Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
Worth a timely reminder at this point that Fujitsu are also a major supplier of IT systems to the MoD including providing continuous technical support. I hope those systems work better than the PO software.
If not, I hope we've found a way to leak/sell them to the Russians and Chinese.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
Yes, Mandelson being caught with a girl would be quite some revelation.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Where did this "computers don't make mistakes" idea come from? Anyone who's ever done any programming knows it's almost impossible to eliminate errors and bugs.
Because when computers first started becoming a thing, say from 1940s thru (at least) 1990s, one of their major selling points (as in quasi-reasoned discourse and impure PR) was their fantastic ACCURACY - far beyond the puny powers of even Einstein's brain, let alone Fred in Payroll and/or Marge in Accounting.
As for "anyone who's ever done any programming" those folks were pretty thin on the ground in those ancient times. And perhaps NOT as common today as your might be thinking?
There are some people around gullible enough to believe things written by ChatGPT...
But NOT Andy of this parish - he was one who opened MY fool eyes via asking CrapBOT questions re: UK elections . . . then comparing the "answers" with actuality.
BTW, is not "ChatGPT" one of the worst brand names ever? Even worse than "X".
This from heirs & successors of the gang that came up with one of the best = Microsoft.
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
Problem is the main Fujitsu witness, Gareth Jenkins, hasn't given evidence yet.
every time he is due to appear, the PO release some more documents which impat on his evidence, so his appearance has to be postponed.
It's a deliberate delaying tactic, probably because his evidence is likely to be damning.
Hasn't Jenkins also tried several times to get the evidence he will give exempted from use to prosecute him subsequently, which has been denied? But delays while this was decided.
From the evidence in Wallis's book it looks pretty likely that Jenkins pitched up in court to swear to whatever the PO wanted him to say, whilst knowing all along that Horizon was a crock of s***e.
I take it you watched Duncan Atkinson giving evidence on the role of the Expert Witness? He was devastating.
It is clear Jenkins was being used as a stooge. I think he will confirm that when he eventually gets to appear.
Believe technical term within legal profession (at least in US) is "mouthpiece".
Is not a lawyer "being used as a stooge" and/or mouthpiece, grounds for disbarment (or whatyoucallit) in UK?
Thank you, Shanty, I was struggling to find the right term. Mouthpiece is right, stooge is inaccurate.
Jenkins is an IT man, not a lawyer. He is a whistleblower, but he has put himself in line for a charge of perjury, several charges in fact, so he may be genuinely reluctant to appear. When he does (I think he can be forced) it will certainly be box office.
Numerous lawyers appearing at the inquiry have given the clearest evidence that would lead to them being debarred from practicing immediately, were it not for the fact that the deciding authority in such matters is The Law Society.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
TBF, I think Epstein’s main motivation was to entice powerful people into compromising situations. The teenage girls were most in demand but I don’t think Epstein would have said no to procuring boys if he thought it would serve his cause (although no such evidence has come out).
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
Worth a timely reminder at this point that Fujitsu are also a major supplier of IT systems to the MoD including providing continuous technical support. I hope those systems work better than the PO software.
If not, I hope we've found a way to leak/sell them to the Russians and Chinese.
"Final launch code for your missile will be delivered by registered letter within 5 to 50 working days of your receipt of this error message."
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
Some guacamole would probably have got better results.....
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
And there was me thinking the purpose of grammar schools was to enable small kids of poor parents to thrive.
Rather than to act as a rebate to wealthy parents.
It did when there were more grammar schools in inner cities or rural areas or ex industrial or poor seaside towns.
Now in England grammar schools are mainly in a few of the wealthy Home counties and London or Birmingham or Manchester suburbs and therefore even more likely to mainly be a rebate for wealthy parents than offer a ladder for bright working class pupils
Lincolnshire - which has Grammar schools - is the third poorest county in the UK by GRP per capita. Even Kent and Essex which also have some Grammar schools are in the bottom half of counties ranked by GRP per capita.
Lincolnshire is a rare exception, Essex is mainly comprehensive apart from a few grammars in Chelmsford, Colchester and Southend. The poorer areas of Essex like Harlow, Basildon, Clacton etc are comprehensive. West Kent, dominated by Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks is as wealthy as Surrey or Berks or Oxfordshire or Bucks.
Bucks, which is the second wealthiest Home county after Surrey, is fully selective and has plenty of grammars.
Suburban Trafford, the only area of greater Manchester with grammars still, is also the wealthiest area of greater Manchester. The grammar schools in Merseyside are now mainly in Wirral, which is wealthier than Liverpool which is mainly comprehensive apart from the Bluecoat in Wavertree. The grammars in Birmingham are mainly in wealthier suburban areas like Sutton Coldfield.
Essentially wealthier English council areas which generally had Tory councils in the late 1960s and 1970s when the Labour governments and Heath government allowed selective areas to go comprehensive were more likely to keep grammars than poorer areas with mainly Labour councils which almost all went comprehensive.
With a few exceptions in poorer rural areas like Lincolnshire as you say which still had a Tory county council
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
Sorry I genuinely had forgotten about the Savile and Sir Keir claims, he was just the first famous, sleazy wrongun that came to mind
Change him for a celebrity paedo of your choice, and your logic is still very faulty
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
Sorry I genuinely had forgotten about the Savile and Sir Keir claims, he was just the first famous, sleazy wrongun that came to mind
Change him for a celebrity paedo of your choice, and your logic is still very faulty
Re: the PO Scandal, what sanctions, if any, might Fujitsu incur for its alleged (or is that documented?) role?
Based on testimony so far, would seem to be that they should be FOREVER BANNED from doing any business in UK.
For starters.
Worth a timely reminder at this point that Fujitsu are also a major supplier of IT systems to the MoD including providing continuous technical support. I hope those systems work better than the PO software.
Also better than the system they built for Japan for printing official documents at 711, where they used the timestamp to identify the request so if two people used the system at the same time one of them would get someone else's personal information.
Roy Hodgson getting to look far too old for all of this.
If Paul Whitehouse hadn't confirmed Alec Stock was indeed Ron Manager, I'd have put my money on Roy Hodgson.
Alec Stock? Just how old are you??!!!
I remember Alec Stock from the Fulham (didn't he sign Best, Marsh and McDonald?) era but Yeovil Town to AS Roma was before my time.
Lol! He was already a legend at Leyton Orient when I first started going there as a small boy.
He was a truly brilliant manager. Orient were always strapped for cash, largely on account of being squeezed between neighbouring giants Tottenham, Arsenal and West Ham. He balanced the books by buying cheap and selling dear, a model that was by no means unique even then, but he just did it better than everybody else.
The O's would have gone out of business in the fifties but for him.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
Sorry I genuinely had forgotten about the Savile and Sir Keir claims, he was just the first famous, sleazy wrongun that came to mind
Change him for a celebrity paedo of your choice, and your logic is still very faulty
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
And there was me thinking the purpose of grammar schools was to enable small kids of poor parents to thrive.
Rather than to act as a rebate to wealthy parents.
It did when there were more grammar schools in inner cities or rural areas or ex industrial or poor seaside towns.
Now in England grammar schools are mainly in a few of the wealthy Home counties and London or Birmingham or Manchester suburbs and therefore even more likely to mainly be a rebate for wealthy parents than offer a ladder for bright working class pupils
Lincolnshire - which has Grammar schools - is the third poorest county in the UK by GRP per capita. Even Kent and Essex which also have some Grammar schools are in the bottom half of counties ranked by GRP per capita.
Lincolnshire is a rare exception, Essex is mainly comprehensive apart from a few grammars in Chelmsford, Colchester and Southend. The poorer areas of Essex like Harlow, Basildon, Clacton etc are comprehensive. West Kent, dominated by Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks is as wealthy as Surrey or Berks or Oxfordshire or Bucks.
Bucks, which is the second wealthiest Home county after Surrey, is fully selective and has plenty of grammars.
Suburban Trafford, the only area of greater Manchester with grammars still, is also the wealthiest area of greater Manchester. The grammar schools in Merseyside are now mainly in Wirral, which is wealthier than Liverpool which is mainly comprehensive apart from the Bluecoat in Wavertree. The grammars in Birmingham are mainly in wealthier suburban areas like Sutton Coldfield.
Essentially wealthier English council areas which generally had Tory councils in the late 1960s and 1970s when the Labour governments and Heath government allowed selective areas to go comprehensive were more likely to keep grammars than poorer areas with mainly Labour councils which almost all went comprehensive.
With a few exceptions in poorer rural areas like Lincolnshire as you say which still had a Tory county council
"West Kent, dominated by Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks is as wealthy as Surrey or Berks or Oxfordshire or Bucks."
What about East Kent? Like Lincolnshire it doesn't fit your narrative, because your narrative is nonsense.
"The Times can also reveal that dozens of covert recordings of senior Post Office staff, including Vennells, have been uncovered by the public inquiry into the scandal. It is understood that the tapes, of which there are believed to be about 80, will be sent to core participants, including postmasters, in the coming days. “They’re conversations with Post Office top brass including Paula Vennells. It’s very damning,” an inquiry source said."
If this is true, some obvious questions:-
1. The dates of these recordings? 2. Who was doing the recording? 3. Why?
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Yes, the Scots tend to go back mid-August-ish, with the middle third of October off (so another Gadarene rush to the airports, Center Parcs, etc., I expect).
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
Sorry I genuinely had forgotten about the Savile and Sir Keir claims, he was just the first famous, sleazy wrongun that came to mind
Change him for a celebrity paedo of your choice, and your logic is still very faulty
As if!
If I meant it I’d say it.
But how about your faulty logic?
My logic has never been anything but faulty.
Although your boy Sunak was sublime today and all the media outlets are agreeing that Starmer was utterly disastrous today. You were all correct, Starmer falls on the first day of the campaign. What an utter clown.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
And there was me thinking the purpose of grammar schools was to enable small kids of poor parents to thrive.
Rather than to act as a rebate to wealthy parents.
It did when there were more grammar schools in inner cities or rural areas or ex industrial or poor seaside towns.
Now in England grammar schools are mainly in a few of the wealthy Home counties and London or Birmingham or Manchester suburbs and therefore even more likely to mainly be a rebate for wealthy parents than offer a ladder for bright working class pupils
Lincolnshire - which has Grammar schools - is the third poorest county in the UK by GRP per capita. Even Kent and Essex which also have some Grammar schools are in the bottom half of counties ranked by GRP per capita.
Lincolnshire is a rare exception, Essex is mainly comprehensive apart from a few grammars in Chelmsford, Colchester and Southend. The poorer areas of Essex like Harlow, Basildon, Clacton etc are comprehensive. West Kent, dominated by Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks is as wealthy as Surrey or Berks or Oxfordshire or Bucks.
Bucks, which is the second wealthiest Home county after Surrey, is fully selective and has plenty of grammars.
Suburban Trafford, the only area of greater Manchester with grammars still, is also the wealthiest area of greater Manchester. The grammar schools in Merseyside are now mainly in Wirral, which is wealthier than Liverpool which is mainly comprehensive apart from the Bluecoat in Wavertree. The grammars in Birmingham are mainly in wealthier suburban areas like Sutton Coldfield.
Essentially wealthier English council areas which generally had Tory councils in the late 1960s and 1970s when the Labour governments and Heath government allowed selective areas to go comprehensive were more likely to keep grammars than poorer areas with mainly Labour councils which almost all went comprehensive.
With a few exceptions in poorer rural areas like Lincolnshire as you say which still had a Tory county council
"West Kent, dominated by Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks is as wealthy as Surrey or Berks or Oxfordshire or Bucks."
What about East Kent? Like Lincolnshire it doesn't fit your narrative, because your narrative is nonsense.
Anyone who has driven through Maidstone north to Chatham will be reminded of South Africa. Elite ranches for the wealthy interspersed with townships for the workers and poor.
Roy Hodgson getting to look far too old for all of this.
If Paul Whitehouse hadn't confirmed Alec Stock was indeed Ron Manager, I'd have put my money on Roy Hodgson.
Alec Stock? Just how old are you??!!!
I remember Alec Stock from the Fulham (didn't he sign Best, Marsh and McDonald?) era but Yeovil Town to AS Roma was before my time.
Lol! He was already a legend at Leyton Orient when I first started going there as a small boy.
He was a truly brilliant manager. Orient were always strapped for cash, largely on account of being squeezed between neighbouring giants Tottenham, Arsenal and West Ham. He balanced the books by buying cheap and selling dear, a model that was by no means unique even then, but he just did it better than everybody else.
The O's would have gone out of business in the fifties but for him.
He was a great "gamesman" too, famous whilst player- manager at Yeovil for exaggerating the gradient at Huish.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
But it is important to the result Tories get - not election win obviously, but important to reputations particularly the strategists, and important to how quickly party can come back to government - to get at Starmer and hollow him out as much as possible. If they only go down to 200 seats they can come back to power in one go.
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
Have you been to NI? There are around 57 people who are "high earning and upper middle class" by south east shire standards.
Average fees in top private Royal School Armagh are £4k for day and £14k for boarding a year.
But you're always going on and on and on and on abvout the hordes of foreigners who come to those schools anyway, so they are of decreasing relevance to anything to do with UK children and families.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
And there was me thinking the purpose of grammar schools was to enable small kids of poor parents to thrive.
Rather than to act as a rebate to wealthy parents.
It did when there were more grammar schools in inner cities or rural areas or ex industrial or poor seaside towns.
Now in England grammar schools are mainly in a few of the wealthy Home counties and London or Birmingham or Manchester suburbs and therefore even more likely to mainly be a rebate for wealthy parents than offer a ladder for bright working class pupils
Lincolnshire - which has Grammar schools - is the third poorest county in the UK by GRP per capita. Even Kent and Essex which also have some Grammar schools are in the bottom half of counties ranked by GRP per capita.
Lincolnshire is a rare exception, Essex is mainly comprehensive apart from a few grammars in Chelmsford, Colchester and Southend. The poorer areas of Essex like Harlow, Basildon, Clacton etc are comprehensive. West Kent, dominated by Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks is as wealthy as Surrey or Berks or Oxfordshire or Bucks.
Bucks, which is the second wealthiest Home county after Surrey, is fully selective and has plenty of grammars.
Suburban Trafford, the only area of greater Manchester with grammars still, is also the wealthiest area of greater Manchester. The grammar schools in Merseyside are now mainly in Wirral, which is wealthier than Liverpool which is mainly comprehensive apart from the Bluecoat in Wavertree. The grammars in Birmingham are mainly in wealthier suburban areas like Sutton Coldfield.
Essentially wealthier English council areas which generally had Tory councils in the late 1960s and 1970s when the Labour governments and Heath government allowed selective areas to go comprehensive were more likely to keep grammars than poorer areas with mainly Labour councils which almost all went comprehensive.
With a few exceptions in poorer rural areas like Lincolnshire as you say which still had a Tory county council
"West Kent, dominated by Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks is as wealthy as Surrey or Berks or Oxfordshire or Bucks."
What about East Kent? Like Lincolnshire it doesn't fit your narrative, because your narrative is nonsense.
HYUFD's narrative seems to be that it was largely those areas whuch remained Tory in tge 70s and early 80s whuch retained grammar schools, and that by and large these were wealthier areas. I don't always agree with HYUFD's logic on grammar schools, but this seems fairly inaguable to me. The fact that areas of East Kent are poor (by the standards of West Kent, at least) doesn't really change this, not least becauae East Kent doesn't have its own education authority.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
But it is important to the result Tories get - not election win obviously, but important to reputations particularly the strategists, and important to how quickly party can come back to government - to get at Starmer and hollow him out as much as possible. If they only go down to 200 seats they can come back to power in one go.
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
Well a cornered Johnson did link Starmer to Savile. I am not sure Rishi is that cynical, anyway he might not need to, Rishi was fantastic today.
Now, it's a poll of Republican county chairs rather than of voters, but it's telling that Haley has 16% against 9% for DeSantis. Three months ago, DeSantis had 3x her vote.
If Haley outpolls DeSantis in Iowa, and Trump gets less than (say) 55%, then it could all get very interesting.
"The Times can also reveal that dozens of covert recordings of senior Post Office staff, including Vennells, have been uncovered by the public inquiry into the scandal. It is understood that the tapes, of which there are believed to be about 80, will be sent to core participants, including postmasters, in the coming days. “They’re conversations with Post Office top brass including Paula Vennells. It’s very damning,” an inquiry source said."
If this is true, some obvious questions:-
1. The dates of these recordings? 2. Who was doing the recording? 3. Why?
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
But it is important to the result Tories get - not election win obviously, but important to reputations particularly the strategists, and important to how quickly party can come back to government - to get at Starmer and hollow him out as much as possible. If they only go down to 200 seats they can come back to power in one go.
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
Well a cornered Johnson did link Starmer to Savile. I am not sure Rishi is that cynical, anyway he might not need to, Rishi was fantastic today.
“ Rishi was fantastic today.” Yes that. From the poster who had Rishi winning all those PMQs the rest of the world had him finishing third in a 2 horse event. You play a funny game, MexPet.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
But it is important to the result Tories get - not election win obviously, but important to reputations particularly the strategists, and important to how quickly party can come back to government - to get at Starmer and hollow him out as much as possible. If they only go down to 200 seats they can come back to power in one go.
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
Three reasons.
Britain is not America.
Sunak is not Trump.
Trump is, as it stands, a failed, one term President.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
I remember back in the 90s when I stayed in a shared rented flat and we asked for the new, exciting, futuristic, itemised bill from BT. The few weeks after we asked for it were perfectly reasonable and understandable - the week before they claimed we spent about £5000 on phone calls. When I called them up to query that we'd have to have spent about 90hrs a day on a premium line to cost that much I was told "Well, computers don't make mistakes".
Short interaction with the ombudsman later and it turned out that, yes, amazingly, computers do make mistakes.
I shall savour that apology letter from the head of BT forever.
Where did this "computers don't make mistakes" idea come from? Anyone who's ever done any programming knows it's almost impossible to eliminate errors and bugs.
Because when computers first started becoming a thing, say from 1940s thru (at least) 1990s, one of their major selling points (as in quasi-reasoned discourse and impure PR) was their fantastic ACCURACY - far beyond the puny powers of even Einstein's brain, let alone Fred in Payroll and/or Marge in Accounting.
As for "anyone who's ever done any programming" those folks were pretty thin on the ground in those ancient times. And perhaps NOT as common today as your might be thinking?
There are some people around gullible enough to believe things written by ChatGPT...
But NOT Andy of this parish - he was one who opened MY fool eyes via asking CrapBOT questions re: UK elections . . . then comparing the "answers" with actuality.
BTW, is not "ChatGPT" one of the worst brand names ever? Even worse than "X".
This from heirs & successors of the gang that came up with one of the best = Microsoft.
I would say ChatGPT is a great brand name. You say it, everyone knows what it is. Imagine if it had been Bard instead - people would ask you if you were talking about a pub.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
"The Times can also reveal that dozens of covert recordings of senior Post Office staff, including Vennells, have been uncovered by the public inquiry into the scandal. It is understood that the tapes, of which there are believed to be about 80, will be sent to core participants, including postmasters, in the coming days. “They’re conversations with Post Office top brass including Paula Vennells. It’s very damning,” an inquiry source said."
If this is true, some obvious questions:-
1. The dates of these recordings? 2. Who was doing the recording? 3. Why?
Zoom/Teams calls? Lots of people record those.
With Teams you can record the meeting and... Even if you're not in part of it you can still record it!!. I found this out during covid
Now, it's a poll of Republican county chairs rather than of voters, but it's telling that Haley has 16% against 9% for DeSantis. Three months ago, DeSantis had 3x her vote.
If Haley outpolls DeSantis in Iowa, and Trump gets less than (say) 55%, then it could all get very interesting.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
How are the numbers calculated?
I would imagine that there are a number of Scots who send their children to Eton or Ampleforth or wherever south of the border.
They would be in the numerator, but might not be in the denominator? (Ie is the denominator # children at school in England - which would include them - or # of children of school age in England which might not)
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
Have you been to NI? There are around 57 people who are "high earning and upper middle class" by south east shire standards.
Average fees in top private Royal School Armagh are £4k for day and £14k for boarding a year.
But you're always going on and on and on and on abvout the hordes of foreigners who come to those schools anyway, so they are of decreasing relevance to anything to do with UK children and families.
Foreigners mainly go to the expensive London and Home counties boarding schools, not private day schools
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
But it is important to the result Tories get - not election win obviously, but important to reputations particularly the strategists, and important to how quickly party can come back to government - to get at Starmer and hollow him out as much as possible. If they only go down to 200 seats they can come back to power in one go.
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
Well a cornered Johnson did link Starmer to Savile. I am not sure Rishi is that cynical, anyway he might not need to, Rishi was fantastic today.
“ Rishi was fantastic today.” Yes that. From the poster who had Rishi winning all those PMQs the rest of the world had him finishing third in a 2 horse event. You play a funny game, MexPet.
Evan Davis on R4 had a big win for Rishi today. Iain Dale on LBC thought Starmer pathetic for his "squatting" comment and even leftie Michael Crick agreed. Starmer will be eviscerated by Ferrari tomorrow on LBC.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
And there was me thinking the purpose of grammar schools was to enable small kids of poor parents to thrive.
Rather than to act as a rebate to wealthy parents.
It did when there were more grammar schools in inner cities or rural areas or ex industrial or poor seaside towns.
Now in England grammar schools are mainly in a few of the wealthy Home counties and London or Birmingham or Manchester suburbs and therefore even more likely to mainly be a rebate for wealthy parents than offer a ladder for bright working class pupils
Lincolnshire - which has Grammar schools - is the third poorest county in the UK by GRP per capita. Even Kent and Essex which also have some Grammar schools are in the bottom half of counties ranked by GRP per capita.
Lincolnshire is a rare exception, Essex is mainly comprehensive apart from a few grammars in Chelmsford, Colchester and Southend. The poorer areas of Essex like Harlow, Basildon, Clacton etc are comprehensive. West Kent, dominated by Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks is as wealthy as Surrey or Berks or Oxfordshire or Bucks.
Bucks, which is the second wealthiest Home county after Surrey, is fully selective and has plenty of grammars.
Suburban Trafford, the only area of greater Manchester with grammars still, is also the wealthiest area of greater Manchester. The grammar schools in Merseyside are now mainly in Wirral, which is wealthier than Liverpool which is mainly comprehensive apart from the Bluecoat in Wavertree. The grammars in Birmingham are mainly in wealthier suburban areas like Sutton Coldfield.
Essentially wealthier English council areas which generally had Tory councils in the late 1960s and 1970s when the Labour governments and Heath government allowed selective areas to go comprehensive were more likely to keep grammars than poorer areas with mainly Labour councils which almost all went comprehensive.
With a few exceptions in poorer rural areas like Lincolnshire as you say which still had a Tory county council
"West Kent, dominated by Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks is as wealthy as Surrey or Berks or Oxfordshire or Bucks."
What about East Kent? Like Lincolnshire it doesn't fit your narrative, because your narrative is nonsense.
East Kent is only half of Kent, again the reason Kent like Lincolnshire was an exception was as it had a Tory county council and so kept grammars. If it had been Labour controlled it would almost certainly have gone comprehensive
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
But it is important to the result Tories get - not election win obviously, but important to reputations particularly the strategists, and important to how quickly party can come back to government - to get at Starmer and hollow him out as much as possible. If they only go down to 200 seats they can come back to power in one go.
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
Well a cornered Johnson did link Starmer to Savile. I am not sure Rishi is that cynical, anyway he might not need to, Rishi was fantastic today.
“ Rishi was fantastic today.” Yes that. From the poster who had Rishi winning all those PMQs the rest of the world had him finishing third in a 2 horse event. You play a funny game, MexPet.
Though tomorrow’s papers do support you in that it was Rishi’s big win today. FT has Labours Green Master Plan under attack, the I has Starmer promising no tax cuts for years giving Rishi the win of clear blue water in his pre election giveaways, telegraph has pensioners hit if Labour get in.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
Sorry I genuinely had forgotten about the Savile and Sir Keir claims, he was just the first famous, sleazy wrongun that came to mind
Change him for a celebrity paedo of your choice, and your logic is still very faulty
As if!
If I meant it I’d say it.
But how about your faulty logic?
My logic has never been anything but faulty.
Although your boy Sunak was sublime today and all the media outlets are agreeing that Starmer was utterly disastrous today. You were all correct, Starmer falls on the first day of the campaign. What an utter clown.
Don’t try to set me up as some kind of Sunak fan, I don’t know where on earth you get that from.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
To be frank, I don't think the legal profession comes out of the scandal very well, even though that is how the drama ends.
The sub-postmasters were prevented from seeking justice by the legal costs, which were exacerbated by the Post Office legal teams delaying tactics.
If there hadn't been a well organised group action with 500 sub postmasters then they could have got nowhere. Even then most of the award goes on legal fees. If there had only been a dozen then justice wouldn't have happened.
The lawyers and legal system come out of this very badly indeed:-
1. The Law Commission which misunderstood and misrepresented what IT experts told it. 2. The Post Office lawyers who drafted appalling contracts with the subpostmasters and failed to advise properly on even the basics of contract law - see the Common Issues judgment. 3. The Post Office's in-house legal team which carried out the prosecutions, failed to comply with any number of requirements relating to those prosecutions and failed in their duties as Officers of the court (which override their duties to their clients). 4. Some members of the Bar who acted for the Post Office on the prosecutions whose work was not up to scratch - either procedurally or substantively. 5. The Post Office's legal team on the Bates litigation - again see the judgments for the stinging criticisms made of their tactics. 6. Defence counsel: some seem to have failed to challenge the prosecution on obvious points. 7. Senior KC's acting on the doomed attempt to get rid of the judge who ruled against the Post Office. 8. David Neuberger, a retired Supreme Court judge who got himself involved in this doomed attempt. What was he thinking? 9. The Post Office lawyers writing misleading letters to the subpostmasters about the various compensation schemes. 10. Those law firms involved in the compensation schemes despite obvious conflicts of interest. 11. The Post Office's internal legal team whose inability to comply with the Inquiry's disclosure requirements is now infamous.
And so on. There will be many more to add to this list once all the evidence is out.
And this is before you get onto the in-house investigators.
No - my profession does not come out of this well at all.
But @Foxy is wrong to blame the lawyers for the funding issue. That is because Legal Aid for this sort of work has been pretty much eliminated. Getting private funding from companies who expect to see a return is the only way such a case gets off the ground. That is not the lawyers' fault. It's the fault of MPs who have refused to fund the legal system for years. Injustice is the result.
You’ve missed out one of the absolutely key issues.
Prior to 1999, because people were getting off speeding charges by questioning the reliability of speed measuring commitment, section 69 of PACE (the Police & Criminal Evidence Act) was amended - by the Labour government on recommendation of the Law Commission, to introduce the new provision:
“in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time”.
Which subsequently came to be interpreted as meaning that the computer was right, unless you could prove that it was wrong.
I predict that amending this will be one of the key changes that emerges from the current Inquiry, along with removing the PO’s centuries-old powers of private prosecution.
Isn't much of this down to the implicit New Labour value that they wanted to be the default ... above politics, and therefore a desire for technocratic answers?
IMO we saw that will many, many illiberal measures, starting perhaps with RIPA, and on through all kinds of nonsense. Remember Detention Without Trial for 90 Days, "I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist", and their half million (iirc correctly) Section 44 (I think) stop and searches per annum under terrorism laws in London on one year, without finding any terrorists.
I still can't fathom why they did that last, unless they were trying to construct a mix of balanced statistics to avoid the "too many searches on black people proportionally" 'problem'.
I had a policewoman look me and my girlfriend in the eye at St Pancras Station in I think 2007 or 2008 and say "yes, I believe you may be terrorists", when what we had done was look at the local map for more than 15 seconds.
For such, Blair deserves continuing contempt, regardless of how much he has his head in the correct place wrt Ukraine.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
But it is important to the result Tories get - not election win obviously, but important to reputations particularly the strategists, and important to how quickly party can come back to government - to get at Starmer and hollow him out as much as possible. If they only go down to 200 seats they can come back to power in one go.
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
Well a cornered Johnson did link Starmer to Savile. I am not sure Rishi is that cynical, anyway he might not need to, Rishi was fantastic today.
“ Rishi was fantastic today.” Yes that. From the poster who had Rishi winning all those PMQs the rest of the world had him finishing third in a 2 horse event. You play a funny game, MexPet.
Evan Davis on R4 had a big win for Rishi today. Iain Dale on LBC thought Starmer pathetic for his "squatting" comment and even leftie Michael Crick agreed. Starmer will be eviscerated by Ferrari tomorrow on LBC.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
But it is important to the result Tories get - not election win obviously, but important to reputations particularly the strategists, and important to how quickly party can come back to government - to get at Starmer and hollow him out as much as possible. If they only go down to 200 seats they can come back to power in one go.
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
Three reasons.
Britain is not America.
Sunak is not Trump.
Trump is, as it stands, a failed, one term President.
I agree with all three of those. Let’s hope we are not proved wrong.
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
But it is important to the result Tories get - not election win obviously, but important to reputations particularly the strategists, and important to how quickly party can come back to government - to get at Starmer and hollow him out as much as possible. If they only go down to 200 seats they can come back to power in one go.
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
Well a cornered Johnson did link Starmer to Savile. I am not sure Rishi is that cynical, anyway he might not need to, Rishi was fantastic today.
“ Rishi was fantastic today.” Yes that. From the poster who had Rishi winning all those PMQs the rest of the world had him finishing third in a 2 horse event. You play a funny game, MexPet.
Evan Davis on R4 had a big win for Rishi today. Iain Dale on LBC thought Starmer pathetic for his "squatting" comment and even leftie Michael Crick agreed. Starmer will be eviscerated by Ferrari tomorrow on LBC.
The fightback starts now!
When Sunak has his back against the wall, he turns and fights!
"The Times can also reveal that dozens of covert recordings of senior Post Office staff, including Vennells, have been uncovered by the public inquiry into the scandal. It is understood that the tapes, of which there are believed to be about 80, will be sent to core participants, including postmasters, in the coming days. “They’re conversations with Post Office top brass including Paula Vennells. It’s very damning,” an inquiry source said."
If this is true, some obvious questions:-
1. The dates of these recordings? 2. Who was doing the recording? 3. Why?
Zoom/Teams calls? Lots of people record those.
Would they be covert though? Generally, you know that they are being recorded. And there is usually a time beyond which they are not kept. Also would there have been that many Zoom/Teams meeting back in the period when Ms Vennells was in charge?
But yes it could be such meetings / calls. Interesting that they have only just surfaced now, apparently. And not in previous litigation.
It's powerful stuff. The victims are quintessential backbone of england. Decent, ordinary people who makes cakes, look after pensioners, do a bit of art in the back bedroom, like walking etc etc.
My only complaint is at times it appeared to conflate Royal Mail with Post Office.
Cathy Come Home changed the country's view of homelessness in 1960s.
To be honest, my view remains: a) The Prime Minister will call the election for May if he gets a bounce from the early March budget b) If there is no discernable bounce, he'll drag it out until the week before BST ends, so the Thursday before that is the 24th.
I reckon b) is most likely so; absent the suits warning against a Civil War in the US, the campaign begins mid-September. Indeed, the Prime Minister could announce the election just days before the Labour 2024 conference. Leaving them in a bit of a bind.
That was the likely date before we discovered that Charlies is on the other side of the world from mid October to some point in early November.
That probably rules out an October election and may even rule out the ability to call an election (as I seem to think he needs to be informed of that as well).
Whilst it'd be bloody inconvenient to arrange an audience with His Maj if he's in Brisbane, it's not prohibitively difficult.
Indeed, I seem to recall discussion at the time of Johnson and Truss treking up to Balmoral (when, as we now know, the Queen was in her final days) that the kissing of hands (or whatever) had happened in the south of France on one occasion (forget when and whom). The distances are further, but we do have aeroplanes.
Asquith and Edward VII, Biarritz, 1908.
It didn't involve any sort of election, not even a party election, as Asquith had been in effective charge of the government for almost two years already. So it was purely a formality.
An election is more - complicated.
Why is it materially more complicated? It is, in fact, a formality. Even if the Palace insist on doing it in person, it's a bit of a faff to physically travel several thousand miles for a five minute natter with the Monarch, but you're vastly overstating the complexity of it all.
I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of it all.
An election has to be called.
Then the wash up has to happen before prorogation.
Following this you have the formal dissolution.
Then you have the election and quite possibly an exchange of government.
This *could* all be done by counsellors of state but Charles will be furious if it is.
Plus it really would be a terrible look for Sunak to be on the other side of the world during the campaign (still more on Election Day) and as for forcing Starmer to fly across the world while forming a government, delaying everything for two solid days and leaving all government appointments and therefore business in limbo - well, I only have to put it that way.
When Asquith succeeded Campbell-Bannerman, he had already been the Prime Minister de facto since summer 1906 and 1908. It was already known what was likely to happen in advance and agreed that Asquith could convey Campbell-Bannerman's resignation and receive the commission at the same time. The only offices that changed as far as I can recall were Chancellor (to which Lloyd George was promoted to take Asquith's place) and President of the Board of Trade (which Churchill was promoted into to replace Lloyd George, which caused some embarrassment when he lost his seat in the resulting by-election).
If Sunak thinks it's simple, he's a fool. What gives me pause before saying it definitely won't happen is that he clearly is a fool.
Firstly, you say yourself it could all be done by the Privy Council.
Secondly, King Chuckie being annoyed isn't going to shift votes. "PM and King in protocol spat" is utterly irrelevant stuff.
Thirdly, the practical issue of Starmer flying somewhere the day after an election, even if the Palace insist upon it, isn't Sunak's concern.
Fourthly, Sunak being out of the UK on state business for a short period in the campaign isn't a negative for him. It is really easy to play that as an internationally respected leader doing the business of the nation, the message being stick with someone who knows what he's doing in an uncertain world rather than a man with zero foreign policy experience.
First, no it can't and I certainly did not say that. It can be done by counsellors of state, who are members of the Privy Council but not the whole of it. The general expectation is they only take on things that absolutely can't wait until the King comes back. Attlee called an election in October 1951 precisely because he didn't want to put George VI, Princess Elizabeth or the Duke of Gloucester in a difficult position on this point if the government collapsed while the King was on a tour of Africa (and it's as well he did, as the King actually died during the scheduled African trip, but that's another story).
Second, the last redoubt of Tory voters are wealthier retirees. They're also the one group that still like the monarchy. Snubbing the new-ish King will not go down well with them.
Three, the practical issue of Starmer having to fly around the planet leaving the government in limbo is very much Sunak's concern - he would have to stay in office as caretaker until Starmer returned. Remember how we all criticised Brown for squatting like a gargoyle? And he at least was advised to do so (badly advised, as it happens, but that's another story in itself). Staying on after comprehensively losing an election because you called it at a stupid moment...
Fourth, yes it definitely would be. Not to mention that it would be not 'a few days' but 'about a week' once flying time is factored in, not forgetting how tired he would be.
It would be madness. That doesn't mean Sunak won't do it, but it would still be chaos and confusion which could be avoided by a little forethought.
Similarly the 17th is out as Starmer can hardly leave the country in his second week in office.
The 10th is about the only plausible date left in October, or we're at the back end of November.
Assuming Sunak is telling the truth, which he may not be.
But 10th October doesn't work as it requires the election to be called before September 5th. Granted it would be immediately as Parliament returns but it would require keeping MPs silent over August which simply isn't plausible...
It would also mean calling an election as Nigel stands in Dover talking about multiple boats that arrived that day / earlier in the week (given that early September would be perfect weather for boats to cross the channel).
So to recap.
Rishi doesn't want to go on May 2, because he'll likely lose.
Assuming the locals go badly, the weeks following are likely to be even worse. Perhaps there's a tiny window just before schools break up in mid July?
In October, only the 10th works at all, and even that's not really.
If we're waiting for Charles to get back, we're looking at very late November or December. I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker's poem:
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Er ... "before schools break up in mid July". Not in Scotland and NI they don't - it's 2-3 weeks earlier.
Now that is a very good point. They do go back before September I think? (As does Leicestershire, of course.)
Also worth noting many private schools in England break up at or near the start of July and parents - who might be more inclined to vote Tory especially given Starmer's views on private schools - will hurry off to get cheaper holidays.
As do quite a number of older people before grand parenting duties kick in.
A July election could be problematic from that point of view.
Do you think that anyone at No 10, or CUP HQ, is gonna fret about school closings in Scotland, let alone Northern Ireland.
When polling stations are run in schools, I don't think any of them are in private schools. They wouldn't want to be so common even if they could claim state funds for extra floor-cleaning after all the peasants and heathens had trooped in.
It'd be funny, though, forcing them to show some community spirit.
Northern Ireland of course still has grammar schools in all its counties, unlike England, Scotland and Wales. Which may explain why less than 1% of Northern Irish pupils attend private schools.
So high earning and upper middle class parents in NI are more likely to save some money and send their children to grammar schools which get just as good academic results on average as private schools and often also have nearly as good a range of extra curricular activities.
They would only pay for a non selective private school if their child failed the grammar entrance exam
How are the numbers calculated?
I would imagine that there are a number of Scots who send their children to Eton or Ampleforth or wherever south of the border.
They would be in the numerator, but might not be in the denominator? (Ie is the denominator # children at school in England - which would include them - or # of children of school age in England which might not)
Scots rich enough to send their children to the top boarding schools in England, not merely a private day school in Scotland, would be well within the top 1% of Scots and probably have a castle or 2 too and maybe a title as well.
It's powerful stuff. The victims are quintessential backbone of england. Decent, ordinary people who makes cakes, look after pensioners, do a bit of art in the back bedroom, like walking etc etc.
My only complaint is at times it appeared to conflate Royal Mail with Post Office.
Cathy Come Home changed the country's view of homelessness in 1960s.
Shelter was born from its showing iirc.
And led by Alan Bates from here in Llandudno and an Anglesey SPM went to jail
"The Times can also reveal that dozens of covert recordings of senior Post Office staff, including Vennells, have been uncovered by the public inquiry into the scandal. It is understood that the tapes, of which there are believed to be about 80, will be sent to core participants, including postmasters, in the coming days. “They’re conversations with Post Office top brass including Paula Vennells. It’s very damning,” an inquiry source said."
If this is true, some obvious questions:-
1. The dates of these recordings? 2. Who was doing the recording? 3. Why?
Am old enough to remember the considerable kerfluffle re: Richard Nixon's (in)famous White House tapes.
Including surprising (to put it mildly) revelation that RN had been secretly taping conversations between The President and All The President's Men. The tapes from then forward being THE focus (to put it mildly) of further developments.
In later years, come to find out that JFK and LBJ also secreted taped similar (though not necessarily criminal) Oval Office consversations.
With one share reason being desire to document Important Presidential Decisions for Posterity. Combined with yet another: creating and compiling a record of what was said and who said it.
In UK PO Scandal, the creating of reported secret tapes could turn out to have NOTHING to do with top management, or indeed anybody at PO. Certainly PLENTY of possible motives and opportunities all around . . . like the classic US really-get-the-party-going game "Post Office".
(Do UKers do a similar game, and if so, what do you call it?)
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
But it is important to the result Tories get - not election win obviously, but important to reputations particularly the strategists, and important to how quickly party can come back to government - to get at Starmer and hollow him out as much as possible. If they only go down to 200 seats they can come back to power in one go.
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
Well a cornered Johnson did link Starmer to Savile. I am not sure Rishi is that cynical, anyway he might not need to, Rishi was fantastic today.
“ Rishi was fantastic today.” Yes that. From the poster who had Rishi winning all those PMQs the rest of the world had him finishing third in a 2 horse event. You play a funny game, MexPet.
Evan Davis on R4 had a big win for Rishi today. Iain Dale on LBC thought Starmer pathetic for his "squatting" comment and even leftie Michael Crick agreed. Starmer will be eviscerated by Ferrari tomorrow on LBC.
"Big win"?? LOL.
The public aren't in the slightest bit interested. They are totally zoned out of bonkers westminster circus of loons and politics in general. Maybe a couple or three weeks before the actual election they will tune in.
Now, it's a poll of Republican county chairs rather than of voters, but it's telling that Haley has 16% against 9% for DeSantis. Three months ago, DeSantis had 3x her vote.
If Haley outpolls DeSantis in Iowa, and Trump gets less than (say) 55%, then it could all get very interesting.
Edit to add: this is Republican chairs nationwide
Though not specific to Iowa, still significant perspective on likely Republican caucus/primary electorate - including in the 99 counties of the great Hawkeye State.
Where sadly there was (yet another) school shooting today, in Perry.
Which may or may not be topic of interest (if not concern) for Republican candidates now campaigning from Dubuque to Sioux City and back?
It's powerful stuff. The victims are quintessential backbone of england. Decent, ordinary people who makes cakes, look after pensioners, do a bit of art in the back bedroom, like walking etc etc.
My only complaint is at times it appeared to conflate Royal Mail with Post Office.
Cathy Come Home changed the country's view of homelessness in 1960s.
Shelter was born from its showing iirc.
And led by Alan Bates from here in Llandudno and an Anglesey SPM went to jail
Did he really go and live in that remote cottage on side of a mountain?
It's powerful stuff. The victims are quintessential backbone of england. Decent, ordinary people who makes cakes, look after pensioners, do a bit of art in the back bedroom, like walking etc etc.
My only complaint is at times it appeared to conflate Royal Mail with Post Office.
Cathy Come Home changed the country's view of homelessness in 1960s.
Shelter was born from its showing iirc.
And led by Alan Bates from here in Llandudno and an Anglesey SPM went to jail
Erm, I don't see the issue with that at all. Mandleson is not in any sort of position or office and staying at someone's house certainly isn't a crime nor even something to criticise unless Epstein was already in prison at the time. I am sure there must be some examples of Starmer hypocrisy given he is a politician but this isn't one of them.
It is simply clutching at straws.
Bearing in mind Epstein's USP was procuring teenage girls for heterosexuality incontinent older men I think Isam's conviction that Mandelson, of all people, sinks Starmer is wishful thinking.
Just to placate Isam, Rishi did crush the hapless Starmer today on day one of the election.
That’s a strange line of thinking; if a man who was not into the same kind of victims as Jimmy Savile knocked about with him, knowing what he was up to, that would be ok? And we’d want such a person advising the man likely to be our next PM, who was telling everyone how he’d rid politics of sleaze and cronyism?
Bingo!
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
But it is important to the result Tories get - not election win obviously, but important to reputations particularly the strategists, and important to how quickly party can come back to government - to get at Starmer and hollow him out as much as possible. If they only go down to 200 seats they can come back to power in one go.
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
Well a cornered Johnson did link Starmer to Savile. I am not sure Rishi is that cynical, anyway he might not need to, Rishi was fantastic today.
“ Rishi was fantastic today.” Yes that. From the poster who had Rishi winning all those PMQs the rest of the world had him finishing third in a 2 horse event. You play a funny game, MexPet.
Evan Davis on R4 had a big win for Rishi today. Iain Dale on LBC thought Starmer pathetic for his "squatting" comment and even leftie Michael Crick agreed. Starmer will be eviscerated by Ferrari tomorrow on LBC.
"Big win"?? LOL.
The public aren't in the slightest bit interested. They are totally zoned out of bonkers westminster circus of loons and politics in general. Maybe a couple or three weeks before the actual election they will tune in.
You do have a point.
On other hand, from now until GE-Day, the days are numbered, and fewer every day. With opportunities to change the mood music and trajectory ever fewer and fewer.
It's powerful stuff. The victims are quintessential backbone of england. Decent, ordinary people who makes cakes, look after pensioners, do a bit of art in the back bedroom, like walking etc etc.
My only complaint is at times it appeared to conflate Royal Mail with Post Office.
Cathy Come Home changed the country's view of homelessness in 1960s.
Shelter was born from its showing iirc.
Until 2012 Post Office was part of Royal Mail. The Horizon prosecutions started in 2000. This scandal did not start with Paula Vennells and I will be furious if she is the only one who is pursued.
All those well paid CEO's and GC's and other directors in the decade and a half before she came on board need to take responsibility and face accountability.
Starmer said today that he represents a change from broken Tory promises.
So how does his own record on promises stack up?
My Telegraph column, now online:-
Starmer is now a master of broken promises – but will anyone notice? After four years of shifting Labour policies, he accuses the Conservatives of the very cynicism he displays
This letter was signed off on 31 May 2010, in reply to Bates' letter of 20th May 2010. 20th May 2010 was the very day that Davey started as a minister, in the brand new Coalition government.
Allowing a couple of days for it to reach the in-tray, the response must have been prepared without any time to look into the issues raised in Bates letter*. Almost certainly it was prepared by one of the office staff and signed off without real consideration, as an operational matter for the Post Office rather than the government.
Bob Seely often wins the prize for most moderate-seeming Tory MP. On Newsnight atm.
He was my opponent in 2005 IIRC - quite a pleasant guy.
I met him once on the Isle of Wight when staying down there in 2019, and he canvassed the place I was staying. I quite pleasantly told him that I wouldn't be voting for him or his party because of Brexit, and he sheepishly wandered off. I didn't mention that I vote in the Midlands, so perhaps a bit unfair.
He is currently supporting some very nasty policies, so nice guy or not, he deserves his P45.
Starmer said today that he represents a change from broken Tory promises.
So how does his own record on promises stack up?
My Telegraph column, now online:-
Starmer is now a master of broken promises – but will anyone notice? After four years of shifting Labour policies, he accuses the Conservatives of the very cynicism he displays
It's powerful stuff. The victims are quintessential backbone of england. Decent, ordinary people who makes cakes, look after pensioners, do a bit of art in the back bedroom, like walking etc etc.
My only complaint is at times it appeared to conflate Royal Mail with Post Office.
Cathy Come Home changed the country's view of homelessness in 1960s.
Shelter was born from its showing iirc.
And led by Alan Bates from here in Llandudno and an Anglesey SPM went to jail
Did he really go and live in that remote cottage on side of a mountain?
That bit seemed a bit far fetched to me.
Actually he lives in Llanelian a little rural village near Colwyn Bay
Starmer said today that he represents a change from broken Tory promises.
So how does his own record on promises stack up?
My Telegraph column, now online:-
Starmer is now a master of broken promises – but will anyone notice? After four years of shifting Labour policies, he accuses the Conservatives of the very cynicism he displays
This letter was signed off on 31 May 2010, in reply to Bates' letter of 20th May 2010. 20th May 2010 was the very day that Davey started as a minister, in the brand new Coalition government.
Allowing a couple of days for it to reach the in-tray, the response must have been prepared without any time to look into the issues raised in Bates letter*. Almost certainly it was prepared by one of the office staff and signed off without real consideration, as an operational matter for the Post Office rather than the government.
Which tends to undermine Davey's claim that he was asking a lot of searching questions about these issues. Unless he was doing them at some other time. But why would he given what that letter says?
Starmer said today that he represents a change from broken Tory promises.
So how does his own record on promises stack up?
My Telegraph column, now online:-
Starmer is now a master of broken promises – but will anyone notice? After four years of shifting Labour policies, he accuses the Conservatives of the very cynicism he displays
This should be the Tory attack line on Sir Keir; the evidence is all there on video/social media
It didn't work last time...
I don’t think there is any need to mock up photos of Sir Keir, saying he is dangerous - just play video of his infinite broken promises & multiple u-turns on ‘matters of principle’ time & again
He used his mother’s conviction that it was ‘an absolute matter of principle’ that profit shouldn’t be made out of the health service as an asset when he stood for leader, now he wants the private sector to be more involved
"The Times can also reveal that dozens of covert recordings of senior Post Office staff, including Vennells, have been uncovered by the public inquiry into the scandal. It is understood that the tapes, of which there are believed to be about 80, will be sent to core participants, including postmasters, in the coming days. “They’re conversations with Post Office top brass including Paula Vennells. It’s very damning,” an inquiry source said."
If this is true, some obvious questions:-
1. The dates of these recordings? 2. Who was doing the recording? 3. Why?
The (many?) computer types on PB will know who I am referring to. Sad news.
Quiche Eaters use PASCAL. Nicklaus Wirth, the designer of PASCAL, gave a talk once at which he was asked "How do you pronounce your name?". He replied, "You can either call me by name, pronouncing it 'Veert', or call me by value, 'Worth'." One can tell immediately from this comment that Nicklaus Wirth is a Quiche Eater.
This letter was signed off on 31 May 2010, in reply to Bates' letter of 20th May 2010. 20th May 2010 was the very day that Davey started as a minister, in the brand new Coalition government.
Allowing a couple of days for it to reach the in-tray, the response must have been prepared without any time to look into the issues raised in Bates letter*. Almost certainly it was prepared by one of the office staff and signed off without real consideration, as an operational matter for the Post Office rather than the government.
Which tends to undermine Davey's claim that he was asking a lot of searching questions about these issues. Unless he was doing them at some other time. But why would he given what that letter says?
Presumably there was a follow up letter at some other point in Davey's 19 months in that ministerial role, that we haven't seen.
This letter was signed off on 31 May 2010, in reply to Bates' letter of 20th May 2010. 20th May 2010 was the very day that Davey started as a minister, in the brand new Coalition government.
Allowing a couple of days for it to reach the in-tray, the response must have been prepared without any time to look into the issues raised in Bates letter*. Almost certainly it was prepared by one of the office staff and signed off without real consideration, as an operational matter for the Post Office rather than the government.
Which tends to undermine Davey's claim that he was asking a lot of searching questions about these issues. Unless he was doing them at some other time. But why would he given what that letter says?
Presumably there was a follow up letter at some other point in Davey's 19 months in that ministerial role, that we haven't seen.
This letter was signed off on 31 May 2010, in reply to Bates' letter of 20th May 2010. 20th May 2010 was the very day that Davey started as a minister, in the brand new Coalition government.
Allowing a couple of days for it to reach the in-tray, the response must have been prepared without any time to look into the issues raised in Bates letter*. Almost certainly it was prepared by one of the office staff and signed off without real consideration, as an operational matter for the Post Office rather than the government.
Which tends to undermine Davey's claim that he was asking a lot of searching questions about these issues. Unless he was doing them at some other time. But why would he given what that letter says?
Presumably there was a follow up letter at some other point in Davey's 19 months in that ministerial role, that we haven't seen.
Starmer said today that he represents a change from broken Tory promises.
So how does his own record on promises stack up?
My Telegraph column, now online:-
Starmer is now a master of broken promises – but will anyone notice? After four years of shifting Labour policies, he accuses the Conservatives of the very cynicism he displays
This should be the Tory attack line on Sir Keir; the evidence is all there on video/social media
It didn't work last time...
I don’t think there is any need to mock up photos of Sir Keir, saying he is dangerous - just play video of his infinite broken promises & multiple u-turns on ‘matters of principle’ time & again
He used his mother’s conviction that it was ‘an absolute matter of principle’ that profit shouldn’t be made out of the health service as an asset when he stood for leader, now he wants the private sector to be more involved
It was bad enough quoting Fraser Nelson to support your balanced point of view - I look after sheep less woolly - now you’re reheating BJO’s leftovers 😆
The voters actually like where Starmer has moved Labour to, to remind voters of this just seems a bizarre attack from opponents.
The best attack line is the c word Rishi uses every PMQs, Starmer’s judgement was trying to get Corbyn elected as UK Primeminister. I reckon that still resonates with wavering voters.
Starmer said today that he represents a change from broken Tory promises.
So how does his own record on promises stack up?
My Telegraph column, now online:-
Starmer is now a master of broken promises – but will anyone notice? After four years of shifting Labour policies, he accuses the Conservatives of the very cynicism he displays
This should be the Tory attack line on Sir Keir; the evidence is all there on video/social media
It didn't work last time...
I don’t think there is any need to mock up photos of Sir Keir, saying he is dangerous - just play video of his infinite broken promises & multiple u-turns on ‘matters of principle’ time & again
He used his mother’s conviction that it was ‘an absolute matter of principle’ that profit shouldn’t be made out of the health service as an asset when he stood for leader, now he wants the private sector to be more involved
Your case against Starmer would be far more compelling were you not yourself a Boris Johnson fanboi.
For all of Starmer's manifold faults, inconsistencies and downright incompetence he remains head and shoulders better prime ministerial material than Johnson ever did.
Starmer may have held his nose and then sold Corbyn down the river, but he never directly wagered our nation in exchange for the keys to No 10.
Comments
BTW, is not "ChatGPT" one of the worst brand names ever? Even worse than "X".
This from heirs & successors of the gang that came up with one of the best = Microsoft.
Jenkins is an IT man, not a lawyer. He is a whistleblower, but he has put himself in line for a charge of perjury, several charges in fact, so he may be genuinely reluctant to appear. When he does (I think he can be forced) it will certainly be box office.
Numerous lawyers appearing at the inquiry have given the clearest evidence that would lead to them being debarred from practicing immediately, were it not for the fact that the deciding authority in such matters is The Law Society.
It is only the 4th of January and Isam attempts to bring Starmer down with the Johnson generated Savile slur.
Now then, now then.
Bucks, which is the second wealthiest Home county after Surrey, is fully selective and has plenty of grammars.
Suburban Trafford, the only area of greater Manchester with grammars still, is also the wealthiest area of greater Manchester. The grammar schools in Merseyside are now mainly in Wirral, which is wealthier than Liverpool which is mainly comprehensive apart from the Bluecoat in Wavertree. The grammars in Birmingham are mainly in wealthier suburban areas like Sutton Coldfield.
Essentially wealthier English council areas which generally had Tory councils in the late 1960s and 1970s when the Labour governments and Heath government allowed selective areas to go comprehensive were more likely to keep grammars than poorer areas with mainly Labour councils which almost all went comprehensive.
With a few exceptions in poorer rural areas like Lincolnshire as you say which still had a Tory county council
Change him for a celebrity paedo of your choice, and your logic is still very faulty
He was a truly brilliant manager. Orient were always strapped for cash, largely on account of being squeezed between neighbouring giants Tottenham, Arsenal and West Ham. He balanced the books by buying cheap and selling dear, a model that was by no means unique even then, but he just did it better than everybody else.
The O's would have gone out of business in the fifties but for him.
But how about your faulty logic?
What about East Kent? Like Lincolnshire it doesn't fit your narrative, because your narrative is nonsense.
"The Times can also reveal that dozens of covert recordings of senior Post Office staff, including Vennells, have been uncovered by the public inquiry into the scandal. It is understood that the tapes, of which there are believed to be about 80, will be sent to core participants, including postmasters, in the coming days. “They’re conversations with Post Office top brass including Paula Vennells. It’s very damning,” an inquiry source said."
If this is true, some obvious questions:-
1. The dates of these recordings?
2. Who was doing the recording?
3. Why?
Although your boy Sunak was sublime today and all the media outlets are agreeing that Starmer was utterly disastrous today. You were all correct, Starmer falls on the first day of the campaign. What an utter clown.
They broke the mould!
Now then, Trump would put Saville into every speech, would he not? He would say, there was a file open on Saville when Starmer got the job of prosecuting Saville, when he left the job the file was closed, if Starmer didn’t like it being closed why didn’t he just order it to be reopened? And leave it there. The rebuttal as to why Starmer didn’t prosecute Saville loses listeners after the first 45 seconds of it.
Why don’t the Tories just do what Trump wouldn’t hesitate to do? They should also say, doesn’t Starmer already look too old and too tired to enter government for the first time.
What’s more important really, getting the politics fair play award, and award of putting truth and facts ahead of misleading spin, or leaving nothing on the pitch in securing the best possible result?
The (many?) computer types on PB will know who I am referring to. Sad news.
American Research Group (Dec 27 - Jan 3)
Trump 37 (+4)
Haley 33 (+4)
Christie 10 (-3)
DeSantis 5 (-1)
Ramaswamy 4 (-1)
Hutchinson 1 (=)
(Change is from same pollster Dec 14 to 20)
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/new-hampshire/
Aaaargh. Somehow I ended up reading the Internet in a Microsoft Web Browser. WTF happened?
I've spent 25 years avoiding those, just as I've spent 35+ carefully years avoiding everything Apple.
In shock !!!
Now, it's a poll of Republican county chairs rather than of voters, but it's telling that Haley has 16% against 9% for DeSantis. Three months ago, DeSantis had 3x her vote.
If Haley outpolls DeSantis in Iowa, and Trump gets less than (say) 55%, then it could all get very interesting.
Edit to add: this is Republican chairs nationwide
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-challengers-ron-desantis-nikki-haley-pardon-2024-1?r=US&IR=T
Britain is not America.
Sunak is not Trump.
Trump is, as it stands, a failed, one term President.
And the grammar for his epitaph will contain lots of semicolons.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/iowa/
I would imagine that there are a number of Scots who send their children to Eton or Ampleforth or wherever south of the border.
They would be in the numerator, but might not be in the denominator? (Ie is the denominator # children at school in England - which would include them - or # of children of school age in England which might not)
But I'm stumped by the first;
My wife and I have signed this petition and hope others will
https://twitter.com/38degrees/status/1743018217444876611?t=8ZlgC58ZUsszoBe_RztbAA&s=19
IMO we saw that will many, many illiberal measures, starting perhaps with RIPA, and on through all kinds of nonsense. Remember Detention Without Trial for 90 Days, "I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist", and their half million (iirc correctly) Section 44 (I think) stop and searches per annum under terrorism laws in London on one year, without finding any terrorists.
I still can't fathom why they did that last, unless they were trying to construct a mix of balanced statistics to avoid the "too many searches on black people proportionally" 'problem'.
I had a policewoman look me and my girlfriend in the eye at St Pancras Station in I think 2007 or 2008 and say "yes, I believe you may be terrorists", when what we had done was look at the local map for more than 15 seconds.
For such, Blair deserves continuing contempt, regardless of how much he has his head in the correct place wrt Ukraine.
But yes it could be such meetings / calls. Interesting that they have only just surfaced now, apparently. And not in previous litigation.
My only complaint is at times it appeared to conflate Royal Mail with Post Office.
Cathy Come Home changed the country's view of homelessness in 1960s.
Shelter was born from its showing iirc.
So not really very significant
Including surprising (to put it mildly) revelation that RN had been secretly taping conversations between The President and All The President's Men. The tapes from then forward being THE focus (to put it mildly) of further developments.
In later years, come to find out that JFK and LBJ also secreted taped similar (though not necessarily criminal) Oval Office consversations.
With one share reason being desire to document Important Presidential Decisions for Posterity. Combined with yet another: creating and compiling a record of what was said and who said it.
In UK PO Scandal, the creating of reported secret tapes could turn out to have NOTHING to do with top management, or indeed anybody at PO. Certainly PLENTY of possible motives and opportunities all around . . . like the classic US really-get-the-party-going game "Post Office".
(Do UKers do a similar game, and if so, what do you call it?)
The public aren't in the slightest bit interested. They are totally zoned out of bonkers westminster circus of loons and politics in general. Maybe a couple or three weeks before the actual election they will tune in.
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2024-01-04/the-real-mr-bates-the-man-behind-new-itv-post-office-it-scandal-drama
10 Postmasters are guilty
20 Goto 10
Where sadly there was (yet another) school shooting today, in Perry.
Which may or may not be topic of interest (if not concern) for Republican candidates now campaigning from Dubuque to Sioux City and back?
That bit seemed a bit far fetched to me.
On other hand, from now until GE-Day, the days are numbered, and fewer every day. With opportunities to change the mood music and trajectory ever fewer and fewer.
All those well paid CEO's and GC's and other directors in the decade and a half before she came on board need to take responsibility and face accountability.
So how does his own record on promises stack up?
My Telegraph column, now online:-
Starmer is now a master of broken promises – but will anyone notice?
After four years of shifting Labour policies, he accuses the Conservatives of the very cynicism he displays
https://x.com/frasernelson/status/1742994226336428128?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
This should be the Tory attack line on Sir Keir; the evidence is all there on video/social media
This letter was signed off on 31 May 2010, in reply to Bates' letter of 20th May 2010. 20th May 2010 was the very day that Davey started as a minister, in the brand new Coalition government.
Allowing a couple of days for it to reach the in-tray, the response must have been prepared without any time to look into the issues raised in Bates letter*. Almost certainly it was prepared by one of the office staff and signed off without real consideration, as an operational matter for the Post Office rather than the government.
* this appears to be Bates letter of 20 May.
https://twitter.com/Karlfl/status/1742813097390178587?t=Wz-B2pDKm7jxYJmY412Ccw&s=19
He is currently supporting some very nasty policies, so nice guy or not, he deserves his P45.
OHNO.
“I’m good, thanks”
“I was inquiring about the state of your health, not your moral probity”"
From the comments section of this article.
https://unherd.com/2024/01/the-perversion-of-the-english-language/
He used his mother’s conviction that it was ‘an absolute matter of principle’ that profit shouldn’t be made out of the health service as an asset when he stood for leader, now he wants the private sector to be more involved
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-nhs-pledge-privatisation-b2123849.html
(But yes, sad news)
https://x.com/jrc1921/status/1741590898280935555?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://x.com/karlfl/status/1742813097390178587?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
“ Records show Davey did eventually agree to meet Bates in October 2010, a month when he also held three separate meetings with Post Office bosses.”
https://archive.is/2024.01.04-223710/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ed-davey-i-was-misled-by-post-office-bosses-over-horizon-scandal-vgq3w58zp
The voters actually like where Starmer has moved Labour to, to remind voters of this just seems a bizarre attack from opponents.
The best attack line is the c word Rishi uses every PMQs, Starmer’s judgement was trying to get Corbyn elected as UK Primeminister. I reckon that still resonates with wavering voters.
For all of Starmer's manifold faults, inconsistencies and downright incompetence he remains head and shoulders better prime ministerial material than Johnson ever did.
Starmer may have held his nose and then sold Corbyn down the river, but he never directly wagered our nation in exchange for the keys to No 10.