Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

After a disappointing set of results for LAB one figure appears to have bucked the trend – political

1235712

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,450
    edited May 2021
    I missed this interview on CH4 News with Starmer from a few days ago...its more cringe than even Ed Miliband.

    https://youtu.be/nBXrZKSNWN0
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,548

    Pippa Crerar
    @PippaCrerar
    ·
    3m
    Hearing from one shad cab min that Lisa Nandy is “definitely next” to be sacked because “people around Keir think she’s disloyal”.

    Night of the Long Knives
    Rather that than Night of the Long Baileys.
    Translation for clueless colonial?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Any news on the London Mayor election?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,822

    Pippa Crerar
    @PippaCrerar
    ·
    3m
    Hearing from one shad cab min that Lisa Nandy is “definitely next” to be sacked because “people around Keir think she’s disloyal”.

    Night of the Long Knives
    Rather that than Night of the Long Baileys.
    Translation for clueless colonial?
    Rebecca Long-Bailey.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,353

    Pippa Crerar
    @PippaCrerar
    ·
    3m
    Hearing from one shad cab min that Lisa Nandy is “definitely next” to be sacked because “people around Keir think she’s disloyal”.

    So Labour, about having a female leader..... Any decade soon?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,795
    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.

    More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?

    The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?

    You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England.
    It is not just a big urban centre.
    As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.
    The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547
    dixiedean said:

    Starmer has to go.
    Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come.
    So what does he do?
    No political instinct at all.

    Yes. Exactly this. The media loves a “party in crisis and internal war” story, and he’s choosing to give it to them.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,301
    Alistair said:

    Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.

    A bit of personal advice, never ever let your other half get involved with your political analysis because the conversation will eventually turn to betting and they'll be shocked to learn how much you gamble and that leads to grief.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    dixiedean said:

    Starmer has to go.
    Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come.
    So what does he do?
    No political instinct at all.

    Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,449
    Dramatic return for Laura Pidcock surely?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.

    More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?

    The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?

    You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England.
    It is not just a big urban centre.
    As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.
    The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.
    I think AB knows he is finished in national politics
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,548
    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.

    She's finally given in and decided to humor you with your politics obsession? :D
    OR she's the one with all the money!
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.

    More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?

    The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?

    You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England.
    It is not just a big urban centre.
    As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.
    The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.
    This should be the LibDems moment shouldn’t it? In the old days they’d have been up for a fight in Batley and Spen and could have performed well.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    It looks like that even the good people of Tower Hamlets have almost finished counting the mayoral ballots

    All 45m write in ballots for the Tower Hamlets mayor?
    That was just from one tower block
  • This is very odd from Starmer…

    Sacking Nandy?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,262
    edited May 2021
    dixiedean said:

    Starmer has to go.
    Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come.
    So what does he do?
    No political instinct at all.

    The narrative is still a Tory 36%, Labour 29%, LDs 17% NEV lead nationally of the votes cast on Thursday.

    Only area Labour got a swing to them was 4% in county council seats which voted Remain.

    There was a 1% swing to the Tories in district council seats which voted Remain, a swing to the Tories of 3% in county council seats which voted Leave and a swing to the Tories of 11% in district council seats which voted Leave

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57040175
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,450
    MrEd said:

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.

    More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?

    The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?

    You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England.
    It is not just a big urban centre.
    As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.
    The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.
    I think AB knows he is finished in national politics
    Sky News boosting him like he is some sort of Barack Obama level politician.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    I missed this interview on CH4 News with Starmer from a few days ago...its more cringe than even Ed Miliband.

    https://youtu.be/nBXrZKSNWN0

    And, again, look at the background.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,822

    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.

    She's finally given in and decided to humor you with your politics obsession? :D
    OR she's the one with all the money!
    A sensible arrangement.
  • Time_to_LeaveTime_to_Leave Posts: 2,547

    It looks like that even the good people of Tower Hamlets have almost finished counting the mayoral ballots

    it can be a slow process when the turnout is 156%.
    Easy to count when they all have “Rahman” written in though.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798
    kle4 said:

    With ratings like his.....


    Bet those MPs who switched feel pretty stupid right now.
    Whereas Ongie MacNeil (who to be brutally frank isn’t the sharpest pencil in the case) will be feeling pretty smug.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    Starmer has to go.
    Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come.
    So what does he do?
    No political instinct at all.

    Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
    No. I know. But you take my point.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,822

    It looks like that even the good people of Tower Hamlets have almost finished counting the mayoral ballots

    it can be a slow process when the turnout is 156%.
    Hopefully they don't run out of TippEx during the count.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination

    Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.

    And DYOR.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,662
    Unpopular said:

    Angela Rayner is one of the Labour Party’s most authentic communicators, and with a northern accent. Not totally clear tonight how her sacking helps win back the red wall.

    https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1391096514253099010?s=20

    Ugh, I hate sentiments like that. As someone with a northern accent, I can't stand how she speaks! Like, we all have telephone voices and perhaps she should use hers when on the TV. As to authentic, I couldn't say but she's authentically rubbish. She strikes entirely the wrong tone and her bullish attitude towards 'Tory cronyism' certainly turned me off (momentarily) from that issue. The further away the angry shoutey contingency are away from the levers of power in the Labour Party, the better. She might be useful on the attack, and it's useful to have a partisan who can go low, but I do not rate her.
    Authentic communicator.. amazing.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    Starmer has to go.
    Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come.
    So what does he do?
    No political instinct at all.

    Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
    No. I know. But you take my point.
    I do, and the two Mayoral wins are definitely positive plus the wins in the South. But, to use the analogy for newspaper advertising, it is replacing print pounds with digital pennies. It is not enough.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    Alistair said:

    Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.

    A bit of personal advice, never ever let your other half get involved with your political analysis because the conversation will eventually turn to betting and they'll be shocked to learn how much you gamble and that leads to grief.
    But surely the answer to that is look what I've made over the years from it.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    Starmer missed the perfect opportunity to sack her when she got the tax payer to buy those apple ear things.
  • When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.

    The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    oh dear

    Starmer might have ignited a bit of a fire storm

    https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1391096745778716675

    Starmer seems to have united every political faction on Twitter, from far left to hard right, but not quite as he hoped

    https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1391097293634478084

    One source: "They have just gifted Angela the next leadership election whenever that may be. I have never witnessed an act of such self harm, this is more stupid than us trying to not adopt the IHRA definition"

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1391096190129815563

    “I take full responsibility. And to prove it I’ve just sacked my Deputy”. How can anyone with even a sliver of understanding of political communications come up with an idea like that.

    And my personal favourite

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1391094017497210881

    One ex-Corbyn era Labour staffer: "This Angela decision is probably one of the stupidest political decisions a leaders office has made in a very long time. And that includes putting Richard Burgon on the front bench."
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,548
    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.

    A bit of personal advice, never ever let your other half get involved with your political analysis because the conversation will eventually turn to betting and they'll be shocked to learn how much you gamble and that leads to grief.
    But surely the answer to that is look what I've made over the years from it.
    Particularly IF you keep two sets of books - one for real, other for show!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited May 2021

    HYUFD said:

    Not looking like a good result for us LibDems in Scotland - kept our constituency seats but going to struggle on the list. We do get a change around thanks to the SNP winning more constituency seats and votes cast than ever before, so list seats allocated will be different. Had hoped to pick seats up off the Tories, but the big winners on the list seats will be pro-indy Greens.

    I agree, not looking good. I seem to have been continuously depressed for 11 years from the Orange/Yellow viewpoint.
    Annoyingly the Tory list vote looks likely to have held up despite going backwards in constituencies. So the Greens will pick seats up in regions like mine in the NE, but from us not the Tories.

    Odd that people are still trying to argue that a leap into the 70s of independence MSPs and a record haul in constituency seats and votes for the SNP after 3 terms in government is somehow a defeat for them and for independence. I'm a federalist (so neither a unionist nor a secessionist) but you can't deny how the votes have stacked up both to give nippy a 4th term and to give a thumping majority for a new referendum.
    52% of Scots have voted against indyref2 and for Unionist parties, only 48% for, even before the 2016 EU referendum the Tories and UKIP won 50% of the vote in 2015
    Got it. A record 72 seats (forecasted) for independence is people voting against independence.

    You really are a tool aren't you.
    Yeah, I find the mental gymnastics demonstrated to try and deny the moral case for a new referendum baffling. My conclusion from these results and other polling is that Sturgeon would be terrified to have her bluff called. And even if I’m wrong and the referendum was lost, why do other Englishmen want Scotland kept in the Union against the will of her people?

    The proper safety valve on referendums is that if they lost the second, the SNP really couldn’t push for a third for many, many years without electoral consequences.
    The way forward is simple. The Scottish government will publish a bill for an independence referendum. It will pass thanks to the record majority for independence in Holyrood.

    Westminster then has 4 weeks to make a choice.

    1 Strike down the bill by a Section 35 order
    2 Refer the bill to the Supreme Court with a Section 33 order expecting them to strike it down
    3 Do nothing and let it become an act of the Scottish parliament

    Whether they use S33 or S35, if Westminster overrules the Scottish Parliament who are acting on the express elected mandate from the Scottish people, then Yes will see a big spike in support that will never go away.

    As other posters have said, I expect that a referendum held in the next few years would be a win for No. If Westminster overrules the electorate then independence is guaranteed.
    But there's no need to campaign in it, or to change anything in light of the result. It should be made clear that constitutional change would only result from an officially sanctioned referendum - if the SNP want a massive democratic exercise (others would call it a vanity referendum), that's fine, but the UK Government should express no more than a casual interest.

    To seek to overrule and stop it even happening would, as you suggest, be provocative, and counter-productive, and actually give the proposed poll more legitimacy than it deserves.
    When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.
    If something is ultra vires it is ultra vires.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,822

    When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.

    The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
    Yeah, the Scottish Parliament can't simply give itself that competence as @RochdalePioneers seems to be suggesting.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,662
    Shuffling the Shadow Cabinet is like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,548
    MrEd said:

    Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination

    Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.

    And DYOR.

    Sorry to hear that, as Uncle Joe could beat HIM like a gong.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,301
    tlg86 said:

    Starmer missed the perfect opportunity to sack her when she got the tax payer to buy those apple ear things.

    Nonsense, she displayed that she's a woman of brilliant tastes.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,677

    When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.

    The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
    Even better would be to let Sturgeon hold it, without UKG assent, then get every unionist to boycott it, result: a failed referendum and the Nats look like dangerous idiots.

    Sturgeon won't fall into that trap, but neither will Boris fall into her trap. = Stalemate, potentially for many years
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    So Cameron in 2015 scraped a majority on 37% of the vote which included a promise to hold an EU ref . The SNP and Greens will command close to 50% and a bigger relative majority on a promise to hold a second Indy ref and yet they should be denied that . The Tories in here need to stop embarrassing themselves and stop defending the indefensible.

    Misleading, the Tories and UKIP got a 50% voteshare combined in 2015 on an EUref platform, the SNP and Greens currently only have 48% of the Holyrood vote for indyref2
    Not relevant. Bums on parliamentary seats is where it is at.

    Or you need to report yourself to Special Branch for trying to subvert democracy Westminster style, commit treason, etc.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,262
    edited May 2021
    MrEd said:

    Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination

    Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.

    And DYOR.

    Interesting, Hawley could still be a VP pick for DeSantis or Cruz if they win the nomination, or for Trump of course if he runs again now he has burned his bridges with Pence
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,353
    That Labour winner of the Merseyside PCC vote is going to be busy. With her colleagues!
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,548
    Floater said:

    oh dear

    Starmer might have ignited a bit of a fire storm

    https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1391096745778716675

    Starmer seems to have united every political faction on Twitter, from far left to hard right, but not quite as he hoped

    https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1391097293634478084

    One source: "They have just gifted Angela the next leadership election whenever that may be. I have never witnessed an act of such self harm, this is more stupid than us trying to not adopt the IHRA definition"

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1391096190129815563

    “I take full responsibility. And to prove it I’ve just sacked my Deputy”. How can anyone with even a sliver of understanding of political communications come up with an idea like that.

    And my personal favourite

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1391094017497210881

    One ex-Corbyn era Labour staffer: "This Angela decision is probably one of the stupidest political decisions a leaders office has made in a very long time. And that includes putting Richard Burgon on the front bench."

    "They would say that, wouldn't they"

    And

    "We love him for the enemies he's made"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,262
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    So Cameron in 2015 scraped a majority on 37% of the vote which included a promise to hold an EU ref . The SNP and Greens will command close to 50% and a bigger relative majority on a promise to hold a second Indy ref and yet they should be denied that . The Tories in here need to stop embarrassing themselves and stop defending the indefensible.

    Misleading, the Tories and UKIP got a 50% voteshare combined in 2015 on an EUref platform, the SNP and Greens currently only have 48% of the Holyrood vote for indyref2
    Not relevant. Bums on parliamentary seats is where it is at.

    Or you need to report yourself to Special Branch for trying to subvert democracy Westminster style, commit treason, etc.
    Bums on Westminster seats is all that matters, as Union matters are reserved to Westminster
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,548
    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination

    Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.

    And DYOR.

    Interesting, Hawley could still be a VP pick for DeSantis or Cruz if they win the nomination, or for Trump of course if he runs again now he has burned his bridges with Pence
    "Bloody Hands" Hawley is way tooooooo toxic, far toooooooo risky.

    Plus ticket with TWO flaming a-holes is at least one too many.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    Starmer has to go.
    Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come.
    So what does he do?
    No political instinct at all.

    Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
    No. I know. But you take my point.
    I do, and the two Mayoral wins are definitely positive plus the wins in the South. But, to use the analogy for newspaper advertising, it is replacing print pounds with digital pennies. It is not enough.
    No of course not.
    Just the time to start an internal Party war.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    So Cameron in 2015 scraped a majority on 37% of the vote which included a promise to hold an EU ref . The SNP and Greens will command close to 50% and a bigger relative majority on a promise to hold a second Indy ref and yet they should be denied that . The Tories in here need to stop embarrassing themselves and stop defending the indefensible.

    Misleading, the Tories and UKIP got a 50% voteshare combined in 2015 on an EUref platform, the SNP and Greens currently only have 48% of the Holyrood vote for indyref2
    Not relevant. Bums on parliamentary seats is where it is at.

    Or you need to report yourself to Special Branch for trying to subvert democracy Westminster style, commit treason, etc.
    Bums on Westminster seats is all that matters, as Union matters are reserved to Westminster
    Even on that, you are still subverting democracy by inventing obsessive nonsense abouty percentage points. Away to Smithfield with you.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer missed the perfect opportunity to sack her when she got the tax payer to buy those apple ear things.

    Nonsense, she displayed that she's a woman of brilliant tastes.
    Does she have shoes similar to yours?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,662
    edited May 2021

    Floater said:

    oh dear

    Starmer might have ignited a bit of a fire storm

    https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1391096745778716675

    Starmer seems to have united every political faction on Twitter, from far left to hard right, but not quite as he hoped

    https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1391097293634478084

    One source: "They have just gifted Angela the next leadership election whenever that may be. I have never witnessed an act of such self harm, this is more stupid than us trying to not adopt the IHRA definition"

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1391096190129815563

    “I take full responsibility. And to prove it I’ve just sacked my Deputy”. How can anyone with even a sliver of understanding of political communications come up with an idea like that.

    And my personal favourite

    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1391094017497210881

    One ex-Corbyn era Labour staffer: "This Angela decision is probably one of the stupidest political decisions a leaders office has made in a very long time. And that includes putting Richard Burgon on the front bench."

    "They would say that, wouldn't they"

    And

    "We love him for the enemies he's made"
    Twitter firestorm..😂😂😂😂😂.. Twitter is not the real world.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,301
    eek said:

    Alistair said:

    Hmmm, wife just run the numbers with what has been declared and Labour could sneak the 7th list seat in the South.

    A bit of personal advice, never ever let your other half get involved with your political analysis because the conversation will eventually turn to betting and they'll be shocked to learn how much you gamble and that leads to grief.
    But surely the answer to that is look what I've made over the years from it.
    Doesn't work, for some reason they obsess over the potential losses when it comes to spread betting.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,301

    Binface smashes through the 20K barrier to land the ladbrokes bet!

    Hurrah.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    Starmer has to go.
    Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come.
    So what does he do?
    No political instinct at all.

    Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
    No. I know. But you take my point.
    I do, and the two Mayoral wins are definitely positive plus the wins in the South. But, to use the analogy for newspaper advertising, it is replacing print pounds with digital pennies. It is not enough.
    No of course not.
    Just the time to start an internal Party war.
    I take it you meant not the time...:)

    Agreed, he’s an idiot.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    So Cameron in 2015 scraped a majority on 37% of the vote which included a promise to hold an EU ref . The SNP and Greens will command close to 50% and a bigger relative majority on a promise to hold a second Indy ref and yet they should be denied that . The Tories in here need to stop embarrassing themselves and stop defending the indefensible.

    Misleading, the Tories and UKIP got a 50% voteshare combined in 2015 on an EUref platform, the SNP and Greens currently only have 48% of the Holyrood vote for indyref2
    Not relevant. Bums on parliamentary seats is where it is at.

    Or you need to report yourself to Special Branch for trying to subvert democracy Westminster style, commit treason, etc.
    They are different things

    If a referendum was within the competence of the Scottish parliament then MSPs would be what matters

    But it isn’t. So the SNP has to make an argument based on the democratic will of the people to pressure Westminster. But less than 50% of votes were for parties that back a referendum
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,301
    Floater said:

    tlg86 said:

    Starmer missed the perfect opportunity to sack her when she got the tax payer to buy those apple ear things.

    Nonsense, she displayed that she's a woman of brilliant tastes.
    Does she have shoes similar to yours?
    I think she'd get crucified if she wore Louis Vuittons.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,548
    Notice how by sacking Rayner, the conversation has shifted (somewhat) away from Labour's thrashing in it's (former) heartlands, and to Starmer versus the Labour left?

    MUCH better playing field for him AND the party, methinks.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    dixiedean said:

    Starmer has to go.
    Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come.
    So what does he do?
    No political instinct at all.

    Yes. Exactly this. The media loves a “party in crisis and internal war” story, and he’s choosing to give it to them.
    It could turn out to be quite an astute move. The Party is in crisis anyway after the last few days So why not do what you need to in the aftermath of it to get it out the way ?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    Labour sources flatly dismissing reports Anneliese Dodds sacked & Lisa Nandy demoted.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.

    The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
    I thought the secretary of state for Scotland has to actually make that decision though. If they don't intervene it goes for royal ascent.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,795
    SNP just picked up their 64th seat
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination

    Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.

    And DYOR.

    Interesting, Hawley could still be a VP pick for DeSantis or Cruz if they win the nomination, or for Trump of course if he runs again now he has burned his bridges with Pence
    He said in the interview he’s up for re-election in 2024 and that is his focus. It certainly came across as genuine and with no caveats. My guess is that he thinks he has little chance of the nomination given DeSantis and others, and a better bet might be to become AG if the GOP wins in 2024
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,238

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    algarkirk said:

    Whether Labour knows how to win Manchester is very much of the same importance as whether the Tories know how to win South Holland. And if Burnham had got 99.5% of the vote Labour's problem would be unchanged.

    More significant are other questions. Would he have won Hartlepool? Would he be willing to stand in such a seat? Does he know how to begin winning 125 extra seats, nearly all in England?

    The Tories can win without the big cities voting for them. Can Labour win without a winning level of seats in middle England?

    You're ignoring the fact that GM contains several deprived towns. Not too dissimilar to Hartlepool. It also contains several Tory seats easily describable as Middle England.
    It is not just a big urban centre.
    As said before, Burnham won because he was high profile. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in GM and his position in the Northern part of GM, which is poorer.
    The good news for Andy Burnham is that he gets to sit in Manchester and watch the fun. The bad news is that if Mr Starmer continues to shit the Labour bed this badly, there won't be much of a party left for him to eventually lead.
    This should be the LibDems moment shouldn’t it? In the old days they’d have been up for a fight in Batley and Spen and could have performed well.
    Unfortunately, Ed Davey.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    Even if Starmer is serious about doing Whatever It Takes you don't do it like this.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,353
    How in the name of everything fucking holy does Buckinghamshire have 147 Councillors? That must be one for every road....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Scott_xP said:

    Labour sources flatly dismissing reports Anneliese Dodds sacked & Lisa Nandy demoted.

    If the price of Rayner’s firing is he has to hang on to Dodds, I don’t care what Rayner was doing he’s made the wrong choice.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069

    Notice how by sacking Rayner, the conversation has shifted (somewhat) away from Labour's thrashing in it's (former) heartlands, and to Starmer versus the Labour left?

    MUCH better playing field for him AND the party, methinks.

    You're not suggesting un chat mort, are you?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    MrEd said:

    dixiedean said:

    Starmer has to go.
    Why? Because this afternoon the narrative moved on. Labour had won Wales, then GM massively, West of England and Cambs, completely blindsiding everyone. With a London win to come.
    So what does he do?
    No political instinct at all.

    Not entirely all Labour's way - they lost Southampton and Street won more comfortably in the W Midlands. Plus it has been a massacre at the PCC level (not important I know)
    No. I know. But you take my point.
    I do, and the two Mayoral wins are definitely positive plus the wins in the South. But, to use the analogy for newspaper advertising, it is replacing print pounds with digital pennies. It is not enough.
    No of course not.
    Just the time to start an internal Party war.
    I take it you meant not the time...:)

    Agreed, he’s an idiot.
    I was being sarcastic. We agree.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,353

    Even if Starmer is serious about doing Whatever It Takes you don't do it like this.

    ....when he could have done it through the medium of interpretive dance.....
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    South Scotland

    3 Con
    3 Lab
    1 SNP

    SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies)
    Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/1391096956869611525

    Everyone on politics Twitter loves a good Labour civil war

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,301

    How in the name of everything fucking holy does Buckinghamshire have 147 Councillors? That must be one for every road....

    200 councillors.

    Isn't it amalgamation of like 5 councils?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360

    HYUFD said:

    Not looking like a good result for us LibDems in Scotland - kept our constituency seats but going to struggle on the list. We do get a change around thanks to the SNP winning more constituency seats and votes cast than ever before, so list seats allocated will be different. Had hoped to pick seats up off the Tories, but the big winners on the list seats will be pro-indy Greens.

    I agree, not looking good. I seem to have been continuously depressed for 11 years from the Orange/Yellow viewpoint.
    Annoyingly the Tory list vote looks likely to have held up despite going backwards in constituencies. So the Greens will pick seats up in regions like mine in the NE, but from us not the Tories.

    Odd that people are still trying to argue that a leap into the 70s of independence MSPs and a record haul in constituency seats and votes for the SNP after 3 terms in government is somehow a defeat for them and for independence. I'm a federalist (so neither a unionist nor a secessionist) but you can't deny how the votes have stacked up both to give nippy a 4th term and to give a thumping majority for a new referendum.
    52% of Scots have voted against indyref2 and for Unionist parties, only 48% for, even before the 2016 EU referendum the Tories and UKIP won 50% of the vote in 2015
    Got it. A record 72 seats (forecasted) for independence is people voting against independence.

    You really are a tool aren't you.
    Yeah, I find the mental gymnastics demonstrated to try and deny the moral case for a new referendum baffling. My conclusion from these results and other polling is that Sturgeon would be terrified to have her bluff called. And even if I’m wrong and the referendum was lost, why do other Englishmen want Scotland kept in the Union against the will of her people?

    The proper safety valve on referendums is that if they lost the second, the SNP really couldn’t push for a third for many, many years without electoral consequences.
    The way forward is simple. The Scottish government will publish a bill for an independence referendum. It will pass thanks to the record majority for independence in Holyrood.

    Westminster then has 4 weeks to make a choice.

    1 Strike down the bill by a Section 35 order
    2 Refer the bill to the Supreme Court with a Section 33 order expecting them to strike it down
    3 Do nothing and let it become an act of the Scottish parliament

    Whether they use S33 or S35, if Westminster overrules the Scottish Parliament who are acting on the express elected mandate from the Scottish people, then Yes will see a big spike in support that will never go away.

    As other posters have said, I expect that a referendum held in the next few years would be a win for No. If Westminster overrules the electorate then independence is guaranteed.
    But there's no need to campaign in it, or to change anything in light of the result. It should be made clear that constitutional change would only result from an officially sanctioned referendum - if the SNP want a massive democratic exercise (others would call it a vanity referendum), that's fine, but the UK Government should express no more than a casual interest.

    To seek to overrule and stop it even happening would, as you suggest, be provocative, and counter-productive, and actually give the proposed poll more legitimacy than it deserves.
    Any idea what is the timing for such a bill in Nicola's head? This year, next, 2023? I think she may try to slow it down a lot.

    I wonder if there is a Westminster argument for competing mandates. If Scotland has already had a referendum and the main UK parties are pro union is it possible to argue that they too have a mandate, at least to wait a number of years before a second one.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    South Scotland

    3 Con
    3 Lab
    1 SNP

    SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies)
    Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.

    KA BOOM.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Joan McAlpine lost her seat in South of Scotland
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    oh dear

    https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1391105556988022784

    Labour faces "obliteration" if "cabal of middle class Remainers" continues to treats voters with contempt
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994

    Binface smashes through the 20K barrier to land the ladbrokes bet!

    Epic. Absolutely epic!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,320
    @SamCoatesSky
    One option to replace Angela Rayner as Labour Party chairman is Wes Streeting,
    I’m told


    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1391110059485274114
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Alistair said:

    South Scotland

    3 Con
    3 Lab
    1 SNP

    SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies)
    Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.

    KA BOOM.
    Does the Deputy Presiding Officer abstain from votes at Holyrood, as they do in Y Bae?

    If not, I can see some fun and games over electing a Presiding Officer - the SNP will want one from the Opposition and the Opposition will be frantically intriguing to get one from the SNP.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    No one can be that stupid

    https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1391102420525191181

    An old Labour chum messages: "The man is as fucking stupid as he is boring."
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705
    edited May 2021
    I'm sure all the arguments have been deployed on both sides of the question so no point in me putting yet another one on that.

    All I'll say is that given Scotland is clearly split right down the middle on independence (ref: John Curtice), the realistic options appear to be limited to either:

    1 - do nothing, endure years of the same arguments on both sides and hope it all sorts itself out one day by the pro-indy people getting bored or otherwise, or;
    2 - do something to resolve the whole thing, like, say, having a proper discussion on what independence might actually mean for good or for bad and a binary referendum on whether it's wanted or not at the end of that (with, potentially, a confirmatory referendum at the end given we've all learned a truckload from the Brexit experience), or;
    3 - do something else that actually nobody at all wants but is seen to be trying to somehow appeal to both sides (FEDERALISM KLAXON)

    Only the fact that 1) is essentially mutually beneficial to both SNP and Conservative, at least in the short-to-medium term, is why that'll be the route we end up going down.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,795

    When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.

    The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
    It has to be overruled by the SofS or thrown out by the Supreme Court to have no force in law. Otherwise it becomes law.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    Not looking like a good result for us LibDems in Scotland - kept our constituency seats but going to struggle on the list. We do get a change around thanks to the SNP winning more constituency seats and votes cast than ever before, so list seats allocated will be different. Had hoped to pick seats up off the Tories, but the big winners on the list seats will be pro-indy Greens.

    I agree, not looking good. I seem to have been continuously depressed for 11 years from the Orange/Yellow viewpoint.
    Annoyingly the Tory list vote looks likely to have held up despite going backwards in constituencies. So the Greens will pick seats up in regions like mine in the NE, but from us not the Tories.

    Odd that people are still trying to argue that a leap into the 70s of independence MSPs and a record haul in constituency seats and votes for the SNP after 3 terms in government is somehow a defeat for them and for independence. I'm a federalist (so neither a unionist nor a secessionist) but you can't deny how the votes have stacked up both to give nippy a 4th term and to give a thumping majority for a new referendum.
    52% of Scots have voted against indyref2 and for Unionist parties, only 48% for, even before the 2016 EU referendum the Tories and UKIP won 50% of the vote in 2015
    Got it. A record 72 seats (forecasted) for independence is people voting against independence.

    You really are a tool aren't you.
    Yeah, I find the mental gymnastics demonstrated to try and deny the moral case for a new referendum baffling. My conclusion from these results and other polling is that Sturgeon would be terrified to have her bluff called. And even if I’m wrong and the referendum was lost, why do other Englishmen want Scotland kept in the Union against the will of her people?

    The proper safety valve on referendums is that if they lost the second, the SNP really couldn’t push for a third for many, many years without electoral consequences.
    The way forward is simple. The Scottish government will publish a bill for an independence referendum. It will pass thanks to the record majority for independence in Holyrood.

    Westminster then has 4 weeks to make a choice.

    1 Strike down the bill by a Section 35 order
    2 Refer the bill to the Supreme Court with a Section 33 order expecting them to strike it down
    3 Do nothing and let it become an act of the Scottish parliament

    Whether they use S33 or S35, if Westminster overrules the Scottish Parliament who are acting on the express elected mandate from the Scottish people, then Yes will see a big spike in support that will never go away.

    As other posters have said, I expect that a referendum held in the next few years would be a win for No. If Westminster overrules the electorate then independence is guaranteed.
    But there's no need to campaign in it, or to change anything in light of the result. It should be made clear that constitutional change would only result from an officially sanctioned referendum - if the SNP want a massive democratic exercise (others would call it a vanity referendum), that's fine, but the UK Government should express no more than a casual interest.

    To seek to overrule and stop it even happening would, as you suggest, be provocative, and counter-productive, and actually give the proposed poll more legitimacy than it deserves.
    Any idea what is the timing for such a bill in Nicola's head? This year, next, 2023? I think she may try to slow it down a lot.

    I wonder if there is a Westminster argument for competing mandates. If Scotland has already had a referendum and the main UK parties are pro union is it possible to argue that they too have a mandate, at least to wait a number of years before a second one.

    Parliamentary seats is the issue for the Unionists.

    Almost none at Westminster.
    MInority at Holyrood.

    To argue for ang other criterion subverts the entire working of Westminster as a representative democracy, as per Bagehot et aliis.


  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,301

    Joan McAlpine lost her seat in South of Scotland

    Heh, I enjoyed that, and not because she's SNP.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,708

    That Labour winner of the Merseyside PCC vote is going to be busy. With her colleagues!

    There's been very little comment on the Liverpool mayoral election. Don't know anything about the winner (Joanne Anderson no relation) Can't help but feel they could have done with an outsider though rather than a Labour figure.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,353
    Scott_xP said:

    Labour sources flatly dismissing reports Anneliese Dodds sacked & Lisa Nandy demoted.

    So it's Anneliese Dodds demoted & Lisa Nandy sacked then.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2021

    I missed this interview on CH4 News with Starmer from a few days ago...its more cringe than even Ed Miliband.

    https://youtu.be/nBXrZKSNWN0

    Horrendous. He is worse than I thought, and I feel a bit sorry for him
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,450
    French President Emmanuel Macron has called on the US to drop its restrictions on the export of Covid-19 vaccines and ingredients.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Joan McAlpine lost her seat in South of Scotland

    Oh, I am so upset, boo hoo hoo. A devastating tragedy.

    Sturgeon must be heart broken.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    Another Labour source confirms a reshuffle *IS* ongoing, however.

    It sounds like this is how it may shape up ...

    Demotions: Anneliese Dodds, Lisa Nandy, Jon Ashworth and Nick Brown

    Promotions: Wes Streeting, Rachel Reeves, Jess Phillips, Sarah Jones and Steve Reed

    https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1391111269999169536
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 59,994
    It wouldn't surprise me if Starmer's thinking was:

    1) We are losing all the Red Wall because of Brexit and culture wars and stuff.
    2) They like big strong men (like Boris) and don't like women or foreigners very much, obvs
    3) I'll show them I'm a big strong man too.. hmm, wonder how..
    4) I know! I will sack all the women - ha!

    I'm not sure I'm joking.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    South Scotland

    3 Con
    3 Lab
    1 SNP

    SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies)
    Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.

    KA BOOM.
    Does the Deputy Presiding Officer abstain from votes at Holyrood, as they do in Y Bae?

    If not, I can see some fun and games over electing a Presiding Officer - the SNP will want one from the Opposition and the Opposition will be frantically intriguing to get one from the SNP.
    There are two DPOs at Holyrood. But they only abstain when actually presiding IIRC.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    When Holyrood passes the referendum bill the government either overrules and stops it, OR it becomes an officially sanctioned referendum. They can't just ignore it, otherwise the Queen sticks her signature on the bill and the referendum is official.

    The Scotland Act specifically states that any bill passed by the Scottish Parliament that deals with reserved matters has no force in law, so I doubt the Queen would ever see a copy. The Government doesn't have to 'block' it as such, since the first legal challenge would kill it stone dead. Presumably a pro-Union organisation in Scotland would be primed to ask for a judicial ruling on the bill.
    It has to be overruled by the SofS or thrown out by the Supreme Court to have no force in law. Otherwise it becomes law.
    Didn’t know about the first one. Surely that dooms it anyway? Is Alister Jack really going to wave it through?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,548
    edited May 2021
    MrEd said:

    HYUFD said:

    MrEd said:

    Off-topic - again for those looking at the 2024 GOP nomination

    Sen Josh Hawley of Missouri - who has been talked about as a possible 2024 GOP candidate - ruled himself out of the 2024 race during an interview with Megan Kelly. Don't know what his odds are on Betfair and whether it is possible to lay him for the nomination buy FYI.

    And DYOR.

    Interesting, Hawley could still be a VP pick for DeSantis or Cruz if they win the nomination, or for Trump of course if he runs again now he has burned his bridges with Pence
    He said in the interview he’s up for re-election in 2024 and that is his focus. It certainly came across as genuine and with no caveats. My guess is that he thinks he has little chance of the nomination given DeSantis and others, and a better bet might be to become AG if the GOP wins in 2024
    Any President who'd appoint Hawley as AG would need to have their fool head examined.

    NOT because of his actions before, during & after the Putsch (though these SHOULD bar him, indeed disbar him).

    Rather because he is a Crassus with a VERY lean and hungry look. And would stick a shiv his his POTUS's back quicker than Brutus did Caesar IF he thought he would ultimately benefit.

    In the American political system, Job #1 politically for any Attorney General, is guarding the President's back. Not in the Constitution or statue, but very true nonetheless.

    Something that hapless Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions TRIED to do.

    And that Janet Reno spectacularly FAILED to do for Bill Clinton.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour sources flatly dismissing reports Anneliese Dodds sacked & Lisa Nandy demoted.

    If the price of Rayner’s firing is he has to hang on to Dodds, I don’t care what Rayner was doing he’s made the wrong choice.
    It could be a "it's not a demotion- counting the little sticky labels we use on the window posters is a vital job, and you're just the person to do it" type of non demotion.

    (I can see why Dodds might be useful to have around- she seems smart. But she's visibly wilting in her current position; she needs a thinking job out of the limelight.)

    More importantly- for most of my life, ability to run a political party effectively was a reasonable proxy for potential to be OK at government. This stuff isn't that difficult. Is it too much to ask for one party that isn't run by idiotic chancers who are too clever by half?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    Alistair said:

    South Scotland

    3 Con
    3 Lab
    1 SNP

    SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies)
    Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.

    KA BOOM.
    Well called.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    South Scotland

    3 Con
    3 Lab
    1 SNP

    SNP lose 2 list seats (they gained 2 constituencies)
    Lab and Con got a new list to compensate the FPTP losses.

    KA BOOM.
    Does the Deputy Presiding Officer abstain from votes at Holyrood, as they do in Y Bae?

    If not, I can see some fun and games over electing a Presiding Officer - the SNP will want one from the Opposition and the Opposition will be frantically intriguing to get one from the SNP.
    There are two DPOs at Holyrood. But they only abstain when actually presiding IIRC.
    Wow.

    Electing a Presiding Officer could be fun...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    NEW: George Galloway humbled after failing to get elected to Holyrood.

    SNP source says: "His hat had more chance of being elected."


    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/george-galloway-fails-latest-bid-24068268
This discussion has been closed.