This could be suboptimal for the SNP in an election year – politicalbetting.com

Second. No third

algarkirk said:

Second. No third

Now you see it, now you don't.

TSE's test post that is

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Rishi now polling LOWER than Liz Truss!

It’s almost like he’s SUBMITTING to her while she is @TOPPING him

From tail-end PT . . . Think you can scratch Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee from list of potential Trump VP picks

Audit of $19,000 lectern purchase for Arkansas governor released
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4yk0ILc9CM

Daughter of former Gov, POTUS-hopeful and full-time God-Botherer Mike Huckabee. Who can be seen VERY frequently flogging something on El Cheapo broadcast TV.

The rotten crab-apple does NOT fall far from the rotten crab-apple tree.

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

.

Scott_xP said:

@Nicoledso

Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border

UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K

FFS...

Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.

And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.

This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.

What's the problem?

If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.

If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.

No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.

We are hurting ourselves. All imports need reams of paperwork specifically for the checks we're no longer going to implement.

I have no problem scrapping BTOM. But we can't do so by merely not bothering. We need to change the treaty so that importing nations are not treaty bound to impose large costs and delays. Its beyond stupid.

As for "needlessly tie ourselves to our standards" - lets assume we have imposed higher standards. As you suggest. How do we impose those? When we don't check? We would need the checks - otherwise we get whatever they send.

We set our standards at however we want to set them, and recognise theirs as equivalent even if not the same.

I know that importing food is my job and not yours, so I'm not as clued up as you, but huh?

So we set standard A++ and the EU standard is A. We recognise theirs as equivalent and wave it through. So what is the point in A++? Do you mean only for UK producers?

So you want to set a higher cost standard for UK products consumed domestically. Our costs go up making imports relatively cheaper. And as our products cost more our ability to export is reduced even further.

Sounds great!

So we recognise A and accept it. Just as we'd accept it if we were in the EU anyway.

You're acting as if its on a linear scale so either A or A- or A++ but that's not how equivalence works.

Indeed the EEC used to operate mostly based on equivalence and not uniformity previously, plenty of trade agreements around the planet operate based on the principle of equivalence, do they not?

Here are the juror instructions used in Washington state: https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/resources/?fa=newsinfo_jury.jury_guide
"How was I chosen?
First, your name was selected at random from voter registration and driver's license and "identicard" records. Then, your answers to the juror questionnaire were evaluated to make sure you were eligible for jury service.

To be eligible, you must be at least 18 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a resident of the county in which you are to serve as a juror, and you must be able to communicate in English. If you have ever been convicted of a felony, you must have had your civil rights restored. Those eligible may be excused from jury service if they have illnesses that would interfere with their ability to do a good job, would suffer great hardship if required to serve, or are unable to serve for other legitimate reasons."

Some people choose not to register to vote in an effort to stay out of the pool.

Fun fact: At one time -- and perhaps still, though I have never heard of it happening -- if a jury was short a member, the judge could ask the bailiff to go out and find a citizen to fill the vacancy.

(Disclosure: I was called three times, and on a jury once. The first time I was the second person dismissed by the public defender, after the police officer -- whihc I took as a compliment. The time I served was one of the most miserable experiences in my life. The couple (who had two children) needed a marriage counselor, not a trial.)

Jim_Miller said:

Here are the juror instructions used in Washington state: https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/resources/?fa=newsinfo_jury.jury_guide

Some people choose not to register to vote in an effort to stay out of the pool.

Fun fact: At one time -- and perhaps still, though I have never heard of it happening -- if a jury was short a member, the judge could ask the bailiff to go out and find a citizen to fill the vacancy.

(Disclosure: I was called three times, and on a jury once. The first time I was the second person dismissed by the public defender, after the police officer -- whihc I took as a compliment. The time I served was one of the most miserable experiences in my life. The couple (who had two children) needed a marriage counselor, not a trial.)

I quite like our system here in the UK, where jury selection is totally random with no screening for people's opinions, etc.

Labour is relying on their voters just sighing and saying okay just dump on us some more !

Youth mobility for younger people isn’t that controversial . Given younger people overwhelmingly voted Remain this is a very generous gesture by the EU .

The Greens and Lib Dems will rightly hammer Labour on their betrayal.

Soon you’ll need to vote Tory to have closer links with the EU !

 

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

As a leaver, me too, I'm astonished at Starmer's reluctance to cheer this on

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

Cyclefree said:

squareroot2 said:

Thus only Murrell. Is he going to take the fall for others?

Will his wife be a witness?

For the defence or the prosecution?

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.

Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.

He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.

Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.

geoffw said:

 

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

As a leaver, me too, I'm astonished at Starmer's reluctance to cheer this on

He’s either a fucking idiot or a liar

My guess - and it is a guess - is that Starmer is a cowardly liar (he is a lawyer) and that when he wins he will pivot 180 degrees and say oh actually this is a good idea. Which means this will happen but voters might turn on him for his lies

Alternatively he is a genuine idiot and he can’t see a good and generous offer when it is made. Astonishing

BartholomewRoberts said:

squareroot2 said:

Cyclefree said:

squareroot2 said:

Thus only Murrell. Is he going to take the fall for others?

Will his wife be a witness?

For the defence or the prosecution?

Yes.

Will she go down then?

turbotubbs said:

I’m sure lots will come out at the trial, but why the hell has it taken so long? Arrested last year first time round. Justice ought to be swifter (and it’s a huge problem UK wide).

A minor case that I'm involved in will take over three years to come to court in Scotland.

(It wasn't me!)

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.

Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.

He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.

Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.

This feels like Starmer’s first massive unforced error. He’s completely misjudged the national mood

NYT (via Seattle Times) - Arizona Republicans splinter over repeal of 1864 abortion ban

PHOENIX — The two chambers of Arizona’s state Legislature diverged sharply Wednesday over whether to repeal the state’s 1864 law banning abortion, capping a chaotic day as legislators and activists sparred over the fate of the Civil War-era ban.

Only hours after Republicans in the state House scuttled another effort to repeal the ban, which was upheld by a state Supreme Court ruling last week, a handful of Republicans in the state Senate sided with Democrats and allowed them to introduce a bill to repeal it.

It will be at least a week before the Senate can vote on the bill, but the matter could be a moot point unless Democrats in the House find a way to get a bill passed there.

The House Republican leadership shows no signs of relenting, despite pressure from prominent Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, to toss the ban that many voters viewed as extreme and archaic. . . .

Republicans narrowly control both houses of the Arizona Legislature, but foresaw a grave political threat in backing a measure widely seen as out of touch with voters. The court ruling last week that upheld the ban infuriated supporters of abortion rights, exhilarated opponents of abortion and set off a political firestorm in Arizona.

Repealing the [1864] law, which allows only an exception to save the life of the mother, and says doctors prosecuted under the law could face fines and prison terms of two to five years, would revert Arizona to a 15-week abortion ban. . . .

SSI - Note that Kari Lake (former heart-throb of at least one peripathetic PBer) has been lobbying Republican state legislators to repeal the law she once said was best thing since botox (or words to that effect). Despite pleadings by her & Trump, the AZ House GOP leadership maintained control over its members on key procedural vote. Whereas in the state senate the Republican caucus did NOT remain united, thus allowing ad hoc coalition of Dems plus pro-choice Reps.

Stay tuned for further developments . . .

 

Leon said:

geoffw said:

 

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

As a leaver, me too, I'm astonished at Starmer's reluctance to cheer this on

He’s either a fucking idiot or a liar

My guess - and it is a guess - is that Starmer is a cowardly liar (he is a lawyer) and that when he wins he will pivot 180 degrees and say oh actually this is a good idea. Which means this will happen but voters might turn on him for his lies

Alternatively he is a genuine idiot and he can’t see a good and generous offer when it is made. Astonishing

Rishi should finesse him by publicly praising the EU's proposal

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.

Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.

He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.

Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.

Even on the purely cynical viewpoint, it will have *some* resemblance, because in government you have an eye to the next election, and the same set of voters you were trying to avoid scaring off before you won will still be out there needing to be persuaded to vote for you again the next time around. This is a difference to Labour leadership elections, where as Corbyn showed once you're in you're in and it's very hard to shift you: so there's less need to worry about annoying the people who voted for you.

Suppose we've all got to be very careful about what we say on here, Re. Mr Sturgeon?

JohnLilburne said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

.

Scott_xP said:

@Nicoledso

Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border

UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K

FFS...

Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.

And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.

This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.

What's the problem?

If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.

If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.

No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.

We are hurting ourselves. All imports need reams of paperwork specifically for the checks we're no longer going to implement.

I have no problem scrapping BTOM. But we can't do so by merely not bothering. We need to change the treaty so that importing nations are not treaty bound to impose large costs and delays. Its beyond stupid.

As for "needlessly tie ourselves to our standards" - lets assume we have imposed higher standards. As you suggest. How do we impose those? When we don't check? We would need the checks - otherwise we get whatever they send.

We set our standards at however we want to set them, and recognise theirs as equivalent even if not the same.

I know that importing food is my job and not yours, so I'm not as clued up as you, but huh?

So we set standard A++ and the EU standard is A. We recognise theirs as equivalent and wave it through. So what is the point in A++? Do you mean only for UK producers?

So you want to set a higher cost standard for UK products consumed domestically. Our costs go up making imports relatively cheaper. And as our products cost more our ability to export is reduced even further.

Sounds great!

So we recognise A and accept it. Just as we'd accept it if we were in the EU anyway.

You're acting as if its on a linear scale so either A or A- or A++ but that's not how equivalence works.

Indeed the EEC used to operate mostly based on equivalence and not uniformity previously, plenty of trade agreements around the planet operate based on the principle of equivalence, do they not?

I can't imagine we'd want to impose A++. EU standards are reasonable, why wouldn't we accept them?

I'm in Sweden for the weekend and looking forward to bringing back some elk steaks

Or smoked reindeer, which is sublime

The stupid thing is Labour didn’t even have to commit to these proposals. They could have said “this is a really interesting and generous suggestion and Labour, unlike, the Tories, will be receptive to a closer relationship with the EU, though of course we will need to see details. We want to make Brexit work for the British people, the Tories are foolish and inept” etc etc

Instead they’ve dismissed the offer. Mad twats

pm215 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.

Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.

He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.

Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.

Even on the purely cynical viewpoint, it will have *some* resemblance, because in government you have an eye to the next election, and the same set of voters you were trying to avoid scaring off before you won will still be out there needing to be persuaded to vote for you again the next time around. This is a difference to Labour leadership elections, where as Corbyn showed once you're in you're in and it's very hard to shift you: so there's less need to worry about annoying the people who voted for you.

Kettle thinks it will all come down to comparative economic performance:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/18/keir-starmer-europe-economy-labour-eu

Eabhal said:

I got the news while scrolling through PB in the back of a freezing campervan. Gorgeous views, the porridge is nearly ready.

Are you anticipating five or seven years of porridge?

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

squareroot2 said:

Cyclefree said:

squareroot2 said:

Thus only Murrell. Is he going to take the fall for others?

Will his wife be a witness?

For the defence or the prosecution?

WHO can WHAT director cast, to reprise the role made famous by Marlene Dietrich?

Where have all the snowflakes gone
Long time passing?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.

Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.

He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.

Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.

This feels like Starmer’s first massive unforced error. He’s completely misjudged the national mood

Oh please.

It would be spun as a Trojan Horse to take us back into the EU/Free Movement.

He’s got a 20 point lead in the polls and evidence shows 60% of people want to rejoin. I’m saying this as a LEAVER who would again vote LEAVE

I’m also presuming Starmer is lying and he will accept this offer once he’s won. But is this really the way to start your government? With an obvious massive lie?

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.

Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.

He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.

Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.

This feels like Starmer’s first massive unforced error. He’s completely misjudged the national mood

Oh please.

It would be spun as a Trojan Horse to take us back into the EU/Free Movement.

He’s got a 20 point lead in the polls and evidence shows 60% of people want to rejoin. I’m saying this as a LEAVER who would again vote LEAVE

I’m also presuming Starmer is lying and he will accept this offer once he’s won. But is this really the way to start your government? With an obvious massive lie?

Well its how he started his time in Opposition.

Starmer has all the integrity of Boris Johnson.

GIN1138 said:

Suppose we've all got to be very careful about what we say on here, Re. Mr Sturgeon?

The wise person will stay silent and reflect about having their collar felt through their beard.

Eabhal said:

I got the news while scrolling through PB in the back of a freezing campervan. Gorgeous views, the porridge is nearly ready.

Your own camper van or a party one? 😀

stodge said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.

Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.

He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.

Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.

This feels like Starmer’s first massive unforced error. He’s completely misjudged the national mood

So this is the issue which will bring the voters flocking back to the Conservatives?

Seriously - "misjudged the public mood" - yeah, right.

I’m not saying starmer is going to lose. He’s going to win. I’m saying he didn’t have to do this and he’s played it really badly and it’s storing up an image of him as a duplicitous coward. Unless he actually means it then it makes him a cretin

RochdalePioneers said:

dr_spyn said:

Peter Murrell has left the SNP.

https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1781041365100490880

Is he defecting to Alba?

Well, like Salmond he's been fucked by Sturgeon.

#nominatedforepicbadtasteaward

ToryJim said:

Of course this isn’t the first time an SNP figure has been charged with embezzlement, the former MP for Glasgow East was convicted of nicking £25k but only had to pay back about 60 quid and served about 18 months.

They really need to try harder. So many brilliant Tory examples of embezzling proper money. To buy yachts, peerages and mansions. They need to look up to your party!

JohnLilburne said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.

Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.

He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.

Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.

This feels like Starmer’s first massive unforced error. He’s completely misjudged the national mood

Oh please.

It would be spun as a Trojan Horse to take us back into the EU/Free Movement.

He’s got a 20 point lead in the polls and evidence shows 60% of people want to rejoin. I’m saying this as a LEAVER who would again vote LEAVE

I’m also presuming Starmer is lying and he will accept this offer once he’s won. But is this really the way to start your government? With an obvious massive lie?

The problem is it would mean agreeing FOM for 18-30 Europeans. Of course that will help Wetherspoons recruit bar staff, but also qualified Polish plumbers etc

I don’t fucking care any more. The government has allowed 1.4 MILLION migrants in 2 years and also can’t remotely get a grip on 50,000 illegal boat people (a number which also rises)

So we may get some plumbers from Wroclaw. We probably won’t because the weather is too shit and Poland is now richer and nicer than the uk

I don’t care. I never did. Let the plumbers in but they won’t come this time anyway. We will get young people who want to learn English and meanwhile our kids get some freedom of movement back

RochdalePioneers said:

dr_spyn said:

Peter Murrell has left the SNP.

https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1781041365100490880

Is he defecting to Alba?

With his record of having his collar felt, surely he'd feel more at home with the Tories?

JohnLilburne said:

JohnLilburne said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

.

Scott_xP said:

@Nicoledso

Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border

UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K

FFS...

Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.

And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.

This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.

What's the problem?

If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.

If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.

No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.

We are hurting ourselves. All imports need reams of paperwork specifically for the checks we're no longer going to implement.

I have no problem scrapping BTOM. But we can't do so by merely not bothering. We need to change the treaty so that importing nations are not treaty bound to impose large costs and delays. Its beyond stupid.

As for "needlessly tie ourselves to our standards" - lets assume we have imposed higher standards. As you suggest. How do we impose those? When we don't check? We would need the checks - otherwise we get whatever they send.

We set our standards at however we want to set them, and recognise theirs as equivalent even if not the same.

I know that importing food is my job and not yours, so I'm not as clued up as you, but huh?

So we set standard A++ and the EU standard is A. We recognise theirs as equivalent and wave it through. So what is the point in A++? Do you mean only for UK producers?

So you want to set a higher cost standard for UK products consumed domestically. Our costs go up making imports relatively cheaper. And as our products cost more our ability to export is reduced even further.

Sounds great!

So we recognise A and accept it. Just as we'd accept it if we were in the EU anyway.

You're acting as if its on a linear scale so either A or A- or A++ but that's not how equivalence works.

Indeed the EEC used to operate mostly based on equivalence and not uniformity previously, plenty of trade agreements around the planet operate based on the principle of equivalence, do they not?

I can't imagine we'd want to impose A++. EU standards are reasonable, why wouldn't we accept them?

I'm in Sweden for the weekend and looking forward to bringing back some elk steaks

Or smoked reindeer, which is sublime

Is it vegan??

Chortle, Humza Yousaf hired this roaster to replace Murrell.

From May 2023

I'm prepared to gamble on no charges at end of SNP finance probe

Ex-SNP comms chief Murray Foote on why he thinks police investigation into party finances could end up like ill-fated Rangers case.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/murray-foote-im-prepared-gamble-29885778

ToryJim said:

RochdalePioneers said:

ToryJim said:

Of course this isn’t the first time an SNP figure has been charged with embezzlement, the former MP for Glasgow East was convicted of nicking £25k but only had to pay back about 60 quid and served about 18 months.

They really need to try harder. So many brilliant Tory examples of embezzling proper money. To buy yachts, peerages and mansions. They need to look up to your party!

Not my party. Been ages since it was but I’m stuck with the username.

Say you're a "tory" in the original Irish sense o' the word = rapscallion (nicest way of putting it anyway!)

Sunil_Prasannan said:

JohnLilburne said:

JohnLilburne said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

.

Scott_xP said:

@Nicoledso

Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border

UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K

FFS...

Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.

And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.

This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.

What's the problem?

If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.

If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.

No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.

We are hurting ourselves. All imports need reams of paperwork specifically for the checks we're no longer going to implement.

I have no problem scrapping BTOM. But we can't do so by merely not bothering. We need to change the treaty so that importing nations are not treaty bound to impose large costs and delays. Its beyond stupid.

As for "needlessly tie ourselves to our standards" - lets assume we have imposed higher standards. As you suggest. How do we impose those? When we don't check? We would need the checks - otherwise we get whatever they send.

We set our standards at however we want to set them, and recognise theirs as equivalent even if not the same.

I know that importing food is my job and not yours, so I'm not as clued up as you, but huh?

So we set standard A++ and the EU standard is A. We recognise theirs as equivalent and wave it through. So what is the point in A++? Do you mean only for UK producers?

So you want to set a higher cost standard for UK products consumed domestically. Our costs go up making imports relatively cheaper. And as our products cost more our ability to export is reduced even further.

Sounds great!

So we recognise A and accept it. Just as we'd accept it if we were in the EU anyway.

You're acting as if its on a linear scale so either A or A- or A++ but that's not how equivalence works.

Indeed the EEC used to operate mostly based on equivalence and not uniformity previously, plenty of trade agreements around the planet operate based on the principle of equivalence, do they not?

I can't imagine we'd want to impose A++. EU standards are reasonable, why wouldn't we accept them?

I'm in Sweden for the weekend and looking forward to bringing back some elk steaks

Or smoked reindeer, which is sublime

Is it vegan??

Reindeer are more vegan than vegan - they eat lichen

Verulamius said:

Foxy said:

Jim_Miller said:

Here are the juror instructions used in Washington state: https://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/resources/?fa=newsinfo_jury.jury_guide
"How was I chosen?
First, your name was selected at random from voter registration and driver's license and "identicard" records. Then, your answers to the juror questionnaire were evaluated to make sure you were eligible for jury service.

To be eligible, you must be at least 18 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a resident of the county in which you are to serve as a juror, and you must be able to communicate in English. If you have ever been convicted of a felony, you must have had your civil rights restored. Those eligible may be excused from jury service if they have illnesses that would interfere with their ability to do a good job, would suffer great hardship if required to serve, or are unable to serve for other legitimate reasons."

Some people choose not to register to vote in an effort to stay out of the pool.

Fun fact: At one time -- and perhaps still, though I have never heard of it happening -- if a jury was short a member, the judge could ask the bailiff to go out and find a citizen to fill the vacancy.

(Disclosure: I was called three times, and on a jury once. The first time I was the second person dismissed by the public defender, after the police officer -- whihc I took as a compliment. The time I served was one of the most miserable experiences in my life. The couple (who had two children) needed a marriage counselor, not a trial.)

Mrs Foxy was called for Jury in a trial for assault a few years back. As a keen Agatha Christie fan she got quite into being Miss Marple and her along with the other jurors took it all very seriously because of the life changing effects for those involved. She was very happy with the verdict and felt the whole system worked as it should, at least in that case.

I was on a jury a number of years ago regarding the prosecution of a local councillor who had counter signed a passport application form stating that he had known the applicant whereas the applicant was actually in Pakistan.

I trust there was more to the story, since knowing someone in another country is not yet a crime.

Leon said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

stodge said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.

Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.

He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.

Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.

This feels like Starmer’s first massive unforced error. He’s completely misjudged the national mood

So this is the issue which will bring the voters flocking back to the Conservatives?

Seriously - "misjudged the public mood" - yeah, right.

I’m not saying starmer is going to lose. He’s going to win. I’m saying he didn’t have to do this and he’s played it really badly and it’s storing up an image of him as a duplicitous coward. Unless he actually means it then it makes him a cretin

I suspect most people don't have an "image" of Starmer (apart from those who've already decided they don't like him) other than he's not Rishi Sunak and he's not a Conservative. Granted, that makes him a tabula rasa on which you or I or anyone can project whatever they like.

He's no Blair but there won't be another Blair - we've all become more cynical and aren't going to be taken in by his schtick any more than we would by someone like Boris Johnson.

Starmer is a politician and they often do quite well in politics because they understand how the game is played. "I have no plans for" doesn't mean I definitely won't but I'm not going to at the moment. The classic was Margaret Thatcher's "it is my intention to let my name go forward for the second round" in November 1990 - to most people it was a statement she was going to go for the second round but that's not what she actually said.

Starmer is used to the verbal jousting of the courtroom - that plays well in Westminster but probably less so beyond.

Which is my point. I am presuming this is a convenient lie but I don’t think Starmer needed to lie. Most Brits will like this idea. Free movement for the young. Let them fall in love again!

He’s so terrified of losing the red wall on Brexit he’s made a significant error which was entirely unnecessary

Thing is, his coming out like this simply reveals an inadequate reading of the motivations for Brexit, like he's mouthing the words but not understanding them

JohnLilburne said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.

Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.

He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.

Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.

This feels like Starmer’s first massive unforced error. He’s completely misjudged the national mood

Oh please.

It would be spun as a Trojan Horse to take us back into the EU/Free Movement.

He’s got a 20 point lead in the polls and evidence shows 60% of people want to rejoin. I’m saying this as a LEAVER who would again vote LEAVE

I’m also presuming Starmer is lying and he will accept this offer once he’s won. But is this really the way to start your government? With an obvious massive lie?

The problem is it would mean agreeing FOM for 18-30 Europeans. Of course that will help Wetherspoons recruit bar staff, but also qualified Polish plumbers etc

We should I suppose be glad Labour aren’t using this as an opportunity to make the dogwhistle, Reform-friendly case for EU free movement. You know, “worth exploring focusing on migration from nearby rather than far away”, nudge nudge wink wink. It will presumably be politically tempting for them.

But honestly, they could have responded to this in a non-committal but keep options open sort of way and lost zero support.

geoffw said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

JohnLilburne said:

JohnLilburne said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

.

Scott_xP said:

@Nicoledso

Brexit border checks delayed again as will cause higher costs and disruption at the border

UK will not ‘turn on’ post-Brexit checks of EU goods for fear of border delays https://on.ft.com/446Ws4K

FFS...

Prediction - they will never turn this on. We don't physically have the capability of carrying out these checks.

And yet, despite that, our trading partners in the EU are treaty bound to implement BTOM in full. Generation of paperwork for physical checks that will not take place.

This fucking country. Seriously. What a shambles.

What's the problem?

If we don't want to make the checks, there's no reason why we should.

If they do, that's a them problem, not an us problem.

No reason why we should hurt ourselves by implementing needless checks, nor tie ourselves needlessly to their standards.

We are hurting ourselves. All imports need reams of paperwork specifically for the checks we're no longer going to implement.

I have no problem scrapping BTOM. But we can't do so by merely not bothering. We need to change the treaty so that importing nations are not treaty bound to impose large costs and delays. Its beyond stupid.

As for "needlessly tie ourselves to our standards" - lets assume we have imposed higher standards. As you suggest. How do we impose those? When we don't check? We would need the checks - otherwise we get whatever they send.

We set our standards at however we want to set them, and recognise theirs as equivalent even if not the same.

I know that importing food is my job and not yours, so I'm not as clued up as you, but huh?

So we set standard A++ and the EU standard is A. We recognise theirs as equivalent and wave it through. So what is the point in A++? Do you mean only for UK producers?

So you want to set a higher cost standard for UK products consumed domestically. Our costs go up making imports relatively cheaper. And as our products cost more our ability to export is reduced even further.

Sounds great!

So we recognise A and accept it. Just as we'd accept it if we were in the EU anyway.

You're acting as if its on a linear scale so either A or A- or A++ but that's not how equivalence works.

Indeed the EEC used to operate mostly based on equivalence and not uniformity previously, plenty of trade agreements around the planet operate based on the principle of equivalence, do they not?

I can't imagine we'd want to impose A++. EU standards are reasonable, why wouldn't we accept them?

I'm in Sweden for the weekend and looking forward to bringing back some elk steaks

Or smoked reindeer, which is sublime

Is it vegan??

Reindeer are more vegan than vegan - they eat lichen

But also each others 'antlers, presumably for the minerals. (Red deer in Scotland eat seabirds, too, for instance, presumably ditto.)

Sophy Ridge
@SophyRidgeSky
·
1h
🚨🚨
@montie
says that given the conversations with Conservative MPs he’s having, he thinks there will be a leadership challenge to Rishi Sunak after the local elections in two weeks … and the PM might be wise to call one himself

https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1781039207600787963

TheScreamingEagles said:

Well...

Angela Rayner is facing fresh questions after her eldest child was listed on the electoral roll at the home where she has insisted she did not live.

Public documents, seen by The Times, show Rayner’s son, then in his late teens, living in Stockport with his stepfather rather than with the Labour deputy leader. At the time, in 2014, Rayner was listed on the electoral roll at another former council home, about a mile away, that she has insisted was her “principal property”.

Social media photographs from the period show her son’s bedroom at the Lowndes Lane property where he was registered, owned by Mark Rayner, who was then her husband. Neighbours claimed they heard her older son practising drums, and that the family received a grant to removate the house so it would better accommodate her younger disabled son.

Greater Manchester police are investigating allegations that Rayner supplied incorrect information to the electoral register when she lived between the two houses in Stockport in the 2010s.

There is no suggestion her son has done anything wrong.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/angela-rayner-council-house-eldest-child-electoral-roll-6cjzd2ckb

Also: Ms Rayner was Labour deputy leader in 2014??

rottenborough said:

Sophy Ridge
@SophyRidgeSky
·
1h
🚨🚨
@montie
says that given the conversations with Conservative MPs he’s having, he thinks there will be a leadership challenge to Rishi Sunak after the local elections in two weeks … and the PM might be wise to call one himself

https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1781039207600787963

If Tim Montgomerie is so utterly dumb or so blinkered by his own hatred of Sunak that he doesn't know Sunak *can't* call a leadership election himself then I don't think his views are worth much.

Official Tory majority in the Commons is down from 80 at the general election to 42 now. I wonder if the same thing would have happened if they'd started off with a majority of around 40.

Leon said:

JohnLilburne said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Can it really be the case that Labour are ruling out youth mobility with the EU and the Tories are welcoming it?

wtf is wrong with Starmer? Is he that frit?

Genuinely I think he is. He will do whatever it takes to get over the line.

The thing is as he's already shown when he told the Corbynites he'd implement their policies if he became leader, then dumped them the second he was elected, Starmer has no integrity or principles and will say and do anything to be elected.

Once he's elected, he can do whatever he pleases.

He could sign up to youth mobility, or even full free movement, or nothing at all.

Whatever he says now while seeking to be elected has no resemblance to what he'll do once elected.

This feels like Starmer’s first massive unforced error. He’s completely misjudged the national mood

Oh please.

It would be spun as a Trojan Horse to take us back into the EU/Free Movement.

He’s got a 20 point lead in the polls and evidence shows 60% of people want to rejoin. I’m saying this as a LEAVER who would again vote LEAVE

I’m also presuming Starmer is lying and he will accept this offer once he’s won. But is this really the way to start your government? With an obvious massive lie?

The problem is it would mean agreeing FOM for 18-30 Europeans. Of course that will help Wetherspoons recruit bar staff, but also qualified Polish plumbers etc

I don’t fucking care any more. The government has allowed 1.4 MILLION migrants in 2 years and also can’t remotely get a grip on 50,000 illegal boat people (a number which also rises)

So we may get some plumbers from Wroclaw. We probably won’t because the weather is too shit and Poland is now richer and nicer than the uk

I don’t care. I never did. Let the plumbers in but they won’t come this time anyway. We will get young people who want to learn English and meanwhile our kids get some freedom of movement back

It was never a problem with me either. The Baltic barmaids were generally cute. But quite a lot of the Brexit vote is tradesmen who like to be in shortage. And it might not be Poles this time, but Moldovans with Romanian passports

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Sophy Ridge
@SophyRidgeSky
·
1h
🚨🚨
@montie
says that given the conversations with Conservative MPs he’s having, he thinks there will be a leadership challenge to Rishi Sunak after the local elections in two weeks … and the PM might be wise to call one himself

https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1781039207600787963

If Tim Montgomerie is so utterly dumb or so blinkered by his own hatred of Sunak that he doesn't know Sunak *can't* call a leadership election himself then I don't think his views are worth much.

To be fair to Montie in the past he has suggested this and that Sunak gets his supporters to send in letters to trigger the leadership election.

TheScreamingEagles said:

God I love Brexiteers.

Criticising Starmer for not overturning one of the key things of the Brexit platform, stopping free movement.

Yeah well you don't seem to understand the impulse to brexit either

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

Sophy Ridge
@SophyRidgeSky
·
1h
🚨🚨
@montie
says that given the conversations with Conservative MPs he’s having, he thinks there will be a leadership challenge to Rishi Sunak after the local elections in two weeks … and the PM might be wise to call one himself

https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/1781039207600787963

If Tim Montgomerie is so utterly dumb or so blinkered by his own hatred of Sunak that he doesn't know Sunak *can't* call a leadership election himself then I don't think his views are worth much.

To be fair to Montie in the past he has suggested this and that Sunak gets his supporters to send in letters to trigger than leadership election.

Yeah just like the Fixed Term Parliament Act which had more very early elections under it than full-length terms, there's generally a way around these rules if you want to.