Tice and Farage have apparently had a bit of a tiff. Oh dear
From the Telegraph:
"Richard Tice has slapped down Nigel Farage over his hint at a possible election pact with the Tories.
"Mr Tice, the Reform UK leader, said there were “no deals” to be done with the Conservatives after Mr Farage suggested he could be willing to come to an agreement.
"Mr Farage, the honorary president of Reform UK, said he would be open to “a conversation” with the Conservatives if they give him “something back” for the “huge favours” he has done over the years.
"In an interview with The Sun’s Never Mind the Ballots show, Mr Farage said: “I’ve done them some huge favours over the years as a party. Give me something back. We might have a conversation.”"
If Farage wants to run ReformUK then he should run ReformUK, which he's stepped away from and refused to step back into the role. And as long as he is neither an election candidate nor active party leader I daresay the media might want to spend less time interviewing him and more interviewing Reform's candidates and active leader.
If I were Tice I'd be spitting feathers at the way Farage is treating him, though I can't say I'd be surprised by it.
Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.
According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.
I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.
Obvious concern for the Tories is that you are broadly representative of the population. I'm not paying that much attention myself.
Not certain I'll turn out on the day, but if I do I'm minded to vote Labour, despite my reservations. They need to overturn an 18K Con majority, but under current circumstances that may be doable.
The just released Ashcroft polling suggests there's a lot of centre-right voters who haven't heard much about the election and are mostly bored of what they have heard.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Trump's blunt refusal to agree to a peaceful transition of power before the election - then doing his utmost to ensure that one didn't happen when the results were in - was the killer for a lot of Americans. I don't think we can appreciate the significance of all that in Britain, perhaps because we don't have loads of firearms and our historical roots involve peaceful stuff like Stonehenge and maypoles, not revolution, civil wars and the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
Yes, England is all about morris dancing and tiddley om pom pom. That's why English people are affectionately known as "pommies".
Oh wait. There are gallows hills in almost every district of England and the sheer number of public executions to defend the class system was shall we say extremely disproportionate by international standards for centuries. But yeah, maypoles and corn dollies.
The jury system, though, was nothing to do with landowners' thugs on horseback. It was always to do with respect for human rights, democracy, and gay pride. That's why maypoles are stripy.
PS I share your preference for living somewhere that isn't full of nutcases with guns like the USA, but seriously, where English history is concerned, get a clue.
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Full statement. As ever he's a class act.
Being an MP shouldn’t take a considerable toll on anybody.
Nor should any job.
Trying to pretend a few hours in Westminster , most of it in bar or restaurants with half the year on holiday, apart from their liver is at the kidding.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
The counter-factual is that the Nazis end up led by someone who doesn't make Hitler's many huge mistakes in WWII, and so is able to inflict much more evil.
Hitler's mistakes really only become *his* mistakes after 1943, when in reality, the war has been lost already. Responsibility for things that we see as mistakes, prior to that date, are really shared collectively by the German High Command.
One could easily view taking on France, Poland, and the British Empire simultaneously as a huge mistake. Germany ought to have lost in 1940, and instead, achieved a fluke. That convinced the OKW that they could achieve a similar miracle in the Soviet Union, a year later.
Even as early as Spring 1941, the Royal Naval blockade was doing immense damage to the German economy, to the point that some German planners doubted they could even continue the war after the end of 1942.
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Full statement. As ever he's a class act.
You have to respect any MP who does this, this early in their career because, as I understand the system, he would make more money if he stood, did very little and lost than by choosing not to stand now.
This system has changed. It now is payable to all MPs who stand down once an election is called - whether they fight and lose or not.
That isn't wholly correct - as the article itself says, there is still a separate "loss of office" payment for those who lose rather than stand down. It's modest, but they do get a bit extra.
Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.
According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.
I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.
Obvious concern for the Tories is that you are broadly representative of the population. I'm not paying that much attention myself.
Not certain I'll turn out on the day, but if I do I'm minded to vote Labour, despite my reservations. They need to overturn an 18K Con majority, but under current circumstances that may be doable.
This is nonsense, and frankly worrying for anyone indulging in spread betting. I still believe a hung parliament is possible.I think the Torys deserve to end up with 66 mps, the way they have treated this country, but won't happen, tories 29%, labour 38% is my guess, with some surprising results sprinkled amongst it
Now thinking about the political consequences: if the prosecution case was so obviously vexatious and Trump, with all his resources, couldn't organise a team to poke even one little hole in that, then he'd be a fucking useless president.
Tice and Farage have apparently had a bit of a tiff. Oh dear
From the Telegraph:
"Richard Tice has slapped down Nigel Farage over his hint at a possible election pact with the Tories.
"Mr Tice, the Reform UK leader, said there were “no deals” to be done with the Conservatives after Mr Farage suggested he could be willing to come to an agreement.
"Mr Farage, the honorary president of Reform UK, said he would be open to “a conversation” with the Conservatives if they give him “something back” for the “huge favours” he has done over the years.
"In an interview with The Sun’s Never Mind the Ballots show, Mr Farage said: “I’ve done them some huge favours over the years as a party. Give me something back. We might have a conversation.”"
If Farage wants to run ReformUK then he should run ReformUK, which he's stepped away from and refused to step back into the role. And as long as he is neither an election candidate nor active party leader I daresay the media might want to spend less time interviewing him and more interviewing Reform's candidates and active leader.
If I were Tice I'd be spitting feathers at the way Farage is treating him, though I can't say I'd be surprised by it.
I don't really understand why Tice has been so happy to fund them given that Farage is the sole shareholder with right to appoint or remove directors. It's so obviously a disaster waiting to happen...
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 43m 🔴 SWANSEA WEST: it looks like Resolution Foundation CEO is being lined up for this seat.
====
Wow. Another think tanker parachuting in.
Starmer is brewing a huge problem here imho. All these 'high fliers' he is parachuting in will not want to be backbench vote fodder. They will want to be given worthwhile government jobs and get stuff done. How many experienced MPs hoping for ministerial jobs will now be pushed out of the way for these new kids?
Starmer now seems to be doing a similar thing to a similar thing to Cameron and his A list of candidates pre the 2010 general election.
Pushing out long standing activists and councillors and in Labour's case even deselecting some leftwing MPs and parachuting in high flyers at the top of their careers with little experience of working for the party who yes will expect to be Ministers sooner rather than later rather than just mere backbenchers.
I seem to remember it didn't work out too well for the Tories. A number of the A list have now defected to Labour or the LDs or went to ChangeUK. One A lister, Louise Mensch, even moved to New York city with her pop manager husband just 2 years after election in 2010 after deciding Cameron was not going to put her in the Cabinet and being backbench MP for Corby and dealing with constituents tedious problems at her constituency surgery was too much of a bore
Don’t start me on Louise Mensch.
I spent days knocking doors and delivering leaflets for her, only for her to f*** off after a couple of years when the reshuffle didn’t give her a ministry.
That is a slur on the good burghers of Ayrshire you bounder, one cuckoo in the nest does not make it the wild west.
Much of Ayrshire has been left to rot, but the same is true of much of Britain. Girvan for example is a dump.
It used to be lovely as well. We used to go down there all the time, great day out , a fish supper and then pit stop for beer in Ayr on teh way home. You are correct that much has been left to go to wrack and ruin , nice buildings replaced with crap from 60's onwards. Still beautiful countryside and coast, worse places to live.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
The counter-factual is that the Nazis end up led by someone who doesn't make Hitler's many huge mistakes in WWII, and so is able to inflict much more evil.
IIRC the ‘Final Solution’ wasn’t, or wasn’t entirely, Hitler’s idea. I may be wrong, though.
My impression was that Eichmann, at the Wansee conference, was arguably the single individual most responsible.
But it was very much in line with Hitlerian ideology. Exterminate the Jews and Slavs and repopulate Eastern Europe with Aryans.
I had it said recently that Wansee was simply informing other parts of the Nazi system what was going to happen. It wasn't a discussion, or a conference, it was information dissemination. The drivers behind the holocaust were Himmler and (before his assassination) Heydrich. Eichmann was the diligent organiser.
I have to say, my view is very much going to "the public just aren't listening".
It doesn't seem to matter what Labour or the Tories do, the public doesn't seem to change their mind. I wonder if in weeks to come we will conclude the public made up their mind in 2022.
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
Although I think he’s a total bell end, he does make some good points in the interview.
Hmmm. He's been very non-specific about the details of the complaint, and why we should believe him when he says it's all historic, baseless and politically motivated. Maybe he's been very hard done by, but not sure I'd be at all confident in rushing to his defence.
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
Although I think he’s a total bell end, he does make some good points in the interview.
Hmmm. He's been very non-specific about the details of the complaint, and why we should believe him when he says it's all historic, baseless and politically motivated. Maybe he's been very hard done by, but not sure I'd be at all confident in rushing to his defence.
TBF saying what the details were would enable anyone to repeat them in public, so losing him his chance of a defamation case.
What's your view on Exmouth and Exeter East? Three parties competing, it looks like.
I'm not Mark and he might have more local knowledge but I've got a bit.
I'm figuring it as a Lib Dem gain from Con.
Local Elections 2023 and 2024: About a quarter of the seat is in Exeter City, that's Pinhoe (safe Labour), St Loyes (normally safe Con, Labour ran it close in 2024 but with a good candidate) and Topsham (normally very safe Con but Labour took it in 2024). Lib Dems not really anywhere in any of them. But they are heavy in the East Devon 3/4 of the seat. There's 28 EDDC councillors in Exmouth & East Devon, Lib Dems won 12 in 2023, Tories 6, Greens 2, Labour 1, with independents 7 (2 have joined the Lib Dems in controlling the council, the other 5 are more traditional indy/con in all but name).
Candidates: Simon Jupp, sitting MP for East Devon has gone with the smaller share of his old seat to fight in Honiton & Sidmouth so Tories don't have an incumbent. Neither the Labour or Conservative candidates have any strong links to the constituency. Paul Arnott, the Lib Dem does have local recognition, he's been a district councillor since 2015, first as leader of the East Devon Alliance, switched to the Lib Dems and now leads the council. There's also an independent in the mix, Dan Wilson, was the Labour candidate in 2019, became the first Labour local councillor in Exmouth for 27 years in 2023 but the NEC decided to impose a candidate and Wilson quit Labour to run as an independent. Reform UK also has a candidate in place which won't benefit the Tory.
Normally Exmouth and Exeter East should be Conservative, but their polling weakness, inexperienced candidate and Reform on their right flank look like combining to sink them. Labour could have helped them, if they had been stronger then the tactical voters might have split between Lab and LD allowing the Conservatives to hold on but I think this is one that Electoral Calculus has called wrong.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Trump's blunt refusal to agree to a peaceful transition of power before the election - then doing his utmost to ensure that one didn't happen when the results were in - was the killer for a lot of Americans. I don't think we can appreciate the significance of all that in Britain, perhaps because we don't have loads of firearms and our historical roots involve peaceful stuff like Stonehenge and maypoles, not revolution, civil wars and the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
Yes, England is all about morris dancing and tiddley om pom pom. That's why English people are affectionately known as "pommies".
Oh wait. There are gallows hills in almost every district of England and the sheer number of public executions to defend the class system was shall we say extremely disproportionate by international standards for centuries. But yeah, maypoles and corn dollies.
The jury system, though, was nothing to do with landowners' thugs on horseback. It was always to do with respect for human rights, democracy, and gay pride. That's why maypoles are stripy.
PS I share your preference for living somewhere that isn't full of nutcases with guns like the USA, but seriously, where English history is concerned, get a clue.
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
Hello. A court with an expert judge and a jury considered this case. The jury came to a decision. If these flaws you claim were real, Trump’s lawyers would have prevailed, but they didn’t. Armchair quarterbacking the case after the event if unpersuasive, unless you are an expert in New York law. Are you?
Well, he’s a lawyer and you’re not. That’s good enough for me
Honestly this whole debate on here proves my point. Trump derangement syndrome. People hate Trump so hysterically they cannot abide any argument that might be seen as “helping him”. Its not that the anti Trump nutters disagree with these arguments, they don’t even want to hear them and when told them they simply look away and pretend they don’t exist
And remember I despise Trump and think he’s a disaster for the GOP and I’d like to see the GOP win. But not with Trump
It’s all quite odd. But for today I’ve given up trying to surmount it. Also I am now staying in moldovas oldest winery and I’ve got a jacuzzi on the roof
I have to say, my view is very much going to "the public just aren't listening".
It doesn't seem to matter what Labour or the Tories do, the public doesn't seem to change their mind. I wonder if in weeks to come we will conclude the public made up their mind in 2022.
Just think about it, how often do you change your mind? Once someone has decided it will take a lot to make them reconsider.
@Tomorrow'sMPs @tomorrowsmps · 43m 🔴 SWANSEA WEST: it looks like Resolution Foundation CEO is being lined up for this seat.
====
Wow. Another think tanker parachuting in.
Starmer is brewing a huge problem here imho. All these 'high fliers' he is parachuting in will not want to be backbench vote fodder. They will want to be given worthwhile government jobs and get stuff done. How many experienced MPs hoping for ministerial jobs will now be pushed out of the way for these new kids?
Starmer now seems to be doing a similar thing to a similar thing to Cameron and his A list of candidates pre the 2010 general election.
Pushing out long standing activists and councillors and in Labour's case even deselecting some leftwing MPs and parachuting in high flyers at the top of their careers with little experience of working for the party who yes will expect to be Ministers sooner rather than later rather than just mere backbenchers.
I seem to remember it didn't work out too well for the Tories. A number of the A list have now defected to Labour or the LDs or went to ChangeUK. One A lister, Louise Mensch, even moved to New York city with her pop manager husband just 2 years after election in 2010 after deciding Cameron was not going to put her in the Cabinet and being backbench MP for Corby and dealing with constituents tedious problems at her constituency surgery was too much of a bore
Don’t start me on Louise Mensch.
I spent days knocking doors and delivering leaflets for her, only for her to f*** off after a couple of years when the reshuffle didn’t give her a ministry.
Ah yes, she was also humiliated over the term 'Zionism' by an erstwhile titan of PB.
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
It is, sadly, a completely unwinnable seat on the present polling and, in any event, the life of a back bench opposition MP can hardly be said to be enthralling.
Which, in a way, is a problem in itself.
Partly because having 650 egotists in a building when about 500 have not much to do is a recipe for trouble. As we repeatedly see.
But also, all but the most incapable of MPs, even Andrew Blooming Rosindell, has way more to offer than being lobby fodder. As a nation, we ought to be getting more value out of them.
Now thinking about the political consequences: if the prosecution case was so obviously vexatious and Trump, with all his resources, couldn't organise a team to poke even one little hole in that, then he'd be a fucking useless president.
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
Hello. A court with an expert judge and a jury considered this case. The jury came to a decision. If these flaws you claim were real, Trump’s lawyers would have prevailed, but they didn’t. Armchair quarterbacking the case after the event if unpersuasive, unless you are an expert in New York law. Are you?
Well, he’s a lawyer and you’re not. That’s good enough for me
Honestly this whole debate on here proves my point. Trump derangement syndrome. People hate Trump so hysterically they cannot abide any argument that might be seen as “helping him”. Its not that the anti Trump nutters disagree with these arguments, they don’t even want to hear them and when told them they simply look away and pretend they don’t exist
And remember I despise Trump and think he’s a disaster for the GOP and I’d like to see the GOP win. But not with Trump
It’s all quite odd. But for today I’ve given up trying to surmount it. Also I am now staying in moldovas oldest winery and I’ve got a jacuzzi on the roof
The question is whether elected officials including presidents should be subject to the rule of law.
Because, you know, Trump could act lawfully. No-one is blocking him from doing that.
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
Although I think he’s a total bell end, he does make some good points in the interview.
Hmmm. He's been very non-specific about the details of the complaint, and why we should believe him when he says it's all historic, baseless and politically motivated. Maybe he's been very hard done by, but not sure I'd be at all confident in rushing to his defence.
I think he’s a nightmare - but even nightmares deserve due process.
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
Although I think he’s a total bell end, he does make some good points in the interview.
Hmmm. He's been very non-specific about the details of the complaint, and why we should believe him when he says it's all historic, baseless and politically motivated. Maybe he's been very hard done by, but not sure I'd be at all confident in rushing to his defence.
Yeah, it's all very well for people to find the timing of the complaint suspicious - but that doesn't mean that suspending him during the investigation isn't the right thing to do.
If it turns out that the party (or someone connected with it) has deliberately sat on the complaint for a number of years just to prevent LRM from standing, then they'll deserve to be dragged through the mud for it. But unless there's any evidence for that, it seems to me that the party are doing the right thing in the circumstances.
Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.
According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.
I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.
Obvious concern for the Tories is that you are broadly representative of the population. I'm not paying that much attention myself.
Not certain I'll turn out on the day, but if I do I'm minded to vote Labour, despite my reservations. They need to overturn an 18K Con majority, but under current circumstances that may be doable.
This is nonsense, and frankly worrying for anyone indulging in spread betting. I still believe a hung parliament is possible.I think the Torys deserve to end up with 66 mps, the way they have treated this country, but won't happen, tories 29%, labour 38% is my guess, with some surprising results sprinkled amongst it
I be surprised if Labour dropped that much. An 8% drop in their vote would mean 4-5% of the electorate would have to switch from Lab to Con in the next month (with 3-4% going to LDs/Greens). I just can't see that happening - I think people who have moved Con to Lab this parliament have made up their minds and are unlikely to reverse.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
Its how American politics works.
The House GOP have been waging lawfare against Biden since they took control in 2022.
The aim of taking control of Congress isn't just to pass laws but to launch investigations.
Its perhaps an inevitable part of the separation of powers - a party can have control of one part of government, or part of a part, but cannot do anything constructive with it and so engages in something destructive instead.
American politics doesn’t always work this badly. It hasn’t been THIS dysfunctional since the civil war. Which is as ominous as it sounds
Look at the choice of candidates for President. Its calamitous. And this at a time of great peril for the western world
I'd go for "since the 1950s", perhaps.
The Civil War was followed by several constitutional amendments, as also happened in the 1950s/60s.
The late 19C contained efforts to find ways to manipulate around the constitutional amendments, especially to stop black people voting, as we have been seeing under Mr Trump and the current version of the Republicans.
I think there's a need to overhaul some things to deal with these this.
I have to say, my view is very much going to "the public just aren't listening".
It doesn't seem to matter what Labour or the Tories do, the public doesn't seem to change their mind. I wonder if in weeks to come we will conclude the public made up their mind in 2022.
Just think about it, how often do you change your mind? Once someone has decided it will take a lot to make them reconsider.
The polls suggest there are a fair number of people who haven't made up their mind.
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose. What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
What Trump did (and he lied through his attorneys trying to claim otherwise) was buy off stories that might have caused his political campaign harm. As pretty much all politicians of all stripes have done since the beginning of time. Daniels entered into a NDA for $130k of her own volition. I am just not seeing anything illegal in this. I think this, rather than the credibility of Cohen, will be the issue in the appeal. If it was not illegal the convictions fall. And I still think that will happen.
So, we have 2 ways in which the law has been stretched to cover DJT. I understand the motive but I deprecate undermining the rule of law in this way.
The purpose was to evade individual campaign contribution limits. They knew it was wrong, which is why they tried to hide what they were doing. Everything adds up: the motive, the actions, mens rea. The defence had the opportunity to make the your arguments, why do you think they failed?
That doesn't work either. Firstly, it is clear that paying off a porn star not to tell about your night of sex with her is not a campaign expense. If he had claimed that as such he would certainly have been liable to prosecution.
Secondly, the State made no attempt to show that the consequence of hiding this payment was to prevent Trump from breaking any campaign limit. There is absolutely no evidence of that at all. The State didn't even attempt to prove that.
Thirdly, if you have to make a declaration of payments made under NDAs that would, in almost every case, completely defeat their purpose. Unless you can make the argument that every NDA is illegal you are, once again, stretching the law to get your man.
Finally, that is not the case the State made. The case they made to the Jury was that this expenditure interfered in the 2016 election. As expenses are only declared months after the election your explanation doesn't fit with that.
Hello. A court with an expert judge and a jury considered this case. The jury came to a decision. If these flaws you claim were real, Trump’s lawyers would have prevailed, but they didn’t. Armchair quarterbacking the case after the event if unpersuasive, unless you are an expert in New York law. Are you?
No I am not but I have read a lot of commentary by people who are and it always comes back to this central point: was there criminal conduct which was facilitated by the book keeping?
I read the closing argument to the Jury. I didn't see it. In this country the question of what we call relevancy would have been determined before the trial by an appellate court. It may be that the view was taken that the case was so fact dependent it could not be determined until afterwards when the facts were established. The frankly ridiculous lies by Trump denying the facts of what happened may also have complicated things. The appeal court will be looking at this question.
The judge's directions, which I also skimmed, directed that the 12 members of the jury did not have to agree what the illegal purpose was. That may be challenged on the appeal. We heard quite a lot of evidence, not least from Daniels, that was damaging to Trump and which, on any view, was irrelevant and prejudicial. Again, Trump's dishonest position may have complicated that but there will certainly be arguments on appeal as to whether or not that evidence should have been admitted.
Yes, the jury have made their decision but this is not over. It is not that unusual for jury decisions to be overturned if they are found to be misdirected. That happens in every democratic system.
Trump gets to appeal. We'll see what happens to that appeal. Until then, I trust the outcome of the actual case over your analysis.
Its a free country, believe what you want.
Can you imagine the problems if this conviction is quashed after November and he has lost?
We could make that argument when anyone is convicted and that is overturned on appeal. Peoples lives and livelihoods and standing are damaged by a conviction, for that time period. There’s nothing special about Trump here.
I have to say, my view is very much going to "the public just aren't listening".
It doesn't seem to matter what Labour or the Tories do, the public doesn't seem to change their mind. I wonder if in weeks to come we will conclude the public made up their mind in 2022.
Just think about it, how often do you change your mind? Once someone has decided it will take a lot to make them reconsider.
The polls suggest there are a fair number of people who haven't made up their mind.
If you believe the polling, they changed their mind in 2017
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
Although I think he’s a total bell end, he does make some good points in the interview.
Hmmm. He's been very non-specific about the details of the complaint, and why we should believe him when he says it's all historic, baseless and politically motivated. Maybe he's been very hard done by, but not sure I'd be at all confident in rushing to his defence.
Yeah, it's all very well for people to find the timing of the complaint suspicious - but that doesn't mean that suspending him during the investigation isn't the right thing to do.
If it turns out that the party (or someone connected with it) has deliberately sat on the complaint for a number of years just to prevent LRM from standing, then they'll deserve to be dragged through the mud for it. But unless there's any evidence for that, it seems to me that the party are doing the right thing in the circumstances.
But what if Dan Hodges and others had held back on Raynergate until after Rishi called the election: would Labour's deputy leader be suspended and barred from standing? Should she be?
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Stephen King's novel, The Dead Zone, was very good on this. It is a more complicated moral issue than I think you are indicating.
I don’t think it’s that complex in regards to Hitler. Hitler dead in 1932 leads to a better world in almost every possible way, surely?
The counter-factual is that the Nazis end up led by someone who doesn't make Hitler's many huge mistakes in WWII, and so is able to inflict much more evil.
IIRC the ‘Final Solution’ wasn’t, or wasn’t entirely, Hitler’s idea. I may be wrong, though.
My impression was that Eichmann, at the Wansee conference, was arguably the single individual most responsible.
But it was very much in line with Hitlerian ideology. Exterminate the Jews and Slavs and repopulate Eastern Europe with Aryans.
I had it said recently that Wansee was simply informing other parts of the Nazi system what was going to happen. It wasn't a discussion, or a conference, it was information dissemination. The drivers behind the holocaust were Himmler and (before his assassination) Heydrich. Eichmann was the diligent organiser.
It was policy dissemination. The purpose of the conference was to tell all those involved what the official policy was.
A couple of my American friends have fallen into the MAGA cesspit. Thankfully no family.
The MAGA line is that this prosecution and the conviction are proof of the conspiracy to steal the election. And even people on the fringes of this believe that.
And it's not just the room temperature IQ crowd - one of the people I know has a PhD in Art History from a UK university. Yet he is fully down with the Orange Baboon.
Both things can be true. Trump is a lying villain who deserves a conviction - true. But there is also a conspiracy to stop him in almost any way, stretching the law to breaking point - also true, or at least arguable
That is why America is in such a dangerous position
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense of some clandestine operation. There is a significant body of opinion in the US that Trump is a danger to the continued health and prosperity of the Republic because he is a crook. They are using the legal system to convict him, which is the appropriate thing to do in the case of crooks. They are hoping that by thus demonstrating that he is a crook, they can prevent him being elected president. Is this a conspiracy, or is it the legal system operating precisely as it's meant to? The fact that a jury of Trump's peers vetted by his legal team found him guilty on all counts suggests that the case against him had merit, rather than being an effort to block an honest man from running for president.
I’m not denying there are good legal cases against Trump. Tho I think he can argue that he’s been singled out, notice how no one has for Bill Clinton in regard to Epstein? Nonetheless if he’s guilty he’s guilty. I agree
My point is that there is a wider “conspiracy” to prevent Trump in any way. The lab leak hypothesis was suppressed to assist biden in the crucial election year of 2020. Note how lab leak suddenly became plausible again the moment Biden won. Ditto all the Hunter Biden stories. This is not MAGA hat nonsense - it happened
So, sane Americans can sincerely believe there is a plot to stop Trump. Because there is
For sure lots of people don't want Trump to be president and are trying to block him from standing. I wouldn't say it's a plot or a conspiracy, it has been conducted entirely openly. I think it is the American system operating as it should. I speak to various Americans all the time who would probably be seen as establishment/ denizens of the swamp/ deep state types by the Maga crowd. In general I think they are genuinely alarmed that a second Trump presidency is a threat to the survival of the United States. In their own mind at least their concern is not for their own privileged position but for the survival of the Republic. Now maybe they are deluding themselves, but what would you do in their shoes?
Yes that’s a good question. And I referenced it earlier
If you think Trump is a potential danger to democracy itself - almost a Hitler in the making - then any means of stopping him becomes morally legitimate. I think this is what democrats have in fact done in their heads. They’ve demonised him so much they’ve justified stuff like the lab leak and Hunter Biden crap, if it stops or hobbles Trump it’s ok - just do it
And you know what? I can see that point of view. I’m not sure I share it but I get the logic
If any of us could go back in time and murder Hitler in 1932 we would surely do it. And feel justified and righteous
Trump's blunt refusal to agree to a peaceful transition of power before the election - then doing his utmost to ensure that one didn't happen when the results were in - was the killer for a lot of Americans. I don't think we can appreciate the significance of all that in Britain, perhaps because we don't have loads of firearms and our historical roots involve peaceful stuff like Stonehenge and maypoles, not revolution, civil wars and the slaughter of indigenous peoples.
Yes, England is all about morris dancing and tiddley om pom pom. That's why English people are affectionately known as "pommies".
Oh wait. There are gallows hills in almost every district of England and the sheer number of public executions to defend the class system was shall we say extremely disproportionate by international standards for centuries. But yeah, maypoles and corn dollies.
The jury system, though, was nothing to do with landowners' thugs on horseback. It was always to do with respect for human rights, democracy, and gay pride. That's why maypoles are stripy.
PS I share your preference for living somewhere that isn't full of nutcases with guns like the USA, but seriously, where English history is concerned, get a clue.
I wasn't being wholly serious.
Has our Saturday troll turned up a day early?
Invoking the "Death recorded" comedy is a new angle.
Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.
According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.
I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.
Obvious concern for the Tories is that you are broadly representative of the population. I'm not paying that much attention myself.
Not certain I'll turn out on the day, but if I do I'm minded to vote Labour, despite my reservations. They need to overturn an 18K Con majority, but under current circumstances that may be doable.
Agreed. I just want the tories out. Almost at any cost. I can't imagine anything worse for the country than another 5 years with the tories.
Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.
According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.
I am already bored with the GE though. I am already tuning out. My mind is made up.
Obvious concern for the Tories is that you are broadly representative of the population. I'm not paying that much attention myself.
Not certain I'll turn out on the day, but if I do I'm minded to vote Labour, despite my reservations. They need to overturn an 18K Con majority, but under current circumstances that may be doable.
This is nonsense, and frankly worrying for anyone indulging in spread betting. I still believe a hung parliament is possible.I think the Torys deserve to end up with 66 mps, the way they have treated this country, but won't happen, tories 29%, labour 38% is my guess, with some surprising results sprinkled amongst it
I be surprised if Labour dropped that much. An 8% drop in their vote would mean 4-5% of the electorate would have to switch from Lab to Con in the next month (with 3-4% going to LDs/Greens). I just can't see that happening - I think people who have moved Con to Lab this parliament have made up their minds and are unlikely to reverse.
Base effects mean that the Labour share can drop without a single person changing their mind about voting Labour - if people currently saying they won't vote, or don't know how they will vote, start saying they will vote Tory, then the Tory share rises and the Labour share falls.
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
Although I think he’s a total bell end, he does make some good points in the interview.
Hmmm. He's been very non-specific about the details of the complaint, and why we should believe him when he says it's all historic, baseless and politically motivated. Maybe he's been very hard done by, but not sure I'd be at all confident in rushing to his defence.
I think he’s a nightmare - but even nightmares deserve due process.
Well, he'll get it in terms of his membership of the party. But Labour, and other parties, need to decide NOW if someone is a candidate under their name on 4th July. They need to make a judgment call on that based on how serious and credible the allegations are.
I have less sympathy over Labour's handling over Abbott as they've had plenty of time to deal with a known issue where the allegation is over public behaviour. That is just bad management.
He is being sensible and indeed Sunak using a helicopter is simply efficient
John Smith used to take the Sleeper - was in the bar car one trip heading north where he was surrounded by doting acolytes, enjoying holding forth and his whisky….
19 The primary crime that we have alleged is New York 20 State Election Law Section 17-152. There is conspiracy 21 language in the statute. In that statute it reads: 22 "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or 23 prevent the election of any person to a public office by 24 unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or 25 more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a 26 misdemeanor."
So the falsification of business records would be regarded as a misdemeanour unless except that it was also with "the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". The crime is the one above, NY State Election Law Section 17-152. This is why the prosecution was at pains to demonstrate that the payoff was for the purposes of promoting the election of Trump rather than merely for family reasons or to avoid embarrassment.
So, my opinion has not changed. Trump's guilty. He's a criminal.
Trump is a crook. He has crookedly conducted his business throughout his career, misusing law suits and committing frauds such as his so called University. He is extremely fortunate not to have been prosecuted before.
Is it legitimate to use the fact that he is a crook to persuade people who might otherwise be tempted not to vote for him? Absolutely.
Is it legitimate to try and extend the law beyond what is recognised just to get him for the greater good? Err...no. That is not the greater good, that is, in the long term, more damaging than Trump himself.
Oh come on. You guys are losing your minds. What does the bit on bold even mean?
You just need to get to the the catharsis of BONG, 10pm , 4th July and you'll be fine.
What it means is that there are almost no instances of people being prosecuted for book keeping records before Trump. The entries reflect what happened. Tax was paid on the money. Cohen's repayment was grossed up to allow for that. It was a misdemeanour with a 2 year limitation period at best.
The logic of the prosecution was that these misdemeanours were converted into felonies because they were done for a criminal purpose.
What was that purpose? Well, that was left pretty vague and the jury were allowed to have different ideas so long as they agreed that "it" was "bad".
I thought that was very clear - because Trump wanted the story suppressed as it might damage his electoral prospects. He did after all make the payments one week before the 2020 Election.
And the rapid Jury verdict argues that they found the prosecution case as convincing as everyone else.
(I wonder if one thing that could sink Trump is Melania going for a divorce, but I assume his prenup will try to cover that.)
He is being sensible and indeed Sunak using a helicopter is simply efficient
John Smith used to take the Sleeper - was in the bar car one trip heading north where he was surrounded by doting acolytes, enjoying holding forth and his whisky….
A real politician, cannot be compared to those two useless twats.
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
Although I think he’s a total bell end, he does make some good points in the interview.
Hmmm. He's been very non-specific about the details of the complaint, and why we should believe him when he says it's all historic, baseless and politically motivated. Maybe he's been very hard done by, but not sure I'd be at all confident in rushing to his defence.
Yeah, it's all very well for people to find the timing of the complaint suspicious - but that doesn't mean that suspending him during the investigation isn't the right thing to do.
If it turns out that the party (or someone connected with it) has deliberately sat on the complaint for a number of years just to prevent LRM from standing, then they'll deserve to be dragged through the mud for it. But unless there's any evidence for that, it seems to me that the party are doing the right thing in the circumstances.
But what if Dan Hodges and others had held back on Raynergate until after Rishi called the election: would Labour's deputy leader be suspended and barred from standing? Should she be?
I would say the gravity of the allegation isn't sufficient. Don't get me wrong - proving it would finish her as Deputy Leader and criminal charges could even have ended her as an MP. But it didn't raise issues over the safety of staff for instance (I should say I don't know what the allegation against Russell-Moyle is, and he seems not at all keen to say).
Wow, labour has a 23 point lead in the politico poll of polls. That is insane. If this holds the tories will get wiped out.
According to electoral calculus that would give 507 labour seats and 66 tory seats and 42 lib dems.... WOW! That would be an earth shattering result if it held.
It’s probably the best decision in the circumstances. However it’s not necessarily the correct decision, particularly for Diane herself as she appears to have lost several steps in recent years.
Quite remarkable indictment of Labour's poor management of this issue that even on this site nobody can tell if a U-turn means Abbott can stand or not. She can. The only thing they can do now to make it any worse is not select her. Which means they are stuck. Even if she's medically unfit (I don't know if she is, but that's the rumour).
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
Although I think he’s a total bell end, he does make some good points in the interview.
Yes. LRM shows that he's perfectly capable of not being bonkers. He interviews well, and is sensible and rational in that clip. He has, actually, grown up quite a lot in the last few years - I've encountered a fair bit of him so I've seen the change.
Which U turn is it Alan, is she "in / out" or "out / in"
That pinpoints the incompetence of this. The problem was not that Starmer was ruthlessly barring her, it was that he didn’t actually make his mind up and was ridiculously ambiguous, allowing the outrage bus to go up several gears.
Either that or genius: several Tories are on record saying Abbott is hard done by and praising her, which makes it difficult for them now to criticise her selection.
We are back to COVID Starmer...yes, but no, but yes, but no...they have let the narrative go all over the place. Why they didn't have this sorted months ago given the report was dione by Christmas.
Does the floodgates open with all the other lefties who have recently been purged demanding to stand.
Has he? It strikes me that his comment "free to go forward" as a candidate is entirely consistent with his comments this morning that "no decision to ban her" has been taken. Starmer has said consistently that the process had to be followed, she was investigated, she was punished, the whip was restored and it was untrue that she had been banned from running.
The only person that has said that Diane Abbott was banned from running was... Diane Abbott. She told Joe Pike that she had been banned early on Wednesday morning and by mid-morning she was tweeting that she was "very dismayed that numerous reports suggest I have been barred as a candidate". As she admitted at the rally in Hackney, she had not been told that she was banned.
So what's the truth? Probably somewhere in between, ie. "you can have the whip back but we're expecting you to stand down at some point" and "Don't worry, you'll be looked after. Companion of Honour and all that as you're the first black female MP, etc". She didn't like this approach and threw her toys out of the pram.
Keir Starmer is a very hands-off person. He doesn't want to be seen to be involved in a process which could cause a) embarrassment or b) legal issues further down the line. The NEC investigate, punished etc. and the whip was restored. To then pre-empt the NEC decision about candidature would be dodgy if she decided to lodge a complaint or sue. It was easier and legally safer for Starmer to say "These are the rules and I'm following them to the T".
I'm not naive. I know that Starmer is on the NEC. I know his allies are dominant so I'm not suggesting that it's entirely whiter than white. It's just Diane Abbott has been around long enough to know the ropes and realise that if you're going to get your side of the story out, make sure you do it first. And loudly.
It’s probably the best decision in the circumstances. However it’s not necessarily the correct decision, particularly for Diane herself as she appears to have lost several steps in recent years.
Perhaps now she's wrung this concession out of him, she'll be happy to retire on the basis that it would be her decision, and not Starmer's, for her to do so.
He is being sensible and indeed Sunak using a helicopter is simply efficient
John Smith used to take the Sleeper - was in the bar car one trip heading north where he was surrounded by doting acolytes, enjoying holding forth and his whisky….
A real politician, cannot be compared to those two useless twats.
He was indeed.
I'm told he was a formidable drinker too. Personally I'm not sure how he managed to combine it with being a brilliant politician, but then I have no Scottish blood in my veins, so these things are beyond me.
Has he? It strikes me that his comment "free to go forward" as a candidate is entirely consistent with his comments this morning that "no decision to ban her" has been taken. Starmer has said consistently that the process had to be followed, she was investigated, she was punished, the whip was restored and it was untrue that she had been banned from running.
The only person that has said that Diane Abbott was banned from running was... Diane Abbott. She told Joe Pike that she had been banned early on Wednesday morning and by mid-morning she was tweeting that she was "very dismayed that numerous reports suggest I have been barred as a candidate". As she admitted at the rally in Hackney, she had not been told that she was banned.
So what's the truth? Probably somewhere in between, ie. "you can have the whip back but we're expecting you to stand down at some point" and "Don't worry, you'll be looked after. Companion of Honour and all that as you're the first black female MP, etc". She didn't like this approach and threw her toys out of the pram.
Keir Starmer is a very hands-off person. He doesn't want to be seen to be involved in a process which could cause a) embarrassment or b) legal issues further down the line. The NEC investigate, punished etc. and the whip was restored. To then pre-empt the NEC decision about candidature would be dodgy if she decided to lodge a complaint or sue. It was easier and legally safer for Starmer to say "These are the rules and I'm following them to the T".
I'm not naive. I know that Starmer is on the NEC. I know his allies are dominant so I'm not suggesting that it's entirely whiter than white. It's just Diane Abbott has been around long enough to know the ropes and realise that if you're going to get your side of the story out, make sure you do it first. And loudly.
19 The primary crime that we have alleged is New York 20 State Election Law Section 17-152. There is conspiracy 21 language in the statute. In that statute it reads: 22 "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or 23 prevent the election of any person to a public office by 24 unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or 25 more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a 26 misdemeanor."
So the falsification of business records would be regarded as a misdemeanour unless except that it was also with "the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". The crime is the one above, NY State Election Law Section 17-152. This is why the prosecution was at pains to demonstrate that the payoff was for the purposes of promoting the election of Trump rather than merely for family reasons or to avoid embarrassment.
So, my opinion has not changed. Trump's guilty. He's a criminal.
Translating it into UK terms, it's as if Keir Starmer secretly employed a voice coach and made them sign an NDA, and people called it a criminal conspiracy to influence the election.
It’s probably the best decision in the circumstances. However it’s not necessarily the correct decision, particularly for Diane herself as she appears to have lost several steps in recent years.
Perhaps now she's wrung this concession out of him, she'll be happy to retire on the basis that it would be her decision, and not Starmer's, for her to do so.
Which U turn is it Alan, is she "in / out" or "out / in"
lol
fuck knows malc. Allegedly shes now allowed to stand for the election.But irs Starmer, if the wind changes direction he'll point somewhere else
I have principles and if you don't like, well I have others.
My guess is that now she has been allowed to stand she will choose not to on the grounds of health. Which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
It’s probably the best decision in the circumstances. However it’s not necessarily the correct decision, particularly for Diane herself as she appears to have lost several steps in recent years.
Perhaps now she's wrung this concession out of him, she'll be happy to retire on the basis that it would be her decision, and not Starmer's, for her to do so.
Turd polishing.
Er, no. Just musing.
Why do the boring partisans on here have to assume that everyone else is taking a boring partisan position?
It is with great regret I have to inform you all that Aaron Bell has decided to not stand for re-election.
Full statement. As ever he's a class act.
You have to respect any MP who does this, this early in their career because, as I understand the system, he would make more money if he stood, did very little and lost than by choosing not to stand now.
This system has changed. It now is payable to all MPs who stand down once an election is called - whether they fight and lose or not.
That isn't wholly correct - as the article itself says, there is still a separate "loss of office" payment for those who lose rather than stand down. It's modest, but they do get a bit extra.
Quite right, I need to read more carefully. Thanks for flagging.
He is being sensible and indeed Sunak using a helicopter is simply efficient
John Smith used to take the Sleeper - was in the bar car one trip heading north where he was surrounded by doting acolytes, enjoying holding forth and his whisky….
A real politician, cannot be compared to those two useless twats.
He was indeed.
I'm told he was a formidable drinker too. Personally I'm not sure how he managed to combine it with being a brilliant politician, but then I have no Scottish blood in my veins, so these things are beyond me.
His drinking was something of a legend at the Scottish bar at a time when that required almost Olympian efforts. But those who knew him, and there are far fewer now than there was 24 years ago when I came to the bar, never had a bad word to say about him. A thoroughly decent man.
19 The primary crime that we have alleged is New York 20 State Election Law Section 17-152. There is conspiracy 21 language in the statute. In that statute it reads: 22 "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or 23 prevent the election of any person to a public office by 24 unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or 25 more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a 26 misdemeanor."
So the falsification of business records would be regarded as a misdemeanour unless except that it was also with "the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". The crime is the one above, NY State Election Law Section 17-152. This is why the prosecution was at pains to demonstrate that the payoff was for the purposes of promoting the election of Trump rather than merely for family reasons or to avoid embarrassment.
So, my opinion has not changed. Trump's guilty. He's a criminal.
Translating it into UK terms, it's as if Keir Starmer secretly employed a voice coach and made them sign an NDA, and people called it a criminal conspiracy to influence the election.
???? What ????
How about in UK terms you incur an election expense and put it through your company books rather than declare it on your election expenses return. If you do and you get caught you go to prison.
I speak as someone who was a prosecution witness in an election spending case.
Which U turn is it Alan, is she "in / out" or "out / in"
lol
fuck knows malc. Allegedly shes now allowed to stand for the election.But irs Starmer, if the wind changes direction he'll point somewhere else
I have principles and if you don't like, well I have others.
My guess is that now she has been allowed to stand she will choose not to on the grounds of health. Which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
Maybe, but whichever way you look at it its shooting himself in the foot.
Comments
If I were Tice I'd be spitting feathers at the way Farage is treating him, though I can't say I'd be surprised by it.
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2024/05/with-five-weeks-to-go-less-than-half-of-voters-have-made-up-their-minds/
There's all of June available for these voters to be motivated and persuaded.
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle tells #PoliticsLive he’s been made a “sacrificial lamb” after being suspended from the party following a complaint about his behaviour
https://bbc.in/4c1qc5S
https://x.com/BBCPolitics/status/1796507060961440113
Although I think he’s a total bell end, he does make some good points in the interview.
I spent days knocking doors and delivering leaflets for her, only for her to f*** off after a couple of years when the reshuffle didn’t give her a ministry.
It doesn't seem to matter what Labour or the Tories do, the public doesn't seem to change their mind. I wonder if in weeks to come we will conclude the public made up their mind in 2022.
I'm figuring it as a Lib Dem gain from Con.
Local Elections 2023 and 2024:
About a quarter of the seat is in Exeter City, that's Pinhoe (safe Labour), St Loyes (normally safe Con, Labour ran it close in 2024 but with a good candidate) and Topsham (normally very safe Con but Labour took it in 2024). Lib Dems not really anywhere in any of them. But they are heavy in the East Devon 3/4 of the seat. There's 28 EDDC councillors in Exmouth & East Devon, Lib Dems won 12 in 2023, Tories 6, Greens 2, Labour 1, with independents 7 (2 have joined the Lib Dems in controlling the council, the other 5 are more traditional indy/con in all but name).
Candidates:
Simon Jupp, sitting MP for East Devon has gone with the smaller share of his old seat to fight in Honiton & Sidmouth so Tories don't have an incumbent. Neither the Labour or Conservative candidates have any strong links to the constituency. Paul Arnott, the Lib Dem does have local recognition, he's been a district councillor since 2015, first as leader of the East Devon Alliance, switched to the Lib Dems and now leads the council. There's also an independent in the mix, Dan Wilson, was the Labour candidate in 2019, became the first Labour local councillor in Exmouth for 27 years in 2023 but the NEC decided to impose a candidate and Wilson quit Labour to run as an independent. Reform UK also has a candidate in place which won't benefit the Tory.
Normally Exmouth and Exeter East should be Conservative, but their polling weakness, inexperienced candidate and Reform on their right flank look like combining to sink them. Labour could have helped them, if they had been stronger then the tactical voters might have split between Lab and LD allowing the Conservatives to hold on but I think this is one that Electoral Calculus has called wrong.
Honestly this whole debate on here proves my point. Trump derangement syndrome. People hate Trump so hysterically they cannot abide any argument that might be seen as “helping him”. Its not that the anti Trump nutters disagree with these arguments, they don’t even want to hear them and when told them they simply look away and pretend they don’t exist
And remember I despise Trump and think he’s a disaster for the GOP and I’d like to see the GOP win. But not with Trump
It’s all quite odd. But for today I’ve given up trying to surmount it. Also I am now staying in moldovas oldest winery and I’ve got a jacuzzi on the roof
https://x.com/beardedgenius/status/501422986118045696
Partly because having 650 egotists in a building when about 500 have not much to do is a recipe for trouble. As we repeatedly see.
But also, all but the most incapable of MPs, even Andrew Blooming Rosindell, has way more to offer than being lobby fodder. As a nation, we ought to be getting more value out of them.
Aaron Bell to stand down
https://x.com/channel4news/status/1796498709498544630?s=61
Such a pity his brother was largely responsible for chasing him out of the Commons.
Because, you know, Trump could act lawfully. No-one is blocking him from doing that.
He is being sensible and indeed Sunak using a helicopter is simply efficient
If it turns out that the party (or someone connected with it) has deliberately sat on the complaint for a number of years just to prevent LRM from standing, then they'll deserve to be dragged through the mud for it. But unless there's any evidence for that, it seems to me that the party are doing the right thing in the circumstances.
The Civil War was followed by several constitutional amendments, as also happened in the 1950s/60s.
The late 19C contained efforts to find ways to manipulate around the constitutional amendments, especially to stop black people voting, as we have been seeing under Mr Trump and the current version of the Republicans.
I think there's a need to overhaul some things to deal with these this.
I have less sympathy over Labour's handling over Abbott as they've had plenty of time to deal with a known issue where the allegation is over public behaviour. That is just bad management.
https://x.com/cjayanetti/status/1796516366310355436?s=61
19 The primary crime that we have alleged is New York
20 State Election Law Section 17-152. There is conspiracy
21 language in the statute. In that statute it reads:
22 "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or
23 prevent the election of any person to a public office by
24 unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or
25 more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a
26 misdemeanor."
So the falsification of business records would be regarded as a misdemeanour unless except that it was also with "the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof". The crime is the one above, NY State Election Law Section 17-152.
This is why the prosecution was at pains to demonstrate that the payoff was for the purposes of promoting the election of Trump rather than merely for family reasons or to avoid embarrassment.
So, my opinion has not changed. Trump's guilty. He's a criminal.
And the rapid Jury verdict argues that they found the prosecution case as convincing as everyone else.
(I wonder if one thing that could sink Trump is Melania going for a divorce, but I assume his prenup will try to cover that.)
Do the hokey cokey
And turn around
But is Abbott in or out?
fuck knows malc. Allegedly shes now allowed to stand for the election.But irs Starmer, if the wind changes direction he'll point somewhere else
I have principles and if you don't like, well I have others.
*now possibly conceded?
She can.
The only thing they can do now to make it any worse is not select her.
Which means they are stuck. Even if she's medically unfit (I don't know if she is, but that's the rumour).
Either that or genius: several Tories are on record saying Abbott is hard done by and praising her, which makes it difficult for them now to criticise her selection.
I’m going with incompetence though.
Asking for a friend
Does the floodgates open with all the other lefties who have recently been purged demanding to stand.
A highly principled man.
The only person that has said that Diane Abbott was banned from running was... Diane Abbott. She told Joe Pike that she had been banned early on Wednesday morning and by mid-morning she was tweeting that she was "very dismayed that numerous reports suggest I have been barred as a candidate". As she admitted at the rally in Hackney, she had not been told that she was banned.
So what's the truth? Probably somewhere in between, ie. "you can have the whip back but we're expecting you to stand down at some point" and "Don't worry, you'll be looked after. Companion of Honour and all that as you're the first black female MP, etc". She didn't like this approach and threw her toys out of the pram.
Keir Starmer is a very hands-off person. He doesn't want to be seen to be involved in a process which could cause a) embarrassment or b) legal issues further down the line. The NEC investigate, punished etc. and the whip was restored. To then pre-empt the NEC decision about candidature would be dodgy if she decided to lodge a complaint or sue. It was easier and legally safer for Starmer to say "These are the rules and I'm following them to the T".
I'm not naive. I know that Starmer is on the NEC. I know his allies are dominant so I'm not suggesting that it's entirely whiter than white. It's just Diane Abbott has been around long enough to know the ropes and realise that if you're going to get your side of the story out, make sure you do it first. And loudly.
I'm told he was a formidable drinker too. Personally I'm not sure how he managed to combine it with being a brilliant politician, but then I have no Scottish blood in my veins, so these things are beyond me.
So much for taking difficult decisions.
It's all hot air.
But SKS has handled this badly. He should have stuck to her not being allowed to stand again.
Why do the boring partisans on here have to assume that everyone else is taking a boring partisan position?
If you can't get around your constituency by bus, how can a sizeable minority get to their polling station?
How about in UK terms you incur an election expense and put it through your company books rather than declare it on your election expenses return. If you do and you get caught you go to prison.
I speak as someone who was a prosecution witness in an election spending case.