What are the key races in this round of local elections? – politicalbetting.com

System · April 15

What are the key races in this round of local elections? – politicalbetting.com

There’s obviously the London Mayoral election, ten other Mayoral elections and the PCC contests but I’m going to look at a key Council.

Read the full story here

DecrepiterJohnL · April 15

Bellwether.

DecrepiterJohnL · April 15

This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.

Twickbait_55 · April 15

Or bellwetherend in the case of the current MP...

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/nuneaton-mp-cleared-over-battle-13013433?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target

Nigelb · April 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.

How does turnout in local elections comoare with a general election, though ?
It's not a great comparison, particularly if you're looking at propensity to stay at home.

Foxy · April 15

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.

There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.

ydoethur · April 15

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.

How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?

Peter_the_Punter · April 15

Test

Foxy · April 15

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?

They may not know them personally, but may be happy with their nimbyism for example, or action on potholes and council tax.

Chris · April 15

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I think that's really the second hypothesis - that Reform voters aren't all disaffected Conservatives, but in the absence of Reform candidates might support other parties.

Chris · April 15

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?

Yesterday I was talking to a neighbour about cutbacks to local library services, and she said "I suppose the orders for it come down from on high." It seemed to come as news to her that we even had elected councillors.

Heathener · April 15

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
They may not know them personally, but may be happy with their nimbyism for example, or action on potholes and council tax.

Good morning.

Am inclined to agree. A lot of people I know are more interested / vexed by their local issues than the national ones. The two relate as overlapping circles of course but sometimes things like the pothole which just gave you your third puncture in as many months matter more than the latest swivel-eyed rantings of Badenoch and Braverman.

Monksfield · April 15

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?

In our small town of population ~4000 I would say our Unitary councillor is pretty well known to most. I suspect that’s typical of rural and small town Britain. Maybe less so in bigger towns and cities?

Heathener · April 15

I may be wrong but I think if you’re paying council tax it tends to focus you on what value you’re getting for it, in a way that a more amorphous national tax doesn’t? Most council taxpayers I know are pretty invested in their local services.

ydoethur · April 15

Monksfield said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
In our small town of population ~4000 I would say our Unitary councillor is pretty well known to most. I suspect that’s typical of rural and small town Britain. Maybe less so in bigger towns and cities?

Leaving aside the fact that c. 80% of people live in ‘bigger towns and cities’ having lived in small towns for all of the first 30 years of my life I do not share your suspicion.

ydoethur · April 15

Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3

squareroot2 · April 15

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
They may not know them personally, but may be happy with their nimbyism for example, or action on potholes and council tax.

The Lib Dems are now known in Horsham. Popular is not a word one would associate with them.

It will be the same if Labour win the GE . They will be loathed

Foxy · April 15

Only the rather pointless PCC election for me, but there does seem to be a good spread of councillors up for election across both rural and urban England so will be plenty for pundits to chew on.

Nuneaton looks like a good bellwether. Thanks @stodge

squareroot2 · April 15

Heathener said:
I may be wrong but I think if you’re paying council tax it tends to focus you on what value you’re getting for it, in a way that a more amorphous national tax doesn’t? Most council taxpayers I know are pretty invested in their local services.

Most councillors are anonymous. No-one reads local papers not llisten to local radio anymore. The ruling group cops it as a group when they do unpopular things which they inevitably do or worse still don't do.

Foxy · April 15

squareroot2 said:

Heathener said:
I may be wrong but I think if you’re paying council tax it tends to focus you on what value you’re getting for it, in a way that a more amorphous national tax doesn’t? Most council taxpayers I know are pretty invested in their local services.
Most councillors are anonymous. No-one reads local papers not llisten to local radio anymore. The ruling group cops it as a group when they do unpopular things which they inevitably do or worse still don't do.

Was that why the LDs swept to victory in Horsham in 2023?

Icarus · April 15

squareroot2 said:

Heathener said:
I may be wrong but I think if you’re paying council tax it tends to focus you on what value you’re getting for it, in a way that a more amorphous national tax doesn’t? Most council taxpayers I know are pretty invested in their local services.
Most councillors are anonymous. Noonevreads local papers not listen to local radio anymore. The ruling group cops it as a group when they do unpopular things which they inevitably do or worse don't do.

In Leicestershire the County Council takes 72.5% of the council tax with the District Council (Harborough) 7.3% and my parish council 3.4% - The Fire and Police take 16.7%.. But I am not sure that most people know which authortity is responsible for which service - e.g pot holes are a county matter.

Foxy · April 15

squareroot2 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
They may not know them personally, but may be happy with their nimbyism for example, or action on potholes and council tax.
The Lib Dems are now known in Horsham. Popular is not a word one would associate with them.

It will be the same if Labour win the GE . They will be loathed

I do not expect Starmer to be loved, and some will loathe him.

The Tories mistake post GE will be to pick a leader even more loathed.

Nigelb · April 15

On the morning of his trial, it seems only fair to note that Kamala Harris, if nothing else, makes good predictions.

Don’t worry, Mr. President. I’ll see you at your trial.
https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1202008446083698689

(Dec 2019)

DavidL · April 15

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3

I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.

TimS · April 15

Heathener said:
I may be wrong but I think if you’re paying council tax it tends to focus you on what value you’re getting for it, in a way that a more amorphous national tax doesn’t? Most council taxpayers I know are pretty invested in their local services.

I think this is an example of where you get very different levels of engagement in different segments of population.

There’s perhaps a core group of 5-10% of voters who are very invested in local government issues: they actively oppose developments, they write to their councillors about fly tipping or the local library, they ring to complain about bin collections or leaves being left on the road. They are usually retired, don’t have dependent children at home and have lived in the same area for decades.

The rest don’t really think about council politics often if at all, and form their voting intentions on the basis of national or international issues.

CarlottaVance · April 15

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?

In Hove we took delight in turfing out the virtue signalling Greens (one the leader of the council, no less) and replaced them with two solid Labour candidates, both of whom have been proactive and involved in community matters.

Peter_the_Punter · April 15

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.

They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.

squareroot2 · April 15

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

Heathener said:
I may be wrong but I think if you’re paying council tax it tends to focus you on what value you’re getting for it, in a way that a more amorphous national tax doesn’t? Most council taxpayers I know are pretty invested in their local services.
Most councillors are anonymous. No-one reads local papers not llisten to local radio anymore. The ruling group cops it as a group when they do unpopular things which they inevitably do or worse still don't do.
Was that why the LDs swept to victory in Horsham in 2023?

They win because the Tories had been in too long and the central govt is loathed. The Lib dems will be wiped out next time round .. you heard it here....

squareroot2 · April 15

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
They may not know them personally, but may be happy with their nimbyism for example, or action on potholes and council tax.
The Lib Dems are now known in Horsham. Popular is not a word one would associate with them.

It will be the same if Labour win the GE . They will be loathed
I do not expect Starmer to be loved, and some will loathe him.

The Tories mistake post GE will be to pick a leader even more loathed.

That is yet to be determined.

squareroot2 · April 15

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
In Hove we took delight in turfing out the virtue signalling Greens (one the leader of the council, no less) and replaced them with two solid Labour candidates, both of whom have been proactive and involved in community matters.

A job well done. Just need to get rid of the revolting Labour MP

Nigelb · April 15

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.

Not necessary - though finding someone who has, but can still assess the evidence of his criminal responsibility in an unbiased manner will clearly take quite a lot of effort.

Party affiliation is apparently not an issue in itself, either. Being a Jan 6 'Truther' etc, rather more so.

Is our system better ? It's certainly faster.

DavidL · April 15

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.

Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.

Nigelb · April 15

This Is Why Tesla’s Stainless Steel Cybertrucks May Be Rusting
Who knew stainless steel might not be such a good idea for the exterior of an electric SUV? The entire automotive industry, that’s who.
https://www.wired.com/story/this-is-why-teslas-stainless-steel-cybertrucks-may-be-rusting/

"Do not wash in direct sunlight.." ??

TheScreamingEagles · April 15

Nigelb said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Not necessary - though finding someone who has, but can still assess the evidence of his criminal responsibility in an unbiased manner will clearly take quite a lot of effort.

Party affiliation is apparently not an issue in itself, either. Being a Jan 6 'Truther' etc, rather more so.

Is our system better ? It's certainly faster.

I love the American approach to voir dire.

TheScreamingEagles · April 15

Liz Truss has claimed that Boris Johnson confirmed suspicions about Michael Gove leaking damaging information during the 2019 Tory leadership contest.

Tensions between Truss and Gove were exacerbated after he withdrew his support for Johnson’s campaign to lead the Conservative Party, she said.

Details of the long, fractious relationship between the two leading Tories have been disclosed in her new book, Ten Years to Save the West. Truss has written a memoir about her 49 days as prime minister, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.

She describes her anger at Gove when he withdrew his support at the last minute for Johnson’s first attempt to lead the Tory party in 2016. She wrote that, three years later, during a further leadership contest after Theresa May resigned, Johnson phoned her. He asked Truss whether “I’d leaked something”.

She replied: “I told him it had been Michael Gove — and what did he expect, given that Gove was a serial offender? I pressed him: ‘Did he think Gove had been leaking?’ Mr Johnson replied: ‘Do bears shit in the woods?’”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-says-boris-johnson-knew-michael-gove-was-a-serial-leaker-tpvbfrx7s

OldKingCole · April 15

squareroot2 said:

Heathener said:
I may be wrong but I think if you’re paying council tax it tends to focus you on what value you’re getting for it, in a way that a more amorphous national tax doesn’t? Most council taxpayers I know are pretty invested in their local services.
Most councillors are anonymous. No-one reads local papers not llisten to local radio anymore. The ruling group cops it as a group when they do unpopular things which they inevitably do or worse still don't do.

There are local Facebook pages though and, certainly in our area, councillors can be quite active on them. I think it’s fair to say that our two Green-ish Independent councillors owe their seats, at least in part to a significant Facebook campaign.
Same applies to our Green county councillor.

And good morning to everybody; let’s hope the rain keeps away and enables Essex to win their second county cricket match this afternoon, and consolidate their position at the top of the county championship!

Nigelb · April 15

Nigelb said:
This Is Why Tesla’s Stainless Steel Cybertrucks May Be Rusting
Who knew stainless steel might not be such a good idea for the exterior of an electric SUV? The entire automotive industry, that’s who.
https://www.wired.com/story/this-is-why-teslas-stainless-steel-cybertrucks-may-be-rusting/

"Do not wash in direct sunlight.." ??

The loose fitting on top of the accelerator
pedal is also not ideal.
https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1779612564579647789

Happily for us, they're not road legal this side of the Atlantic.

CarlottaVance · April 15

squareroot2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
In Hove we took delight in turfing out the virtue signalling Greens (one the leader of the council, no less) and replaced them with two solid Labour candidates, both of whom have been proactive and involved in community matters.
A job well done. Just need to get rid of the revolting Labour MP

Peter Kyle is absolutely fine - mercifully Lloyd Russell-Misogynist is the other end of town (if not on another planet). What will be interesting will be Brighton Pavilion and how much of Caroline Lucas' personal vote carries over. The majority Labour council has got off to a reasonable start - though the schools trans toolkit they inherited may need amendment:

Schools in England and Wales have been warned by one of the country’s leading equality and human rights barristers that the “toolkit” many of them use to support gender-questioning children is unlawful.

The toolkit, introduced by Brighton and Hove council in 2021 and subsequently replicated by a number of other local authorities, says schools should “respect” a child’s request to change their name and pronoun as a “pivotal” part of supporting their identity, as well as other changes such as switching to wearing trousers or a skirt....

But a legal opinion by Karon Monaghan of Matrix Chambers concludes that schools and councils using the toolkit are very likely to be in breach of equality and human rights legislation, and at risk of being sued by unhappy parents.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/13/schools-in-england-and-wales-using-gender-toolkit-risk-being-sued-by-parents#

TheScreamingEagles · April 15

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.

Iff Sturgeon is charged, the jury selection process is going to be fun.

Malcolmg as a juror in that case would be fun.

Nigelb · April 15

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
In Hove we took delight in turfing out the virtue signalling Greens (one the leader of the council, no less) and replaced them with two solid Labour candidates, both of whom have been proactive and involved in community matters.

Welcome back, Carlotta !

I also have a pretty good local Labour councillor (whom I didn't vote for, but am considering doing so this time around on the basis that she's earned it).

ydoethur · April 15

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.

The US justice system is more broken than Johnson's marriage vows.

Four years to bring a traitor and national security risk to trial.

Two justices of their highest court accused of criminal behaviour, but not prosecuted.

Plea deals dominating rather than proper process.

When they do get proper process, it's usually dragged out for so long as to make everything worthless.

Punishments that veer between punitive, bizarre, inept and never applied.

I mean, I criticise the British justice system a lot, but...

Nigelb · April 15

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Not necessary - though finding someone who has, but can still assess the evidence of his criminal responsibility in an unbiased manner will clearly take quite a lot of effort.

Party affiliation is apparently not an issue in itself, either. Being a Jan 6 'Truther' etc, rather more so.

Is our system better ? It's certainly faster.
I love the American approach to voir dire.

It certainly makes better drama.

viewcode · April 15

CarlottaVance said:

squareroot2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
In Hove we took delight in turfing out the virtue signalling Greens (one the leader of the council, no less) and replaced them with two solid Labour candidates, both of whom have been proactive and involved in community matters.
A job well done. Just need to get rid of the revolting Labour MP
Peter Kyle is absolutely fine - mercifully Lloyd Russell-Misogynist is the other end of town (if not on another planet). What will be interesting will be Brighton Pavilion and how much of Caroline Lucas' personal vote carries over. The majority Labour council has got off to a reasonable start - though the schools trans toolkit they inherited may need amendment:

Schools in England and Wales have been warned by one of the country’s leading equality and human rights barristers that the “toolkit” many of them use to support gender-questioning children is unlawful.

The toolkit, introduced by Brighton and Hove council in 2021 and subsequently replicated by a number of other local authorities, says schools should “respect” a child’s request to change their name and pronoun as a “pivotal” part of supporting their identity, as well as other changes such as switching to wearing trousers or a skirt....

But a legal opinion by Karon Monaghan of Matrix Chambers concludes that schools and councils using the toolkit are very likely to be in breach of equality and human rights legislation, and at risk of being sued by unhappy parents.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/13/schools-in-england-and-wales-using-gender-toolkit-risk-being-sued-by-parents#

You're back! I was worried[1]. I thought increased discussion of matters trans would conjour you like Candyman. Did something go wrong in China or just busy?

[1] https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4735035/#Comment_4735035

CarlottaVance · April 15

Nigelb said:

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
In Hove we took delight in turfing out the virtue signalling Greens (one the leader of the council, no less) and replaced them with two solid Labour candidates, both of whom have been proactive and involved in community matters.
Welcome back, Carlotta !

I also have a pretty good local Labour councillor (whom I didn't vote for, but am considering doing so this time around on the basis that she's earned it).

Thankyou!

I did vote for one of them - and on what I've seen so far will be happy to vote for both of them next time.

IanB2 · April 15

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
How does turnout in local elections comoare with a general election, though ?
It's not a great comparison, particularly if you're looking at propensity to stay at home.

We used to worry about that, back when I faced an election on the same day as a wider one. The analysis I did looking at canvassing and turnout over a twenty year period suggested that while turnout varied considerably, having a big jump in turnout didn’t make a massive difference to the political balance of those turning out. Which wasn’t what I expected to find, especially for us as the LibDems relying on local campaigning and local issues; I thought that those interested (or even aware of) such would be more likely to turn out in a local election than those not. But when I ran the numbers, that effect was marginal - there were almost as many declared supporters for us who only turned out for the GE as there were for the other parties.

The biggest determinant of whether someone turned out in a local election was how long they’d been living there, with a huge difference between those of twenty or more years’ residence and those with less. Newbies to the area hardly turned out at all. Insofar as there was a GE effect as above, the bias away from us arose from newbies to the area (first election at current address) turning out in a GE while being unaware of our local efforts. But some of those people don’t fill I; the local election ballot at all - it’s not uncommon for someone going to a polling station for a ‘big’ election just to ignore ballot papers for a smaller one - we see the same here for county and parish.

CarlottaVance · April 15

viewcode said:

CarlottaVance said:

squareroot2 said:

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
In Hove we took delight in turfing out the virtue signalling Greens (one the leader of the council, no less) and replaced them with two solid Labour candidates, both of whom have been proactive and involved in community matters.
A job well done. Just need to get rid of the revolting Labour MP
Peter Kyle is absolutely fine - mercifully Lloyd Russell-Misogynist is the other end of town (if not on another planet). What will be interesting will be Brighton Pavilion and how much of Caroline Lucas' personal vote carries over. The majority Labour council has got off to a reasonable start - though the schools trans toolkit they inherited may need amendment:

Schools in England and Wales have been warned by one of the country’s leading equality and human rights barristers that the “toolkit” many of them use to support gender-questioning children is unlawful.

The toolkit, introduced by Brighton and Hove council in 2021 and subsequently replicated by a number of other local authorities, says schools should “respect” a child’s request to change their name and pronoun as a “pivotal” part of supporting their identity, as well as other changes such as switching to wearing trousers or a skirt....

But a legal opinion by Karon Monaghan of Matrix Chambers concludes that schools and councils using the toolkit are very likely to be in breach of equality and human rights legislation, and at risk of being sued by unhappy parents.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/13/schools-in-england-and-wales-using-gender-toolkit-risk-being-sued-by-parents#
You're back! I was worried[1]. I thought increased discussion of matters trans would conjour you like Candyman. Did something go wrong in China or just busy?

[1] https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4735035/#Comment_4735035

Just busy. Hurt my sides laughing at Holyrood's Hate Crime bill imploding on contact with reality, and a series of tweets, and glad the Cass Review has put paid to experimenting on autistic, vulnerable, often gay children. The reverse ferreting is a vision to behold, but receipts have been kept and "we didna ken" won't wash.

The BBC continues to be poor on the matter but the Observer and Telegraph have led the field with objective reporting.

TheScreamingEagles · April 15

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Not necessary - though finding someone who has, but can still assess the evidence of his criminal responsibility in an unbiased manner will clearly take quite a lot of effort.

Party affiliation is apparently not an issue in itself, either. Being a Jan 6 'Truther' etc, rather more so.

Is our system better ? It's certainly faster.
I love the American approach to voir dire.
It certainly makes better drama.

It does indeed, loved the tv show Bull about trial science and the voir dire process.

Peter_the_Punter · April 15

Welcome back, Carlotta.

Taz · April 15

Morning Carlotta. Nice to see you back.

Taz · April 15

Respected Senior World Statesman demands urgent de-escalation in the Middle East and condemns Iran's performative, telegraphed, feeble action.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/yousaf-condemns-iran-attack-on-israel-and-calls-for-urgent-de-escalation/ar-BB1lBopd?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=74f3f63c8d4f43ef87244290e51b7aef&ei=9

Taz · April 15

Other key Midlands races would be Dudley and Rugby I would expect. I know Dudley well, not so much Rugby. I would expect Dudley to be similar to the one in the article.

NickPalmer · April 15

TimS said:

Heathener said:
I may be wrong but I think if you’re paying council tax it tends to focus you on what value you’re getting for it, in a way that a more amorphous national tax doesn’t? Most council taxpayers I know are pretty invested in their local services.
I think this is an example of where you get very different levels of engagement in different segments of population.

There’s perhaps a core group of 5-10% of voters who are very invested in local government issues: they actively oppose developments, they write to their councillors about fly tipping or the local library, they ring to complain about bin collections or leaves being left on the road. They are usually retired, don’t have dependent children at home and have lived in the same area for decades.

The rest don’t really think about council politics often if at all, and form their voting intentions on the basis of national or international issues.

I think that's right, and it extends to active politicians. Many MPs have come from a council background and remain very interested in local issues, but quite a few joined their party for national or international issues and don't really care whether Acacia Drive has a pothole or not.

DavidL · April 15

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.
Iff Sturgeon is charged, the jury selection process is going to be fun.

Malcolmg as a juror in that case would be fun.

There is sometimes a more general question asked as to whether there is any other reason as to why they could not be impartial in the case (in rape cases this often triggers concerns by those who might have been affected by something similar in their past) and that question would be more prominent in that case but the procedure will be the same and there is no express right of objection by either the Crown or the defence (although a claim that the accused knew a juror, for example, would be taken seriously).

LostPassword · April 15

Thanks Stodge. Those is exactly the sort of analysis we need to cut through the confusion of the results.

OnlyLivingBoy · April 15

Thanks for this Stodge, very interesting. I expect Nuneaton is the kind of seat that Labour will underperform the national polls in.

Peter_the_Punter · April 15

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.

This used to be an obsession of mine but I gave up on it.

There seems to be a presumption that the less the jurors know about the matter before them the more just their verdict is likely to be. It's nonsense, and it used to rankle with me particularly in fraud and similar financial cases where the courts went to great lengths to ensure the jury knew nothing about such matters. A friend once sat on a jury for three months in a city fraud case and when the foreman announced a not guilty verdict the judge said 'Well I'm surprised', to which the foreman replied 'You shouldn't be. We didn't understand a word of what was going on.'

Sounds to me the Scots have a healthier approach than we do down here.

DavidL · April 15

Taz said:
Respected Senior World Statesman demands urgent de-escalation in the Middle East and condemns Iran's performative, telegraphed, feeble action.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/yousaf-condemns-iran-attack-on-israel-and-calls-for-urgent-de-escalation/ar-BB1lBopd?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=74f3f63c8d4f43ef87244290e51b7aef&ei=9

Whew, well that's that sorted then.

TimS · April 15

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
How does turnout in local elections comoare with a general election, though ?
It's not a great comparison, particularly if you're looking at propensity to stay at home.
We used to worry about that, back when I faced an election on the same day as a wider one. The analysis I did looking at canvassing and turnout over a twenty year period suggested that while turnout varied considerably, having a big jump in turnout didn’t make a massive difference to the political balance of those turning out. Which wasn’t what I expected to find, especially for us as the LibDems relying on local campaigning and local issues; I thought that those interested (or even aware of) such would be more likely to turn out in a local election than those not. But when I ran the numbers, that effect was marginal - there were almost as many declared supporters for us who only turned out for the GE as there were for the other parties.

The biggest determinant of whether someone turned out in a local election was how long they’d been living there, with a huge difference between those of twenty or more years’ residence and those with less. Newbies to the area hardly turned out at all. Insofar as there was a GE effect as above, the bias away from us arose from newbies to the area (first election at current address) turning out in a GE while being unaware of our local efforts. But some of those people don’t fill I; the local election ballot at all - it’s not uncommon for someone going to a polling station for a ‘big’ election just to ignore ballot papers for a smaller one - we see the same here for county and parish.

You’d think with the bias in turnout towards those living in an area for a long time (which I definitely sense here in Brockley too) that there would be a benefit to the conservatives in locals given the stark differences in VI by age.

Labour always seem to underperform in local elections because they leak votes to green and Lib Dem. I assume that will happen this time, but it will be useful to compare LLG and RefCon bloc numbers with polls.

In the 2023 locals the NEV for LLG was around 60%, several points higher than the polls (you’d expect it to be a touch higher than polls because of the absence of the SNP and Plaid in English local elections). Hard to estimate RefCon because the right wing minor parties were all buried within “other”.

MattW · April 15

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
The US justice system is more broken than Johnson's marriage vows.

Four years to bring a traitor and national security risk to trial.

Two justices of their highest court accused of criminal behaviour, but not prosecuted.

Plea deals dominating rather than proper process.

When they do get proper process, it's usually dragged out for so long as to make everything worthless.

Punishments that veer between punitive, bizarre, inept and never applied.

I mean, I criticise the British justice system a lot, but...

To me the US Justice System seems to have the same problems as their political system, which has something to do with the weaknesses of everything being glued to a literal 230 year old text.

One feature of the Jury System in NY is that it requires a 12-0 verdict. Mr Chump's lawyers only need one.

Another strange one is that transfer of suspects between States is termed "Extradition".

LostPassword · April 15

Nigelb said:

Nigelb said:
This Is Why Tesla’s Stainless Steel Cybertrucks May Be Rusting
Who knew stainless steel might not be such a good idea for the exterior of an electric SUV? The entire automotive industry, that’s who.
https://www.wired.com/story/this-is-why-teslas-stainless-steel-cybertrucks-may-be-rusting/

"Do not wash in direct sunlight.." ??
The loose fitting on top of the accelerator
pedal is also not ideal.
https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1779612564579647789

Happily for us, they're not road legal this side of the Atlantic.

The thing that strikes me most about that accelerator pedal is that it looks really cheap and shoddy. Precision engineering it is not.

TimS · April 15

Taz said:
Other key Midlands races would be Dudley and Rugby I would expect. I know Dudley well, not so much Rugby. I would expect Dudley to be similar to the one in the article.

I know Rugby ish as I have family there and on paper it ought to be the sort of place that trends Tory: high employment, no local university, a lot of skilled non-graduate and technical workers, has done better economically than many areas, though conversely also a younger demographic than some. But frankly I don’t really understand the Midlands mind, it remains hard to pin down, so it’s anyone’s guess.

MattW · April 15

Nigelb said:
This Is Why Tesla’s Stainless Steel Cybertrucks May Be Rusting
Who knew stainless steel might not be such a good idea for the exterior of an electric SUV? The entire automotive industry, that’s who.
https://www.wired.com/story/this-is-why-teslas-stainless-steel-cybertrucks-may-be-rusting/

"Do not wash in direct sunlight.." ??

Fortunately not our problem.

He's designed it to be so unsafe that it isn't coming to Europe.

Though I guess repealing all type approval regulations in the name of "people should be free to drive what they want" may be somewhere in Harper's and Sunk's rolodex of Hail Mary Passes.

DavidL · April 15

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.
This used to be an obsession of mine but I gave up on it.

There seems to be a presumption that the less the jurors know about the matter before them the more just their verdict is likely to be. It's nonsense, and it used to rankle with me particularly in fraud and similar financial cases where the courts went to great lengths to ensure the jury knew nothing about such matters. A friend once sat on a jury for three months in a city fraud case and when the foreman announced a not guilty verdict the judge said 'Well I'm surprised', to which the foreman replied 'You shouldn't be. We didn't understand a word of what was going on.'

Sounds to me the Scots have a healthier approach than we do down here.

Many years ago I was involved in a solicitor fraud case in Edinburgh. The jury were given a lot of the productions and i noted that they seemed to be cross referencing them. My senior explained that this was an Edinburgh jury and at least a third of them would work in financial services.

One of the challenges in such trials is to pitch things at a level that the jury is likely to understand. I had a trial at the end of last year which involved the theft of Bitcoin. We had to find witnesses who could give the jury a sufficient idea of what bitcoin were and how they were transferred without losing them in the complexities.

mwadams · April 15

If a swing of 10-15% represents roughly NEV, then *either* the Tories just hanging on or Labour narrowly winning should be champagne popping time at Labour HQ. Adding Reform back into the mix, that represents a Tory wipeout at the GE.

Though maybe they only allow themselves prosecco for the former.

numbertwelve · April 15

Nigelb said:
On the morning of his trial, it seems only fair to note that Kamala Harris, if nothing else, makes good predictions.

Don’t worry, Mr. President. I’ll see you at your trial.
https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1202008446083698689

(Dec 2019)

Speaking of which, she’s been MIA again on Iran/Israel (unless I’ve missed something).

I know the prevailing wisdom is generally that she’s useless, but the administration does itself no favours on not giving her a more visible role. If they’re pushing the message that an octogenarian needs 4 more years in the WH, they need people to buy in to the idea that their VP is ready to lead.

DavidL · April 15

LostPassword said:
Thanks Stodge. Those is exactly the sort of analysis we need to cut through the confusion of the results.

OnlyLivingBoy said:
Thanks for this Stodge, very interesting. I expect Nuneaton is the kind of seat that Labour will underperform the national polls in.

Whilst I agree with both of these I obviously don't know nearly enough about this particular council to make a comment on whether @stodge is right or not. I fear nearly all of us are in the same position, hence the lack of on topic comments.

Nigelb · April 15

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.
This used to be an obsession of mine but I gave up on it.

There seems to be a presumption that the less the jurors know about the matter before them the more just their verdict is likely to be. It's nonsense, and it used to rankle with me particularly in fraud and similar financial cases where the courts went to great lengths to ensure the jury knew nothing about such matters. A friend once sat on a jury for three months in a city fraud case and when the foreman announced a not guilty verdict the judge said 'Well I'm surprised', to which the foreman replied 'You shouldn't be. We didn't understand a word of what was going on.'

Sounds to me the Scots have a healthier approach than we do down here.

Do English juries have any right to put questions to the judge about evidence they simply don't understand ?
(As opposed to matters of law.)

pm215 · April 15

NickPalmer said:

TimS said:

Heathener said:
I may be wrong but I think if you’re paying council tax it tends to focus you on what value you’re getting for it, in a way that a more amorphous national tax doesn’t? Most council taxpayers I know are pretty invested in their local services.
I think this is an example of where you get very different levels of engagement in different segments of population.

There’s perhaps a core group of 5-10% of voters who are very invested in local government issues: they actively oppose developments, they write to their councillors about fly tipping or the local library, they ring to complain about bin collections or leaves being left on the road. They are usually retired, don’t have dependent children at home and have lived in the same area for decades.

The rest don’t really think about council politics often if at all, and form their voting intentions on the basis of national or international issues.
I think that's right, and it extends to active politicians. Many MPs have come from a council background and remain very interested in local issues, but quite a few joined their party for national or international issues and don't really care whether Acacia Drive has a pothole or not.

These days it certainly feels like my local councillors don't care if the roads in town have potholes or not -- they're in a terrible state!

TOPPING · April 15

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.
This used to be an obsession of mine but I gave up on it.

There seems to be a presumption that the less the jurors know about the matter before them the more just their verdict is likely to be. It's nonsense, and it used to rankle with me particularly in fraud and similar financial cases where the courts went to great lengths to ensure the jury knew nothing about such matters. A friend once sat on a jury for three months in a city fraud case and when the foreman announced a not guilty verdict the judge said 'Well I'm surprised', to which the foreman replied 'You shouldn't be. We didn't understand a word of what was going on.'

Sounds to me the Scots have a healthier approach than we do down here.
Many years ago I was involved in a solicitor fraud case in Edinburgh. The jury were given a lot of the productions and i noted that they seemed to be cross referencing them. My senior explained that this was an Edinburgh jury and at least a third of them would work in financial services.

One of the challenges in such trials is to pitch things at a level that the jury is likely to understand. I had a trial at the end of last year which involved the theft of Bitcoin. We had to find witnesses who could give the jury a sufficient idea of what bitcoin were and how they were transferred without losing them in the complexities.

Very interesting prog on Ch4 The Jury: Murder Trial where they have two parallel juries examining the same evidence. Although the format and content (despite it being a transcript of an actual case) has drawn much criticism from the legal profession.

On topic - I confess to having no idea who my counsellors are and have no idea who if anyone I will vote for. Perhaps some research is required.

DavidL · April 15

numbertwelve said:

Nigelb said:
On the morning of his trial, it seems only fair to note that Kamala Harris, if nothing else, makes good predictions.

Don’t worry, Mr. President. I’ll see you at your trial.
https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1202008446083698689

(Dec 2019)
Speaking of which, she’s been MIA again on Iran/Israel (unless I’ve missed something).

I know the prevailing wisdom is generally that she’s useless, but the administration does itself no favours on not giving her a more visible role. If they’re pushing the message that an octogenarian needs 4 more years in the WH, they need people to buy in to the idea that their VP is ready to lead.

You'd think she would at least be in the pictures but you are right, she has been notable for her absence. Blinken has been far more prominent.

TimS · April 15

It occurs to me that Nuneaton is at the North Western edge of a peculiarly under-known region of England that is our closest equivalent to the flyover states of the US mid-west. If Birmingham is our Chicago, as has often been claimed, then these places are our Kansas and Oklahoma. The drive-over counties.

The region is bounded in the South West by Banbury and the M40, in the North by Nuneaton, Hinckley and the Southern outskirts of Leicester, it contains half of Warwickshire and most of Northants, and nudges the borders of Bedford and Milton Keynes in the South East.

This is where the M1, M6, A14 and national rail freight systems converge, with the Watford Gap or the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal its spiritual centre.

Is there a region more accessible yet less known to the British mind than this little oval of logistics parks on the way to somewhere else? As familiar yet mysterious as Troyes, St Dizier or the Plateau de Langres in France.

algarkirk · April 15

Nigelb said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.
This used to be an obsession of mine but I gave up on it.

There seems to be a presumption that the less the jurors know about the matter before them the more just their verdict is likely to be. It's nonsense, and it used to rankle with me particularly in fraud and similar financial cases where the courts went to great lengths to ensure the jury knew nothing about such matters. A friend once sat on a jury for three months in a city fraud case and when the foreman announced a not guilty verdict the judge said 'Well I'm surprised', to which the foreman replied 'You shouldn't be. We didn't understand a word of what was going on.'

Sounds to me the Scots have a healthier approach than we do down here.
Do English juries have any right to put questions to the judge about evidence they simply don't understand ?
(As opposed to matters of law.)

Yes, but the judge cannot add to, interpret, draw conclusions from or try to explain the evidence. He can repeat what has been said and (at a risk) put it in different words. But going outside the evidence will risk giving rise to an appeal.

It is the task of the prosecution to be comprehensible. (The defence task is often of course to cause incomprehension).

DavidL · April 15

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.
This used to be an obsession of mine but I gave up on it.

There seems to be a presumption that the less the jurors know about the matter before them the more just their verdict is likely to be. It's nonsense, and it used to rankle with me particularly in fraud and similar financial cases where the courts went to great lengths to ensure the jury knew nothing about such matters. A friend once sat on a jury for three months in a city fraud case and when the foreman announced a not guilty verdict the judge said 'Well I'm surprised', to which the foreman replied 'You shouldn't be. We didn't understand a word of what was going on.'

Sounds to me the Scots have a healthier approach than we do down here.
Many years ago I was involved in a solicitor fraud case in Edinburgh. The jury were given a lot of the productions and i noted that they seemed to be cross referencing them. My senior explained that this was an Edinburgh jury and at least a third of them would work in financial services.

One of the challenges in such trials is to pitch things at a level that the jury is likely to understand. I had a trial at the end of last year which involved the theft of Bitcoin. We had to find witnesses who could give the jury a sufficient idea of what bitcoin were and how they were transferred without losing them in the complexities.
Very interesting prog on Ch4 The Jury: Murder Trial where they have two parallel juries examining the same evidence. Although the format and content (despite it being a transcript of an actual case) has drawn much criticism from the legal profession.

On topic - I confess to having no idea who my counsellors are and have no idea who if anyone I will vote for. Perhaps some research is required.

I watched the program and it was interesting. Not sure what the criticism of it was. What it showed, particularly in respect of one jury, is that a very strong willed juror can turn things his own way but, then, anyone who has watched 12 angry men knew that.

There may be a bit of Schrodinger's Cat about it as well. Does the fact that they knew that it was not a real trial and that they were being watched and recorded affect their behaviour? I think that is a more legitimate criticism but both juries did seem to take their role pretty seriously.

And no, I don't know who my local councillor is either.

Luckyguy1983 · April 15

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.
Iff Sturgeon is charged, the jury selection process is going to be fun.

Malcolmg as a juror in that case would be fun.
There is sometimes a more general question asked as to whether there is any other reason as to why they could not be impartial in the case (in rape cases this often triggers concerns by those who might have been affected by something similar in their past) and that question would be more prominent in that case but the procedure will be the same and there is no express right of objection by either the Crown or the defence (although a claim that the accused knew a juror, for example, would be taken seriously).

He'd need to be frisked for turnips.

algarkirk · April 15

TimS said:
It occurs to me that Nuneaton is at the North Western edge of a peculiarly under-known region of England that is our closest equivalent to the flyover states of the US mid-west. If Birmingham is our Chicago, as has often been claimed, then these places are our Kansas and Oklahoma. The drive-over counties.

The region is bounded in the South West by Banbury and the M40, in the North by Nuneaton, Hinckley and the Southern outskirts of Leicester, it contains half of Warwickshire and most of Northants, and nudges the borders of Bedford and Milton Keynes in the South East.

This is where the M1, M6, A14 and national rail freight systems converge, with the Watford Gap or the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal its spiritual centre.

Is there a region more accessible yet less known to the British mind than this little oval of logistics parks on the way to somewhere else? As familiar yet mysterious as Troyes, St Dizier or the Plateau de Langres in France.

Lincolnshire is accessible but remains unknown. As does much of Cumbria outside the National park area, though the M6 runs through the middle of much of it.

Nigelb · April 15

algarkirk said:

Nigelb said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.
This used to be an obsession of mine but I gave up on it.

There seems to be a presumption that the less the jurors know about the matter before them the more just their verdict is likely to be. It's nonsense, and it used to rankle with me particularly in fraud and similar financial cases where the courts went to great lengths to ensure the jury knew nothing about such matters. A friend once sat on a jury for three months in a city fraud case and when the foreman announced a not guilty verdict the judge said 'Well I'm surprised', to which the foreman replied 'You shouldn't be. We didn't understand a word of what was going on.'

Sounds to me the Scots have a healthier approach than we do down here.
Do English juries have any right to put questions to the judge about evidence they simply don't understand ?
(As opposed to matters of law.)
Yes, but the judge cannot add to, interpret, draw conclusions from or try to explain the evidence. He can repeat what has been said and (at a risk) put it in different words. But going outside the evidence will risk giving rise to an appeal.

It is the task of the prosecution to be comprehensible. (The defence task is often of course to cause incomprehension).

I was thinking about earlier in the trial, so the lawyers on both sides become aware of the incomprehension.

In the US, the grand jury system does allow direct questioning by the jurors.
Perhaps not a bad idea to have something along those lines in complex cases, ahead of an actual trial ?

HYUFD · April 15

Nuneaton was Labour until 2010 and has been Conservative since.

So Labour should really take control of this bellwether council if Starmer is heading for a clear majority

OnlyLivingBoy · April 15

algarkirk said:

TimS said:
It occurs to me that Nuneaton is at the North Western edge of a peculiarly under-known region of England that is our closest equivalent to the flyover states of the US mid-west. If Birmingham is our Chicago, as has often been claimed, then these places are our Kansas and Oklahoma. The drive-over counties.

The region is bounded in the South West by Banbury and the M40, in the North by Nuneaton, Hinckley and the Southern outskirts of Leicester, it contains half of Warwickshire and most of Northants, and nudges the borders of Bedford and Milton Keynes in the South East.

This is where the M1, M6, A14 and national rail freight systems converge, with the Watford Gap or the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal its spiritual centre.

Is there a region more accessible yet less known to the British mind than this little oval of logistics parks on the way to somewhere else? As familiar yet mysterious as Troyes, St Dizier or the Plateau de Langres in France.
Lincolnshire is accessible but remains unknown. As does much of Cumbria outside the National park area, though the M6 runs through the middle of much of it.

Yes the area where the East Midlands meets the South East and East Anglia - Bedford, Northampton, Lincoln, Peterborough - seems the most anonymous and unknown to me. What's the accent? What are the regional food items? What do they call a bread roll or a small pedestrian alley? How do they pronounce scone? No idea.

Leon · April 15

TheScreamingEagles said:
Liz Truss has claimed that Boris Johnson confirmed suspicions about Michael Gove leaking damaging information during the 2019 Tory leadership contest.

Tensions between Truss and Gove were exacerbated after he withdrew his support for Johnson’s campaign to lead the Conservative Party, she said.

Details of the long, fractious relationship between the two leading Tories have been disclosed in her new book, Ten Years to Save the West. Truss has written a memoir about her 49 days as prime minister, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.

She describes her anger at Gove when he withdrew his support at the last minute for Johnson’s first attempt to lead the Tory party in 2016. She wrote that, three years later, during a further leadership contest after Theresa May resigned, Johnson phoned her. He asked Truss whether “I’d leaked something”.

She replied: “I told him it had been Michael Gove — and what did he expect, given that Gove was a serial offender? I pressed him: ‘Did he think Gove had been leaking?’ Mr Johnson replied: ‘Do bears shit in the woods?’”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-says-boris-johnson-knew-michael-gove-was-a-serial-leaker-tpvbfrx7s

Has anyone ever actually seen a bear shitting in the woods? I haven’t. I bet no one on here has, either. It’s just one of those things we take as accepted: bears defecate in forested areas. It’s probably not true. Maybe they poo in glades. Maybe they go off and do their business by the sides of rivers, or in dedicated timber latrines constructed by beavers. Maybe they never poo at all, the same way sharks don’t urinate

I’ve also got my doubts about the orthodoxy of the Pontiff, but that’s for another time

OnlyLivingBoy · April 15

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Liz Truss has claimed that Boris Johnson confirmed suspicions about Michael Gove leaking damaging information during the 2019 Tory leadership contest.

Tensions between Truss and Gove were exacerbated after he withdrew his support for Johnson’s campaign to lead the Conservative Party, she said.

Details of the long, fractious relationship between the two leading Tories have been disclosed in her new book, Ten Years to Save the West. Truss has written a memoir about her 49 days as prime minister, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.

She describes her anger at Gove when he withdrew his support at the last minute for Johnson’s first attempt to lead the Tory party in 2016. She wrote that, three years later, during a further leadership contest after Theresa May resigned, Johnson phoned her. He asked Truss whether “I’d leaked something”.

She replied: “I told him it had been Michael Gove — and what did he expect, given that Gove was a serial offender? I pressed him: ‘Did he think Gove had been leaking?’ Mr Johnson replied: ‘Do bears shit in the woods?’”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-says-boris-johnson-knew-michael-gove-was-a-serial-leaker-tpvbfrx7s
Has anyone ever actually seen a bear shitting in the woods? I haven’t. I bet no one on here has, either. It’s just one of those things we take as accepted: bears defecate in forested areas. It’s probably not true. Maybe they poo in glades. Maybe they go off and do their business by the sides of rivers, or in dedicated timber latrines constructed by beavers. Maybe they never poo at all, the same way sharks don’t urinate

I’ve also got my doubts about the orthodoxy of the Pontiff, but that’s for another time

If I saw a bear in the woods I'd probably be the one vacating my bowels.

Leon · April 15

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Liz Truss has claimed that Boris Johnson confirmed suspicions about Michael Gove leaking damaging information during the 2019 Tory leadership contest.

Tensions between Truss and Gove were exacerbated after he withdrew his support for Johnson’s campaign to lead the Conservative Party, she said.

Details of the long, fractious relationship between the two leading Tories have been disclosed in her new book, Ten Years to Save the West. Truss has written a memoir about her 49 days as prime minister, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.

She describes her anger at Gove when he withdrew his support at the last minute for Johnson’s first attempt to lead the Tory party in 2016. She wrote that, three years later, during a further leadership contest after Theresa May resigned, Johnson phoned her. He asked Truss whether “I’d leaked something”.

She replied: “I told him it had been Michael Gove — and what did he expect, given that Gove was a serial offender? I pressed him: ‘Did he think Gove had been leaking?’ Mr Johnson replied: ‘Do bears shit in the woods?’”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-says-boris-johnson-knew-michael-gove-was-a-serial-leaker-tpvbfrx7s
Has anyone ever actually seen a bear shitting in the woods? I haven’t. I bet no one on here has, either. It’s just one of those things we take as accepted: bears defecate in forested areas. It’s probably not true. Maybe they poo in glades. Maybe they go off and do their business by the sides of rivers, or in dedicated timber latrines constructed by beavers. Maybe they never poo at all, the same way sharks don’t urinate

I’ve also got my doubts about the orthodoxy of the Pontiff, but that’s for another time
If I saw a bear in the woods I'd probably be the one vacating my bowels.

I’ve only seen a wild bear once, a female black bear crossing a road in Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado. Judging by the season it had just emerged from hibernation

You know what it WASN’T doing? Shitting in the woods. Yup

JosiasJessop · April 15

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Liz Truss has claimed that Boris Johnson confirmed suspicions about Michael Gove leaking damaging information during the 2019 Tory leadership contest.

Tensions between Truss and Gove were exacerbated after he withdrew his support for Johnson’s campaign to lead the Conservative Party, she said.

Details of the long, fractious relationship between the two leading Tories have been disclosed in her new book, Ten Years to Save the West. Truss has written a memoir about her 49 days as prime minister, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.

She describes her anger at Gove when he withdrew his support at the last minute for Johnson’s first attempt to lead the Tory party in 2016. She wrote that, three years later, during a further leadership contest after Theresa May resigned, Johnson phoned her. He asked Truss whether “I’d leaked something”.

She replied: “I told him it had been Michael Gove — and what did he expect, given that Gove was a serial offender? I pressed him: ‘Did he think Gove had been leaking?’ Mr Johnson replied: ‘Do bears shit in the woods?’”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-says-boris-johnson-knew-michael-gove-was-a-serial-leaker-tpvbfrx7s
Has anyone ever actually seen a bear shitting in the woods? I haven’t. I bet no one on here has, either. It’s just one of those things we take as accepted: bears defecate in forested areas. It’s probably not true. Maybe they poo in glades. Maybe they go off and do their business by the sides of rivers, or in dedicated timber latrines constructed by beavers. Maybe they never poo at all, the same way sharks don’t urinate

I’ve also got my doubts about the orthodoxy of the Pontiff, but that’s for another time

Well, I've never seen you poo either. Thank God. Which, if your 'argument' follows, means that you must be full of shit.

Which explains your posts...

Nigelb · April 15

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Liz Truss has claimed that Boris Johnson confirmed suspicions about Michael Gove leaking damaging information during the 2019 Tory leadership contest.

Tensions between Truss and Gove were exacerbated after he withdrew his support for Johnson’s campaign to lead the Conservative Party, she said.

Details of the long, fractious relationship between the two leading Tories have been disclosed in her new book, Ten Years to Save the West. Truss has written a memoir about her 49 days as prime minister, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.

She describes her anger at Gove when he withdrew his support at the last minute for Johnson’s first attempt to lead the Tory party in 2016. She wrote that, three years later, during a further leadership contest after Theresa May resigned, Johnson phoned her. He asked Truss whether “I’d leaked something”.

She replied: “I told him it had been Michael Gove — and what did he expect, given that Gove was a serial offender? I pressed him: ‘Did he think Gove had been leaking?’ Mr Johnson replied: ‘Do bears shit in the woods?’”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-says-boris-johnson-knew-michael-gove-was-a-serial-leaker-tpvbfrx7s
Has anyone ever actually seen a bear shitting in the woods? I haven’t. I bet no one on here has, either. It’s just one of those things we take as accepted: bears defecate in forested areas. It’s probably not true. Maybe they poo in glades. Maybe they go off and do their business by the sides of rivers, or in dedicated timber latrines constructed by beavers. Maybe they never poo at all, the same way sharks don’t urinate

I’ve also got my doubts about the orthodoxy of the Pontiff, but that’s for another time

Bears live in woods, and bears shit, so it's reasonable to assume they do so in the woods, even if you've never directly witnessed it yourself. A similar reasoning process applies to Gove.

Maybe they never poo at all..
Are you on the ayahusca again ?

MarqueeMark · April 15

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
They may not know them personally, but may be happy with their nimbyism for example, or action on potholes and council tax.
The Lib Dems are now known in Horsham. Popular is not a word one would associate with them.

It will be the same if Labour win the GE . They will be loathed
I do not expect Starmer to be loved, and some will loathe him.

The Tories mistake post GE will be to pick a leader even more loathed.

Assuming she holds her seat, I don't see Penny Mordaunt managing to pull that off.

Donkeys · April 15

FPT

Donkeys said:
Off-topic: what does it mean in a British state school when a pupil is "asked to write a statement"? I came across this expression in reports about an argument between pupils and a teacher about trans, gender, and cat-identification:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/teacher-cat-despicable-b2361573.html

Does this kind of "statement" go to Prevent?

Is it a way to say "If you're sure you still think what you said, then write it down. Otherwise write that you recant"? Or what? What is it??

Is there some public-domain official guidance on this?

??

TimS · April 15

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

TimS said:
It occurs to me that Nuneaton is at the North Western edge of a peculiarly under-known region of England that is our closest equivalent to the flyover states of the US mid-west. If Birmingham is our Chicago, as has often been claimed, then these places are our Kansas and Oklahoma. The drive-over counties.

The region is bounded in the South West by Banbury and the M40, in the North by Nuneaton, Hinckley and the Southern outskirts of Leicester, it contains half of Warwickshire and most of Northants, and nudges the borders of Bedford and Milton Keynes in the South East.

This is where the M1, M6, A14 and national rail freight systems converge, with the Watford Gap or the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal its spiritual centre.

Is there a region more accessible yet less known to the British mind than this little oval of logistics parks on the way to somewhere else? As familiar yet mysterious as Troyes, St Dizier or the Plateau de Langres in France.
Lincolnshire is accessible but remains unknown. As does much of Cumbria outside the National park area, though the M6 runs through the middle of much of it.

Yes the area where the East Midlands meets the South East and East Anglia - Bedford, Northampton, Lincoln, Peterborough - seems the most anonymous and unknown to me. What's the accent? What are the regional food items? What do they call a bread roll or a small pedestrian alley? How do they pronounce scone? No idea.

The accent is another of those we hear frequently yet rarely place. Best epitomised by the sadly recently departed Jonnie Irwin of Escape to the Country - his is a classic Rugby accent. And I suppose Lineker's Leicester accent is fairly typical of the region too, similar to Jonnie's.

Lincolnshire I think is a place apart. Not the same as the driveover states. Economically, historically and politically. More Northern, on the A1 not M1 corridor, on the East Coast not the West Coast mainline, not on HS2, substantially poorer. The driveover counties are at the absolute heart of the country geographically and logistically.

If they are Kansas perhaps Lincs is Mississippi.

MarqueeMark · April 15

Between Israel and Iran knocking seven shades of shit out of each other and the start of the Trump trial, today would be a good day to bury bad news.

Watch what Rishi does today VERY CAREFULLY!

tlg86 · April 15

Excellent thread header, thank you @stodge

Mexicanpete · April 15

...

MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
They may not know them personally, but may be happy with their nimbyism for example, or action on potholes and council tax.
The Lib Dems are now known in Horsham. Popular is not a word one would associate with them.

It will be the same if Labour win the GE . They will be loathed
I do not expect Starmer to be loved, and some will loathe him.

The Tories mistake post GE will be to pick a leader even more loathed.
Assuming she holds her seat, I don't see Penny Mordaunt managing to pull that off.

Other than her easy on the eye look her Parliamentary career hasn't exactly been glittering, and if she has many more "fight, fight" speeches in her, I don't believe she is the silver bullet either before or after the election. That said, the alternatives are startlingly bad.

The Conservatives's best hope is Labour are as hopeless as you predict. That in itself might not save Tory bacon. We have Mr Tice and Mr Farage offering top quality snake oil. They might do for the Conservatives, not Labour.

viewcode · April 15

tlg86 said:
Excellent thread header, thank you @stodge

Yes I thought that too @stodge. A credit as always.

Stocky · April 15

OnlyLivingBoy said:

algarkirk said:

TimS said:
It occurs to me that Nuneaton is at the North Western edge of a peculiarly under-known region of England that is our closest equivalent to the flyover states of the US mid-west. If Birmingham is our Chicago, as has often been claimed, then these places are our Kansas and Oklahoma. The drive-over counties.

The region is bounded in the South West by Banbury and the M40, in the North by Nuneaton, Hinckley and the Southern outskirts of Leicester, it contains half of Warwickshire and most of Northants, and nudges the borders of Bedford and Milton Keynes in the South East.

This is where the M1, M6, A14 and national rail freight systems converge, with the Watford Gap or the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal its spiritual centre.

Is there a region more accessible yet less known to the British mind than this little oval of logistics parks on the way to somewhere else? As familiar yet mysterious as Troyes, St Dizier or the Plateau de Langres in France.
Lincolnshire is accessible but remains unknown. As does much of Cumbria outside the National park area, though the M6 runs through the middle of much of it.

Yes the area where the East Midlands meets the South East and East Anglia - Bedford, Northampton, Lincoln, Peterborough - seems the most anonymous and unknown to me. What's the accent? What are the regional food items? What do they call a bread roll or a small pedestrian alley? How do they pronounce scone? No idea.

Lincolnshire is north of Leicester so 'scon'. The rest scone.

No_Offence_Alan · April 15

Heathener said:
I may be wrong but I think if you’re paying council tax it tends to focus you on what value you’re getting for it, in a way that a more amorphous national tax doesn’t?
Most council taxpayers I know are pretty invested in their local services.

If they were, they would be agitating for higher council tax.

MattW · April 15

TimS said:
It occurs to me that Nuneaton is at the North Western edge of a peculiarly under-known region of England that is our closest equivalent to the flyover states of the US mid-west. If Birmingham is our Chicago, as has often been claimed, then these places are our Kansas and Oklahoma. The drive-over counties.

The region is bounded in the South West by Banbury and the M40, in the North by Nuneaton, Hinckley and the Southern outskirts of Leicester, it contains half of Warwickshire and most of Northants, and nudges the borders of Bedford and Milton Keynes in the South East.

This is where the M1, M6, A14 and national rail freight systems converge, with the Watford Gap or the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal its spiritual centre.

Is there a region more accessible yet less known to the British mind than this little oval of logistics parks on the way to somewhere else? As familiar yet mysterious as Troyes, St Dizier or the Plateau de Langres in France.

It's an attractive area. Nice, but without being stuffed full with too many Southerners.

I think that eg the National Forest is underpinning long-term improvement in the area S of Leicester. It's main problem is that it's a bit flat.

(Totally unbiased)

Benpointer · April 15

Great threader header - nice analysis - thanks @Stodge!

Casino_Royale · April 15

On topic, I'm not sure there's any seat right now that's safe for the Conservatives.

What I don't know is how things would play out in a GE campign and what pitch Sunak and CCHQ can cry to rally (some) centre-right support around them.

MarqueeMark · April 15

Mexicanpete said:
...
MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
They may not know them personally, but may be happy with their nimbyism for example, or action on potholes and council tax.
The Lib Dems are now known in Horsham. Popular is not a word one would associate with them.

It will be the same if Labour win the GE . They will be loathed
I do not expect Starmer to be loved, and some will loathe him.

The Tories mistake post GE will be to pick a leader even more loathed.
Assuming she holds her seat, I don't see Penny Mordaunt managing to pull that off.
Other than her easy on the eye look her Parliamentary career hasn't exactly been glittering, and if she has many more "fight, fight" speeches in her, I don't believe she is the silver bullet either before or after the election. That said, the alternatives are startlingly bad.

The Conservatives's best hope is Labour are as hopeless as you predict. That in itself might not save Tory bacon. We have Mr Tice and Mr Farage offering top quality snake oil. They might do for the Conservatives, not Labour.

Tice is a political nothing. Farage at least has his Powell Lite schtick.

boulay · April 15

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:
Liz Truss has claimed that Boris Johnson confirmed suspicions about Michael Gove leaking damaging information during the 2019 Tory leadership contest.

Tensions between Truss and Gove were exacerbated after he withdrew his support for Johnson’s campaign to lead the Conservative Party, she said.

Details of the long, fractious relationship between the two leading Tories have been disclosed in her new book, Ten Years to Save the West. Truss has written a memoir about her 49 days as prime minister, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.

She describes her anger at Gove when he withdrew his support at the last minute for Johnson’s first attempt to lead the Tory party in 2016. She wrote that, three years later, during a further leadership contest after Theresa May resigned, Johnson phoned her. He asked Truss whether “I’d leaked something”.

She replied: “I told him it had been Michael Gove — and what did he expect, given that Gove was a serial offender? I pressed him: ‘Did he think Gove had been leaking?’ Mr Johnson replied: ‘Do bears shit in the woods?’”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-says-boris-johnson-knew-michael-gove-was-a-serial-leaker-tpvbfrx7s
Has anyone ever actually seen a bear shitting in the woods? I haven’t. I bet no one on here has, either. It’s just one of those things we take as accepted: bears defecate in forested areas. It’s probably not true. Maybe they poo in glades. Maybe they go off and do their business by the sides of rivers, or in dedicated timber latrines constructed by beavers. Maybe they never poo at all, the same way sharks don’t urinate

I’ve also got my doubts about the orthodoxy of the Pontiff, but that’s for another time
If I saw a bear in the woods I'd probably be the one vacating my bowels.

You really want to hold it in, imagine how embarrassed you would be when the emergency services turn up to collect your mauled body and they find you’ve crapped yourself.

Mexicanpete · April 15

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:
...
MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
They may not know them personally, but may be happy with their nimbyism for example, or action on potholes and council tax.
The Lib Dems are now known in Horsham. Popular is not a word one would associate with them.

It will be the same if Labour win the GE . They will be loathed
I do not expect Starmer to be loved, and some will loathe him.

The Tories mistake post GE will be to pick a leader even more loathed.
Assuming she holds her seat, I don't see Penny Mordaunt managing to pull that off.
Other than her easy on the eye look her Parliamentary career hasn't exactly been glittering, and if she has many more "fight, fight" speeches in her, I don't believe she is the silver bullet either before or after the election. That said, the alternatives are startlingly bad.

The Conservatives's best hope is Labour are as hopeless as you predict. That in itself might not save Tory bacon. We have Mr Tice and Mr Farage offering top quality snake oil. They might do for the Conservatives, not Labour.
Tice is a political nothing. Farage at least has his Powell Lite schtick.

FWIW, I think you should be kicking these f******* as hard as you are Labour.

Donkeys · April 15

Nigelb said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:
Naughty but funny:

‘Donald Trump isn’t on trial for paying off Stormy Daniels. He’s on trial for being stupid.’

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/donald-trump-isnt-on-trial-for-paying-off-stormy-daniels-hes-on-trial-for-being-stupid-f20055b3
I was saying this over the weekend. The facts of today's trial are not actually in dispute. The question for Trump is whether he should be held to account for his actions. He believes not for reasons...well, reasons.

Still incredulous that they are going to take 2-3 weeks to select a jury though.
They are presumably scouring other planets for jurors who have never heard of Trump.
Which is a bit of a double edged sword when you think about it. Anyone that disengaged from current affairs is highly likely to be (a) thick as 2 short planks and (b) pretty random in his or her views of life.

In Scotland the jury are selected without any faff. Once selected they are asked 4 questions:

1. Do they directly or indirectly know the accused or anyone else who is mentioned on the indictment?
2. Do they recognise the person in the dock (admittedly that might be a problem in this case).
3.Do they know of anyone who might be a witness in the case?
4. The trial is going to last X days. Is that going to cause them a problem beyond mere inconvenience and make their lives impossible?

We then have an adjournment so anyone saying yes or maybe can be discussed and, if appropriate, replaced with one of the 5 substitutes available for that purpose.
This used to be an obsession of mine but I gave up on it.

There seems to be a presumption that the less the jurors know about the matter before them the more just their verdict is likely to be. It's nonsense, and it used to rankle with me particularly in fraud and similar financial cases where the courts went to great lengths to ensure the jury knew nothing about such matters. A friend once sat on a jury for three months in a city fraud case and when the foreman announced a not guilty verdict the judge said 'Well I'm surprised', to which the foreman replied 'You shouldn't be. We didn't understand a word of what was going on.'

Sounds to me the Scots have a healthier approach than we do down here.
Do English juries have any right to put questions to the judge about evidence they simply don't understand ?
(As opposed to matters of law.)

Jurors in England and Wales can put questions to a witness if they don't understand what the witness has said, or if they want to ask about an issue that hasn't been covered.

It's the judge that actually reads them out, and he can probably refuse to ask a question that's completely stupid. But I once heard a judge put an idiotic question to a defence witness about the witness's political opinions. It was totally irrelevant to the charge. The witness was a family member of the defendant, but it would have been equally irrelevant had it been put to the defendant herself. It had clearly come from a juror who was of a Sun-reading mentality. The witness answered it with irony (possibly a mistake) and commented to the judge "What a disgraceful question to put to a witness!" The judge was apologetic and said "I agree with you, but it came from a member of the jury".

Of course in other trials jurors have put some very apposite questions on issues that barristers including the judge have missed.

eek · April 15

Casino_Royale said:
On topic, I'm not sure there's any seat right now that's safe for the Conservatives.

What I don't know is how things would play out in a GE campign and what pitch Sunak and CCHQ can cry to rally (some) centre-right support around them.

I half expect them to start with we have successfully sent 1 flight of 300 people to Rwanda.

Which would allow the opposition to list the total cost over £1m per person and the fact that’s 1/6th of the people who would be sent there every year

MarqueeMark · April 15

Mexicanpete said:

MarqueeMark said:

Mexicanpete said:
...
MarqueeMark said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
This is the key paragraph from the header:-

With no Reform candidates, we can test a couple of polling hypotheses – first, the notion the Reform vote is all disaffected Conservatives who will return to the blue rosette. If we have no Reform candidates, these voters will either stay at home for the locals or support the local Conservative. The second hypothesis is the limited polling evidence showing only a third of Reform voters would support the Conservatives in the absence of a Reform candidate.
There is of course a third option, to vote Labour, Green or even for the lonely LD.

I am of the opinion that while the Tories are nationally deeply unpopular, at a local level people may well support their Councillor. No doubt some will vote on national issues and sympathies, not all will and it may well deliver false hope to Rishi.

Once again we have a dearth of betting markets, apart from the mayoral elections. A market on the NEV for the main parties would be of interest.
How many people know - or care - who their councillors are?
They may not know them personally, but may be happy with their nimbyism for example, or action on potholes and council tax.
The Lib Dems are now known in Horsham. Popular is not a word one would associate with them.

It will be the same if Labour win the GE . They will be loathed
I do not expect Starmer to be loved, and some will loathe him.

The Tories mistake post GE will be to pick a leader even more loathed.
Assuming she holds her seat, I don't see Penny Mordaunt managing to pull that off.
Other than her easy on the eye look her Parliamentary career hasn't exactly been glittering, and if she has many more "fight, fight" speeches in her, I don't believe she is the silver bullet either before or after the election. That said, the alternatives are startlingly bad.

The Conservatives's best hope is Labour are as hopeless as you predict. That in itself might not save Tory bacon. We have Mr Tice and Mr Farage offering top quality snake oil. They might do for the Conservatives, not Labour.
Tice is a political nothing. Farage at least has his Powell Lite schtick.
FWIW, I think you should be kicking these f******* as hard as you are Labour.

I do!! I am second to no man in my loathing for Farage.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

What are the key races in this round of local elections? – politicalbetting.com

Comments