> @HYUFD said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con. > > If the Brexit Party and UKIP were standing in 100% of the wards I would also put 1000 losses as possible. As it is they are only standing in 20% so I think the Tories will do a little better than their poll rating suggests and am going for 600 to 700 losses
I'll go 500. Public discontent is about Brexit. Geoff from the Council isn't responsible for that, and people mostly understand that. Ironically, that may make a shocking performance in the Euros more painful.
> @HYUFD said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con. > > If the Brexit Party and UKIP were standing in 100% of the wards I would also put 1000 losses as possible. As it is they are only standing in 20% so I think the Tories will do a little better than their poll rating suggests and am going for 600 to 700 losses
Well shall see.
One thing we can agree on is that of the late Prof Anthony King was still around we'd be almost certainty be getting ready to hear that "it's a terrrrrrrrrrible night for the Tories" in that familiar Canadian drawl.
> @GIN1138 said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @kle4 said: > > > > @Floater said: > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year.
If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all.
Who might gain?
Well, Independents and Residents are likely to pick up a bunch (up 500 between them is not impossble). The LibDems did well last year, despite seeing their vote share well down, and they're scoring better in the opinion polls, with the Conservatives down, so you have to reckon they'll do reasonably, picking up perhaps 400 seats.
UKIP is likely to pick up some votes, too. But then again, they're defending 200 odd seats and had a disastrous locals laster year. Still this is their to make a claim for relevance ahead of the Euros. Does anyone know how many candidates they're standing?
> @rcs1000 said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con. > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year. > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all. >
If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels)
> @GIN1138 said: > > @rcs1000 said: > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con. > > > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year. > > > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all. > > > > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels) > >
I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems.
> @rcs1000 said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > > @rcs1000 said: > > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > > > > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con. > > > > > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year. > > > > > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all. > > > > > > > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels) > > > > > > I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems.
Which is amusing because so far, despite all the increasing support for Remain and the state of the big two, they have singularly failed to capitalised. Benefiting as a byproduct of the rise of a party with a totally different ethos would be funny.
> @rcs1000 said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > > @rcs1000 said: > > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > > > > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con. > > > > > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year. > > > > > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all. > > > > > > > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels) > > > > > > I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems.
Not in the European elections which the Brexit Party will probably win or the Peterborough by election which the Brexit Party will probably win.
Indeed the LDs will probably make most gains tomorrow night with barely any Brexit Party candidates at all
> @rcs1000 said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con. > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year. > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all. > > Who might gain? > > Well, Independents and Residents are likely to pick up a bunch (up 500 between them is not impossble). The LibDems did well last year, despite seeing their vote share well down, and they're scoring better in the opinion polls, with the Conservatives down, so you have to reckon they'll do reasonably, picking up perhaps 400 seats. > > UKIP is likely to pick up some votes, too. But then again, they're defending 200 odd seats and had a disastrous locals laster year. Still this is their to make a claim for relevance ahead of the Euros. Does anyone know how many candidates they're standing?
Just over 1000 UKIP candidates out of 8000 wards up
> @HYUFD said: > > @rcs1000 said: > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > @rcs1000 said: > > > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > > > > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > > > > > > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con. > > > > > > > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year. > > > > > > > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all. > > > > > > > > > > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels) > > > > > > > > > > I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems. > > Not in the European elections which the Brexit Party will probably win or the Peterborough by election which the Brexit Party will probably win. > > Indeed the LDs will probably make most gains tomorrow night with barely any Brexit Party candidates at all
I wasn't clear: what I meant to say (and you are right to pull me up on this) would have been
"Of course, if the Brexit Party had stood in all 9,500 wards, then the biggest winners would have likely been the LibDems as it would have split the Conservative vote between. Still, even so, the LDs are likely to have quite a good evening as they are coming off such a low base."
> @rcs1000 said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @rcs1000 said: > > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > > @rcs1000 said: > > > > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con. > > > > > > > > > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year. > > > > > > > > > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems. > > > > Not in the European elections which the Brexit Party will probably win or the Peterborough by election which the Brexit Party will probably win. > > > > Indeed the LDs will probably make most gains tomorrow night with barely any Brexit Party candidates at all > > I wasn't clear: what I meant to say (and you are right to pull me up on this) would have been > > "Of course, if the Brexit Party had stood in all 9,500 wards, then the biggest winners would have likely been the LibDems as it would have split the Conservative vote between. Still, even so, the LDs are likely to have quite a good evening as they are coming off such a low base."
Possibly but equally possible the Brexit Party would have gained a number of Tory seats the LDs will instead pick up tomorrow especially in areas which voted to Leave.
Indeed we have been going on the point the LDs are now the party of 'Stop Brexit' in Cable's own words and as stated on their website
> @rcs1000 said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @rcs1000 said: > > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > > @rcs1000 said: > > > > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con. > > > > > > > > > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year. > > > > > > > > > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems. > > > > Not in the European elections which the Brexit Party will probably win or the Peterborough by election which the Brexit Party will probably win. > > > > Indeed the LDs will probably make most gains tomorrow night with barely any Brexit Party candidates at all > > I wasn't clear: what I meant to say (and you are right to pull me up on this) would have been > > "Of course, if the Brexit Party had stood in all 9,500 wards, then the biggest winners would have likely been the LibDems as it would have split the Conservative vote between. Still, even so, the LDs are likely to have quite a good evening as they are coming off such a low base."
The quoting system here is off the scale crazy. I'm only posting this to discover how bad it can look.
> @Thayer5 said: > > @rcs1000 said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @rcs1000 said: > > > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > > > @rcs1000 said: > > > > > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > > > > > @HYUFD said: > > > > > > > > > @kle4 said: > > > > > > > > > > @Floater said: > > > > > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems. > > > > > > Not in the European elections which the Brexit Party will probably win or the Peterborough by election which the Brexit Party will probably win. > > > > > > Indeed the LDs will probably make most gains tomorrow night with barely any Brexit Party candidates at all > > > > I wasn't clear: what I meant to say (and you are right to pull me up on this) would have been > > > > "Of course, if the Brexit Party had stood in all 9,500 wards, then the biggest winners would have likely been the LibDems as it would have split the Conservative vote between. Still, even so, the LDs are likely to have quite a good evening as they are coming off such a low base." > > The quoting system here is off the scale crazy. I'm only posting this to discover how bad it can look.
> @GIN1138 said: > Has Vanilla given any explanation to Mike or Robert about what's going on with the block quotes? > > I understand Vanilla costs a lot of money to use so they should be responsive when they **** things up like this?
It's very retro. The arrows remind me of a primitive operating system, like the original Windows front screen.
The official response began the next day as Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, began an inquiry which reportedly involved ministers and their advisers being issued with questionnaires in which they had to explain where they were following Tuesday’s NSC meeting.
It is understood that the inquiry was so thorough that even Theresa May and any No 10 team members present at the NSC meeting were asked to account for their subsequent actions.
The investigation spread near-panic among some advisers, who are used to briefing journalists in a period rife with leaks when a series of ministers are jostling to become the next prime minister.
They were also asked to give details of their mobile phones, with the expectation the inquiry could examine details of relevant calls or messages. Sedwill, who is also the National Security Adviser, ordered ministers to comply by Friday afternoon.
> @AndyJS said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > Has Vanilla given any explanation to Mike or Robert about what's going on with the block quotes? > > > > I understand Vanilla costs a lot of money to use so they should be responsive when they **** things up like this? > > It's very retro. The arrows remind me of a primitive operating system, like the original Windows front screen.
It feels like with the right posts / combination of replies / blockquotes, we could make one of those "rude" text pictures.
> @CarlottaVance said: > Background: > > The official response began the next day as Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, began an inquiry which reportedly involved ministers and their advisers being issued with questionnaires in which they had to explain where they were following Tuesday’s NSC meeting. > > It is understood that the inquiry was so thorough that even Theresa May and any No 10 team members present at the NSC meeting were asked to account for their subsequent actions. > > The investigation spread near-panic among some advisers, who are used to briefing journalists in a period rife with leaks when a series of ministers are jostling to become the next prime minister. > > They were also asked to give details of their mobile phones, with the expectation the inquiry could examine details of relevant calls or messages. Sedwill, who is also the National Security Adviser, ordered ministers to comply by Friday afternoon. > > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/01/the-williamson-inquiry-was-a-whitehall-rarity-quick-and-decisive
Sounds like paranoia is setting in in Downing St. bunker now...
> @CarlottaVance said: > Background: > > The official response began the next day as Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, began an inquiry which reportedly involved ministers and their advisers being issued with questionnaires in which they had to explain where they were following Tuesday’s NSC meeting. > > It is understood that the inquiry was so thorough that even Theresa May and any No 10 team members present at the NSC meeting were asked to account for their subsequent actions. > > The investigation spread near-panic among some advisers, who are used to briefing journalists in a period rife with leaks when a series of ministers are jostling to become the next prime minister. > > They were also asked to give details of their mobile phones, with the expectation the inquiry could examine details of relevant calls or messages. Sedwill, who is also the National Security Adviser, ordered ministers to comply by Friday afternoon. > > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/01/the-williamson-inquiry-was-a-whitehall-rarity-quick-and-decisive
Wouldn't have just been quicker to ask the Chinese (or the Americans)?
Williamson was not up to the job he was doing. He flew too close to the sun – or in this case the Daily Telegraph. And he was fingered. No one will be sorry to see him go. He was a minister who commanded little respect and had few loyal followers. He will have none at all now. And his chances of leading the Tory party, which presumably lay behind his fateful act of stupidity, are now zero.
May has done the right thing. Every one of her predecessors would have done the same. Every one of them would be right. The consequences make little difference to the abiding Brexit-based instability of the May government, but the promotion of Rory Stewart to the international development job is a reward for the loyalty that is so conspicuously absent in so much of the Tory ranks.
Isn’t Penny Mordaunt one of those Brexiteers who lied about Turkey’s accession during the referendum campaign? Why does everyone rate her?
She also awarded herself a submariner's dolphin badge after crossing Portsmouth Harbour in an FTB. She's probably stitching an All Arms Commando Course badge on to her twinset right now.
> @AndyJS said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > Has Vanilla given any explanation to Mike or Robert about what's going on with the block quotes? > > > > I understand Vanilla costs a lot of money to use so they should be responsive when they **** things up like this? > > It's very retro. The arrows remind me of a primitive operating system, like the original Windows front screen.
It is retro. It is like early email or Usenet, with the number of >'s representing the depth of each quote. Trouble is, that only works when people write in short lines like we used to when we had fixed width terminals, rather than now when we rely on the machine to break lines.
So I'd wonder if rcs just needs to select a different theme.
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > > @AndyJS said: > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > Has Vanilla given any explanation to Mike or Robert about what's going on with the block quotes? > > > > > > I understand Vanilla costs a lot of money to use so they should be responsive when they **** things up like this? > > > > It's very retro. The arrows remind me of a primitive operating system, like the original Windows front screen. > > It is retro. It is like early email or Usenet, with the number of >'s > representing the depth of each quote. Trouble is, that only works > when people write in short lines like we used to when we had > fixed width terminals, rather than now when we rely on the > machine to break lines. > > So I'd wonder if rcs just needs to select a different theme.
Short lines like what I did there, so each gets its own arrow.
> @FrancisUrquhart said: > Facebook appears excited to tell me it is election day today....but no sign of any Russians telling me who to vote for (yet).
Russian trolls are more subtle than that. They don't say "vote Tory": they say Corbyn's an anti-Semite. They don'r say "vote Labour" but that May's deal betrays the people on Brexit. It is like pb on a grand scale. Come to think of it, remember that our very own Plato (RIP) got herself banned from Twitter and/or Facebook as a Russian troll.
Poor old Fiona Onasanya. Kicked out by her constituents and knocked off the front pages by Gavin Williamson. In more cynical times (like under Blair or Cameron) the Defence Secretary would have been kept in post another day and his sacking used to bury the bad news of the election results. I suppose it is progress of a sort.
There's a two seat ward in Lincolnshire, Holton Le Clay & North Thoresby on East Lindsey council, where last time in 2015 the result was Con 47.6%, Linc Inds 33.7%, Lab 18.7%. This time the Tories aren't contesting it at all, and a Labour and an independent candidate are being elected unopposed. So effectively a Labour gain from Conservative without any votes being cast.
Owen cares too much, if people are prepared to torch the place then get your marshmallows and sticks out. Farage winning will boost him for a future GE, even if that does cost a potential 2nd referendum and remaining that could in the long term be better for Labour.
I'd have sympathy for those who actually want to remain and aren't centrists using it to attack Labour (like myself*) but you have to look to the silver linings.
Not that Farage winning is certain Labour are doing pretty well in most polls for the Euros.
Has Vanilla given any explanation to Mike or Robert about what's going on with the block quotes? I understand Vanilla costs a lot of money to use so they should be responsive when they **** things up like this?
Someone should check to see if Grayling has undeclared consulting income...
The Brexit party is happy to make an apologist for child murder its top candidate in NW England, so why not an apologist for mass-murder in Peterbrough?
> @GIN1138 said: > > @CarlottaVance said: > > Background: > > > > The official response began the next day as Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, began an inquiry which reportedly involved ministers and their advisers being issued with questionnaires in which they had to explain where they were following Tuesday’s NSC meeting. > > > > It is understood that the inquiry was so thorough that even Theresa May and any No 10 team members present at the NSC meeting were asked to account for their subsequent actions. > > > > The investigation spread near-panic among some advisers, who are used to briefing journalists in a period rife with leaks when a series of ministers are jostling to become the next prime minister. > > > > They were also asked to give details of their mobile phones, with the expectation the inquiry could examine details of relevant calls or messages. Sedwill, who is also the National Security Adviser, ordered ministers to comply by Friday afternoon. > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/01/the-williamson-inquiry-was-a-whitehall-rarity-quick-and-decisive > > Sounds like paranoia is setting in in Downing St. bunker now...
Or she has done politically the right thing, and waited for an issue of significance in order to make her move and try and reinstall some order.
Sadly, Galloway’s appeal (if somewhat faded nowadays) to the Muslim vote allied to the Brexit Party constituency could be a smart move for a seat like Peterborough.
and the Defence Secretary who constantly accused the LOTO of being a security risk is sacked as a security risk. How bad do you have to be to be sacked from a Cabinet where Chris Grayling is welcome!?
> @IanB2 said: > Sadly, Galloway’s appeal (if somewhat faded nowadays) to the Muslim vote allied to the Brexit Party constituency could be a smart move for a seat like Peterborough.
IMV the Brexit Party will end up like UKIP: they appeal to the same audiences, and therefore will attract the same people.
Getting Galloway on board is an interesting way to both accelerate its descent, and widen its audience.
> @dr_spyn said: > Galloway's last outing at Gorton was not overly successful. > > Some of Corbyn's followers might be tempted to vote for him, but might wonder why the old egotist wants to split the Labour vote.
I don't think he will split much off.
Peterborough looks like a Lab hold to me, astonishing in the circumstances.
That must have been the most boring, low-key, irrelevant and frankly dim local election campaign ever, in a field of pretty stiff competition.
I had precisely one mail shot. And even that was only going through the motions. It amounted to, 'vote for me, I'm not as big a ***t as the others.' And even that wasn't true!
> @IanB2 said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > > @CarlottaVance said: > > > Background: > > > > > > The official response began the next day as Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, began an inquiry which reportedly involved ministers and their advisers being issued with questionnaires in which they had to explain where they were following Tuesday’s NSC meeting. > > > > > > It is understood that the inquiry was so thorough that even Theresa May and any No 10 team members present at the NSC meeting were asked to account for their subsequent actions. > > > > > > The investigation spread near-panic among some advisers, who are used to briefing journalists in a period rife with leaks when a series of ministers are jostling to become the next prime minister. > > > > > > They were also asked to give details of their mobile phones, with the expectation the inquiry could examine details of relevant calls or messages. Sedwill, who is also the National Security Adviser, ordered ministers to comply by Friday afternoon. > > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/01/the-williamson-inquiry-was-a-whitehall-rarity-quick-and-decisive > > > > Sounds like paranoia is setting in in Downing St. bunker now... > > Or she has done politically the right thing, and waited for an issue of significance in order to make her move and try and reinstall some order.
Maybe we will go back to only discovering what went on in Cabinet when the records are released in 30 years time....
Ha. Those who think the climate emergency nonsense is overblown might be amused or vexed to know that there is (and has been for a few years) a speculative fiction subgenre called 'cli-fi'.
Happy polling day those of you who have one. Good luck to all my fellow candidates and I hope your bodies are in a better condition than my sore and achy one is as we head out on todays get out the vote operation.
It's been an interesting end few days to the campaign. My local opponents are an independent group, and they've got increasingly petulant as their shortcomings became more and more exposed. Three leaflets from them, the 3rd claiming credit for literally everything ever and attacking the character of our candidates (one of whom is a retired Army Major...) - their attack on my wife and I is that we're from Rochdale.
Which was then amplified by a 3am Facebook rant by their leader who over 4 paragraphs told the world that we are outsiders. Don't know the Town and never will. And would be better going back home. Which is a charming message for 2019 and has gone down like a bucket of warm sick. Not that I am "from" Rochdale the way they suggest it (wasn't born there and haven't lived there for a quarter of a century). And my wife is a cockney who has never even lived there,...
> @Foxy said: > > @dr_spyn said: > > Galloway's last outing at Gorton was not overly successful. > > > > Some of Corbyn's followers might be tempted to vote for him, but might wonder why the old egotist wants to split the Labour vote. > > I don't think he will split much off. > > Peterborough looks like a Lab hold to me, astonishing in the circumstances.
</blockquote>
It’s the Tory performance will have the impact, on top of tonight and the Euros. The election option - being cheerfully advocated here by the PB crowd not so very long ago - will be closed off to the PM.
Normally I would stay up for the results, but being in Europe with access only to BBC World and everything being an hour later, I will probably wait until tomorrow for the news.
> @RochdalePioneers said: > Happy polling day those of you who have one. Good luck to all my fellow candidates and I hope your bodies are in a better condition than my sore and achy one is as we head out on todays get out the vote operation. > > It's been an interesting end few days to the campaign. My local opponents are an independent group, and they've got increasingly petulant as their shortcomings became more and more exposed. Three leaflets from them, the 3rd claiming credit for literally everything ever and attacking the character of our candidates (one of whom is a retired Army Major...) - their attack on my wife and I is that we're from Rochdale. > > Which was then amplified by a 3am Facebook rant by their leader who over 4 paragraphs told the world that we are outsiders. Don't know the Town and never will. And would be better going back home. Which is a charming message for 2019 and has gone down like a bucket of warm sick. Not that I am "from" Rochdale the way they suggest it (wasn't born there and haven't lived there for a quarter of a century). And my wife is a cockney who has never even lived there,... > > Ah politics, a funny old game
Shocking. And the sort of muttering more common at parish level, insofar as there are contest.
> @SquareRoot said: > OT > > For the first time in my voting life, I am not going to bother to vote. I am so appalled at politicians of all shades, no one deserves my vote.
Two seat ward; two local independents, one with a good 'on-the-ground' track record and one with less prominence, two Tory councillors who appear to have been campaigning by smearing them, and two Labour candidates, one with an excellent track record. Hmmmm.
We could do with Danny Alexander back in government...
Please no. The single greatest contributor to the self-immolation of the LibDems, the man for whom the phrase “Yellow Tory” could have been coined. There are few politicians I hold in more contempt.
On topic, Stewart Jackson says he won’t stand for the Brexit Party:
> @IanB2 said: > > @RochdalePioneers said: > > Happy polling day those of you who have one. Good luck to all my fellow candidates and I hope your bodies are in a better condition than my sore and achy one is as we head out on todays get out the vote operation. > > > > It's been an interesting end few days to the campaign. My local opponents are an independent group, and they've got increasingly petulant as their shortcomings became more and more exposed. Three leaflets from them, the 3rd claiming credit for literally everything ever and attacking the character of our candidates (one of whom is a retired Army Major...) - their attack on my wife and I is that we're from Rochdale. > > > > Which was then amplified by a 3am Facebook rant by their leader who over 4 paragraphs told the world that we are outsiders. Don't know the Town and never will. And would be better going back home. Which is a charming message for 2019 and has gone down like a bucket of warm sick. Not that I am "from" Rochdale the way they suggest it (wasn't born there and haven't lived there for a quarter of a century). And my wife is a cockney who has never even lived there,... > > > > Ah politics, a funny old game > > Shocking. And the sort of muttering more common at parish level, insofar as there are contest. > > But by your own admission you are a pioneer?
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > Poor old Fiona Onasanya. Kicked out by her constituents and > knocked off the front pages by Gavin Williamson. In more > cynical times (like under Blair or Cameron) the Defence Secretary > would have been kept in post another day and his sacking used > to bury the bad news of the election results. I suppose it is > progress of a sort. > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48128748
I thought it was being used to ensure that Grayling's latest fiasco was lost at sea. Still, he will have another fiasco today.
> @El_Capitano said: > > @brokenwheel said: > > > Rory says yes we are in a climate emergency. > > > > We could do with Danny Alexander back in government... > > Please no. The single greatest contributor to the self-immolation of the LibDems, the man for whom the phrase “Yellow Tory” could have been coined. There are few politicians I hold in more contempt. > > On topic, Stewart Jackson says he won’t stand for the Brexit Party: > > http://twitter.com/BrexitStewart/status/1123646746796670976
The 'shower' has washed off the 'shits' such as him.
Now only IDS, Cash, Jacob-Rees Worm and others to go. Winnets clinging off the bottom of the body politic ...
> > > I can understand why he doesn't want to appear again..... > > > > This is what she is good at, using her skills honed as a prosecutor. So far, the vision or idea thing, not so much. > > Good lawyers don’t necessarily make good politicians.
Oh I agree. She needs to show a much wider skill set than she has to date.
That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
> @IanB2 said: > > @Foxy said: > > > @dr_spyn said: > > > Galloway's last outing at Gorton was not overly successful. > > > > > > Some of Corbyn's followers might be tempted to vote for him, but might wonder why the old egotist wants to split the Labour vote. > > > > I don't think he will split much off. > > > > Peterborough looks like a Lab hold to me, astonishing in the circumstances. > > </blockquote> > > It’s the Tory performance will have the impact, on top of tonight and the Euros. The election option - being cheerfully advocated here by the PB crowd not so very long ago - will be closed off to the PM. > > Normally I would stay up for the results, but being in Europe with access only to BBC World and everything being an hour later, I will probably wait until tomorrow for the news.
In the local elections will there not also be rather a lot of the counting done tomorrow? I always find coverage of the locals a bit annoying because by the time the full story is available the focus of the media has inevitably moved on and it is rarely told.
> @Cyclefree said: > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records. > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather ..... > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
Galloway caused a mass walk out at a Leave rally in London during the referendum when he turned up as Farage’s mystery guest. He might have a successful track record in elections but he is political poison. I can’t see him and Widdecombe living comfortably in the same party. I can’t see Farage’s mate, Donald Trump, being too enamoured with Galloway showing up in Farage’s party either. Surely both the Brexit Party and Peterborough deserve better.
> > I can understand why he doesn't want to appear again.....
>
>
>
> This is what she is good at, using her skills honed as a prosecutor. So far, the vision or idea thing, not so much.
>
> Good lawyers don’t necessarily make good politicians.
Oh I agree. She needs to show a much wider skill set than she has to date.
You and I know that lawyers are warm, funny, cuddly people who light up a room and bring smiles to peoples’ faces when they think of us.
But, unaccountably, we can come across as a bit chilly and severe and lacking in empathy and arrogant and occasionally pompous. It is a cross we bear with the fortitude that a large income can give us.
To win an election (having never won anything more than a Bananarama record for my darts playing) you need to grab people’s hearts not just their minds and speak to them in that language not the language of carefully thought through reason, at least at some level. To make people want to follow you they need to want to do it - and appealing to emotion without turning into a demagogue is a difficult act. Lawyers spend so much time reasoning that they can sometimes not realise - even if the evidence is usually in front of them every day - that emotion guides what people do far more than reason. A good politician is able to do both. But they are rare.
I was interested to learn that Ofsted observe purdah for local elections, in that they don’t release inspection reports where the school has failed. Our local primary has a report pending and we have elections today...
> @DavidL said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records. > > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather ..... > > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei. > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position. > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
That would set a near-record for brevity. The only thread header I can think of that would be shorter would be on truthful statements by Jeremy Corbyn.
> @Cyclefree said: > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records. > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather ..... > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
Do we actually know that the Huawei decision has been made, or was it just a leaning-towards situation ?
> @IanB2 said: > Sadly, Galloway’s appeal (if somewhat faded nowadays) to the Muslim vote allied to the Brexit Party constituency could be a smart move for a seat like Peterborough.
> @ydoethur said: > That must have been the most boring, low-key, irrelevant and frankly dim local election campaign ever, in a field of pretty stiff competition. > > I had precisely one mail shot. And even that was only going through the motions. It amounted to, 'vote for me, I'm not as big a ***t as the others.' And even that wasn't true!
We got 2 fliers. One from lab, one from an indy. The latter sounded sensible so is getting my vote. And my partners too in think.
> That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
>
> Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
>
> I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
He will say that he didn’t leak any intelligence and that pointing out how May ignored her expert advisors is not intelligence (or intelligent) but in the public interest. After all, what precisely did he swear on his children's’ lives not to have done?
If this turns into a debate about what May did, the ground is much stickier for her. There are plenty of security people ready to say that it is a daft or questionable decision, many of them in her party, and plenty from friendly countries.
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records. > > > > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather ..... > > > > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei. > > > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position. > > > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable. > > If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer.
But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge.
> > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
> > >
> > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
> > >
> > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
> >
> > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
> >
> > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
>
> If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer.
But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge.
Easier to list out her top 20 bad decisions and have a competition ranking them in order of crapness.
Has May ever made a good decision as PM? Even one? On any topic at all?
> That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
>
> Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
>
> I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
He will say that he didn’t leak any intelligence and that pointing out how May ignored her expert advisors is not intelligence (or intelligent) but in the public interest. After all, what precisely did he swear on his children's’ lives not to have done?
If this turns into a debate about what May did, the ground is much stickier for her. There are plenty of security people ready to say that it is a daft or questionable decision, many of them in her party, and plenty from friendly countries.
Then he should have resigned.
In fact, his best defence may be he's not bright enough to show intelligence.
> @Cyclefree said: > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records. > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather ..... > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
He’s denied he is the source of the leak though so how could he turn round and subsequently claim he was acting in the public interest.
MPs talk to the press all the time. A call to the Telegraph doesn’t prove that it was about Huawei.
Williamson is no loss but May’s behaviour in sacking him on what appears at best circumstantial evidence, is at least as questionable as his.
> > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
> > >
> > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
> > >
> > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
> >
> > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
> >
> > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
>
> If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer.
But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge.
Easier to list out her top 20 bad decisions and have a competition ranking them in order of crapness.
Has May ever made a good decision as PM? Even one? On any topic at all?
> @ydoethur said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records. > > > > > > > > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather ..... > > > > > > > > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei. > > > > > > > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position. > > > > > > > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable. > > > > > > If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ... > > > > When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer. > > > > But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge. > > Easier to list out her top 20 bad decisions and have a competition ranking them in order of crapness. > > Has May ever made a good decision as PM? Even one? On any topic at all? > > Refusing to reappoint Osborne. > > Have a good morning.
Sacking Osborne was one of her few good decisions. Replacing him with Hammond one of her worst.
> @DavidL said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records. > > > > > > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather ..... > > > > > > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei. > > > > > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position. > > > > > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable. > > > > If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ... > > When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer. > > But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge.
Surely not beyond a lawyer’s ability to redefine ‘best’ ?
I’ll admit I’m struggling, though. It’s not as though any of them are even amusing.
It's interesting that Rory Stewart is content to declare an environmental emergency given his new position. I would like to see a big emphasis in our foreign aid budget on assisting third world countries with clean technology and environmental sustainability. I think we could make a much bigger contribution to the world situation doing that than squeezing down our own emissions even further.
Unfortunately he is unlikely to be in post for long enough to make much of a difference. This government's life expectancy is surely measured in weeks.
> @ydoethur said: > I thought it was being used to ensure that Grayling's latest fiasco was lost at sea. Still, he will have another fiasco today. > > Ferry good.
You will be docked 10 pts for that answer. I couldn't container my mirth.
It's interesting that Rory Stewart is content to declare an environmental emergency given his new position. I would like to see a big emphasis in our foreign aid budget on assisting third world countries with clean technology and environmental sustainability. I think we could make a much bigger contribution to the world situation doing that than squeezing down our own emissions even further.
Unfortunately he is unlikely to be in post for long enough to make much of a difference. This government's life expectancy is surely measured in weeks.
It could limp on, lifeless, for another three years.
> @Nigelb said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records. > > > > > > > > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather ..... > > > > > > > > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei. > > > > > > > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position. > > > > > > > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable. > > > > > > If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ... > > > > When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer. > > > > But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge. > > Surely not beyond a lawyer’s ability to redefine ‘best’ ? > > I’ll admit I’m struggling, though. It’s not as though any of them are even amusing. > >
I'm sure best is a relative term. At the risk of lowering the tone she did manage to negotiate a pretty good deal with the EU. Other than that....
> > > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
> > > >
> > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
> > >
> > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
> > >
> > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
> >
> > If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
>
> When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer.
>
> But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge.
Surely not beyond a lawyer’s ability to redefine ‘best’ ?
I’ll admit I’m struggling, though. It’s not as though any of them are even amusing.
Well, if we redefine “best” to mean “best for Labour” the thread header writes itself!
Some say that getting 5G (*) as early as possible is vital for our economy, and Huawei are apparently streets ahead of everyone else in developing 5G-like tech.
Personally - and despite having a small interest in this happening - I find that hard to understand. Surely there's still life in 3G and 4G, especially for the institutions that heavily use them?
> @Cyclefree said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records. > > > > > > > > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather ..... > > > > > > > > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei. > > > > > > > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position. > > > > > > > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable. > > > > > > If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ... > > > > When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer. > > > > But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge. > > Easier to list out her top 20 bad decisions and have a competition ranking them in order of crapness. > > Has May ever made a good decision as PM? Even one? On any topic at all?
Her Lancaster House speech on Brexit was right on the money. Shame she didn’t stick to it. Calling a snap general election would have been a good decision if she had had any charisma and campaigning ability at all. Sacking Osborne was a good decision. It’s all gone pear shaped for her since 2017.
> > > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
>
> > >
>
> > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
>
> > >
>
> > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
>
> >
>
> > If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
>
>
>
> When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer.
>
>
>
> But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge.
>
> Easier to list out her top 20 bad decisions and have a competition ranking them in order of crapness.
>
> Has May ever made a good decision as PM? Even one? On any topic at all?
>
> Refusing to reappoint Osborne.
>
> Have a good morning.
Sacking Osborne was one of her few good decisions. Replacing him with Hammond one of her worst.
I disagree. The way she went about it was stupid and she ought to have found a role for him in government.
> @Casino_Royale said: > It's interesting that Rory Stewart is content to declare an environmental emergency given his new position. I would like to see a big emphasis in our foreign aid budget on assisting third world countries with clean technology and environmental sustainability. I think we could make a much bigger contribution to the world situation doing that than squeezing down our own emissions even further. > > > > Unfortunately he is unlikely to be in post for long enough to make much of a difference. This government's life expectancy is surely measured in weeks. > > It could limp on, lifeless, for another three years. > > We just don’t know.
Not too confident of Gavin's support in the next VONC. He may be too busy feeding his spider. Even with DUP support the PM and government have a paper thin majority and it is not likely to get any bigger after the Peterborough by election.
Comments
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @kle4 said:
> > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > > >
> > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> > >
> > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> > >
> > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
> >
> > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
>
> If the Brexit Party and UKIP were standing in 100% of the wards I would also put 1000 losses as possible. As it is they are only standing in 20% so I think the Tories will do a little better than their poll rating suggests and am going for 600 to 700 losses
I'll go 500. Public discontent is about Brexit. Geoff from the Council isn't responsible for that, and people mostly understand that. Ironically, that may make a shocking performance in the Euros more painful.
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @kle4 said:
> > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > > >
> > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> > >
> > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> > >
> > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
> >
> > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
>
> If the Brexit Party and UKIP were standing in 100% of the wards I would also put 1000 losses as possible. As it is they are only standing in 20% so I think the Tories will do a little better than their poll rating suggests and am going for 600 to 700 losses
Well shall see.
One thing we can agree on is that of the late Prof Anthony King was still around we'd be almost certainty be getting ready to hear that "it's a terrrrrrrrrrible night for the Tories" in that familiar Canadian drawl.
> Rory says yes we are in a climate emergency.
How much has the hot air in Westminster since 23rd June 2016 contributed to global warming?
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @kle4 said:
> > > > @Floater said:
> > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > >
> > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> >
> > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> >
> > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
>
> I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year.
If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all.
Who might gain?
Well, Independents and Residents are likely to pick up a bunch (up 500 between them is not impossble). The LibDems did well last year, despite seeing their vote share well down, and they're scoring better in the opinion polls, with the Conservatives down, so you have to reckon they'll do reasonably, picking up perhaps 400 seats.
UKIP is likely to pick up some votes, too. But then again, they're defending 200 odd seats and had a disastrous locals laster year. Still this is their to make a claim for relevance ahead of the Euros. Does anyone know how many candidates they're standing?
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @kle4 said:
> > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > > >
> > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> > >
> > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> > >
> > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
> >
> > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
>
> I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year.
>
> If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all.
>
If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels)
> Rory says yes we are in a climate emergency.
We could do with Danny Alexander back in government...
> > @rcs1000 said:
> > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > @kle4 said:
> > > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > > > >
> > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> > > >
> > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> > > >
> > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
> > >
> > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
> >
> > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year.
> >
> > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all.
> >
>
> If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels)
>
>
I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems.
> Never mind a climate emergency, we're in a Vanilla emergency.
Time for direct action?
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > > @rcs1000 said:
> > > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > @kle4 said:
> > > > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> > > > >
> > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
> > > >
> > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
> > >
> > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year.
> > >
> > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all.
> > >
> >
> > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels)
> >
> >
>
> I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems.
Which is amusing because so far, despite all the increasing support for Remain and the state of the big two, they have singularly failed to capitalised. Benefiting as a byproduct of the rise of a party with a totally different ethos would be funny.
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > > @rcs1000 said:
> > > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > @kle4 said:
> > > > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> > > > >
> > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
> > > >
> > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
> > >
> > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year.
> > >
> > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all.
> > >
> >
> > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels)
> >
> >
>
> I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems.
Not in the European elections which the Brexit Party will probably win or the Peterborough by election which the Brexit Party will probably win.
Indeed the LDs will probably make most gains tomorrow night with barely any Brexit Party candidates at all
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @kle4 said:
> > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > > >
> > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> > >
> > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> > >
> > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
> >
> > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
>
> I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year.
>
> If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all.
>
> Who might gain?
>
> Well, Independents and Residents are likely to pick up a bunch (up 500 between them is not impossble). The LibDems did well last year, despite seeing their vote share well down, and they're scoring better in the opinion polls, with the Conservatives down, so you have to reckon they'll do reasonably, picking up perhaps 400 seats.
>
> UKIP is likely to pick up some votes, too. But then again, they're defending 200 odd seats and had a disastrous locals laster year. Still this is their to make a claim for relevance ahead of the Euros. Does anyone know how many candidates they're standing?
Just over 1000 UKIP candidates out of 8000 wards up
> > @rcs1000 said:
> > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > @rcs1000 said:
> > > > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > > @kle4 said:
> > > > > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
> > > >
> > > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year.
> > > >
> > > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems.
>
> Not in the European elections which the Brexit Party will probably win or the Peterborough by election which the Brexit Party will probably win.
>
> Indeed the LDs will probably make most gains tomorrow night with barely any Brexit Party candidates at all
I wasn't clear: what I meant to say (and you are right to pull me up on this) would have been
"Of course, if the Brexit Party had stood in all 9,500 wards, then the biggest winners would have likely been the LibDems as it would have split the Conservative vote between. Still, even so, the LDs are likely to have quite a good evening as they are coming off such a low base."
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @rcs1000 said:
> > > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > > @rcs1000 said:
> > > > > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > > > @kle4 said:
> > > > > > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems.
> >
> > Not in the European elections which the Brexit Party will probably win or the Peterborough by election which the Brexit Party will probably win.
> >
> > Indeed the LDs will probably make most gains tomorrow night with barely any Brexit Party candidates at all
>
> I wasn't clear: what I meant to say (and you are right to pull me up on this) would have been
>
> "Of course, if the Brexit Party had stood in all 9,500 wards, then the biggest winners would have likely been the LibDems as it would have split the Conservative vote between. Still, even so, the LDs are likely to have quite a good evening as they are coming off such a low base."
Possibly but equally possible the Brexit Party would have gained a number of Tory seats the LDs will instead pick up tomorrow especially in areas which voted to Leave.
Indeed we have been going on the point the LDs are now the party of 'Stop Brexit' in Cable's own words and as stated on their website
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @rcs1000 said:
> > > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > > @rcs1000 said:
> > > > > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > > > @kle4 said:
> > > > > > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year.
> > > > >
> > > > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems.
> >
> > Not in the European elections which the Brexit Party will probably win or the Peterborough by election which the Brexit Party will probably win.
> >
> > Indeed the LDs will probably make most gains tomorrow night with barely any Brexit Party candidates at all
>
> I wasn't clear: what I meant to say (and you are right to pull me up on this) would have been
>
> "Of course, if the Brexit Party had stood in all 9,500 wards, then the biggest winners would have likely been the LibDems as it would have split the Conservative vote between. Still, even so, the LDs are likely to have quite a good evening as they are coming off such a low base."
The quoting system here is off the scale crazy. I'm only posting this to discover how bad it can look.
> > @rcs1000 said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > @rcs1000 said:
> > > > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > > > @rcs1000 said:
> > > > > > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > > > > > @HYUFD said:
> > > > > > > > > @kle4 said:
> > > > > > > > > > @Floater said:
> > > > > > > > > > looking forward to the tories getting an absolute monstering tomorrow
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What would count as a monstering? Fairly big losses 9 years into government would not be astounding, though of course it would be very bad for them regardless, so expectations management wise, how big is unusually big a loss?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In 1995 the Tories lost 2000 seats, unquestionably a big loss. In 1999 Labour lost 1,161 seats unquestionably a big loss.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Tories are unlikely to do that badly but could lose 800 seats, equivalent to the losses Labour suffered in 2003
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll go for 1000 lost seats for Con.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think people forget how many seats the Conservatives are defending. They have something like 60% of all the seats up for reelection this time around, and the last time there were elections was in a General Election year.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the Conservatives lose 1,000 seats, they'd still have 48% of all the seats up this time around - which would (in the abstract) not be a bad result at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If the Brexit Party was standing it'd be nearer 2000 losses I'd have thought (getting to 1995 type levels)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think, though, that this demonstrates one of the problems of FPTP. The rise of the Brexit Party primarily benefits the LibDems.
> > >
> > > Not in the European elections which the Brexit Party will probably win or the Peterborough by election which the Brexit Party will probably win.
> > >
> > > Indeed the LDs will probably make most gains tomorrow night with barely any Brexit Party candidates at all
> >
> > I wasn't clear: what I meant to say (and you are right to pull me up on this) would have been
> >
> > "Of course, if the Brexit Party had stood in all 9,500 wards, then the biggest winners would have likely been the LibDems as it would have split the Conservative vote between. Still, even so, the LDs are likely to have quite a good evening as they are coming off such a low base."
>
> The quoting system here is off the scale crazy. I'm only posting this to discover how bad it can look.
Answer: pretty bad.
I understand Vanilla costs a lot of money to use so they should be responsive when they **** things up like this?
> Has Vanilla given any explanation to Mike or Robert about what's going on with the block quotes?
>
> I understand Vanilla costs a lot of money to use so they should be responsive when they **** things up like this?
It's very retro. The arrows remind me of a primitive operating system, like the original Windows front screen.
The official response began the next day as Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, began an inquiry which reportedly involved ministers and their advisers being issued with questionnaires in which they had to explain where they were following Tuesday’s NSC meeting.
It is understood that the inquiry was so thorough that even Theresa May and any No 10 team members present at the NSC meeting were asked to account for their subsequent actions.
The investigation spread near-panic among some advisers, who are used to briefing journalists in a period rife with leaks when a series of ministers are jostling to become the next prime minister.
They were also asked to give details of their mobile phones, with the expectation the inquiry could examine details of relevant calls or messages. Sedwill, who is also the National Security Adviser, ordered ministers to comply by Friday afternoon.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/01/the-williamson-inquiry-was-a-whitehall-rarity-quick-and-decisive
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > Has Vanilla given any explanation to Mike or Robert about what's going on with the block quotes?
> >
> > I understand Vanilla costs a lot of money to use so they should be responsive when they **** things up like this?
>
> It's very retro. The arrows remind me of a primitive operating system, like the original Windows front screen.
It feels like with the right posts / combination of replies / blockquotes, we could make one of those "rude" text pictures.
> Background:
>
> The official response began the next day as Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, began an inquiry which reportedly involved ministers and their advisers being issued with questionnaires in which they had to explain where they were following Tuesday’s NSC meeting.
>
> It is understood that the inquiry was so thorough that even Theresa May and any No 10 team members present at the NSC meeting were asked to account for their subsequent actions.
>
> The investigation spread near-panic among some advisers, who are used to briefing journalists in a period rife with leaks when a series of ministers are jostling to become the next prime minister.
>
> They were also asked to give details of their mobile phones, with the expectation the inquiry could examine details of relevant calls or messages. Sedwill, who is also the National Security Adviser, ordered ministers to comply by Friday afternoon.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/01/the-williamson-inquiry-was-a-whitehall-rarity-quick-and-decisive
Sounds like paranoia is setting in in Downing St. bunker now...
> Background:
>
> The official response began the next day as Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, began an inquiry which reportedly involved ministers and their advisers being issued with questionnaires in which they had to explain where they were following Tuesday’s NSC meeting.
>
> It is understood that the inquiry was so thorough that even Theresa May and any No 10 team members present at the NSC meeting were asked to account for their subsequent actions.
>
> The investigation spread near-panic among some advisers, who are used to briefing journalists in a period rife with leaks when a series of ministers are jostling to become the next prime minister.
>
> They were also asked to give details of their mobile phones, with the expectation the inquiry could examine details of relevant calls or messages. Sedwill, who is also the National Security Adviser, ordered ministers to comply by Friday afternoon.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/01/the-williamson-inquiry-was-a-whitehall-rarity-quick-and-decisive
Wouldn't have just been quicker to ask the Chinese (or the Americans)?
https://twitter.com/sommervilletv/status/1123709513327099904
Williamson was not up to the job he was doing. He flew too close to the sun – or in this case the Daily Telegraph. And he was fingered. No one will be sorry to see him go. He was a minister who commanded little respect and had few loyal followers. He will have none at all now. And his chances of leading the Tory party, which presumably lay behind his fateful act of stupidity, are now zero.
May has done the right thing. Every one of her predecessors would have done the same. Every one of them would be right. The consequences make little difference to the abiding Brexit-based instability of the May government, but the promotion of Rory Stewart to the international development job is a reward for the loyalty that is so conspicuously absent in so much of the Tory ranks.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/01/theresa-may-gavin-williamson-defence-secretary
> It's very retro. The arrows remind me of a primitive operating system, like the original Windows front screen.
I kind of like it but people are gonna have to learn to trim.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6982753/Gavin-Williamson-sinking-minister-depth-says-ANDREW-PIERCE.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6982911/PETER-OBORNE-Profumo-didnt-leak-secrets.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6981887/Could-Williamson-JAILED-Calls-police-investigation-leak.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6981825/How-Gavin-Williamsons-short-tenure-defence-secretary-mired-controversy.html
Wonder where Shipman got the idea that Pike was 'turning the headlines around'?
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > Has Vanilla given any explanation to Mike or Robert about what's going on with the block quotes?
> >
> > I understand Vanilla costs a lot of money to use so they should be responsive when they **** things up like this?
>
> It's very retro. The arrows remind me of a primitive operating system, like the original Windows front screen.
It is retro. It is like early email or Usenet, with the number of >'s
representing the depth of each quote. Trouble is, that only works
when people write in short lines like we used to when we had
fixed width terminals, rather than now when we rely on the
machine to break lines.
So I'd wonder if rcs just needs to select a different theme.
> > @AndyJS said:
> > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > Has Vanilla given any explanation to Mike or Robert about what's going on with the block quotes?
> > >
> > > I understand Vanilla costs a lot of money to use so they should be responsive when they **** things up like this?
> >
> > It's very retro. The arrows remind me of a primitive operating system, like the original Windows front screen.
>
> It is retro. It is like early email or Usenet, with the number of >'s
> representing the depth of each quote. Trouble is, that only works
> when people write in short lines like we used to when we had
> fixed width terminals, rather than now when we rely on the
> machine to break lines.
>
> So I'd wonder if rcs just needs to select a different theme.
Short lines like what I did there, so each gets its own arrow.
> Mail not remotely sympathetic to Williamson:
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6982753/Gavin-Williamson-sinking-minister-depth-says-ANDREW-PIERCE.html
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6982911/PETER-OBORNE-Profumo-didnt-leak-secrets.html
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6981887/Could-Williamson-JAILED-Calls-police-investigation-leak.html
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6981825/How-Gavin-Williamsons-short-tenure-defence-secretary-mired-controversy.html
>
> Wonder where Shipman got the idea that Pike was 'turning the headlines around'?
Well, to be fair Williamson has stopped us talking about
defence cuts and the Tories' decimation of our armed forces.
> Facebook appears excited to tell me it is election day today....but no sign of any Russians telling me who to vote for (yet).
Russian trolls are more subtle than that. They don't say "vote Tory":
they say Corbyn's an anti-Semite. They don'r say "vote Labour" but
that May's deal betrays the people on Brexit. It is like pb on a grand
scale. Come to think of it, remember that our very own Plato (RIP)
got herself banned from Twitter and/or Facebook as a Russian troll.
knocked off the front pages by Gavin Williamson. In more
cynical times (like under Blair or Cameron) the Defence Secretary
would have been kept in post another day and his sacking used
to bury the bad news of the election results. I suppose it is
progress of a sort.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48128748
I'd have sympathy for those who actually want to remain and aren't centrists using it to attack Labour (like myself*) but you have to look to the silver linings.
Not that Farage winning is certain Labour are doing pretty well in most polls for the Euros.
*AKA feeling sorry for myself!
I have no idea.
But a propensity to lie is not exactly unknown in successful politicians.
It seems a long time since I was looking forward to reading election results.
> > @CarlottaVance said:
> > Background:
> >
> > The official response began the next day as Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, began an inquiry which reportedly involved ministers and their advisers being issued with questionnaires in which they had to explain where they were following Tuesday’s NSC meeting.
> >
> > It is understood that the inquiry was so thorough that even Theresa May and any No 10 team members present at the NSC meeting were asked to account for their subsequent actions.
> >
> > The investigation spread near-panic among some advisers, who are used to briefing journalists in a period rife with leaks when a series of ministers are jostling to become the next prime minister.
> >
> > They were also asked to give details of their mobile phones, with the expectation the inquiry could examine details of relevant calls or messages. Sedwill, who is also the National Security Adviser, ordered ministers to comply by Friday afternoon.
> >
> > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/01/the-williamson-inquiry-was-a-whitehall-rarity-quick-and-decisive
>
> Sounds like paranoia is setting in in Downing St. bunker now...
Or she has done politically the right thing, and waited for an issue of significance in order to make her move and try and reinstall some order.
> https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1123704728406433792?s=21
Claire Fox remarkably doesn't seem to have changed her views from her days in the Revolutionary Communist party.
https://twitter.com/ColinParryPeace/status/1123669516846796800?s=19
and the Defence Secretary who constantly accused the LOTO of being a security risk is sacked as a security risk. How bad do you have to be to be sacked from a Cabinet where Chris Grayling is welcome!?
Strange Days!
> Sadly, Galloway’s appeal (if somewhat faded nowadays) to the Muslim vote allied to the Brexit Party constituency could be a smart move for a seat like Peterborough.
IMV the Brexit Party will end up like UKIP: they appeal to the same audiences, and therefore will attract the same people.
Getting Galloway on board is an interesting way to both accelerate its descent, and widen its audience.
Galloway is sooo last year.
Some of Corbyn's followers might be tempted to vote for him, but might wonder why the old egotist wants to split the Labour vote.
> Galloway's last outing at Gorton was not overly successful.
>
> Some of Corbyn's followers might be tempted to vote for him, but might wonder why the old egotist wants to split the Labour vote.
I don't think he will split much off.
Peterborough looks like a Lab hold to me, astonishing in the circumstances.
For the first time in my voting life, I am not going to bother to vote. I am so appalled at politicians of all shades, no one deserves my vote.
I had precisely one mail shot. And even that was only going through the motions. It amounted to, 'vote for me, I'm not as big a ***t as the others.' And even that wasn't true!
We all know what he’d be saying in the small hours of tomorrow morning.
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > > @CarlottaVance said:
> > > Background:
> > >
> > > The official response began the next day as Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, began an inquiry which reportedly involved ministers and their advisers being issued with questionnaires in which they had to explain where they were following Tuesday’s NSC meeting.
> > >
> > > It is understood that the inquiry was so thorough that even Theresa May and any No 10 team members present at the NSC meeting were asked to account for their subsequent actions.
> > >
> > > The investigation spread near-panic among some advisers, who are used to briefing journalists in a period rife with leaks when a series of ministers are jostling to become the next prime minister.
> > >
> > > They were also asked to give details of their mobile phones, with the expectation the inquiry could examine details of relevant calls or messages. Sedwill, who is also the National Security Adviser, ordered ministers to comply by Friday afternoon.
> > >
> > > https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/01/the-williamson-inquiry-was-a-whitehall-rarity-quick-and-decisive
> >
> > Sounds like paranoia is setting in in Downing St. bunker now...
>
> Or she has done politically the right thing, and waited for an issue of significance in order to make her move and try and reinstall some order.
Maybe we will go back to only discovering what went on in Cabinet when the records are released in 30 years time....
Ha. Those who think the climate emergency nonsense is overblown might be amused or vexed to know that there is (and has been for a few years) a speculative fiction subgenre called 'cli-fi'.
It's been an interesting end few days to the campaign. My local opponents are an independent group, and they've got increasingly petulant as their shortcomings became more and more exposed. Three leaflets from them, the 3rd claiming credit for literally everything ever and attacking the character of our candidates (one of whom is a retired Army Major...) - their attack on my wife and I is that we're from Rochdale.
Which was then amplified by a 3am Facebook rant by their leader who over 4 paragraphs told the world that we are outsiders. Don't know the Town and never will. And would be better going back home. Which is a charming message for 2019 and has gone down like a bucket of warm sick. Not that I am "from" Rochdale the way they suggest it (wasn't born there and haven't lived there for a quarter of a century). And my wife is a cockney who has never even lived there,...
Ah politics, a funny old game
> > @dr_spyn said:
> > Galloway's last outing at Gorton was not overly successful.
> >
> > Some of Corbyn's followers might be tempted to vote for him, but might wonder why the old egotist wants to split the Labour vote.
>
> I don't think he will split much off.
>
> Peterborough looks like a Lab hold to me, astonishing in the circumstances.
</blockquote>
It’s the Tory performance will have the impact, on top of tonight and the Euros. The election option - being cheerfully advocated here by the PB crowd not so very long ago - will be closed off to the PM.
Normally I would stay up for the results, but being in Europe with access only to BBC World and everything being an hour later, I will probably wait until tomorrow for the news.
> Happy polling day those of you who have one. Good luck to all my fellow candidates and I hope your bodies are in a better condition than my sore and achy one is as we head out on todays get out the vote operation.
>
> It's been an interesting end few days to the campaign. My local opponents are an independent group, and they've got increasingly petulant as their shortcomings became more and more exposed. Three leaflets from them, the 3rd claiming credit for literally everything ever and attacking the character of our candidates (one of whom is a retired Army Major...) - their attack on my wife and I is that we're from Rochdale.
>
> Which was then amplified by a 3am Facebook rant by their leader who over 4 paragraphs told the world that we are outsiders. Don't know the Town and never will. And would be better going back home. Which is a charming message for 2019 and has gone down like a bucket of warm sick. Not that I am "from" Rochdale the way they suggest it (wasn't born there and haven't lived there for a quarter of a century). And my wife is a cockney who has never even lived there,...
>
> Ah politics, a funny old game
Shocking. And the sort of muttering more common at parish level, insofar as there are contest.
But by your own admission you are a pioneer?
> https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1123663572343586816
>
>
>
> I can understand why he doesn't want to appear again.....
This is what she is good at, using her skills honed as a prosecutor. So far, the vision or idea thing, not so much.
> OT
>
> For the first time in my voting life, I am not going to bother to vote. I am so appalled at politicians of all shades, no one deserves my vote.
Two seat ward; two local independents, one with a good 'on-the-ground' track record and one with less prominence, two Tory councillors who appear to have been campaigning by smearing them, and two Labour candidates, one with an excellent track record.
Hmmmm.
On topic, Stewart Jackson says he won’t stand for the Brexit Party:
http://twitter.com/BrexitStewart/status/1123646746796670976
> > @RochdalePioneers said:
> > Happy polling day those of you who have one. Good luck to all my fellow candidates and I hope your bodies are in a better condition than my sore and achy one is as we head out on todays get out the vote operation.
> >
> > It's been an interesting end few days to the campaign. My local opponents are an independent group, and they've got increasingly petulant as their shortcomings became more and more exposed. Three leaflets from them, the 3rd claiming credit for literally everything ever and attacking the character of our candidates (one of whom is a retired Army Major...) - their attack on my wife and I is that we're from Rochdale.
> >
> > Which was then amplified by a 3am Facebook rant by their leader who over 4 paragraphs told the world that we are outsiders. Don't know the Town and never will. And would be better going back home. Which is a charming message for 2019 and has gone down like a bucket of warm sick. Not that I am "from" Rochdale the way they suggest it (wasn't born there and haven't lived there for a quarter of a century). And my wife is a cockney who has never even lived there,...
> >
> > Ah politics, a funny old game
>
> Shocking. And the sort of muttering more common at parish level, insofar as there are contest.
>
> But by your own admission you are a pioneer?
Just means he's still a member of Rochdale Co-op.
> Poor old Fiona Onasanya. Kicked out by her constituents and
> knocked off the front pages by Gavin Williamson. In more
> cynical times (like under Blair or Cameron) the Defence Secretary
> would have been kept in post another day and his sacking used
> to bury the bad news of the election results. I suppose it is
> progress of a sort.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48128748
I thought it was being used to ensure that Grayling's latest fiasco was lost at sea. Still, he will have another fiasco today.
> > @brokenwheel said:
>
> > Rory says yes we are in a climate emergency.
>
>
>
> We could do with Danny Alexander back in government...
>
> Please no. The single greatest contributor to the self-immolation of the LibDems, the man for whom the phrase “Yellow Tory” could have been coined. There are few politicians I hold in more contempt.
>
> On topic, Stewart Jackson says he won’t stand for the Brexit Party:
>
> http://twitter.com/BrexitStewart/status/1123646746796670976
The 'shower' has washed off the 'shits' such as him.
Now only IDS, Cash, Jacob-Rees Worm and others to go. Winnets clinging off the bottom of the body politic ...
> > @CarlottaVance said:
>
> > https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1123663572343586816
>
> > I can understand why he doesn't want to appear again.....
>
>
>
> This is what she is good at, using her skills honed as a prosecutor. So far, the vision or idea thing, not so much.
>
> Good lawyers don’t necessarily make good politicians.
Oh I agree. She needs to show a much wider skill set than she has to date.
Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
> > @Foxy said:
> > > @dr_spyn said:
> > > Galloway's last outing at Gorton was not overly successful.
> > >
> > > Some of Corbyn's followers might be tempted to vote for him, but might wonder why the old egotist wants to split the Labour vote.
> >
> > I don't think he will split much off.
> >
> > Peterborough looks like a Lab hold to me, astonishing in the circumstances.
>
> </blockquote>
>
> It’s the Tory performance will have the impact, on top of tonight and the Euros. The election option - being cheerfully advocated here by the PB crowd not so very long ago - will be closed off to the PM.
>
> Normally I would stay up for the results, but being in Europe with access only to BBC World and everything being an hour later, I will probably wait until tomorrow for the news.
In the local elections will there not also be rather a lot of the counting done tomorrow? I always find coverage of the locals a bit annoying because by the time the full story is available the focus of the media has inevitably moved on and it is rarely told.
> That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
>
> Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
>
> I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
But, unaccountably, we can come across as a bit chilly and severe and lacking in empathy and arrogant and occasionally pompous. It is a cross we bear with the fortitude that a large income can give us.
To win an election (having never won anything more than a Bananarama record for my darts playing) you need to grab people’s hearts not just their minds and speak to them in that language not the language of carefully thought through reason, at least at some level. To make people want to follow you they need to want to do it - and appealing to emotion without turning into a demagogue is a difficult act. Lawyers spend so much time reasoning that they can sometimes not realise - even if the evidence is usually in front of them every day - that emotion guides what people do far more than reason. A good politician is able to do both. But they are rare.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
> >
> > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
> >
> > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
>
> After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
>
> I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
> That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
>
> Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
>
> I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
Do we actually know that the Huawei decision has been made, or was it just a leaning-towards situation ?
> Sadly, Galloway’s appeal (if somewhat faded nowadays) to the Muslim vote allied to the Brexit Party constituency could be a smart move for a seat like Peterborough.
Does Peterborough have an area like Manningham ?
> That must have been the most boring, low-key, irrelevant and frankly dim local election campaign ever, in a field of pretty stiff competition.
>
> I had precisely one mail shot. And even that was only going through the motions. It amounted to, 'vote for me, I'm not as big a ***t as the others.' And even that wasn't true!
We got 2 fliers. One from lab, one from an indy. The latter sounded sensible so is getting my vote. And my partners too in think.
If this turns into a debate about what May did, the ground is much stickier for her. There are plenty of security people ready to say that it is a daft or questionable decision, many of them in her party, and plenty from friendly countries.
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
> > >
> > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
> > >
> > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
> >
> > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
> >
> > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
>
> If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer.
But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge.
Has May ever made a good decision as PM? Even one? On any topic at all?
In fact, his best defence may be he's not bright enough to show intelligence.
> That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
>
> Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
>
> I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
He’s denied he is the source of the leak though so how could he turn round and subsequently claim he was acting in the public interest.
MPs talk to the press all the time. A call to the Telegraph doesn’t prove that it was about Huawei.
Williamson is no loss but May’s behaviour in sacking him on what appears at best circumstantial evidence, is at least as questionable as his.
Have a good morning.
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
>
> > > @DavidL said:
>
> > > > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
>
> > >
>
> > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
>
> > >
>
> > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
>
> >
>
> > If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
>
>
>
> When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer.
>
>
>
> But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge.
>
> Easier to list out her top 20 bad decisions and have a competition ranking them in order of crapness.
>
> Has May ever made a good decision as PM? Even one? On any topic at all?
>
> Refusing to reappoint Osborne.
>
> Have a good morning.
Sacking Osborne was one of her few good decisions. Replacing him with Hammond one of her worst.
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
> > > >
> > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
> > >
> > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
> > >
> > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
> >
> > If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
>
> When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer.
>
> But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge.
Surely not beyond a lawyer’s ability to redefine ‘best’ ?
I’ll admit I’m struggling, though. It’s not as though any of them are even amusing.
Unfortunately he is unlikely to be in post for long enough to make much of a difference. This government's life expectancy is surely measured in weeks.
When she became PM she made a big song and dance over the Chinese involvement at Hinkley Point on national security grounds.
Unless that was Nick Timothy speaking and solely to genuflect against the Cameron era.
> I thought it was being used to ensure that Grayling's latest fiasco was lost at sea. Still, he will have another fiasco today.
>
> Ferry good.
You will be docked 10 pts for that answer. I couldn't container my mirth.
We just don’t know.
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> > > > @DavidL said:
> > > > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
> > > > >
> > > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
> > > >
> > > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
> > > >
> > > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
> > >
> > > If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
> >
> > When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer.
> >
> > But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge.
>
> Surely not beyond a lawyer’s ability to redefine ‘best’ ?
>
> I’ll admit I’m struggling, though. It’s not as though any of them are even amusing.
>
>
I'm sure best is a relative term. At the risk of lowering the tone she did manage to negotiate a pretty good deal with the EU. Other than that....
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603770/the-5g-economy-how-5g-will-impact-global-industries-the-economy-and-you/
Personally - and despite having a small interest in this happening - I find that hard to understand. Surely there's still life in 3G and 4G, especially for the institutions that heavily use them?
(*) Whatever that is ...
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
>
> > > @DavidL said:
>
> > > > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > > > That 11 minute call to the Telegraph is very specific. Suggests that Sedwill got hold of phone records.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Pretty stupid of Williamson to call a journalist on a phone attributable to him, even if they were just discussing the weather .....
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I doubt if this will end up in a prosecution. For one thing, there is an appreciable risk that this could turn into a Ponting-style disaster with young Gavin claiming that he was blowing the whistle on a matter of public interest, namely, the PM’s decision to go against the advice of security experts and intelligence allies over Huawei.
>
> > >
>
> > > After swearing on his children's lives that he didn't do it? Even for Williamson that would be a somewhat contorted position.
>
> > >
>
> > > I am glad to see the back of him but I also find May's decision inexplicable.
>
> >
>
> > If you'd care to write a header on Theresa May's best decisions ...
>
>
>
> When I was at school one of the more benign punishments was writing 1500 word essays on bizarre topics, the tips of Robin Hood's arrows being one I remember. I was quite good at this and earned cash by dictating essays for people demonstrating that I was always likely to end up being a windbag, sorry, lawyer.
>
>
>
> But a whole thread header on May's best decisions? That would be a challenge.
>
> Easier to list out her top 20 bad decisions and have a competition ranking them in order of crapness.
>
> Has May ever made a good decision as PM? Even one? On any topic at all?
Her Lancaster House speech on Brexit was right on the money. Shame she didn’t stick to it. Calling a snap general election would have been a good decision if she had had any charisma and campaigning ability at all. Sacking Osborne was a good decision. It’s all gone pear shaped for her since 2017.
> It's interesting that Rory Stewart is content to declare an environmental emergency given his new position. I would like to see a big emphasis in our foreign aid budget on assisting third world countries with clean technology and environmental sustainability. I think we could make a much bigger contribution to the world situation doing that than squeezing down our own emissions even further.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately he is unlikely to be in post for long enough to make much of a difference. This government's life expectancy is surely measured in weeks.
>
> It could limp on, lifeless, for another three years.
>
> We just don’t know.
Not too confident of Gavin's support in the next VONC. He may be too busy feeding his spider. Even with DUP support the PM and government have a paper thin majority and it is not likely to get any bigger after the Peterborough by election.