Skip to content

I cannot see how an election takes place this year or the next – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,648
edited August 28 in General
I cannot see how an election takes place this year or the next – politicalbetting.com

Given Labour’s current polling figures I cannot see why Labour, with a majority north of 150, would want to call an election this year or next year, I expect Starmer and Labour to go long and hold the election in 2029.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,827
    edited August 28
    First - and quite agree. (Although in fairness I was saying that it would be mad for May to call an election as the podium was being brought out in front of Downing Street, and the press conference must be for something else)
  • If Labour go for an early election, they would certainly be pulling the trigger...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,132
    It would be the most impressive act of electoral suicide since Wilson called an election early in 1970.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,465
    Q: What’s pink and hard?

    A: A pig with a knife.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,465
    edited August 28
    ydoethur said:

    It would be the most impressive act of electoral suicide since Wilson called an election early in 1970.

    2026 like 1970 is a World Cup year.

    Could Aaron Ramsdale cause a shock election result ?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,515
    Yes it's bonkers.
    Although it is enlightening to see who is demanding a "second vote".
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,465
    ydoethur said:

    It would be the most impressive act of electoral suicide since Wilson called an election early in 1970.

    Nah, since 2022, as I said in the header since the Tories made Liz Truss PM.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,644
    FPT

    Sean_F said:

    Carnyx said:

    Andy_JS said:

    None of main childhood vaccine uptake targets reached in England - as MMR uptake hits 15-year low
    The uptake target for all childhood vaccines is 95% - but one of the main pre-school boosters has been administered to just over 80% of five-year-olds.

    https://news.sky.com/story/none-of-main-childhood-vaccine-uptake-targets-reached-in-england-as-mmr-uptake-hits-15-year-low-13419867

    I guess this means no sneering at America.

    It would be interesting to know which areas of the country are most responsible for the drop in vaccination, assuming it isn't uniform.
    Based on the anecdotes of my father’s ex-colleagues there’s a London factor and a white working class factor across the UK.

    Antivax sentiment has increased since the pandemic, there’s a lot of misinformation out there, it’s much worse than the Andrew Wakefield bullshit.

    Doctors are getting regularly abused when they suggest to some parents that their kids need their vaccines.
    London factor?
    A mixture of some recent arrivals and some very middle class people who won’t allow poisons to be injected into them or their kids, the sort that believe in homeopathy.
    I knew a man very well who died of Covid, because of his refusal to be "injected with poisons". He was a law graduate, from Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and I found it hard to fathom such stupidity.
    I had a friend, fairly intelligent, had a wonderful wife and three kids, was convinced Covid was a hoax and the vaccine was going to control/kill us all.

    Got into a row with his friends and family, some of whom had friends/family who died from Covid.

    Told his wife he would divorce her and would never see his kids if they got vaccinated.

    Well he’s divorced now, hasn’t seen his kids in four years, I’d like to blame social media, but it wasn’t that, he was just convinced by his own arguments.

    He went from earning a six figure salary, to being unemployed and living in a small one bedroom flat.

    From what I hear he was sacked from his job for being abusive to the vaccinated.
    "Most of the trouble in this world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind" - William S Burroughs, https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/william_s_burroughs_149739
  • kamski said:

    Latest report about the Nordstream sabotage investigations:

    https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/nord-stream-sabotage-104.html

    Investigators seem pretty sure they know the names of the Ukrainians who did it, and they have evidence of Ukrainian state involvement.

    I should expect so, they are at war having been invaded and they are our allies whom we are trying to defend.

    Putinists might be outraged at the damage, however screw them.

    The named individuals should be getting awarded medals for a job well done.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,132

    ydoethur said:

    It would be the most impressive act of electoral suicide since Wilson called an election early in 1970.

    Nah, since 2022, as I said in the header since the Tories made Liz Truss PM.
    That was political and economic suicide, not an election per se.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,803

    Q: What’s pink and hard?

    A: A pig with a knife.

    What's brown, smelly and comes out of Cowes?

    The isle of Wight Ferry
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,132

    Q: What’s pink and hard?

    A: A pig with a knife.

    Does it bring home the bacon?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,636
    edited August 28
    Given that the headlines in the Epping hotel case could send Labour down into the mid teens, yes it probably best for them to hold off the next election. Maybe for a couple of decades
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,419

    kamski said:

    Latest report about the Nordstream sabotage investigations:

    https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/nord-stream-sabotage-104.html

    Investigators seem pretty sure they know the names of the Ukrainians who did it, and they have evidence of Ukrainian state involvement.

    I should expect so, they are at war having been invaded and they are our allies whom we are trying to defend.

    Putinists might be outraged at the damage, however screw them.

    The named individuals should be getting awarded medals for a job well done.
    Last I heard on PB it was Putin blowing up his own pipeline for nefarious reasons of his own.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,311
    Sunak went earlier than he had to and did terribly, but in fairness it's not clear whether they could have done even worse had they dragged it out still further. Granted historically it seems most do go a little early, rather than full term, but it just seems easier to play for time given how things are.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,535
    Leon said:

    Given that the headlines in the Epping hotel case could send Labour down into the mid teens, yes it probably best for them to hold off the next election. Maybe for a couple of decades

    Ruling expected at 2.00pm tomorrow
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,465
    kle4 said:

    Sunak went earlier than he had to and did terribly, but in fairness it's not clear whether they could have done even worse had they dragged it out still further. Granted historically it seems most do go a little early, rather than full term, but it just seems easier to play for time given how things are.

    I hope nobody close to Starmer has bet on a 2025 or 2026 election.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,132
    kle4 said:

    Sunak went earlier than he had to and did terribly, but in fairness it's not clear whether they could have done even worse had they dragged it out still further. Granted historically it seems most do go a little early, rather than full term, but it just seems easier to play for time given how things are.

    By the time he announced the election, he looked like a drowning man.

    And the political situation was a bit shit, too.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,743
    Leon said:

    Given that the headlines in the Epping hotel case could send Labour down into the mid teens, yes it probably best for them to hold off the next election. Maybe for a couple of decades

    You missed the Farage-Tice clusterf*** regarding sending asylum seeker girls back to the Taliban?

    You weren't alone. The BBC missed it too.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,921
    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,743
    ...
    ydoethur said:

    It would be the most impressive act of electoral suicide since Wilson called an election early in 1970.

    There is no Jeff Astle to come off the bench, miss an open goal, and hand an unlikely victory to the Tories this time around mind.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,083
    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    They are talking about a government that has fucked up and failed to ensure that the property it is using as a hostel, has planning consent to be used as a hostel. It is in the national interest that powerful bodies can not override the law.

    It may be in the national interest that the government can housecasylum seekers, but I don't see why it has to be in a particular hotel in Epping.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,451
    FPT NI on landlords' rent . Are the Treasury trolling Reeves?
    Surely just increasing the income tax % on rental income would be the sensible action?
    It's declared on the tax return already (or should be), so easy enough to do.

    Are they trying to tax allowable costs as well?
    How does this work for landlords who are over the state pension age and NI exempt?

    Regardless of case for increasing tax on rental income, this would have to be the stupidest means of doing it.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,402
    More chance of yet another election in France this year. I really should get round to registering for it.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,289
    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    It is in the national interest not to have these lads put up in hotels anywhere in the country.

    Which also happens to be the government's policy aim.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,921
    kle4 said:

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    I wish national interest being greater than local planning interest was an attitude which was a lot more common when it came to major or even just significant planning matters.
    True that’s why nothing ever gets built . The DT and Daily Mail have concocted a headline which isn’t supported by the facts .
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,705
    edited August 28
    ydoethur said:

    It would be the most impressive act of electoral suicide since Wilson called an election early in 1970.

    Playing DA, the only logic I can see is that Labour takes the chance to see the Tories finally removed from the electoral map, reckoning that in the longer term they’ll become the natural party of government, up against Reform. But that would require both boldness, courage, and the most remarkable alignment of the political stars, such that it’s more likely this government limps to the end of its full term, hoping that when it comes to it that we Brits are (Leon excepted, obvs) mostly down to earth folk who have at least one of our feet on the ground.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,705

    Q: What’s pink and hard?

    A: A pig with a knife.

    What's brown, smelly and comes out of Cowes?

    The isle of Wight Ferry
    Nonsense. Nowadays it’s red, reasonably clean, and likely cancelled due to either technical problems or staff shortage.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,743
    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,416
    Hmmm.

    SWAT team arrives 5 years too late and ransacks house searching for previous owner.

    Only in Las Vegas:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaOpY3cmGzs

    A new policy for Nigel?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,705
    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    Cooper is showing all the signs of a minister who has been utterly captured by her officials. Which just goes to show that Labour was wise not to pick her for leader back whenever it was.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,921

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    They are talking about a government that has fucked up and failed to ensure that the property it is using as a hostel, has planning consent to be used as a hostel. It is in the national interest that powerful bodies can not override the law.

    It may be in the national interest that the government can housecasylum seekers, but I don't see why it has to be in a particular hotel in Epping.
    Your argument is fine . The government haven’t acted well and should have foreseen these issues . But the DT and Daily Mail are misleading people about the case .
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,636
    edited August 28
    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    No. The government’s and the hotel’s lawyers are REDACTED

    Remember this is the same government that lied about Afghanistan and then put a super injunction to hide their lies. They’re now claiming it is “social media disinformation” that is fuelling the protests

    It’s not fecking disinformation. There have been rapes and murders by asylum seekers across the country. This is not disputed. There is an ongoing case of an Epping asylum seeker, involving a 14 year old local girl, right now

    How is that “disinformation”?
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,402
    What the hell?

    "Israeli forces land at former air-defence base near Syrian capital"

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/28/israeli-forces-former-air-defence-base-southern-syria-damascus
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,416
    Dopermean said:

    FPT NI on landlords' rent . Are the Treasury trolling Reeves?
    Surely just increasing the income tax % on rental income would be the sensible action?
    It's declared on the tax return already (or should be), so easy enough to do.

    Are they trying to tax allowable costs as well?
    How does this work for landlords who are over the state pension age and NI exempt?

    Regardless of case for increasing tax on rental income, this would have to be the stupidest means of doing it.

    Not diving into this, but they have been taxing costs - finance costs - since Osborne in 2014.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,636
    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,849

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    They are talking about a government that has fucked up and failed to ensure that the property it is using as a hostel, has planning consent to be used as a hostel. It is in the national interest that powerful bodies can not override the law.

    It may be in the national interest that the government can housecasylum seekers, but I don't see why it has to be in a particular hotel in Epping.
    The hotel housed migrants from May 2020 to March 2021, then from October 2022 to April 2024, with the council never instigating any formal enforcement proceedings against this use, nor any significant protests arising from it. I wonder what's changed?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,581
    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    My post on it from earlier in the day:

    In trying to win the appeal against the asylum hotel closure/injunction the lawyers are making very lawyerly arguments which may succeed but in doing so they are writing headlines for the next few months that will push Reform's vote share up into the mid 30s.

    Saying out loud on behalf of the government that due to article whatever of some international convention the rights of asylum seekers override the rights of local people is a fucking disaster for the government and the Labour party. It may be legally correct but saying it out loud and telling the voters and taxpayers that they rate lower for the state than asylum seekers feeds into the already existing memes about two tier Kier.

    Absolute fucking disaster for the government even if it wins them the legal case. Talk about a scorched earth strategy, did no one with any political sense tell them that it's better to lose than to go into a very high profile court case and win by saying asylum seekers have a higher claim to rights then citizens. Wtf were they thinking.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,465
    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,743
    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Keep up.

    We've moved on from asylum seeker hotels. Starmer redeployed his PPS today. That is today's scandal.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,560

    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.

    Just had a 15 mille or so drive to the next town, via a large village. Drove through built-up areas. One flag, a Union Jack, somewhere that always flies one.
    If anything, that's less than usual.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,867
    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    How do other european governments, under the same ECHR obligations, manage to house asylum seekers in tents rather than hotels?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,921
    Leon said:

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    No. The government’s and the hotel’s lawyers are REDACTED

    Remember this is the same government that lied about Afghanistan and then put a super injunction to hide their lies. They’re now claiming it is “social media disinformation” that is fuelling the protests

    It’s not fecking disinformation. There have been rapes and murders by asylum seekers across the country. This is not disputed. There is an ongoing case of an Epping asylum seeker, involving a 14 year old local girl, right now

    How is that “disinformation”?
    You’re arguing over different things . I’m merely talking about the reporting of the DT and Daily Mail which is making up a headline not based on the actual facts of the case . If the government wanted no drama they should have legislated that the HS could use powers to house migrants in hotels regardless of what local planners think .
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,743

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
    Just rejoice that you can analyse @Leon 's work and bet accordingly.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,535
    edited August 28

    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.

    I noticed this morning a huge Welsh flag draped over a detached house roof by us with lots of little ones (flags) n the garden
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,465

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
    Just rejoice that you can analyse @Leon 's work and bet accordingly.
    It’s why we keep him around, he’s the best anti-tipster in the world.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,402
    edited August 28

    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.

    I saw them yesterday! Was going to post about it but forgot. Putting up Welsh flags in Wales doesn't seem to have the same connotations as the English flag in England though, which is a shame.

    (Edit: I mean in that there's nothing wrong with it and you shouldn't assume that there are ulterior motives).
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,636

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
    This is unfortunately timed for the government. This case opened today - literally


    “Man denies raping girl, 12, in Nuneaton in case that prompted anti-asylum protests

    “A man has pleaded not guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton while another man has denied strangling her, in a case that prompted anti-asylum protests in the town.

    “Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir, both 23, are accused of abducting and assaulting the child in the Warwickshire town on 22 July. The defendants denied nine charges between them at a plea hearing at Warwick crown court on Thursday.

    Mulakhil, of no fixed abode, denied abducting a child, three counts of rape of a child under 13, and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13. Kabir, also of no fixed abode, pleaded not guilty to attempting to take a child, aiding and abetting rape of a child under 13, and intentional strangulation of the girl.”

    Literally, today. In today’s Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/28/man-denies-raping-girl-nuneaton-anti-asylum-protests
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,581

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
    Again, the polls on these specific issues say one thing but the PM's personal ratings and the government's ratings say something completely different. They're at Liz Truss levels but without the 11% inflation and 6% mortgage rates, so maybe those issues don't rate individually but overall that drip, drip of shit decision making is clearly destroying the PM's credibility and both of those have hurt them and so will this.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,289

    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.

    Just had a 15 mille or so drive to the next town, via a large village. Drove through built-up areas. One flag, a Union Jack, somewhere that always flies one.
    If anything, that's less than usual.
    Fewer
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,535
    DougSeal said:

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    They are talking about a government that has fucked up and failed to ensure that the property it is using as a hostel, has planning consent to be used as a hostel. It is in the national interest that powerful bodies can not override the law.

    It may be in the national interest that the government can housecasylum seekers, but I don't see why it has to be in a particular hotel in Epping.
    The hotel housed migrants from May 2020 to March 2021, then from October 2022 to April 2024, with the council never instigating any formal enforcement proceedings against this use, nor any significant protests arising from it. I wonder what's changed?
    Farage and the failure to stop the boats
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,465
    CatMan said:

    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.

    I saw them yesterday! Was going to post about it but forgot. Putting up Welsh flags in Wales doesn't seem to have the same connotations as the English flag in England though, which is a shame.
    It’s a pity I’ve used up my photo allowance for the day, but this is what the Welsh should do when it comes to painting flags.

    https://tinyurl.com/yv9ubymu
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 5,921
    edited August 28
    carnforth said:

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    How do other european governments, under the same ECHR obligations, manage to house asylum seekers in tents rather than hotels?
    The ECHR already ruled that housing migrants in poor or degrading living conditions is a violation of Article 3. We’re only getting snippets of the legal arguments as to how Cooper is applying that to Epping . Hopefully the full transcript will be available later .
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,849

    DougSeal said:

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    They are talking about a government that has fucked up and failed to ensure that the property it is using as a hostel, has planning consent to be used as a hostel. It is in the national interest that powerful bodies can not override the law.

    It may be in the national interest that the government can housecasylum seekers, but I don't see why it has to be in a particular hotel in Epping.
    The hotel housed migrants from May 2020 to March 2021, then from October 2022 to April 2024, with the council never instigating any formal enforcement proceedings against this use, nor any significant protests arising from it. I wonder what's changed?
    Farage and the failure to stop the boats
    They've both been constant factors, not new ones. Try again.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,465
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
    This is unfortunately timed for the government. This case opened today - literally


    “Man denies raping girl, 12, in Nuneaton in case that prompted anti-asylum protests

    “A man has pleaded not guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton while another man has denied strangling her, in a case that prompted anti-asylum protests in the town.

    “Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir, both 23, are accused of abducting and assaulting the child in the Warwickshire town on 22 July. The defendants denied nine charges between them at a plea hearing at Warwick crown court on Thursday.

    Mulakhil, of no fixed abode, denied abducting a child, three counts of rape of a child under 13, and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13. Kabir, also of no fixed abode, pleaded not guilty to attempting to take a child, aiding and abetting rape of a child under 13, and intentional strangulation of the girl.”

    Literally, today. In today’s Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/28/man-denies-raping-girl-nuneaton-anti-asylum-protests
    You of all people ‘Leon’ should be aware that getting charged with a sex crime doesn’t mean guilt.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,738
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,569

    DougSeal said:

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    They are talking about a government that has fucked up and failed to ensure that the property it is using as a hostel, has planning consent to be used as a hostel. It is in the national interest that powerful bodies can not override the law.

    It may be in the national interest that the government can housecasylum seekers, but I don't see why it has to be in a particular hotel in Epping.
    The hotel housed migrants from May 2020 to March 2021, then from October 2022 to April 2024, with the council never instigating any formal enforcement proceedings against this use, nor any significant protests arising from it. I wonder what's changed?
    Farage and the failure to stop the boats
    On the National Interest vs Other Interest - why is it that this couldn’t work fir housing migrants in all the other options (old military bases etc) that were rejected?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,639

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
    Or abortion.

    Actually, I think Leon is right in that crystallises the issue into a single bitesize topic. I don't think the government have much choice but to take this case given the wider implications of losing it, and I believe strongly in application of the law etc etc, but it's a brutal symptom of an issue they were left with by the Conservatives and have so far been unable to find a solution.

    What's mad is that even Reform are being eaten by it with their mad Taliban Tax thing. It's like a political black hole.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,821
    There is a vanishingly small chance of an election in 2025 and 2026.

    There is a very small chance of a 2027 vote, but I only really see that happening if Starmer has fallen on his sword and someone tries a Theresa May gambit.

    2028 is probably value. A third of elections since 1979 were held in the fourth year of a parliament (though generally when the government thought they had a good chance of winning them).
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,743
    Scott_xP said:
    Ooh, that is Allister Heath, King of unhinged headlines.

    Bet accordingly.
  • Dopermean said:

    FPT NI on landlords' rent . Are the Treasury trolling Reeves?
    Surely just increasing the income tax % on rental income would be the sensible action?
    It's declared on the tax return already (or should be), so easy enough to do.

    Are they trying to tax allowable costs as well?
    How does this work for landlords who are over the state pension age and NI exempt?

    Regardless of case for increasing tax on rental income, this would have to be the stupidest means of doing it.

    Why should earned salaries be taxed less than unearned rental incomes?

    Merging NI with Income Tax would be my preferred solution, but applying NI to unearned incomes like rental incomes is a close second.

    And for the benefit of HYUFD that NI could be hypothecated.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,535
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    They are talking about a government that has fucked up and failed to ensure that the property it is using as a hostel, has planning consent to be used as a hostel. It is in the national interest that powerful bodies can not override the law.

    It may be in the national interest that the government can housecasylum seekers, but I don't see why it has to be in a particular hotel in Epping.
    The hotel housed migrants from May 2020 to March 2021, then from October 2022 to April 2024, with the council never instigating any formal enforcement proceedings against this use, nor any significant protests arising from it. I wonder what's changed?
    Farage and the failure to stop the boats
    They've both been constant factors, not new ones. Try again.
    They are new

    Since July 24 Starmer has promised to smash the gangs and Farage has arrived on the scene leading all the news media with deportations and ending the boats issue

    These are todays topics that lead the narrative and Starmer doesn’t seem to have a clue how to deal with the issue
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,849
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
    This is unfortunately timed for the government. This case opened today - literally


    “Man denies raping girl, 12, in Nuneaton in case that prompted anti-asylum protests

    “A man has pleaded not guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton while another man has denied strangling her, in a case that prompted anti-asylum protests in the town.

    “Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir, both 23, are accused of abducting and assaulting the child in the Warwickshire town on 22 July. The defendants denied nine charges between them at a plea hearing at Warwick crown court on Thursday.

    Mulakhil, of no fixed abode, denied abducting a child, three counts of rape of a child under 13, and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13. Kabir, also of no fixed abode, pleaded not guilty to attempting to take a child, aiding and abetting rape of a child under 13, and intentional strangulation of the girl.”

    Literally, today. In today’s Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/28/man-denies-raping-girl-nuneaton-anti-asylum-protests
    "Literally, today". As if time itself needs a fucking emphatic footnote. "Literally” has been under assault for ages, inflated from a perfectly useful word denoting factuality, into a kind of punctuation mark of hysteria, which TBF is why you're well suited to it. But when paired with “today,” it collapses entirely. What does it even fucking mean? Did you think that “today” on its own might somehow lack heft? That an event occurred on this very calendar date, as opposed to “metaphorically, today”? That the happening was not allegorical, or scheduled for the Day of Judgement, but in fact Thursday 28 August 2025? The redundancy almost becomes performance art. Which would, I admit, be a step up from the self-parody you normally peddle.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,545
    Why is the troll BartholomewRoberts not banned? I was sinbinned for simply calling him a rude name after he refused to stop trolling me, yet he is allowed to carry on.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,636
    And remember this poll today was before the Epping debacle

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 34% (+1)
    🔴 Labour: 18% (-)
    🔵 Conservatives: 15% (-2)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
    🟢 Greens: 10% (-)

    Changes from 20th August
    [Find Out Now, 27th August, N=2,538]

    Suboptimal for Lab and Con
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,705

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
    This is unfortunately timed for the government. This case opened today - literally


    “Man denies raping girl, 12, in Nuneaton in case that prompted anti-asylum protests

    “A man has pleaded not guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton while another man has denied strangling her, in a case that prompted anti-asylum protests in the town.

    “Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir, both 23, are accused of abducting and assaulting the child in the Warwickshire town on 22 July. The defendants denied nine charges between them at a plea hearing at Warwick crown court on Thursday.

    Mulakhil, of no fixed abode, denied abducting a child, three counts of rape of a child under 13, and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13. Kabir, also of no fixed abode, pleaded not guilty to attempting to take a child, aiding and abetting rape of a child under 13, and intentional strangulation of the girl.”

    Literally, today. In today’s Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/28/man-denies-raping-girl-nuneaton-anti-asylum-protests
    You of all people ‘Leon’ should be aware that getting charged with a sex crime doesn’t mean guilt.
    Do tell…
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,751
    edited August 28
    kamski said:

    Why is the troll BartholomewRoberts not banned? I was sinbinned for simply calling him a rude name after he refused to stop trolling me, yet he is allowed to carry on.

    How have I trolled anyone?

    I disagreed with you, honestly and sincerely, for your spouting pro Putin arguments like that Ukrainians should be punished for blowing up Russian infrastructure like Nordstream.

    That is not a troll, it is a sincere belief.

    You swore at me which is why you were sinbinned. I've not sworn at you, even if you dislike your Putinist arguments getting called out.

    If everyone who disagreed with someone else got banned, there'd be no users here. Except @TridentSubCommander
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,636
    DougSeal said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
    This is unfortunately timed for the government. This case opened today - literally


    “Man denies raping girl, 12, in Nuneaton in case that prompted anti-asylum protests

    “A man has pleaded not guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton while another man has denied strangling her, in a case that prompted anti-asylum protests in the town.

    “Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir, both 23, are accused of abducting and assaulting the child in the Warwickshire town on 22 July. The defendants denied nine charges between them at a plea hearing at Warwick crown court on Thursday.

    Mulakhil, of no fixed abode, denied abducting a child, three counts of rape of a child under 13, and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13. Kabir, also of no fixed abode, pleaded not guilty to attempting to take a child, aiding and abetting rape of a child under 13, and intentional strangulation of the girl.”

    Literally, today. In today’s Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/28/man-denies-raping-girl-nuneaton-anti-asylum-protests
    "Literally, today". As if time itself needs a fucking emphatic footnote. "Literally” has been under assault for ages, inflated from a perfectly useful word denoting factuality, into a kind of punctuation mark of hysteria, which TBF is why you're well suited to it. But when paired with “today,” it collapses entirely. What does it even fucking mean? Did you think that “today” on its own might somehow lack heft? That an event occurred on this very calendar date, as opposed to “metaphorically, today”? That the happening was not allegorical, or scheduled for the Day of Judgement, but in fact Thursday 28 August 2025? The redundancy almost becomes performance art. Which would, I admit, be a step up from the self-parody you normally peddle.
    I was using it for tragicomic emphasis. And it worked
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,705
    CatMan said:

    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.

    I saw them yesterday! Was going to post about it but forgot. Putting up Welsh flags in Wales doesn't seem to have the same connotations as the English flag in England though, which is a shame.

    (Edit: I mean in that there's nothing wrong with it and you shouldn't assume that there are ulterior motives).
    My home town…


  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,545

    kamski said:

    Why is the troll BartholomewRoberts not banned? I was sinbinned for simply calling him a rude name after he refused to stop trolling me, yet he is allowed to carry on.

    How have I trolled anyone?

    I disagreed with you, honestly and sincerely, for your spouting pro Putin arguments like that Ukrainians should be punished for blowing up Russian infrastructure like Nordstream.

    That is not a troll, it is a sincere belief.

    You swore at me which is why you were sinbinned. I've not sworn at you, even if you dislike your Putinist arguments getting called out.

    If everyone who disagreed with someone else got banned, there'd be no users here. Except @TridentSubCommander
    Go fuck yourself you nazi
  • PJHPJH Posts: 897
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    My post on it from earlier in the day:

    In trying to win the appeal against the asylum hotel closure/injunction the lawyers are making very lawyerly arguments which may succeed but in doing so they are writing headlines for the next few months that will push Reform's vote share up into the mid 30s.

    Saying out loud on behalf of the government that due to article whatever of some international convention the rights of asylum seekers override the rights of local people is a fucking disaster for the government and the Labour party. It may be legally correct but saying it out loud and telling the voters and taxpayers that they rate lower for the state than asylum seekers feeds into the already existing memes about two tier Kier.

    Absolute fucking disaster for the government even if it wins them the legal case. Talk about a scorched earth strategy, did no one with any political sense tell them that it's better to lose than to go into a very high profile court case and win by saying asylum seekers have a higher claim to rights then citizens. Wtf were they thinking.
    I think I would quietly have told Epping Forest DC that it was up to them to rehouse everybody affected locally and that no additional budget would be provided beyond the agreed rate for the hotel. And pass legislation if needed. (Could an SI suffice for something like that?)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,636
    Well it’s all very jolly on here this afternoon

    Does anyone want to hear about my lovely hike in the “Tuscany of Austria”?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,705
    Leon said:

    Well it’s all very jolly on here this afternoon

    Does anyone want to hear about my lovely hike in the “Tuscany of Austria”?

    Is that still with your guide, to stop your elderly self wandering off somewhere you shouldn’t?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,731

    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.

    A bit of vandalism in Devon. Sad Face.

    https://bsky.app/profile/bestforbritain.org/post/3lxhltxay5c2s
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,743
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
    This is unfortunately timed for the government. This case opened today - literally


    “Man denies raping girl, 12, in Nuneaton in case that prompted anti-asylum protests

    “A man has pleaded not guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton while another man has denied strangling her, in a case that prompted anti-asylum protests in the town.

    “Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir, both 23, are accused of abducting and assaulting the child in the Warwickshire town on 22 July. The defendants denied nine charges between them at a plea hearing at Warwick crown court on Thursday.

    Mulakhil, of no fixed abode, denied abducting a child, three counts of rape of a child under 13, and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13. Kabir, also of no fixed abode, pleaded not guilty to attempting to take a child, aiding and abetting rape of a child under 13, and intentional strangulation of the girl.”

    Literally, today. In today’s Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/28/man-denies-raping-girl-nuneaton-anti-asylum-protests
    You of all people ‘Leon’ should be aware that getting charged with a sex crime doesn’t mean guilt.
    Do tell…
    Not Leon, but his friend, who I believe used to post here and did bird on remand.

    His friend would discuss the events in detail back in the day.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,743
    Foxy said:

    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.

    A bit of vandalism in Devon. Sad Face.

    https://bsky.app/profile/bestforbritain.org/post/3lxhltxay5c2s
    That's awful.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,705

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    Do you think it will be a bigger vote changer than the Afghan leak story, because you said the same then, despite the polling contradicting you.

    Or will this be even bigger than Chagos?
    This is unfortunately timed for the government. This case opened today - literally


    “Man denies raping girl, 12, in Nuneaton in case that prompted anti-asylum protests

    “A man has pleaded not guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton while another man has denied strangling her, in a case that prompted anti-asylum protests in the town.

    “Ahmad Mulakhil and Mohammad Kabir, both 23, are accused of abducting and assaulting the child in the Warwickshire town on 22 July. The defendants denied nine charges between them at a plea hearing at Warwick crown court on Thursday.

    Mulakhil, of no fixed abode, denied abducting a child, three counts of rape of a child under 13, and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13. Kabir, also of no fixed abode, pleaded not guilty to attempting to take a child, aiding and abetting rape of a child under 13, and intentional strangulation of the girl.”

    Literally, today. In today’s Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/28/man-denies-raping-girl-nuneaton-anti-asylum-protests
    You of all people ‘Leon’ should be aware that getting charged with a sex crime doesn’t mean guilt.
    Do tell…
    Not Leon, but his friend, who I believe used to post here and did bird on remand.

    His friend would discuss the events in detail back in the day.
    In the sense of ‘asking for a friend’ ?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,743
    Leon said:

    Well it’s all very jolly on here this afternoon

    Does anyone want to hear about my lovely hike in the “Tuscany of Austria”?

    Err, no.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,828
    carnforth said:

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    How do other european governments, under the same ECHR obligations, manage to house asylum seekers in tents rather than hotels?
    In Ireland they basically ignore it when they are told that they're breaching the asylum seekers human rights.

    Not sure that ignoring the law is something we want governments to be in the habit of doing.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,567
    Foxy said:

    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.

    A bit of vandalism in Devon. Sad Face.

    https://bsky.app/profile/bestforbritain.org/post/3lxhltxay5c2s
    Strangely perhaps, given that Lincolnshire is a Reform stronghold, I have not seen a single additional flag beyond those that are always flown. The whole movement seems to have passed us by.

  • carnforth said:

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    How do other european governments, under the same ECHR obligations, manage to house asylum seekers in tents rather than hotels?
    In Ireland they basically ignore it when they are told that they're breaching the asylum seekers human rights.

    Not sure that ignoring the law is something we want governments to be in the habit of doing.
    "International law" is more guidelines than actual rules.

    Implement domestic law, yes. International ones should be subservient to Parliamentary laws.

    Government should change not break domestic laws, but international ones aren't subject to Parliamentary amendments which is why they should never be conflated with actual, domestic laws.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,731
    edited August 28

    Foxy said:

    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.

    A bit of vandalism in Devon. Sad Face.

    https://bsky.app/profile/bestforbritain.org/post/3lxhltxay5c2s
    Strangely perhaps, given that Lincolnshire is a Reform stronghold, I have not seen a single additional flag beyond those that are always flown. The whole movement seems to have passed us by.

    In suburban Leicester the roundabouts have been painted to symbolise surrender of our borders to the metropolitan elite multiculturalists.



    Or perhaps, white supremacy. I am not entirely sure...
  • isamisam Posts: 42,382
    edited August 28
    I wonder whether the polling in this government, and the result of the next GE will be like this horse race from Lingfield last year... Reform as Certain Style.

    He's got to come back to the pack soon hasn't he?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBUEMV15oHk
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,257
    To add to the fraternal, collegiate and welcoming mood on PB may I recommend that anyone who posts posts from "bsky.app..." is banned for being a self-serving, bien pensant, smug bastard.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 33,743

    Foxy said:

    Flag update. After my earlier comprehensive report from yesterday.

    Just a pair of Welsh Dragon flags adorning the M4 at Pontardulais today.

    A pretty poor show Wales to be honest, particularly after the West Midlands had smashed flags out of the park yesterday.

    A bit of vandalism in Devon. Sad Face.

    https://bsky.app/profile/bestforbritain.org/post/3lxhltxay5c2s
    Strangely perhaps, given that Lincolnshire is a Reform stronghold, I have not seen a single additional flag beyond those that are always flown. The whole movement seems to have passed us by.

    The usually enthusiastic mining areas of Notts. and Derbys. were equally barren yesterday. On the other hand the genteel West Midlands around Solihull was like flag Disneyland.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,828

    carnforth said:

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    How do other european governments, under the same ECHR obligations, manage to house asylum seekers in tents rather than hotels?
    In Ireland they basically ignore it when they are told that they're breaching the asylum seekers human rights.

    Not sure that ignoring the law is something we want governments to be in the habit of doing.
    "International law" is more guidelines than actual rules.

    Implement domestic law, yes. International ones should be subservient to Parliamentary laws.

    Government should change not break domestic laws, but international ones aren't subject to Parliamentary amendments which is why they should never be conflated with actual, domestic laws.
    I suspect that this is national law, not that it makes any difference. All law is a human-created thing. Societies are better and more peaceful when they follow laws that have popular consent.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,636

    Leon said:

    Well it’s all very jolly on here this afternoon

    Does anyone want to hear about my lovely hike in the “Tuscany of Austria”?

    Err, no.
    Then you’ll just have to enjoy my view right now. In the winelands of South Styria


  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,716
    kamski said:

    kamski said:

    Why is the troll BartholomewRoberts not banned? I was sinbinned for simply calling him a rude name after he refused to stop trolling me, yet he is allowed to carry on.

    How have I trolled anyone?

    I disagreed with you, honestly and sincerely, for your spouting pro Putin arguments like that Ukrainians should be punished for blowing up Russian infrastructure like Nordstream.

    That is not a troll, it is a sincere belief.

    You swore at me which is why you were sinbinned. I've not sworn at you, even if you dislike your Putinist arguments getting called out.

    If everyone who disagreed with someone else got banned, there'd be no users here. Except @TridentSubCommander
    Go fuck yourself you nazi
    Kamski got banned??
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,631
    TOPPING said:

    To add to the fraternal, collegiate and welcoming mood on PB may I recommend that anyone who posts posts from "bsky.app..." is banned for being a self-serving, bien pensant, smug bastard.

    I believe TSE posted a link to bsky recently ?

    Nice knowing you, Toppers.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,705
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Well it’s all very jolly on here this afternoon

    Does anyone want to hear about my lovely hike in the “Tuscany of Austria”?

    Err, no.
    Then you’ll just have to enjoy my view right now. In the winelands of South Styria


    More than half cut already, well before dinner time. Quelle suprise?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,560

    There is a vanishingly small chance of an election in 2025 and 2026.

    There is a very small chance of a 2027 vote, but I only really see that happening if Starmer has fallen on his sword and someone tries a Theresa May gambit.

    2028 is probably value. A third of elections since 1979 were held in the fourth year of a parliament (though generally when the government thought they had a good chance of winning them).

    2028/9 I would have thought.

    But I thought that Sunak would hold on until the Autumn or even the Winter last year.

    Callaghan was forced to go earlier than he planned in 1979 and look what happened then.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,257

    carnforth said:

    nico67 said:

    Making submissions to the Court of Appeal on behalf of Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, lawyers said the “relevant public interests in play are not equal” and are “fundamentally different in nature”.

    The Home Office and owners of the Bell Hotel in Essex are appealing against last week’s temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council, ordering its closure as asylum accommodation.

    In documents submitted to the court, Home Office lawyers said: “Epping represents the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area.

    The [Home Secretary] is taken for these purposes as representing the public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom and discharging obligations conferred on her alone by Parliament.

    “Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

    “However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

    They’re talking about local planning v national interest . Which is blatantly obvious for those that can read and don’t have an agenda.

    How do other european governments, under the same ECHR obligations, manage to house asylum seekers in tents rather than hotels?
    In Ireland they basically ignore it when they are told that they're breaching the asylum seekers human rights.

    Not sure that ignoring the law is something we want governments to be in the habit of doing.
    "International law" is more guidelines than actual rules.

    Implement domestic law, yes. International ones should be subservient to Parliamentary laws.

    Government should change not break domestic laws, but international ones aren't subject to Parliamentary amendments which is why they should never be conflated with actual, domestic laws.
    People often refer to "customary international law" which, as the name suggests isn't binding (as you say, no international law is binding on a sovereign state) but has come to be accepted by all nations.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,465
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    To add to the fraternal, collegiate and welcoming mood on PB may I recommend that anyone who posts posts from "bsky.app..." is banned for being a self-serving, bien pensant, smug bastard.

    I believe TSE posted a link to bsky recently ?

    Nice knowing you, Toppers.
    To be fair to Topping it wasn't the first time I've been called a smug bastard, and let's be honest, I am a smug bastard.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,636
    So anyway here’s what happened on my hike

    I ignored the itinerary which was keen to send to me to some stupid tourist cable car and then a naff sculpture park, and decided on a proper hike

    I found a route with a suitably noomy name. The “ Heiligengeistklamm” - LITERALLY the Holy Ghost walk. Way down in south styria. I thought “that’s got to be good”

    And it was good and pretty, up a little ravine in the forests, but it was also 30C and I got severely hot and bothered and I was about to give up. But then I saw a sign for a weinbar in the woods so I hiked there. But it was shut! Sleeping dogs and closed doors in the heat. Aaargh!

    But then I saw a flag and I realised I was 50 meters from the Slovenian frontier. The old Iron Curtain. But what was once barbed wire and death and watchtowers was turned into millponds and pretty flower meadows asleep in the woods and then I found a “self service honesty bar” where you could just take cold fruit wine spritzer from a fridge in the woods and I sat there in the sun on a log and I gazed at borderless Europe, at peace where there was war. And, verily, it was lovely

  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 7,083
    PJH said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Whatever the rights and wrongs, this all feels truly terrible for the government

    Win or lose it’s a disaster

    My post on it from earlier in the day:

    In trying to win the appeal against the asylum hotel closure/injunction the lawyers are making very lawyerly arguments which may succeed but in doing so they are writing headlines for the next few months that will push Reform's vote share up into the mid 30s.

    Saying out loud on behalf of the government that due to article whatever of some international convention the rights of asylum seekers override the rights of local people is a fucking disaster for the government and the Labour party. It may be legally correct but saying it out loud and telling the voters and taxpayers that they rate lower for the state than asylum seekers feeds into the already existing memes about two tier Kier.

    Absolute fucking disaster for the government even if it wins them the legal case. Talk about a scorched earth strategy, did no one with any political sense tell them that it's better to lose than to go into a very high profile court case and win by saying asylum seekers have a higher claim to rights then citizens. Wtf were they thinking.
    I think I would quietly have told Epping Forest DC that it was up to them to rehouse everybody affected locally and that no additional budget would be provided beyond the agreed rate for the hotel. And pass legislation if needed. (Could an SI suffice for something like that?)
    Surely it is up to the government to find a legal method of housing asylum seekers.

    Local authorities are responsible for housing people with ties to the area, so homeless Essex people in this case, not people from Mogadishu or Kandahar
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,257
    Leon said:

    So anyway here’s what happened on my hike

    I ignored the itinerary which was keen to send to me to some stupid tourist cable car and then a naff sculpture park, and decided on a proper hike

    I found a route with a suitably noomy name. The “ Heiligengeistklamm” - LITERALLY the Holy Ghost walk. Way down in south styria. I thought “that’s got to be good”

    And it was good and pretty, up a little ravine in the forests, but it was also 30C and I got severely hot and bothered and I was about to give up. But then I saw a sign for a weinbar in the woods so I hiked there. But it was shut! Sleeping dogs and closed doors in the heat. Aaargh!

    But then I saw a flag and I realised I was 50 meters from the Slovenian frontier. The old Iron Curtain. But what was once barbed wire and death and watchtowers was turned into millponds and pretty flower meadows asleep in the woods and then I found a “self service honesty bar” where you could just take cold fruit wine spritzer from a fridge in the woods and I sat there in the sun on a log and I gazed at borderless Europe, at peace where there was war. And, verily, it was lovely

    I read that as you saw a sign for a webinar.

    Which would have taken the edge off the story somewhat.

    Also vibes of Michael Mosley in there for a moment.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,257
    Leon said:

    So anyway here’s what happened on my hike

    I ignored the itinerary which was keen to send to me to some stupid tourist cable car and then a naff sculpture park, and decided on a proper hike

    I found a route with a suitably noomy name. The “ Heiligengeistklamm” - LITERALLY the Holy Ghost walk. Way down in south styria. I thought “that’s got to be good”

    And it was good and pretty, up a little ravine in the forests, but it was also 30C and I got severely hot and bothered and I was about to give up. But then I saw a sign for a weinbar in the woods so I hiked there. But it was shut! Sleeping dogs and closed doors in the heat. Aaargh!

    But then I saw a flag and I realised I was 50 meters from the Slovenian frontier. The old Iron Curtain. But what was once barbed wire and death and watchtowers was turned into millponds and pretty flower meadows asleep in the woods and then I found a “self service honesty bar” where you could just take cold fruit wine spritzer from a fridge in the woods and I sat there in the sun on a log and I gazed at borderless Europe, at peace where there was war. And, verily, it was lovely

    I read that as you saw a sign for a webinar.

    Which would have taken the edge off the story somewhat.

    Also vibes of Michael Mosley in there for a moment.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,636
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Well it’s all very jolly on here this afternoon

    Does anyone want to hear about my lovely hike in the “Tuscany of Austria”?

    Err, no.
    Then you’ll just have to enjoy my view right now. In the winelands of South Styria


    More than half cut already, well before dinner time. Quelle suprise?
    I know this is going to disappoint you but I’m not the soak I was. I still love a glass - especially in surroundings like this - but my booze intake is probably down 60%. Mind you, that still makes me a definite drinker by the standards of most people

    I can recommend the Styrian Riesling. Sensational. It’s better than the sauv blanc which is, paradoxically, what they’re known for
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 12,849
    Leon said:

    And remember this poll today was before the Epping debacle

    Find Out Now voting intention:
    🟦 Reform UK: 34% (+1)
    🔴 Labour: 18% (-)
    🔵 Conservatives: 15% (-2)
    🟠 Lib Dems: 13% (+1)
    🟢 Greens: 10% (-)

    Changes from 20th August
    [Find Out Now, 27th August, N=2,538]

    Suboptimal for Lab and Con

    With Ladbrokes suggesting an election this year they must be shitting themselves.

    Reform have been on a plateau for a while now, 4 months I reckon. Despite the attempts of you and your mates in the right wing press to to drum up a violent summer, the Reform vote share has remained static since April. I think the immigration lemon has been squeezed dry. You could easily cruise at this level for 3-4 years and win the next election or something could happen that shifts the focus from immigration. In which case you need to start looking at what else your party has to offer.
Sign In or Register to comment.