Manchester United have missed out on a proposed new training kit deal worth £200m over 10 years after the Manchester-based company The Hut Group had concerns about the supporters’ campaign to boycott the club’s commercial partners in protest at the Glazers’ ownership, the Observer understands.
Richard Arnold, United’s group managing director, was told on Friday that THG had pulled out of a contract which was due to start on 1 July.
No, I'd never heard of The Hut Group either.
They are the group behind the likes of MyProtein....they have the most annoying business model ever...the price is never the price, it is always possible to get 30-40-50% off and they bombard you daily with these offer codes.
So you buy a box of protein bars from them, then every day you get spam email after spam email, but if you unsubscribe you won't get the offer codes and so if you want to restock your protein bars you will have to pay 2x the price.
The products they sell are fine, but its the sales tactics that drive you mad.
That isn't the worst part of their business model but that requires too much typing for this time of night.
Manchester United have missed out on a proposed new training kit deal worth £200m over 10 years after the Manchester-based company The Hut Group had concerns about the supporters’ campaign to boycott the club’s commercial partners in protest at the Glazers’ ownership, the Observer understands.
Richard Arnold, United’s group managing director, was told on Friday that THG had pulled out of a contract which was due to start on 1 July.
No, I'd never heard of The Hut Group either.
It's the only way to get them out, hurt their cash balance and force them to sell. The fans should keep up their campaign and make more companies pull out of sponsorship deals
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
Nope. Is that a problem?
I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
It’s not boring if you’re doing it right…
(Not that I ever have to be clear)
Lol - you have me there. No comment.
But you know what I mean. It's just not very fascinating to me. A bloke doesn't go up in my estimation if I find out he gets around. The opposite if anything.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
Back to elections, Labour has lost 21 councillors in Durham and control of the council.
Durham council had been controlled continuously by Labour since 1919.
Much of Durham is too nice to be Labour.
Durham might be but County Durham features some of the most depressing villages I've ever encountered anywhere in the UK..
If you don't believe me take the A68 south from Corbridge and you will identify exactly when you leave Northumberland and again when you hit Darlington Borough Council.
Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
Nope. Is that a problem?
I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
You would think that would be the very first check....we are meant to have x ballot boxes.....do we have that many?
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
I'm referencing the famous Betjeman quote. When asked, on his deathbed, and after a marvellously interesting, rich and colourful life, whether there was anything he regretted, the Poet Laureate Sir John Betjeman said, quite firmly and pointedly, "Yes, I wish I'd had more sex"
He was a highly sexed man (see his poems) hidebound by mid 20th century morality, and his own shyness. I expect in this day and age he's have shagged several hundreds, to put it gently and poetically
To be authentic Starmer needs to be conducting the reshuffle from the vestibule of a Grand Central service from London to Bradford.
Which part of the journey? The London-Doncaster fast bit, or the Doncaster-Bradford bit where you can watch the snails whizz by?
Nicola Murray and her aid bailed from the train at Brighouse, so the bit after Donny. Once they found out that Big Ben Swain was on manuevers.
Yes, the WY leg of Grand Central is rather like my first flight. Booked Edinburgh-Paris through the agent, took off, turned round, flew along the M8. There was a 90m stop in Glasgow. Could've got up 2 hours later.
Likewise, you could get off at Wakefield Kirkgate, hail a taxi and beat the train to Bradford easily. Or, it being Kirkgate. you could peg it out of there so fast and not stop running till the relative safety of Bradford, and still beat the train.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
Back to elections, Labour has lost 21 councillors in Durham and control of the council.
Durham council had been controlled continuously by Labour since 1919.
Much of Durham is too nice to be Labour.
From an outsider the 'City of Durham' constituency looks weird full stop - remain won there and it's got a respected university but it's long term trend seems to be towards the Tories.
Manchester United have missed out on a proposed new training kit deal worth £200m over 10 years after the Manchester-based company The Hut Group had concerns about the supporters’ campaign to boycott the club’s commercial partners in protest at the Glazers’ ownership, the Observer understands.
Richard Arnold, United’s group managing director, was told on Friday that THG had pulled out of a contract which was due to start on 1 July.
No, I'd never heard of The Hut Group either.
It's the only way to get them out, hurt their cash balance and force them to sell. The fans should keep up their campaign and make more companies pull out of sponsorship deals
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
It’s not boring if you’re doing it right…
(Not that I ever have to be clear)
Lol - you have me there. No comment.
But you know what I mean. It's just not very fascinating to me. A bloke doesn't go up in my estimation if I find out he gets around. The opposite if anything.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
I'm referencing the famous Betjeman quote. When asked, on his deathbed, and after a marvellously interesting, rich and colourful life, whether there was anything he regretted, the Poet Laureate Sir John Betjeman said, quite firmly and pointedly, "Yes, I wish I'd had more sex"
He was a highly sexed man (see his poems) hidebound by mid 20th century morality, and his own shyness. I expect in this day and age he's have shagged several hundreds, to put it gently and poetically
Author of the couplet
I sometimes think that I would like To be the saddle of a bike
Back to elections, Labour has lost 21 councillors in Durham and control of the council.
Durham council had been controlled continuously by Labour since 1919.
Much of Durham is too nice to be Labour.
Durham might be but County Durham features some of the most depressing villages I've ever encountered anywhere in the UK..
If you don't believe me take the A68 south from Corbridge and you will identify exactly when you leave Northumberland and again when you hit Darlington Borough Council.
Some of County Durham is very attractive, down Weardale and Teesdale. Some ex-pit villages are very depressing, but there are some very smart villages too.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
Easy win for Khan in the end. But many like me want to see him do much more in his next term. I voted second preference (first Luisa) but without any great enthusiasm.
First class protects you from psychopathic killers?
Better than that, plebs and oiks, which is why I travel first class.
I usually justify the quieter carriage and a guaranteed table for working
but that doesn't work when you have to be one for the people (and you can only claim second class if on Parliamentary business / expenses). Which is why the local MPs now fly down..
I support Angela Rayner here
FFS she's the deputy leader of the Opposition. So she travels first class on a British train, for the very good reason that it is easier to work there?
On First Class you don't get endless free champagne and a selection of the finest charcuterie, this is not Emirates Airways from London to Sydney. You get a bigger seat, a quieter carriage and more space to work. And a free coffee. And that's it
The constant demand that our MPs must live the most humble lives possible is tedious and self defeating. We want smart, talented people to become MPs, which is often a thankless, unstable and boring job - so we need to give them a damn good salary and the means to do the job well. And for God's sake don't quibble about train classes
Absolutely,right. Also with advance fares you can get it cheaper,than std class.
It’s a petty criticism.
Personally, I would double or triple MPs wages, and do the same for ministers or prime ministers. Let the Prime Minister of the UK earn £300,000 a year. He's running an entire country. And a big important country, at that. CEOs of minor charities earn more than the present PM. It is ridiculous. Little Davey Miliband earns £1m in a charity at NYC - and he's utterly useless
We are saddled with inept mediocrities at Westminster because that's the level of salary we offer, the kind of wages that attracts awkward incompetents. Westminster used to get round this by the huge expenses-fiddling nonsense but that's been rumbled, so now the MPs really are reduced to pretty crap wages (by the standards of high powered London jobs) - so we need to increase the wages
We want to attract the best people to a tough demanding job where they will face fierce criticism daily. Who is going to do that for £80k a year if they can earn three or five times that elsewhere?
We have just 600-odd MPs. Pay Them Well so we get Lots of Smart People
They are already in the top 1 or 2% of earners believe it or not. Is the salary the major downside? I suspect it is more the lifestyle and demands of being a politician that people don't want. Something we all ought to consider. How can we make it more appealing?
More money, Is the only way. We can't stop harsh criticism and social media aggression in a democracy
So pay them REALLY well. Insulate them with cash and attract the best talent around
Giving every MP £150k a year would cost us £97m a year
Not a small sum but compared to the £300bn we have just spent on Covid in 12 months, it is tiny little peanuts
More importantly, it would attract working and lower middle class people to have a go. People with talent who also need to make really good money - and have the ability to do so
3 times average salary isnt enough already to attract working and lower middle class people? Frankly most of our mps are thick as mince. Yes they may be well educated but that just means they know a lot about a narrow slice of knowledge, but they have less common sense than a dead herring. Sadly though they then go on to pontificate about stuff with absolutely no knowledge of the subject because their degree or phd gives them and over inflated sense of their own intelligence. For an extreme example I point at Macron and his I have trained my self in epidemiolgy schtick
One awaits the day when you utter a sentiment about anybody or anything which is not infused with mean spirited contempt and bumpkin ignorance.
Most MPs are NOT thick as mince.
They selected a career where 80% of them will only have enough nous to go through the correct lobby. Your evidence they aren't is what precisely? I also acknowledged they were probably knowledgeable in the area they got their degree in but pointed out to many of that ilk think being knowledgeable in one small are makes you knowledgeable in all. I have seen far too many mp's talking about things they obviously have no idea about to not think they are mostly too thick to realise they don't know what the hell they are talking about. That is what makes them thick as mince. From covid for example I at least no I don't know enough about epidemiology to comment.....not so with plenty of our mp's and media
Yes alright. The bullshit is strong in that arena. I do think you might sometimes try to detect some virtue in people though. Ah well. Perhaps you do but don't feel it useful to say.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
It’s not boring if you’re doing it right…
(Not that I ever have to be clear)
Lol - you have me there. No comment.
But you know what I mean. It's just not very fascinating to me. A bloke doesn't go up in my estimation if I find out he gets around. The opposite if anything.
I agree with you. At best it is a shrug.
Boris is our blond whoremonger. To (mis)quote Suetonius.
Just checked the results in my old patch in County Durham. Former MP Helen Goodman stood for the council and lost to a Tory. The other Labour candidate got almost 300 votes more than she did and was elected.
Meanwhile the rough end of Bishop now has two Tory councillors. Incredible.
Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
Nope. Is that a problem?
I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
What I mean is, it is a somewhat hectic environment, with people rushing to & fro and boxes (or in WA State mail trays) of ballot being stacked & processed.
So not inherently criminal let alone suspicious when - occasionally - something gets overlooked.
Example - Back in 2000, one small WA county, a very Republican one, managed somehow to run a batch of ballots through the tabulation machines twice, and it wasn't caught.
Until the recount for US Senate. When the error was corrected, it greatly benefited Democratic challenger Maria Cantwell over incumbent Republican Slade Gorton.
Another Example - in 2004 governor's race, during (first) recount, a mail tray full of valid but uncounted ballots was discovered; it had ended up at the bottom of a stack of empty mail trays. When the Dems & Reps were told about it, both sides got quite excited.
Based on analysis of votes cast & counted in the affected precincts, both sides thought these ballots were gonna favor Democrat Christine Gregoire over Republican Dino Rossi. And Republicans insisted they be tabulated separately, so that they could be removed from the count IF a judge ordered it. When they were counted, turned out they broke . . . wait for it . . . for Rossi.
Assuming every election error is fraud is a sign that you've never actually observed an election.
Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
Nope. Is that a problem?
I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
What I mean is, it is a somewhat hectic environment, with people rushing to & fro and boxes (or in WA State mail trays) of ballot being stacked & processed.
So not inherently criminal let alone suspicious when - occasionally - something gets overlooked.
Example - Back in 2000, one small WA county, a very Republican one, managed somehow to run a batch of ballots through the tabulation machines twice, and it wasn't caught.
Until the recount for US Senate. When the error was corrected, it greatly benefited Democratic challenger Maria Cantwell over incumbent Republican Slade Gorton.
Another Example - in 2004 governor's race, during (first) recount, a mail tray full of valid but uncounted ballots was discovered; it had ended up at the bottom of a stack of empty mail trays. When the Dems & Reps were told about it, both sides got quite excited.
Based on analysis of votes cast & counted in the affected precincts, both sides thought these ballots were gonna favor Democrat Christine Gregoire over Republican Dino Rossi. And Republicans insisted they be tabulated separately, so that they could be removed from the count IF a judge ordered it. When they were counted, turned out they broke . . . wait for it . . . for Rossi.
Assuming every election error is fraud is a sign that you've never actually observed an election.
Clearly Sadiq Khan could have been beaten with an exceptionally good Tory candidate. Not sure who that would have been though.
In all fairness Bailey got his arse kicked. Barely any improvement on the hopeless Goldsmith last time (who was the worst Tory mayoral candidate ever).
Khan won but hasn’t really inspired - he needs to do much more with his second term.
Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
I was an observer for the London mayoral/assembly vote about 9 years ago when they lost a box of votes by putting it in the completed pile. It added about 2 hours to the count trying to find it.
I don't get the safety angle at all, surely you are safer where there are more people.
But what is the issue with the deputy leader of the opposition using first class tickets? Why do we have two classes of tickets still if we think it is unreasonable someone that senior uses first class.
Like much of modern life, it doesn't make much sense!
If she was worried about Covid (no matter whether it is rational fear or not), then first class makes sense. She did mention both COVID and safety from attack as her reason.
Whatever, it surely not a sack-able offence.
If Labour only want to refund a 2nd class ticket from party funds, fine. But, as a reason to sack someone ... wtf
I once sacked someone over their first class ticket use.
My employer is very generous on things like rail tickets, so a first class open return from Manchester to Euston is around £360.
One employee used to buy those tickets and reclaim them on expenses.
Turned out they'd buy them then refund them so they'd get £350 back (£360 less the £10 admin fee) and buy first class advance tickets for £25 a pop, so they'd be making a profit of £300 a time and this was someone who probably went to London 3/4 times a month.
The really strange thing? They were earning a six figure salary and their regular credit reports showed they weren't in debt other than a mortgage which was manageable for them.
How were they caught?
In my first year after University, a few of my friends ended up working for Accenture, and were put on a big project in Newcastle. This meant they all got First Class Open Returns between Newcastle and London.
Quite a lot of them would do as TSE recounts and buy the ticket, submit the receipt, and then get a refund. It probably doubled the disposable income of a 22 year old.
But it was also fundamentally dishonest.
Only the other day you were bragging about undergraduate meetings at the Pitt Club with Sanjeev Gupta
It does seem as though most people you met in your time as an undergraduate at Cambridge University were -- shall we say -- singularly broad-minded in financial matters.
Ah well, they do say a Cambridge man can always look indulgently on a financial scheme if he sees a bit in it for himself.
Neither Sanjeev nor I would have been invited to join the Pitt club.
I have seen 2 MPs defeated at 2019 GE elected as Cllrs this week
Sandy Martin (Ipswich 2017-19) elected to Suffolk CC Ruth George (High Peak 2017-19) elected to Derbyshire CC. She defeated Edwing Currie in her division.
3 were elected as MPs
Paul Sweeney (ex Glasgow NE) Martin Whitfield (ex East Lothian). He actually stood and lost East Lothian at Holyrood too but he got in through the regional list Stephen Kerr (ex Stirling)
Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
Nope. Is that a problem?
I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
What I mean is, it is a somewhat hectic environment, with people rushing to & fro and boxes (or in WA State mail trays) of ballot being stacked & processed.
So not inherently criminal let alone suspicious when - occasionally - something gets overlooked.
Example - Back in 2000, one small WA county, a very Republican one, managed somehow to run a batch of ballots through the tabulation machines twice, and it wasn't caught.
Until the recount for US Senate. When the error was corrected, it greatly benefited Democratic challenger Maria Cantwell over incumbent Republican Slade Gorton.
Another Example - in 2004 governor's race, during (first) recount, a mail tray full of valid but uncounted ballots was discovered; it had ended up at the bottom of a stack of empty mail trays. When the Dems & Reps were told about it, both sides got quite excited.
Based on analysis of votes cast & counted in the affected precincts, both sides thought these ballots were gonna favor Democrat Christine Gregoire over Republican Dino Rossi. And Republicans insisted they be tabulated separately, so that they could be removed from the count IF a judge ordered it. When they were counted, turned out they broke . . . wait for it . . . for Rossi.
Assuming every election error is fraud is a sign that you've never actually observed an election.
Like I say. One job to do.
And what job do you do, totally perfectly all the time no doubt?
It's easy to sneer at how other people do THEIR jobs, when you know diddly squat about what the job actually entails.
Clearly Sadiq Khan could have been beaten with an exceptionally good Tory candidate. Not sure who that would have been though.
In all fairness Bailey got his arse kicked. Barely any improvement on the hopeless Goldsmith last time (who was the worst Tory mayoral candidate ever).
Khan won but hasn’t really inspired - he needs to do much more with his second term.
Nah, Bailey did okay in the end. Shit candidate but 55/45 isn't bad in a Labour city after brexit with an incumbent Tory government. A better candidate would have beaten Sadiq, who very few are enthusiastic about. Even his supporters say his best characteristic is that he's a known quantity.
Back to elections, Labour has lost 21 councillors in Durham and control of the council.
Durham council had been controlled continuously by Labour since 1919.
Much of Durham is too nice to be Labour.
From an outsider the 'City of Durham' constituency looks weird full stop - remain won there and it's got a respected university but it's long term trend seems to be towards the Tories.
Even City of Durham contains a few ex-pit villages - which probably just about outvote the 'city' bits.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But if Starmer were to be at it too, it would rather cut off at the knees those who use it to expose Boris' lack of ethics....
Would depend on what Starmer is "at". If it's Johnson type antics, yes. No place for double standards. But I bet loads would judge him harshly who give Johnson a pass. This is what drives me nuts.
Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
I was an observer for the London mayoral/assembly vote about 9 years ago when they lost a box of votes by putting it in the completed pile. It added about 2 hours to the count trying to find it.
That kind of error is indeed maddening. But NOT fraudulent, or even grossly incompetent.
Just slightly incompetent. By people who do NOT do this kind of work every working day, but only every once and awhile.
First class protects you from psychopathic killers?
Better than that, plebs and oiks, which is why I travel first class.
I usually justify the quieter carriage and a guaranteed table for working
but that doesn't work when you have to be one for the people (and you can only claim second class if on Parliamentary business / expenses). Which is why the local MPs now fly down..
I support Angela Rayner here
FFS she's the deputy leader of the Opposition. So she travels first class on a British train, for the very good reason that it is easier to work there?
On First Class you don't get endless free champagne and a selection of the finest charcuterie, this is not Emirates Airways from London to Sydney. You get a bigger seat, a quieter carriage and more space to work. And a free coffee. And that's it
The constant demand that our MPs must live the most humble lives possible is tedious and self defeating. We want smart, talented people to become MPs, which is often a thankless, unstable and boring job - so we need to give them a damn good salary and the means to do the job well. And for God's sake don't quibble about train classes
Absolutely,right. Also with advance fares you can get it cheaper,than std class.
It’s a petty criticism.
Personally, I would double or triple MPs wages, and do the same for ministers or prime ministers. Let the Prime Minister of the UK earn £300,000 a year. He's running an entire country. And a big important country, at that. CEOs of minor charities earn more than the present PM. It is ridiculous. Little Davey Miliband earns £1m in a charity at NYC - and he's utterly useless
We are saddled with inept mediocrities at Westminster because that's the level of salary we offer, the kind of wages that attracts awkward incompetents. Westminster used to get round this by the huge expenses-fiddling nonsense but that's been rumbled, so now the MPs really are reduced to pretty crap wages (by the standards of high powered London jobs) - so we need to increase the wages
We want to attract the best people to a tough demanding job where they will face fierce criticism daily. Who is going to do that for £80k a year if they can earn three or five times that elsewhere?
We have just 600-odd MPs. Pay Them Well so we get Lots of Smart People
They are already in the top 1 or 2% of earners believe it or not. Is the salary the major downside? I suspect it is more the lifestyle and demands of being a politician that people don't want. Something we all ought to consider. How can we make it more appealing?
More money, Is the only way. We can't stop harsh criticism and social media aggression in a democracy
So pay them REALLY well. Insulate them with cash and attract the best talent around
Giving every MP £150k a year would cost us £97m a year
Not a small sum but compared to the £300bn we have just spent on Covid in 12 months, it is tiny little peanuts
More importantly, it would attract working and lower middle class people to have a go. People with talent who also need to make really good money - and have the ability to do so
3 times average salary isnt enough already to attract working and lower middle class people? Frankly most of our mps are thick as mince. Yes they may be well educated but that just means they know a lot about a narrow slice of knowledge, but they have less common sense than a dead herring. Sadly though they then go on to pontificate about stuff with absolutely no knowledge of the subject because their degree or phd gives them and over inflated sense of their own intelligence. For an extreme example I point at Macron and his I have trained my self in epidemiolgy schtick
One awaits the day when you utter a sentiment about anybody or anything which is not infused with mean spirited contempt and bumpkin ignorance.
Most MPs are NOT thick as mince.
They selected a career where 80% of them will only have enough nous to go through the correct lobby. Your evidence they aren't is what precisely? I also acknowledged they were probably knowledgeable in the area they got their degree in but pointed out to many of that ilk think being knowledgeable in one small are makes you knowledgeable in all. I have seen far too many mp's talking about things they obviously have no idea about to not think they are mostly too thick to realise they don't know what the hell they are talking about. That is what makes them thick as mince. From covid for example I at least no I don't know enough about epidemiology to comment.....not so with plenty of our mp's and media
Yes alright. The bullshit is strong in that arena. I do think you might sometimes try to detect some virtue in people though. Ah well. Perhaps you do but don't feel it useful to say.
Ok a reasonable reply deserves a reasonable answer
I start from the position that someone who goes into politics is doing it because they think they have a better idea over how we should live than people that don't go into politcs. I don't mean that either as a positive or negative thing.
Because of this yes I hold them to a higher standard than the average non politician. If you are going to propose laws or vote on laws that affect people I do expect them to do a modicum of research so they have a clue what they are talking about , proposing or voting on. Mostly sadly they don't which is why we get things suggested such as banning encryption, porn passports, vax passports and all the other stuff. Computers are my area hence why I mentioned those as examples. Ydoethur is critical about the education things politicians go on about for example as his area of expertise...others do other area's.
Far too often we get bad laws passed and promoted by people who don't actually understand any of the issues. I am sorry if you think its wrong of me to hold politicians to a higher bar but joe bloggs in the bar pontificating about stuff they don't know jack shit about doesn't really effect me....an mp doing the same often does.
So yes I often come off as negative about mp's of all parties purely because I think they do need to be held to a higher standard on their pronouncements purely because they do have a potentially catastrophic impact when they get it wrong
Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
Nope. Is that a problem?
I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
What I mean is, it is a somewhat hectic environment, with people rushing to & fro and boxes (or in WA State mail trays) of ballot being stacked & processed.
So not inherently criminal let alone suspicious when - occasionally - something gets overlooked.
Example - Back in 2000, one small WA county, a very Republican one, managed somehow to run a batch of ballots through the tabulation machines twice, and it wasn't caught.
Until the recount for US Senate. When the error was corrected, it greatly benefited Democratic challenger Maria Cantwell over incumbent Republican Slade Gorton.
Another Example - in 2004 governor's race, during (first) recount, a mail tray full of valid but uncounted ballots was discovered; it had ended up at the bottom of a stack of empty mail trays. When the Dems & Reps were told about it, both sides got quite excited.
Based on analysis of votes cast & counted in the affected precincts, both sides thought these ballots were gonna favor Democrat Christine Gregoire over Republican Dino Rossi. And Republicans insisted they be tabulated separately, so that they could be removed from the count IF a judge ordered it. When they were counted, turned out they broke . . . wait for it . . . for Rossi.
Assuming every election error is fraud is a sign that you've never actually observed an election.
I've only done an election once. But I was impressed by how well-tracked everything was. Based on my experience, I can't really understand how any boxes were just mislaid.
Back to elections, Labour has lost 21 councillors in Durham and control of the council.
Durham council had been controlled continuously by Labour since 1919.
Much of Durham is too nice to be Labour.
From an outsider the 'City of Durham' constituency looks weird full stop - remain won there and it's got a respected university but it's long term trend seems to be towards the Tories.
Even City of Durham contains a few ex-pit villages - which probably just about outvote the 'city' bits.
But compare it to York Central - a constituency seemingly designed to include a bunch of student accommodation and most of the grotty bits of York (Kingsway, Tang Hall, Acomb). You’re not seeing the same kinds of trend there.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
I'm referencing the famous Betjeman quote. When asked, on his deathbed, and after a marvellously interesting, rich and colourful life, whether there was anything he regretted, the Poet Laureate Sir John Betjeman said, quite firmly and pointedly, "Yes, I wish I'd had more sex"
He was a highly sexed man (see his poems) hidebound by mid 20th century morality, and his own shyness. I expect in this day and age he's have shagged several hundreds, to put it gently and poetically
Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
Nope. Is that a problem?
I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
What I mean is, it is a somewhat hectic environment, with people rushing to & fro and boxes (or in WA State mail trays) of ballot being stacked & processed.
So not inherently criminal let alone suspicious when - occasionally - something gets overlooked.
Example - Back in 2000, one small WA county, a very Republican one, managed somehow to run a batch of ballots through the tabulation machines twice, and it wasn't caught.
Until the recount for US Senate. When the error was corrected, it greatly benefited Democratic challenger Maria Cantwell over incumbent Republican Slade Gorton.
Another Example - in 2004 governor's race, during (first) recount, a mail tray full of valid but uncounted ballots was discovered; it had ended up at the bottom of a stack of empty mail trays. When the Dems & Reps were told about it, both sides got quite excited.
Based on analysis of votes cast & counted in the affected precincts, both sides thought these ballots were gonna favor Democrat Christine Gregoire over Republican Dino Rossi. And Republicans insisted they be tabulated separately, so that they could be removed from the count IF a judge ordered it. When they were counted, turned out they broke . . . wait for it . . . for Rossi.
Assuming every election error is fraud is a sign that you've never actually observed an election.
Like I say. One job to do.
And what job do you do, totally perfectly all the time no doubt?
It's easy to sneer at how other people do THEIR jobs, when you know diddly squat about what the job actually entails.
I certainly don’t do my job perfectly. But then again I do my job eveyday, day on day. And involves more than counting.
They have one job. On one occasion. To count. It’s not rocket science. I fail to see how complicated it is.
They know how many boxes there are.
Counting isn’t difficult. Most humans have grasped the concept within three or four years of being born, enabled by the suitable education.
Vote counts aren’t a mystical art only discernible by those privileged few supposedly initiated into the secret ancient art of counting boxes and bits of paper.
Clearly Sadiq Khan could have been beaten with an exceptionally good Tory candidate. Not sure who that would have been though.
Brian Coleman.
He was the candidate for one of the counts I was observing on behalf of the electoral commission. I'm a tory voter but he is well, sufficiently not nice to make me vote Labour if he was the candidate I had to vote to. He came out with a long and unnecessary tirade about the electoral commission and his speech on winning was about as ungracious as you could get.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
I mean if they are going to go down this route, they might as well just shut themselves down, because the church sins are greater than most, with their forcing of religion on the inhabitants of other nations.
Man, the Lib Dems really shat the bed in London. It should have been a good campaign for them, unpopular incumbent, shite challenger from the Tories, it's a liberal city with lots of die hard remainerism.
Absolutely terrible campaign in the end. Their mayoral candidate almost seemed like she was a glorified paper candidate (which I'm guessing she was) but she should have done a lot better. I mean the YouTube meme candidate almost got half the votes she did and he had no party machinery and didn't get any PPBs.
Back to elections, Labour has lost 21 councillors in Durham and control of the council.
Durham council had been controlled continuously by Labour since 1919.
Much of Durham is too nice to be Labour.
From an outsider the 'City of Durham' constituency looks weird full stop - remain won there and it's got a respected university but it's long term trend seems to be towards the Tories.
Even City of Durham contains a few ex-pit villages - which probably just about outvote the 'city' bits.
But compare it to York Central - a constituency seemingly designed to include a bunch of student accommodation and most of the grotty bits of York (Kingsway, Tang Hall, Acomb). You’re not seeing the same kinds of trend there.
I don't know Kingsway or Tang Hall, but I wouldn't describe Acomb as Grotty! And City of Durham's ex-pit villages - Bowburn, Ushaw Moor, etc. - are outside of the city in a way that nowhere in York Central is. And they are mirroring the trend to Con of ex-pit villages everywhere, as monolithic housing/employment/political culture which strongly favoured Labour dies, and gets replaced by something much more mixed.
I mean if they are going to go down this route, they might as well just shut themselves down, because the church sins are greater than most, with their forcing of religion on the inhabitants of other nations.
The average Anglican is actually now a black Nigerian woman not a white Englishman, no forcing involved.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But if Starmer were to be at it too, it would rather cut off at the knees those who use it to expose Boris' lack of ethics....
Would depend on what Starmer is "at". If it's Johnson type antics, yes. No place for double standards. But I bet loads would judge him harshly who give Johnson a pass. This is what drives me nuts.
Out from 5 to 7.2 since the start of this thread as next PM on Betfair.
Really.
PLP has 36 Socialist Group MPs and after the Rayner fiasco there could easily be enough in total (40) for a challenge.
Hope so Labour has no chance under Starmer.
W Yorks mayor win - By Election - Andy Burnham stands/ wins - leadership challenge.
Sounds like a lot of hurdles but it needs to happen
Gotta be Burnham. He's twice won votes from folk who don't vote Labour. Rather like another Mayor from another Party did. But his appeal won't travel they say. They said that about the PM too. I know cos I used to say it.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
I'm referencing the famous Betjeman quote. When asked, on his deathbed, and after a marvellously interesting, rich and colourful life, whether there was anything he regretted, the Poet Laureate Sir John Betjeman said, quite firmly and pointedly, "Yes, I wish I'd had more sex"
He was a highly sexed man (see his poems) hidebound by mid 20th century morality, and his own shyness. I expect in this day and age he's have shagged several hundreds, to put it gently and poetically
Author of the couplet
I sometimes think that I would like To be the saddle of a bike
When I was 17 I had a casual job with a gang of older blokes and one of them was always saying that. Not in couplet form but that exact sentiment. "When I come back I hope it's as a bike seat," he used to go, and he'd screw his face up and loll his tongue around. Always directed at me. Used to creep me out.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
I'm referencing the famous Betjeman quote. When asked, on his deathbed, and after a marvellously interesting, rich and colourful life, whether there was anything he regretted, the Poet Laureate Sir John Betjeman said, quite firmly and pointedly, "Yes, I wish I'd had more sex"
He was a highly sexed man (see his poems) hidebound by mid 20th century morality, and his own shyness. I expect in this day and age he's have shagged several hundreds, to put it gently and poetically
Author of the couplet
I sometimes think that I would like To be the saddle of a bike
When I was 17 I had a casual job with a gang of older blokes and one of them was always saying that. Not in couplet form but that exact sentiment. "When I come back I hope it's as a bike seat," he used to go, and he'd screw his face up and loll his tongue around. Always directed at me. Used to creep me out.
Sounds like the opening of a particularly disturbing B movie.
Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
Nope. Is that a problem?
I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
What I mean is, it is a somewhat hectic environment, with people rushing to & fro and boxes (or in WA State mail trays) of ballot being stacked & processed.
So not inherently criminal let alone suspicious when - occasionally - something gets overlooked.
Example - Back in 2000, one small WA county, a very Republican one, managed somehow to run a batch of ballots through the tabulation machines twice, and it wasn't caught.
Until the recount for US Senate. When the error was corrected, it greatly benefited Democratic challenger Maria Cantwell over incumbent Republican Slade Gorton.
Another Example - in 2004 governor's race, during (first) recount, a mail tray full of valid but uncounted ballots was discovered; it had ended up at the bottom of a stack of empty mail trays. When the Dems & Reps were told about it, both sides got quite excited.
Based on analysis of votes cast & counted in the affected precincts, both sides thought these ballots were gonna favor Democrat Christine Gregoire over Republican Dino Rossi. And Republicans insisted they be tabulated separately, so that they could be removed from the count IF a judge ordered it. When they were counted, turned out they broke . . . wait for it . . . for Rossi.
Assuming every election error is fraud is a sign that you've never actually observed an election.
I've only done an election once. But I was impressed by how well-tracked everything was. Based on my experience, I can't really understand how any boxes were just mislaid.
Depends on number of factors, such the number of ballots to count, time & staff allocated to count them, and how well-trained & experienced worker are; b) the quality of the facilities & systems for processing & counting ballots.
To mislay a ballot box or mail tray, all it takes is for one person to mess up, and nobody notices until the error becomes obvious.
In the examples I mentioned (and others I did not) discovery of the mistakes led to changes in the processing routine, to ensure (as much as possible) that same mistakes were NOT repeated in the future.
Close elections and recounts tend to reveal these kind of mistakes, because people (election supervisors & observers) are watching like hawks, and in recounts of course ballots are counted again, so big discrepancies are revealed.
Back in razor-thin 2004 WA State governors race (final margin 133 votes) the errors and omissions discovered led to MAJOR changes in election law & procedures.
Especially in King Co (one-third of state) where serious problems were almost entirely the result of serious underfunding of the Elections Department. The upshot was that the county budged a LOT more money to improve the facilities and equipment (previously pretty bad) upgrade staff & training & tighten up the whole system.
With considerable success. Discrepancies between ballots received & counted reduced to the literal vanishing point, and recounts with miniscule or zero changes.
For example, Republicans doubtful of the election requested a hand recount of all ballots in one precinct they selected, for President, Congress, Governor & state Attorney General. Result - no change from original count.
I mean if they are going to go down this route, they might as well just shut themselves down, because the church sins are greater than most, with their forcing of religion on the inhabitants of other nations.
The average Anglican is actually now a black Nigerian woman not a white Englishman, no forcing involved.
NOW being the operative word. The point is they are going to go removing things like stained glass windows that were put up because somebody bunged the church a load of money back in the day to build the place, but the actual institution is complicit as any of the donors.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But if Starmer were to be at it too, it would rather cut off at the knees those who use it to expose Boris' lack of ethics....
Would depend on what Starmer is "at". If it's Johnson type antics, yes. No place for double standards. But I bet loads would judge him harshly who give Johnson a pass. This is what drives me nuts.
Presumably the “contingency” boxes if things were a little closer than they are.
Have you ever observed an actual election count, in person? Am guessing not.
Nope. Is that a problem?
I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
What I mean is, it is a somewhat hectic environment, with people rushing to & fro and boxes (or in WA State mail trays) of ballot being stacked & processed.
So not inherently criminal let alone suspicious when - occasionally - something gets overlooked.
Example - Back in 2000, one small WA county, a very Republican one, managed somehow to run a batch of ballots through the tabulation machines twice, and it wasn't caught.
Until the recount for US Senate. When the error was corrected, it greatly benefited Democratic challenger Maria Cantwell over incumbent Republican Slade Gorton.
Another Example - in 2004 governor's race, during (first) recount, a mail tray full of valid but uncounted ballots was discovered; it had ended up at the bottom of a stack of empty mail trays. When the Dems & Reps were told about it, both sides got quite excited.
Based on analysis of votes cast & counted in the affected precincts, both sides thought these ballots were gonna favor Democrat Christine Gregoire over Republican Dino Rossi. And Republicans insisted they be tabulated separately, so that they could be removed from the count IF a judge ordered it. When they were counted, turned out they broke . . . wait for it . . . for Rossi.
Assuming every election error is fraud is a sign that you've never actually observed an election.
Like I say. One job to do.
And what job do you do, totally perfectly all the time no doubt?
It's easy to sneer at how other people do THEIR jobs, when you know diddly squat about what the job actually entails.
I certainly don’t do my job perfectly. But then again I do my job eveyday, day on day. And involves more than counting.
They have one job. On one occasion. To count. It’s not rocket science. I fail to see how complicated it is.
They know how many boxes there are.
Counting isn’t difficult. Most humans have grasped the concept within three or four years of being born, enabled by the suitable education.
Vote counts aren’t a mystical art only discernible by those privileged few supposedly initiated into the secret ancient art of counting boxes and bits of paper.
Would some respect for your views on this IF you had ever observed an election up close & personal.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
I'm referencing the famous Betjeman quote. When asked, on his deathbed, and after a marvellously interesting, rich and colourful life, whether there was anything he regretted, the Poet Laureate Sir John Betjeman said, quite firmly and pointedly, "Yes, I wish I'd had more sex"
He was a highly sexed man (see his poems) hidebound by mid 20th century morality, and his own shyness. I expect in this day and age he's have shagged several hundreds, to put it gently and poetically
Author of the couplet
I sometimes think that I would like To be the saddle of a bike
When I was 17 I had a casual job with a gang of older blokes and one of them was always saying that. Not in couplet form but that exact sentiment. "When I come back I hope it's as a bike seat," he used to go, and he'd screw his face up and loll his tongue around. Always directed at me. Used to creep me out.
About 99.46% certainty that he was NOT getting any.
I don't really care if Starmer is or isn't. One reason Boris gets away with that kind of stuff is it is a) expected and b) he never claims be to whiter than white.
When it hurts politicians is if you preach purity and then found to be a hypocrite e.g. Tory back to basics.
No, the reason he gets away with that sort of stuff is that people put their brains in a jar when it comes to assessing him.
There's nothing interesting about womanising or sexual infidelity. It's a sign of moral laxity and is yawningly common. It's boring.
But no one died thinking "I wish I'd had sex less often and with fewer women"
Probably not, though they probably used to claim they thought that, when seeking to be absolved for their sinful life on their deathbeds. Those priests will buy anything.
When you die you don't think about sex at all. You think about the big relationships in your life and what they've meant to you. That's what I've been told anyway.
I'm referencing the famous Betjeman quote. When asked, on his deathbed, and after a marvellously interesting, rich and colourful life, whether there was anything he regretted, the Poet Laureate Sir John Betjeman said, quite firmly and pointedly, "Yes, I wish I'd had more sex"
He was a highly sexed man (see his poems) hidebound by mid 20th century morality, and his own shyness. I expect in this day and age he's have shagged several hundreds, to put it gently and poetically
Author of the couplet
I sometimes think that I would like To be the saddle of a bike
When I was 17 I had a casual job with a gang of older blokes and one of them was always saying that. Not in couplet form but that exact sentiment. "When I come back I hope it's as a bike seat," he used to go, and he'd screw his face up and loll his tongue around. Always directed at me. Used to creep me out.
Comments
Durham council had been controlled continuously by Labour since 1919.
Sky News showing the declaration, BBC showing an advert.
I can count though. And “whoopsie daisie” here’s three big black boxes full of votes that were “overlooked” looks shit. I mean. They have one job to do. Really?
But you know what I mean. It's just not very fascinating to me. A bloke doesn't go up in my estimation if I find out he gets around. The opposite if anything.
If you don't believe me take the A68 south from Corbridge and you will identify exactly when you leave Northumberland and again when you hit Darlington Borough Council.
He was a highly sexed man (see his poems) hidebound by mid 20th century morality, and his own shyness. I expect in this day and age he's have shagged several hundreds, to put it gently and poetically
Likewise, you could get off at Wakefield Kirkgate, hail a taxi and beat the train to Bradford easily. Or, it being Kirkgate. you could peg it out of there so fast and not stop running till the relative safety of Bradford, and still beat the train.
Khan 192,313 => 1,206,034
Bailey 84,550 => 977,601
Khan 55.23%
Bailey 44.77%
2016 result was Khan 56.8%, Goldsmith 43.2%.
Swing from Lab to Con: 1.6%
I sometimes think that I would like
To be the saddle of a bike
Khan says he's "a proud Englishman and a Brit".
Bristol is counting the second preferences.
Labour and Green are the top 2
Rees (LAB) 50,510
Hore-Ruthven (GRN) 36,331
Watson (CON) 25,860
Gooch (LD) 15,517
Connelly (Independent) 4,952
Baldwin (TUSC) 3,194
Langley (Independent) 1,528
Clarke (Reform UK) 806
Shaw (Indendent) 389
Meanwhile the rough end of Bishop now has two Tory councillors. Incredible.
So not inherently criminal let alone suspicious when - occasionally - something gets overlooked.
Example - Back in 2000, one small WA county, a very Republican one, managed somehow to run a batch of ballots through the tabulation machines twice, and it wasn't caught.
Until the recount for US Senate. When the error was corrected, it greatly benefited Democratic challenger Maria Cantwell over incumbent Republican Slade Gorton.
Another Example - in 2004 governor's race, during (first) recount, a mail tray full of valid but uncounted ballots was discovered; it had ended up at the bottom of a stack of empty mail trays. When the Dems & Reps were told about it, both sides got quite excited.
Based on analysis of votes cast & counted in the affected precincts, both sides thought these ballots were gonna favor Democrat Christine Gregoire over Republican Dino Rossi. And Republicans insisted they be tabulated separately, so that they could be removed from the count IF a judge ordered it. When they were counted, turned out they broke . . . wait for it . . . for Rossi.
Assuming every election error is fraud is a sign that you've never actually observed an election.
Khan won but hasn’t really inspired - he needs to do much more with his second term.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich 2017-19) elected to Suffolk CC
Ruth George (High Peak 2017-19) elected to Derbyshire CC. She defeated Edwing Currie in her division.
3 were elected as MPs
Paul Sweeney (ex Glasgow NE)
Martin Whitfield (ex East Lothian). He actually stood and lost East Lothian at Holyrood too but he got in through the regional list
Stephen Kerr (ex Stirling)
It's easy to sneer at how other people do THEIR jobs, when you know diddly squat about what the job actually entails.
https://twitter.com/Joe_C_London/status/1391153426466279429
No Policies
No Bollocks
No Chance
SKS RIP
Well yes. Today in Cambs mayor.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1391149428438978566
"This reshuffle is going to be Labour’s Super League isn’t it?" - Labour wag
Just slightly incompetent. By people who do NOT do this kind of work every working day, but only every once and awhile.
I start from the position that someone who goes into politics is doing it because they think they have a better idea over how we should live than people that don't go into politcs. I don't mean that either as a positive or negative thing.
Because of this yes I hold them to a higher standard than the average non politician. If you are going to propose laws or vote on laws that affect people I do expect them to do a modicum of research so they have a clue what they are talking about , proposing or voting on. Mostly sadly they don't which is why we get things suggested such as banning encryption, porn passports, vax passports and all the other stuff. Computers are my area hence why I mentioned those as examples. Ydoethur is critical about the education things politicians go on about for example as his area of expertise...others do other area's.
Far too often we get bad laws passed and promoted by people who don't actually understand any of the issues. I am sorry if you think its wrong of me to hold politicians to a higher bar but joe bloggs in the bar pontificating about stuff they don't know jack shit about doesn't really effect me....an mp doing the same often does.
So yes I often come off as negative about mp's of all parties purely because I think they do need to be held to a higher standard on their pronouncements purely because they do have a potentially catastrophic impact when they get it wrong
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/08/charles-darwins-theory-natural-selection-justified-white-male/
They have one job. On one occasion. To count. It’s not rocket science. I fail to see how complicated it is.
They know how many boxes there are.
Counting isn’t difficult. Most humans have grasped the concept within three or four years of being born, enabled by the suitable education.
Vote counts aren’t a mystical art only discernible by those privileged few supposedly initiated into the secret ancient art of counting boxes and bits of paper.
PLP has 36 Socialist Group MPs and after the Rayner fiasco there could easily be enough in total (40) for a challenge.
Hope so Labour has no chance under Starmer.
W Yorks mayor win - By Election - Andy Burnham stands/ wins - leadership challenge.
Sounds like a lot of hurdles but it needs to happen
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1391158212108369922?s=20
I mean if they are going to go down this route, they might as well just shut themselves down, because the church sins are greater than most, with their forcing of religion on the inhabitants of other nations.
Absolutely terrible campaign in the end. Their mayoral candidate almost seemed like she was a glorified paper candidate (which I'm guessing she was) but she should have done a lot better. I mean the YouTube meme candidate almost got half the votes she did and he had no party machinery and didn't get any PPBs.
And City of Durham's ex-pit villages - Bowburn, Ushaw Moor, etc. - are outside of the city in a way that nowhere in York Central is. And they are mirroring the trend to Con of ex-pit villages everywhere, as monolithic housing/employment/political culture which strongly favoured Labour dies, and gets replaced by something much more mixed.
Rather like another Mayor from another Party did.
But his appeal won't travel they say. They said that about the PM too. I know cos I used to say it.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2021/05/keir-starmer-s-sacking-angela-rayner-self-destructive-stupid-and-wrong
To mislay a ballot box or mail tray, all it takes is for one person to mess up, and nobody notices until the error becomes obvious.
In the examples I mentioned (and others I did not) discovery of the mistakes led to changes in the processing routine, to ensure (as much as possible) that same mistakes were NOT repeated in the future.
Close elections and recounts tend to reveal these kind of mistakes, because people (election supervisors & observers) are watching like hawks, and in recounts of course ballots are counted again, so big discrepancies are revealed.
Back in razor-thin 2004 WA State governors race (final margin 133 votes) the errors and omissions discovered led to MAJOR changes in election law & procedures.
Especially in King Co (one-third of state) where serious problems were almost entirely the result of serious underfunding of the Elections Department. The upshot was that the county budged a LOT more money to improve the facilities and equipment (previously pretty bad) upgrade staff & training & tighten up the whole system.
With considerable success. Discrepancies between ballots received & counted reduced to the literal vanishing point, and recounts with miniscule or zero changes.
For example, Republicans doubtful of the election requested a hand recount of all ballots in one precinct they selected, for President, Congress, Governor & state Attorney General. Result - no change from original count.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1391160663821602819
That's a good move.
But also Burnham seems to be on the war path
Since you have not, I do not.
Clink clink clink Thank you Brian Rose.
"@AndyBurnhamGM
I can’t support this."