Political betting is being blamed for the Tories losing control of every council tonight

System · May 1

Political betting is being blamed for the Tories losing control of every council tonight– politicalbetting.com

A confidential memo to Kemi Badenoch, seen by the Telegraph, predicts that the Tories will lose up to 770 seats and all the mayoral elections that are taking place.

Read the full story here

MarqueeMark · May 1

is being blamed...

eek · May 1

I think it depends on what the other items mentioned on the doorstep is.

If it's Kemi is crap and what is the purpose of the tory party nowadays blaming some idiots making a few quid via a dodgy bet is a better option than discussing the actual issues.

TheScreamingEagles · May 1

MarqueeMark said:
is being blamed...

Well done for spotting my deliberate mistake.

kle4 · May 1

If it is not expectations management but a starting point they are in real trouble.

I don't think the management is fully in their gift though - Reform will almost certainly have a good set of results, but if they don't move past the Tories that saves some Tory blushes.

I think they'll manage it though.

DecrepiterJohnL · May 1

I too am surprised the betting scandal is raised – in betting terms, it is not clear precisely what the Gambling Commission is so exercised about – but on reflection, I suppose it shows the Tories as spivs, looking after number one.

BartholomewRoberts · May 1

If the Tories are blaming the betting furore then they've learned nothing yet about why they lost the election.

The Tories were deeply unpopular long before the story about betting on the election date ever came up.

Sean_F · May 1

770 seems unlikely. Two or three mayoralties are winnable.

But, if that were the result, Reform’s NEV would be 30%+, and the Conservatives’ -20%.

Northern_Al · May 1

I'd wager a substantial amount that the Tories' unpopularity has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'betting scandal'.

BartholomewRoberts · May 1

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:
Is this Labour’s pitch for the @BartholomewRoberts vote?

“See these nice fields. Wouldn’t it be better to concrete over them?”

https://x.com/uklabour/status/1917553268882039148

It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?

They're not proposing to change anything, they're warning tourists that rural areas don't have the best contactless payment setup, so you need to bring change to Britain.

kle4 · May 1

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:
Should Stonewall be censured for saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling “is not law as yet”?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1917997893770006892
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.

And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.

If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.

I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.

It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.

I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue.

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.
https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m

Mexicanpete · May 1

I'd quite like the Tories to do a little better than that prediction. The further away from the levers of power we can keep Honest Bobby J. , the better.

kle4 · May 1

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:
Is this Labour’s pitch for the @BartholomewRoberts vote?

“See these nice fields. Wouldn’t it be better to concrete over them?”

https://x.com/uklabour/status/1917553268882039148

It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?
They're not proposing to change anything, they're warning tourists that rural areas don't have the best contactless payment setup, so you need to bring change to Britain.

After the greyed out photo of Starmer next to the word change that was on the 2024 manifesto perhaps they just wanted a bit more colour (I loved too how the next page was the word 'Change' written a thousand times - solid messaging)

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf

Mexicanpete · May 1

DecrepiterJohnL said:
I too am surprised the betting scandal is raised – in betting terms, it is not clear precisely what the Gambling Commission is so exercised about – but on reflection, I suppose it shows the Tories as spivs, looking after number one.

The Tories as spivs when we have Dad's Army's Private Walker leading Reform?

Andy_JS · May 1

FPT

Roger said:
I just watched Trump sitting at an oval table with his ministers who were being unbearably sycophantic. The only thing I remember seeing which was as cringe making and threatening was something involving Stalin or Saddam many years ago before the ministers were taken out to be shot. I can't find it now but does anyone remember the footage?

Yes I remember it.

nico67 · May 1

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:
Is this Labour’s pitch for the @BartholomewRoberts vote?

“See these nice fields. Wouldn’t it be better to concrete over them?”

https://x.com/uklabour/status/1917553268882039148

It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?
They're not proposing to change anything, they're warning tourists that rural areas don't have the best contactless payment setup, so you need to bring change to Britain.
After the greyed out photo of Starmer next to the word change that was on the 2024 manifesto perhaps they just wanted a bit more colour (I loved too how the next page was the word 'Change' written a thousand times - solid messaging)

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf

He looks like one of the Kray Twins . What a dreadful photo .

kle4 · May 1

Mexicanpete said:
I'd quite like the Tories to do a little better than that prediction. The further away from the levers of power we can keep Honest Bobby J. , the better.

How much better would they need to do for that to happen? An ousting in his favour has the aura of inevitability at the moment as Badenoch is now wowing people and, for some reason, Jenrick excites them a lot (he does appear to be savvier).

Stuartinromford · May 1

The sort of confidential memo designed to be accidentally sent to a friendly journalist?

Cambridgeshire ought to be a gimmie without SV, and the betting scandal is an excellent excuse that the current management can say is nothing to do with them.

williamglenn · May 1

https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1918008067339501900

ALERT: All purchases of Iranian Oil, or Petrochemical products, must stop, NOW! Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions. They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form. Thank you for your attention to this matter, PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

Taz · May 1

The Trumpdozer ratchets up the pressure on Iran

https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1918008286684520466?s=61

Casino_Royale · May 1

It's the if you stand for nothing you will fall for nothing thesis being played out. In real life.

kle4 · May 1

nico67 said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:
Is this Labour’s pitch for the @BartholomewRoberts vote?

“See these nice fields. Wouldn’t it be better to concrete over them?”

https://x.com/uklabour/status/1917553268882039148

It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?
They're not proposing to change anything, they're warning tourists that rural areas don't have the best contactless payment setup, so you need to bring change to Britain.
After the greyed out photo of Starmer next to the word change that was on the 2024 manifesto perhaps they just wanted a bit more colour (I loved too how the next page was the word 'Change' written a thousand times - solid messaging)

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf
He looks like one of the Kray Twins . What a dreadful photo .

Curious too as there's 30+ photos of him in the manifesto, some of which will be better. I assume they were trying to go for a message of change, but don't worry he's not radical, so grey image and neutral expression was chosen.

williamglenn · May 1

Taz said:
The Trumpdozer ratchets up the pressure on Iran

https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1918008286684520466?s=61

The biggest purchaser of Iranian oil is China so it’s probably aimed more at them.

AnneJGP · May 1

No suggestion then that changing leaders as often as changing socks caused them any problems.

RobD · May 1

AnneJGP said:
No suggestion then that changing leaders as often as changing socks caused them any problems.

For me this is the main reason they can’t do anything but wish for the best at the next GE.

nico67 · May 1

kle4 said:

nico67 said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:
Is this Labour’s pitch for the @BartholomewRoberts vote?

“See these nice fields. Wouldn’t it be better to concrete over them?”

https://x.com/uklabour/status/1917553268882039148

It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?
They're not proposing to change anything, they're warning tourists that rural areas don't have the best contactless payment setup, so you need to bring change to Britain.
After the greyed out photo of Starmer next to the word change that was on the 2024 manifesto perhaps they just wanted a bit more colour (I loved too how the next page was the word 'Change' written a thousand times - solid messaging)

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf
He looks like one of the Kray Twins . What a dreadful photo .
Curious too as there's 30+ photos of him in the manifesto, some of which will be better. I assume they were trying to go for a message of change, but don't worry he's not radical, so grey image and neutral expression was chosen.

He looks frightening. Not sure what Labour HQ were thinking .

williamglenn · May 1

nico67 said:

kle4 said:

nico67 said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:
Is this Labour’s pitch for the @BartholomewRoberts vote?

“See these nice fields. Wouldn’t it be better to concrete over them?”

https://x.com/uklabour/status/1917553268882039148

It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?
They're not proposing to change anything, they're warning tourists that rural areas don't have the best contactless payment setup, so you need to bring change to Britain.
After the greyed out photo of Starmer next to the word change that was on the 2024 manifesto perhaps they just wanted a bit more colour (I loved too how the next page was the word 'Change' written a thousand times - solid messaging)

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf
He looks like one of the Kray Twins . What a dreadful photo .
Curious too as there's 30+ photos of him in the manifesto, some of which will be better. I assume they were trying to go for a message of change, but don't worry he's not radical, so grey image and neutral expression was chosen.
He looks frightening. Not sure what Labour HQ were thinking .

"For too long, criticism of the leader's image has gone unpunished. That ends now.

My government will use the latest AI technology to track down devices used to send such messages. And then crush them."

Omnium · May 1

williamglenn said:

Taz said:
The Trumpdozer ratchets up the pressure on Iran

https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1918008286684520466?s=61
The biggest purchaser of Iranian oil is China so it’s probably aimed more at them.

I think you're over-estimating the strategy involved by roughly 100%.

Andy_JS · May 1

The heatwave is officially over. Heavy cloud has just arrived.

RobD · May 1

williamglenn said:

nico67 said:

kle4 said:

nico67 said:

kle4 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:
Is this Labour’s pitch for the @BartholomewRoberts vote?

“See these nice fields. Wouldn’t it be better to concrete over them?”

https://x.com/uklabour/status/1917553268882039148

It does seem odd. An idyllic rural scene and that huge caption. What are they proposing to change? And why?
They're not proposing to change anything, they're warning tourists that rural areas don't have the best contactless payment setup, so you need to bring change to Britain.
After the greyed out photo of Starmer next to the word change that was on the 2024 manifesto perhaps they just wanted a bit more colour (I loved too how the next page was the word 'Change' written a thousand times - solid messaging)

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf
He looks like one of the Kray Twins . What a dreadful photo .
Curious too as there's 30+ photos of him in the manifesto, some of which will be better. I assume they were trying to go for a message of change, but don't worry he's not radical, so grey image and neutral expression was chosen.
He looks frightening. Not sure what Labour HQ were thinking .
"For too long, criticism of the leader's image has gone unpunished. That ends now.

My government will use the latest AI technology to track down devices used to send such messages. And then crush them."

The devices, or those using them?

Yes.

AnneJGP · May 1

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:
Should Stonewall be censured for saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling “is not law as yet”?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1917997893770006892
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.

And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.

If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.

I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.

I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue.

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.
https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m

Thanks for that, the link was very interesting.

Ratters · May 1

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1918008067339501900

ALERT: All purchases of Iranian Oil, or Petrochemical products, must stop, NOW! Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions. They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form. Thank you for your attention to this matter, PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

I guess China will get some cheap Iranian oil to supplement the cheap Russian oil.

This is the trouble with fighting multiple fronts at once. Secondary sanctions on China makes little difference when there is already an effective embargo via ~150% tariffs.

viewcode · May 1

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:
Should Stonewall be censured for saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling “is not law as yet”?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1917997893770006892
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.

And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.

If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.

I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.

I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue.

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.
https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m

The person
https://wlegal.co.uk/our-people/victoria-mccloud/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_McCloud (according to that, she lived in UK but migrated to IRE)

The case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qw2149yelo

kle4 · May 1

Ratters said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1918008067339501900

ALERT: All purchases of Iranian Oil, or Petrochemical products, must stop, NOW! Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions. They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form. Thank you for your attention to this matter, PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
I guess China will get some cheap Iranian oil to supplement the cheap Russian oil.

Autocracy Inc. All about the co-operation thesedays these terrible regimes.

The book examines how Autocratic governments, which do not share a common ideology, collaborate to increase their power and control against the democratic and liberal countries. It is an expanded version of her article in The Atlantic: "The Bad Guys Are Winning".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy,_Inc.:_The_Dictators_Who_Want_to_Run_the_World

Nigelb · May 1

If you take out the losses, they might gain seats…

"If you take out all of the negative numbers, GDP is up."

No. Really. That's what he just said.
https://x.com/KevinlyFather/status/1917721323696185407

TimS · May 1

williamglenn said:

Taz said:
The Trumpdozer ratchets up the pressure on Iran

https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1918008286684520466?s=61
The biggest purchaser of Iranian oil is China so it’s probably aimed more at them.

The biggest purchaser of Iranian drones on the other hand

rcs1000 · May 1

Omnium said:

williamglenn said:

Taz said:
The Trumpdozer ratchets up the pressure on Iran

https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1918008286684520466?s=61
The biggest purchaser of Iranian oil is China so it’s probably aimed more at them.
I think you're over-estimating the strategy involved by roughly 100%.

That assumes a non-zero amount of strategy to begin with.

viewcode · May 1

OT: How the heckety-heck does anybody think Con will lose the Cambridgeshire Mayorality? It's around 7-10% ahead in the polls!

StillWaters · May 1

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:
Should Stonewall be censured for saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling “is not law as yet”?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1917997893770006892
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.

And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.

If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.

I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.

I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue.

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner
House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.
https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m

AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.

What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.

I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”

Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?

Nigelb · May 1

Didn’t we suggest this a couple of years ago, and were told it was pointless ?

So apparently, the U.S. is sending “retired” F-16s from the Davis-Monthan boneyard to Ukraine - supposedly just for spare parts to repair existing jets. Sure... just spare parts, nothing to see here.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1917992383620301116

TimS · May 1

kle4 said:

Mexicanpete said:
I'd quite like the Tories to do a little better than that prediction. The further away from the levers of power we can keep Honest Bobby J. , the better.
How much better would they need to do for that to happen? An ousting in his favour has the aura of inevitability at the moment as Badenoch is now wowing people and, for some reason, Jenrick excites them a lot (he does appear to be savvier).

It does, but they do say never back the favourite. There would be a neat symmetry if Kemi were ousted by the Jenrickers, only for Cleverly to sneak in as unification candidate with the membership.

Omnium · May 1

rcs1000 said:

Omnium said:

williamglenn said:

Taz said:
The Trumpdozer ratchets up the pressure on Iran

https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1918008286684520466?s=61
The biggest purchaser of Iranian oil is China so it’s probably aimed more at them.
I think you're over-estimating the strategy involved by roughly 100%.
That assumes a non-zero amount of strategy to begin with.

Not necessarily - a 100% mis-estimation of a zero strategy policy wouldn't be wrong, just really rather imprecise.

StillWaters · May 1

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1918008067339501900

ALERT: All purchases of Iranian Oil, or Petrochemical products, must stop, NOW! Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions. They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form. Thank you for your attention to this matter, PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

Does that include Russia?

MarqueeMark · May 1

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1918008067339501900

ALERT: All purchases of Iranian Oil, or Petrochemical products, must stop, NOW! Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions. They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form. Thank you for your attention to this matter, PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

Negotiations with Iran not going well then?

Gallowgate · May 1

StillWaters said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:
Should Stonewall be censured for saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling “is not law as yet”?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1917997893770006892
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.

And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.

If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.

I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.

I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue.

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner
House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.
https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.

What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.

I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”

Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?

No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.

StillWaters · May 1

Gallowgate said:

StillWaters said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:
Should Stonewall be censured for saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling “is not law as yet”?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1917997893770006892
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.

And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.

If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.

I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.

I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue.

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner
House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.
https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.

What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.

I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”

Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.

Indeed. Sued.

But surely Stonewall is breaching law by encouraging others to break the Equality Act?

MattW · May 1

FPT:

Taz said:

MattW said:
Final leaflet census.

Lots from Reform; oodles of Ashfield Independent; a bit of Labour; one from the Conservatives; and Lib Dems are elsewhere.

(The Conservative one explains that none of the other candidates are really local.)
As you’re in the locale what do you reckon to the chances of the Broxtowe independents ?

It's complicated.

The Broxtowe Independents are the Labour walkouts in Jan 2025, aren't they? They are now called the Broxtowe Alliance.

There's also something else called the Broxtowe Independent Group, which is a different set of independents. They seem well organised and coherent. BIG have I think 4 incumbents.

Broxtowe Alliance are all (except one) at District Level.

This time there are 6 standing from BA, one of whom I think is an incumbent, and 4 standing from BIG. They seem to have a no-compete agreement, formal or not. It looks to me as if BA are not standing where BIG are incumbent. And maybe vice-versa.

So they could do surprisingly well, depending on how much of the former Labour vote they keep. If you look at their website, BA are very much Labour-style independents, not Reform-style.

No change would be Broxtowe Alliance 1 (out of 9 or 10 total seats I think), and BIG 4. I'd say it would be within one either way for both groups.

If they do well they will I think ally with Ashfield Independents on a number of things, unless a return to Labour is negotiated.

theProle · May 1

StillWaters said:

Gallowgate said:

StillWaters said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:
Should Stonewall be censured for saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling “is not law as yet”?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1917997893770006892
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.

And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.

If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.

I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.

I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue.

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner
House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.
https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.

What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.

I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”

Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.

Gallowgate said:

StillWaters said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:
Should Stonewall be censured for saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling “is not law as yet”?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1917997893770006892
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.

And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.

If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.

I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.

I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue.

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner
House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.
https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.

What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.

I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”

Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.
Indeed. Sued.

But surely Stonewall is breaching law by encouraging others to break the Equality Act?

Is incitement to break the Equality Act an offence? I'm no fan of Stonewall, and they're entirely wrong on this one, but I'm not convinced that their statements are even approaching a crime.

MarqueeMark · May 1

StillWaters said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1918008067339501900

ALERT: All purchases of Iranian Oil, or Petrochemical products, must stop, NOW! Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions. They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form. Thank you for your attention to this matter, PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Does that include Russia?

Not sure why Russia would buy from Iran. Swaps for differing oil qualities for refining maybe?

But a timely reminder to Russia: you next.

glw · May 1

StillWaters said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1918008067339501900

ALERT: All purchases of Iranian Oil, or Petrochemical products, must stop, NOW! Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions. They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form. Thank you for your attention to this matter, PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Does that include Russia?

So the US is ending all trade with China and India.

SirNorfolkPassmore · May 1

On topic, textbook expectations management. Set it up as armageddon, then boast how well you've done when you hold onto Cambridgeshire mayoralty and RefUK don't totally sweep the board. On political betting, it was a five minute wonder - a pain for the Tories back in June but not really relevant to today. That's being chucked in as, "It's not Kemi's fault, honest".

williamglenn · May 1

Nigelb said:
Didn’t we suggest this a couple of years ago, and were told it was pointless ?

So apparently, the U.S. is sending “retired” F-16s from the Davis-Monthan boneyard to Ukraine - supposedly just for spare parts to repair existing jets. Sure... just spare parts, nothing to see here.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1917992383620301116

That's the difference a new administration makes.

FrancisUrquhart · May 1

Going to be a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible night for.....

kinabalu · May 1

MarqueeMark said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1918008067339501900

ALERT: All purchases of Iranian Oil, or Petrochemical products, must stop, NOW! Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions. They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form. Thank you for your attention to this matter, PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
Negotiations with Iran not going well then?

All Iran have to do is something that can be called a "Deal!" then everyone can move on.

MattW · May 1

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1918008067339501900

ALERT: All purchases of Iranian Oil, or Petrochemical products, must stop, NOW! Any Country or person who buys ANY AMOUNT of OIL or PETROCHEMICALS from Iran will be subject to, immediately, Secondary Sanctions. They will not be allowed to do business with the United States of America in any way, shape, or form. Thank you for your attention to this matter, PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

Hmmm. China, South Korea, India, Japan, Turkey are 5 of the top 6.

Scott_xP · May 1

@alaynatreene

POTUS says he will nominate Waltz to be his new UN ambassador

Rubio will serve as NSA director in the interim

I’d note that UN ambassador is a position the president never really cared much about

https://x.com/alaynatreene/status/1918009437417071078

TimS · May 1

SirNorfolkPassmore said:
On topic, textbook expectations management. Set it up as armageddon, then boast how well you've done when you hold onto Cambridgeshire mayoralty and RefUK don't totally sweep the board. On political betting, it was a five minute wonder - a pain for the Tories back in June but not really relevant to today. That's being chucked in as, "It's not Kemi's fault, honest".

It’s a really crap excise, because nobody believes the betting is coming up on the doorstep. Just not credible. What’ll be coming up is a mixture of “still too soon after the election to give you the benefit of the doubt”, and “I’m giving Reform a go this time”.

Stuartinromford · May 1

FrancisUrquhart said:
Going to be a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible night for.....

Pretty much everyone. Losers because they have lost, and winners because all this becomes their problem.

Foxy · May 1

Nigelb said:
Didn’t we suggest this a couple of years ago, and were told it was pointless ?

So apparently, the U.S. is sending “retired” F-16s from the Davis-Monthan boneyard to Ukraine - supposedly just for spare parts to repair existing jets. Sure... just spare parts, nothing to see here.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1917992383620301116

That's the one near Tuscon isn't it?

It's an amazing place to drive by. Miles and miles of Cold War and later planes. It's a spotters paradise for Airfix afficianados.

Sunil_Prasannan · May 1

Andy_JS said:
The heatwave is officially over. Heavy cloud has just arrived.

Still forecast to be 25 degrees tomorrow down south.

Nigelb · May 1

Scott_xP said:
@alaynatreene

POTUS says he will nominate Waltz to be his new UN ambassador

Rubio will serve as NSA director in the interim

I’d note that UN ambassador is a position the president never really cared much about

https://x.com/alaynatreene/status/1918009437417071078

IOW Waltz just got canned.

Guess he didn’t suck up enough at the cabinet meeting.

Taz · May 1

FrancisUrquhart said:
Going to be a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible night for.....

Anyone wanting to sleep. It’s muggy.

Foxy · May 1

Polling very quiet at my station. Postal voting and everyone else in their gardens with drinkies.

SirNorfolkPassmore · May 1

StillWaters said:

Gallowgate said:

StillWaters said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:
Should Stonewall be censured for saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling “is not law as yet”?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1917997893770006892
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.

And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.

If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.

I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.

I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue.

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner
House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.
https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.

What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.

I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”

Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.

Gallowgate said:

StillWaters said:

kle4 said:

AnneJGP said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:
Should Stonewall be censured for saying that the Supreme Court’s ruling “is not law as yet”?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1917997893770006892
I disagree with Stonewall on this subject and was pleased with the ruling. But I am not sure it is right to censure or punish them for making a statement even if they turn out to be wrong.

And are they wrong? I don't know the law well enough to know if a Supreme Court decision is law the second it is made or if there is some form of procedure to be followed first.

If they are right then all the more reason why they should not be censured.
I thought it was pretty clear that the court was not making law, and so it is not a question of there being any further delay to what the legal interpretation is (but much to do on people reacting to it appropriately), but I could be wrong about that.

I'm more interested in whether Stonewall are willfully posturing, or mistaken.
AIUI the ECHR could take a different view and overrule our SC. I read something online (yesterday?) that a transgender judge is planning to refer the decision to the ECHR.
It surely is not easy to just 'refer' a matter to the ECHR, and even if they did or could, if it was about not being able to put arguments before the top court (when many parties put forth the relevant arguments) that seems like a minor procedural point which would be hard to argue they have a right to intervene, when presumably they are angrier about the actual interpretation the SC came to.

I don't know if this chap has any biases, but suggest it would be hard, so interesting if there is more weight to the idea than they argue.

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner
House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.
https://nitter.poast.org/Broonjunior/status/1917494873155932501#m
AIUI the Supreme Court is not “making” law.

What it has done is say “this is how the current law is to be interpreted”.

I read Stonewall’s statement as saying “don’t worry chaps, carry on doing what you were doing before”

Surely if people do that then they are at risk of prosecution?
No. The Equality Act concerns civil law not criminal law. The organisations could be sued though.
Indeed. Sued.

But surely Stonewall is breaching law by encouraging others to break the Equality Act?

In general (and there are a few caveats around that), it isn't illegal to advise someone incorrectly.

This comes up quite a bit in areas like tax. If it turns out the avoidance scheme you've got involved in doesn't work, you might have a contractual claim against the advisor but, absent fraud or something like that, you're the one ultimately on the hook for following duff advice.

TimS · May 1

Foxy said:
Polling very quiet at my station. Postal voting and everyone else in their gardens with drinkies.

And WFH meaning people can go out and vote during the day too? But I expect turnout is going to be extremely low.

Scott_xP · May 1

Oooh

@MatthewTorbitt

Contact in No10 tells me that a reshuffle is “imminent” & will be used to deflect from tomorrow’s results with immigration reset to follow.

Make of that what you will & where Lab think results are heading - interesting as I’d heard mostly positive sounds from Lab MPs this week.

https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1917958303554130288

FrancisUrquhart · May 1

Scott_xP said:
Oooh

@MatthewTorbitt

Contact in No10 tells me that a reshuffle is “imminent” & will be used to deflect from tomorrow’s results with immigration reset to follow.

Make of that what you will & where Lab think results are heading - interesting as I’d heard mostly positive sounds from Lab MPs this week.

https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1917958303554130288

"mmigration reset to follow." - Relaunch #1434543. It all very Sunak government. Relaunch, make a speech, problem not actually solved, rinse and repeat again in a few weeks.

MarqueeMark · May 1

Scott_xP said:
Oooh

@MatthewTorbitt

Contact in No10 tells me that a reshuffle is “imminent” & will be used to deflect from tomorrow’s results with immigration reset to follow.

Make of that what you will & where Lab think results are heading - interesting as I’d heard mostly positive sounds from Lab MPs this week.

https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1917958303554130288

Reeves? Milliband?

theProle · May 1

Foxy said:
Polling very quiet at my station. Postal voting and everyone else in their gardens with drinkies.

Just been to vote in mine. I was the only voter on the premises for the duration of my visit. No tellers, no visible gotv operation (I'm walking across my estate into town at the moment).

Taz · May 1

Foxy said:
Polling very quiet at my station. Postal voting and everyone else in their gardens with drinkies.

We voted around 3PM, of our Close of 20 houses only two others had voted by then and I live in a Close where it’s mainly retirees.

Foxy · May 1

Nigelb said:

Scott_xP said:
@alaynatreene

POTUS says he will nominate Waltz to be his new UN ambassador

Rubio will serve as NSA director in the interim

I’d note that UN ambassador is a position the president never really cared much about

https://x.com/alaynatreene/status/1918009437417071078
IOW Waltz just got canned.

Guess he didn’t suck up enough at the cabinet meeting.

He's doing quickstep out of his old role.

Eabhal · May 1

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:
Oooh

@MatthewTorbitt

Contact in No10 tells me that a reshuffle is “imminent” & will be used to deflect from tomorrow’s results with immigration reset to follow.

Make of that what you will & where Lab think results are heading - interesting as I’d heard mostly positive sounds from Lab MPs this week.

https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1917958303554130288
Reeves? Milliband?

I don't think Miliband, because they were apparently furious with Blair's remarks this morning. Reeves would be quite something, and might suggest they are looking for another "fiscal event" now the headroom has been squashed.

But most likely some junior posts.

FrancisUrquhart · May 1

I presume has become the norm the bulk of the results won't start being counted until tomorrow morning with results coming in through the afternoon / early evening.

Taz · May 1

MattW said:
FPT:
Taz said:

MattW said:
Final leaflet census.

Lots from Reform; oodles of Ashfield Independent; a bit of Labour; one from the Conservatives; and Lib Dems are elsewhere.

(The Conservative one explains that none of the other candidates are really local.)
As you’re in the locale what do you reckon to the chances of the Broxtowe independents ?
It's complicated.

The Broxtowe Independents are the Labour walkouts in Jan 2025, aren't they? They are now called the Broxtowe Alliance.

There's also something else called the Broxtowe Independent Group, which is a different set of independents. They seem well organised and coherent. BIG have I think 4 incumbents.

Broxtowe Alliance are all (except one) at District Level.

This time there are 6 standing from BA, one of whom I think is an incumbent, and 4 standing from BIG. They seem to have a no-compete agreement, formal or not. It looks to me as if BA are not standing where BIG are incumbent. And maybe vice-versa.

So they could do surprisingly well, depending on how much of the former Labour vote they keep. If you look at their website, BA are very much Labour-style independents, not Reform-style.

No change would be Broxtowe Alliance 1 (out of 9 or 10 total seats I think), and BIG 4. I'd say it would be within one either way for both groups.

If they do well they will I think ally with Ashfield Independents on a number of things, unless a return to Labour is negotiated.

Yes, Labour walkouts in Jan 25, Matt

Why is it always complicated in life xxx

williamglenn · May 1

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:
Oooh

@MatthewTorbitt

Contact in No10 tells me that a reshuffle is “imminent” & will be used to deflect from tomorrow’s results with immigration reset to follow.

Make of that what you will & where Lab think results are heading - interesting as I’d heard mostly positive sounds from Lab MPs this week.

https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1917958303554130288
"mmigration reset to follow." - Relaunch #1434543. It all very Sunak government. Relaunch, make a speech, problem not actually solved, rinse and repeat again in a few weeks.

Keir "that ends now" Starmer has a problem with overpromising and underdelivering.

MarqueeMark · May 1

Taz said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Going to be a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible night for.....
Anyone wanting to sleep. It’s muggy.

Good for moths though.

Here's an Iron Prominent from my Devon garden:

Peter_the_Punter · May 1

Taz said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Going to be a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible night for.....
Anyone wanting to sleep. It’s muggy.

Rain and a freshening breeze here in Glos.

Wind of change?

Andy_JS · May 1

Just voted. Didn't go over to the dark side, despite temptation.

JosiasJessop · May 1

Nigelb said:
Didn’t we suggest this a couple of years ago, and were told it was pointless ?

So apparently, the U.S. is sending “retired” F-16s from the Davis-Monthan boneyard to Ukraine - supposedly just for spare parts to repair existing jets. Sure... just spare parts, nothing to see here.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1917992383620301116

At least they're not using horses to tow them across the border

https://footagefarm.com/reel-details/wwii/generic/pre-wwii---canada--us-plane-towed-across-border-for-delivery-to-british--mar40#/
https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/why-britain-pulled-aircraft-with-horses-and-trucks-ddd2dbd2aaa4

Taz · May 1

Andy_JS said:
Just voted. Didn't go over to the dark side, despite temptation.

Glad you didn’t vote Lib Dem. 👍

Dopermean · May 1

Eabhal said:

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:
Oooh

@MatthewTorbitt

Contact in No10 tells me that a reshuffle is “imminent” & will be used to deflect from tomorrow’s results with immigration reset to follow.

Make of that what you will & where Lab think results are heading - interesting as I’d heard mostly positive sounds from Lab MPs this week.

https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1917958303554130288
Reeves? Milliband?
I don't think Miliband, because they were apparently furious with Blair's remarks this morning. Reeves would be quite something, and might suggest they are looking for another "fiscal event" now the headroom has been squashed.

But most likely some junior posts.

Transport? Heidi Alexander is as dumb as a brick.
Reeves was a bad choice in hindsight but can't see her being replaced. Labour could do with a "Clarke replacing Lamont" super sub but of fortune (as could the country).

Mortimer · May 1

Sean_F said:
770 seems unlikely. Two or three mayoralties are winnable.

But, if that were the result, Reform’s NEV would be 30%+, and the Conservatives’ -20%.

CCHQ's last few expectations management efforts have not been that successful IIRC.....

Kemi has surprised on the downside; it wouldn't surprise me if the results were actually this bad.

Scott_xP · May 1

The guy is a total liability

https://x.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1918026870840582619

No_Offence_Alan · May 1

theProle said:

Foxy said:
Polling very quiet at my station. Postal voting and everyone else in their gardens with drinkies.
Just been to vote in mine. I was the only voter on the premises for the duration of my visit. No tellers, no visible gotv operation (I'm walking across my estate into town at the moment).

Your estate? Do you employ a gamekeeper?

TimS · May 1

No_Offence_Alan said:

theProle said:

Foxy said:
Polling very quiet at my station. Postal voting and everyone else in their gardens with drinkies.
Just been to vote in mine. I was the only voter on the premises for the duration of my visit. No tellers, no visible gotv operation (I'm walking across my estate into town at the moment).
Your estate? Do you employ a gamekeeper?

That would explain why they were the only voter. It was the estate’s private booth, and the staff were still hard at work.

Foxy · May 1

Dopermean said:

Eabhal said:

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:
Oooh

@MatthewTorbitt

Contact in No10 tells me that a reshuffle is “imminent” & will be used to deflect from tomorrow’s results with immigration reset to follow.

Make of that what you will & where Lab think results are heading - interesting as I’d heard mostly positive sounds from Lab MPs this week.

https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1917958303554130288
Reeves? Milliband?
I don't think Miliband, because they were apparently furious with Blair's remarks this morning. Reeves would be quite something, and might suggest they are looking for another "fiscal event" now the headroom has been squashed.

But most likely some junior posts.
Transport? Heidi Alexander is as dumb as a brick.
Reeves was a bad choice in hindsight but can't see her being replaced. Labour could do with a "Clarke replacing Lamont" super sub but of fortune (as could the country).

Could do with Loiuse Haigh being rehabilitated. One of the best of a bad lot.

carnforth · May 1

Today's picture:

"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)

ohnotnow · May 1

williamglenn said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:
Oooh

@MatthewTorbitt

Contact in No10 tells me that a reshuffle is “imminent” & will be used to deflect from tomorrow’s results with immigration reset to follow.

Make of that what you will & where Lab think results are heading - interesting as I’d heard mostly positive sounds from Lab MPs this week.

https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1917958303554130288
"mmigration reset to follow." - Relaunch #1434543. It all very Sunak government. Relaunch, make a speech, problem not actually solved, rinse and repeat again in a few weeks.
Keir "that ends now" Starmer has a problem with overpromising and underdelivering.

Quite a few PM's have followed the pattern I first really noticed with Gordon Brown. Desperate for the post, then no idea what to do with it.

Foxy · May 1

TimS said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

theProle said:

Foxy said:
Polling very quiet at my station. Postal voting and everyone else in their gardens with drinkies.
Just been to vote in mine. I was the only voter on the premises for the duration of my visit. No tellers, no visible gotv operation (I'm walking across my estate into town at the moment).
Your estate? Do you employ a gamekeeper?
That would explain why they were the only voter. It was the estate’s private booth, and the staff were still hard at work.

Didn't Sam Cameron claim to have grown up in an Estate near Scunthorpe?

Or is it as apocryphal as the avocado dip story?

Gallowgate · May 1

ohnotnow said:

williamglenn said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:
Oooh

@MatthewTorbitt

Contact in No10 tells me that a reshuffle is “imminent” & will be used to deflect from tomorrow’s results with immigration reset to follow.

Make of that what you will & where Lab think results are heading - interesting as I’d heard mostly positive sounds from Lab MPs this week.

https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1917958303554130288
"mmigration reset to follow." - Relaunch #1434543. It all very Sunak government. Relaunch, make a speech, problem not actually solved, rinse and repeat again in a few weeks.
Keir "that ends now" Starmer has a problem with overpromising and underdelivering.
Quite a few PM's have followed the pattern I first really noticed with Gordon Brown. Desperate for the post, then no idea what to do with it.

Didn’t Keir originally just want to be Attorney General?

Foxy · May 1

Gallowgate said:

ohnotnow said:

williamglenn said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:
Oooh

@MatthewTorbitt

Contact in No10 tells me that a reshuffle is “imminent” & will be used to deflect from tomorrow’s results with immigration reset to follow.

Make of that what you will & where Lab think results are heading - interesting as I’d heard mostly positive sounds from Lab MPs this week.

https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1917958303554130288
"mmigration reset to follow." - Relaunch #1434543. It all very Sunak government. Relaunch, make a speech, problem not actually solved, rinse and repeat again in a few weeks.
Keir "that ends now" Starmer has a problem with overpromising and underdelivering.
Quite a few PM's have followed the pattern I first really noticed with Gordon Brown. Desperate for the post, then no idea what to do with it.
Didn’t Keir originally just want to be Attorney General?

He might be quite good as Justice Secretary, and reshuffle Ange into pole position

Nigelb · May 1

Vance: Meeting 1 day before pope’s death ‘sign from God’

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5277987-vance-meeting-one-day-before-popes-death-sign-from-god/
Vice President Vance said his meeting with Pope Francis one day before his death was a nod from a higher power.
Vance met with the pontiff on Easter Sunday before attending mass with him at the Vatican, after which he departed to India for a four-day trip.
“About an hour after we landed, a staffer came over and said, ‘Sir, the pope died.’ I obviously felt very sad, and my thought went immediately to the pope, but also to all these Catholics who love him,” Vance told Fox News Digital.
“But then it kind of hit me — oh my God — I was one of the last people to talk to him. I just take it as a great honor and a sign from God to remember that you never know when your last day on this Earth is.” ..

rcs1000 · May 1

Foxy said:

TimS said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

theProle said:

Foxy said:
Polling very quiet at my station. Postal voting and everyone else in their gardens with drinkies.
Just been to vote in mine. I was the only voter on the premises for the duration of my visit. No tellers, no visible gotv operation (I'm walking across my estate into town at the moment).
Your estate? Do you employ a gamekeeper?
That would explain why they were the only voter. It was the estate’s private booth, and the staff were still hard at work.
Didn't Sam Cameron claim to have grown up in an Estate near Scunthorpe?

Or is it as apocryphal as the avocado dip story?

It was a 20,000 acre estate, with 14 outbuildings as well a 24,000 square foot manor house and stables.

dixiedean · May 1

Taz said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Going to be a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible night for.....
Anyone wanting to sleep. It’s muggy.

Going down to 7° overnight in Newcastle.

Richard_Tyndall · May 1

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Going to be a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible night for.....
Anyone wanting to sleep. It’s muggy.
Good for moths though.

Here's an Iron Prominent from my Devon garden:

I have my trap out tonight.

By the way apologies for not replying to your message a few weeks go when you were in Lincolnshire. I am afraid work has been rather all encompasing at the moment - hence the reason I am spending so little time on PB.

DavidL · May 1

Nigelb said:
Vance: Meeting 1 day before pope’s death ‘sign from God’

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5277987-vance-meeting-one-day-before-popes-death-sign-from-god/
Vice President Vance said his meeting with Pope Francis one day before his death was a nod from a higher power.
Vance met with the pontiff on Easter Sunday before attending mass with him at the Vatican, after which he departed to India for a four-day trip.
“About an hour after we landed, a staffer came over and said, ‘Sir, the pope died.’ I obviously felt very sad, and my thought went immediately to the pope, but also to all these Catholics who love him,” Vance told Fox News Digital.
“But then it kind of hit me — oh my God — I was one of the last people to talk to him. I just take it as a great honor and a sign from God to remember that you never know when your last day on this Earth is.” ..

Is it not more that the Pope said to God, "I'm a celebrity get me out of here"?

isam · May 1

Scott_xP said:
Oooh

@MatthewTorbitt

Contact in No10 tells me that a reshuffle is “imminent” & will be used to deflect from tomorrow’s results with immigration reset to follow.

Make of that what you will & where Lab think results are heading - interesting as I’d heard mostly positive sounds from Lab MPs this week.

https://x.com/MatthewTorbitt/status/1917958303554130288

“People voted for change and we are delivering”

isam · May 1

carnforth said:
Today's picture:

"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)

“Six months is a long time…”

… but don’t worry, you’ll get about 183 days less than that

bondegezou · May 1

carnforth said:
Today's picture:

"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)

Social contagion driven by social media. Tech companies not doing enough. I humbly suggest.

TimS · May 1

carnforth said:
Today's picture:

"Shoplifting now so bad you need a log scale" (via Twitter)

FA: cutting police resources and making them prioritise
FO: they prioritise

MarqueeMark · May 1

Richard_Tyndall said:

MarqueeMark said:

Taz said:

FrancisUrquhart said:
Going to be a terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible night for.....
Anyone wanting to sleep. It’s muggy.
Good for moths though.

Here's an Iron Prominent from my Devon garden:

I have my trap out tonight.

By the way apologies for not replying to your message a few weeks go when you were in Lincolnshire. I am afraid work has been rather all encompasing at the moment - hence the reason I am spending so little time on PB.

Not a problem - I'll be back there some time, hopefully when you aren't on a rig.

Good luck for the trap tonight. Been quite good in April down here.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

Political betting is being blamed for the Tories losing control of every council tonight

Comments