and going to the polls as if they are separate events, they were not.

    Boris could have chosen to keep the MPs that were in the party and govern as a minority like May did.

    Instead he removed the 20 MPs and called an election at the exact same time. It was one action.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,413
    ydoethur said:

    How soon before we have PB headers about Labour Crashing and Burnham?

    At least there won't be a slash'em and Burnham approach to public services.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 8,299
    carnforth said:

    viewcode said:

    carnforth said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Zeitgeist shift. About three minutes ago the reason why Burnham must stay at Manchester was because Reform would walk the Manchester mayor byelection. IMHO the shift is a straw in the wind about the future of Reform more generally.
    Traditional parties on 49%
    "Legacy parties".

    :):):)
    Rump! As the SNP would say.
    That was a mis steak.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,956
    HYUFD said:

    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Kemi Badenoch's Conservatives once again "absolutely nailing it" in fifth place I see.
    Ir is Greater Manchester, the Tories didn't even win the Manchester Mayoralty under Boris in 2021 when the Conservatives had a big lead nationally
    But the Conservatives did get votes in 2021. They actually had half a dozen MPs in Manchester until 2024.

    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Kemi Badenoch's Conservatives once again "absolutely nailing it" in fifth place I see.
    However it is FoN. Not enough Kemi Tories indulging in the Post Code Lottery?
    Well yes. Although Kemi Tories must be OK with the Postcode Lottery except in Manchester as Findoutnow are one of the "gold standard" pollsters putting them second place nationally.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,471

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Isn't that second round vote almost exactly what Burnham got last time around in the final round?

    Quite a swing to Green too in the second round. Where does that come from?

    And Cons behind Restore? Oh dear, oh dear.
    The Green share in the second round is almost exactly* what they would have if there were no transfers to Labour or the Greens. Given that the Lib Dems are only on 3%, I'd expect very few transfers. Not going to be many Reform, Restore or Tory voters putting Labour or Green as their second choice.

    * It's actually a touch lower, suggesting somewhat more Lib Dem transfers to Labour than to Greens.
    Yes, the absence of second votes would explain it.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,813
    carnforth said:

    algarkirk said:

    Nigelb said:

    Greater Manchester Mayoral By-Election Voting Intention:

    LAB: 38% (-25)
    GRN: 22% (+15)
    RFM: 19% (+12)
    RES: 9% (New)
    CON: 8% (-2)
    LDM: 3% (-1)
    Ind: 1% (New)

    2nd Round:
    LAB: 64%
    GRN: 36%

    Via @FindoutnowUK, 7-13 Jul.
    Changes w/ 2024.

    https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/2076689940872585225

    Zeitgeist shift. About three minutes ago the reason why Burnham must stay at Manchester was because Reform would walk the Manchester mayor byelection. IMHO the shift is a straw in the wind about the future of Reform more generally.
    Traditional parties on 49%
    True. Also in national polls the three trad parties are always around 50%.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,661
    edited 8:59PM

    ..

    FPT:

    carnforth said:

    Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?

    You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.

    But no.

    So we have:

    Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News

    Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?


    * In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing


    This is disingenuous or stupid.

    The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.

    That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.

    I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.

    1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.

    2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
    3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.

    As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.

    Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
    Saying "no evidence of political motive" is un-necessary though. One can just omit it. Except for public order management.
    Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
    You've rather stupidly blown up your own argument there. Your initial claim was that the police just gave the bald facts, but you have now acknowledged that the indication they gave as to the lack of a political motive was necessary to combat right wing speculation. So clearly you do think it was an intervention aimed at managing public opinion.

    Of course, the inner monologue you've failed to conceal is correct. The police did try to promote a particular view of this crime and it was extremely foolish.

    I note that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and Terrorism Legislation for the UK government has said that the police should not have made such comments - 'I don't understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case...they broke one of the golden rules of a live investigation which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge...regrettable'

    But I'm sure you know more than him about it.
    tbh it sounds like the eminent KC has not thought it through unless he expects the public to solve cases for them. Sure there may be reasons for not releasing information but this is not one of them.
    I don't understand your comment.
    I'm saying that Hall is wrong and it does not matter if you tell the public one set of facts and then some more emerge because the public are not the detectives working on the case.
    They didn't tell the public a set of facts. They presented the public with an unwarrantable assumption. They had no facts upon which to base that assumption, as has now become clear.
Sign In or Register to comment.