Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
So Cruella will not be taking her voters with her to Reform?
The headlines are all framed terribly for Starmer:
Times: Starmer abandons plan to cancel council elections Telegraph: Starmer abandons plan to cancel local elections Guardian: Government abandons plans to cancel local elections in 30 council areas in May BBC: Government abandons plans to delay 30 council elections Sky: Starmer abandons plans to cancel 30 local council elections in May in another U-turn
Only the Sky one is especially damning. The rest are factually accurate. I am not suggesting this is good news for Labour but neither is it your crash and burn analysis.
Having the words "Starmer", "plan", "cancel" and "elections" in a sentence together isn't a good look for him.
I don't for one moment suggest this looks anything other than chaotic but it isn't anything like as serious as the Mandelson scandal. For what it is worth I thought Starmer should have gone over Mandelson. Not because he made a flawed decision (it was always a gamble to find someone to deal with your President) but it blew up on his watch. That's why he should have gone. This doesn't even register compared to the manifold Johnson scandals.
Starmer is like Johnson in that his hubris leads him to make errors continually. If it wasn't Pincher that got Johnson then something else would have. If Mandelson didn't get Starmer it won't be long before a new incompetence comes along.
Fortunately Pincher floored Johnson. Mandelson unfortunately didn't fell Starmer, although it certainly should have done so.
Another possibly career-ending similarity between Boris and Keir Starmer is that ministers sent to defend them on the morning media round (Today and breakfast television) arrive back home to find the prime minister has reversed his position anyway. It makes them look a fool, taken for granted.
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
The Tories have already seen 2 Broxbourne cllrs defect to Reform, if 1 more goes then if the Tories lost all their seats up in May in Broxbourne that would also go NOC.
Braverman will be hoping her defection enables Reform to win most Fareham seats up in May and if the Tories lose 8 or more out of their 13 seats up they would lose control
Both Reform defectors are facing reelection so Broxbourne is a Tory Hold
Wouldn't it be better for Ministers to listen to legal advice before rather than after they act?
Parliament is sovereign, if Ministers wanted they could make clear in statute law delayed elections was required to reorganise those councils to unitaries and no court in the land could object
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
So Cruella will not be taking her voters with her to Reform?
Some probably.
Semi-relevantly, none of Romford's Conservative councillors have joined Andrew Rosindell in crossing over to the turquoise side.
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
The Tories have already seen 2 Broxbourne cllrs defect to Reform, if 1 more goes then if the Tories lost all their seats up in May in Broxbourne that would also go NOC.
Braverman will be hoping her defection enables Reform to win most Fareham seats up in May and if the Tories lose 8 or more out of their 13 seats up they would lose control
Both Reform defectors are facing reelection so Broxbourne is a Tory Hold
They will likely hold their seats as Reform
Yes but there are only 7 Tories facing reelection and 25/30 on the council. If they lose every ward (very unlikely) they have 18/30
Essex Reform Gain East and West Sussex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire NOC
Norfolk and Suffolk will also almost certainly be Reform gains, maybe even East Sussex too.
West Sussex and Hampshire will be close between Tories, LDs and Reform for largest party
What are you basing 'almost certainly' on? We will see on May 8
Reform got above their UK voteshares in Norfolk and Suffolk in most constituencies there at the 2024 GE
Yeah, so did the Conservatives. In Norfolk, Im basing NoC on Restore in Yarmouth, Greens/Labour in Norwich, LDs in North Norfolk and some Tory holds stopping a majority
The Tory vote is now down on 2024, the Reform vote about double their 2024 share UK wide. Restore clean sweep in Yarmouth might stop a Reform outright majority but a Reform and Restore run Norfolk council would be just as rightwing if not more so
The headlines are all framed terribly for Starmer:
Times: Starmer abandons plan to cancel council elections Telegraph: Starmer abandons plan to cancel local elections Guardian: Government abandons plans to cancel local elections in 30 council areas in May BBC: Government abandons plans to delay 30 council elections Sky: Starmer abandons plans to cancel 30 local council elections in May in another U-turn
Only the Sky one is especially damning. The rest are factually accurate. I am not suggesting this is good news for Labour but neither is it your crash and burn analysis.
Having the words "Starmer", "plan", "cancel" and "elections" in a sentence together isn't a good look for him.
I don't for one moment suggest this looks anything other than chaotic but it isn't anything like as serious as the Mandelson scandal. For what it is worth I thought Starmer should have gone over Mandelson. Not because he made a flawed decision (it was always a gamble to find someone to deal with your President) but it blew up on his watch. That's why he should have gone. This doesn't even register compared to the manifold Johnson scandals.
Starmer is like Johnson in that his hubris leads him to make errors continually. If it wasn't Pincher that got Johnson then something else would have. If Mandelson didn't get Starmer it won't be long before a new incompetence comes along.
Fortunately Pincher floored Johnson. Mandelson unfortunately didn't fell Starmer, although it certainly should have done so.
Another possibly career-ending similarity between Boris and Keir Starmer is that ministers sent to defend them on the morning media round (Today and breakfast television) arrive back home to find the prime minister has reversed his position anyway. It makes them look a fool, taken for granted.
Yes, that is another similarity.
Sooner or later there are no Ministers dumb enough to do the media round.
Essex Reform Gain East and West Sussex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire NOC
Norfolk and Suffolk will also almost certainly be Reform gains, maybe even East Sussex too.
West Sussex and Hampshire will be close between Tories, LDs and Reform for largest party
What are you basing 'almost certainly' on? We will see on May 8
Reform got above their UK voteshares in Norfolk and Suffolk in most constituencies there at the 2024 GE
Yeah, so did the Conservatives. In Norfolk, Im basing NoC on Restore in Yarmouth, Greens/Labour in Norwich, LDs in North Norfolk and some Tory holds stopping a majority
The Tory vote is now down on 2024, the Reform vote about double their 2024 share UK wide
Wouldn't it be better for Ministers to listen to legal advice before rather than after they act?
Parliament is sovereign, if Ministers wanted they could make clear in statute law delayed elections was required to reorganise those councils to unitaries and no court in the land could object
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
The Tories have already seen 2 Broxbourne cllrs defect to Reform, if 1 more goes then if the Tories lost all their seats up in May in Broxbourne that would also go NOC.
Braverman will be hoping her defection enables Reform to win most Fareham seats up in May and if the Tories lose 8 or more out of their 13 seats up they would lose control
Both Reform defectors are facing reelection so Broxbourne is a Tory Hold
They will likely hold their seats as Reform
Yes but there are only 7 Tories facing reelection and 25/30 on the council. If they lose every ward (very unlikely) they have 18/30
Wouldn't it be better for Ministers to listen to legal advice before rather than after they act?
Parliament is sovereign, if Ministers wanted they could make clear in statute law delayed elections was required to reorganise those councils to unitaries and no court in the land could object
Without seeing the advice, we don't know if this boils down to 'The government can win, but Farage could make your life hell on the way. Do you really want to put yourselves through that?'
There are people who use the court system like that, after all.
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
The Tories have already seen 2 Broxbourne cllrs defect to Reform, if 1 more goes then if the Tories lost all their seats up in May in Broxbourne that would also go NOC.
Braverman will be hoping her defection enables Reform to win most Fareham seats up in May and if the Tories lose 8 or more out of their 13 seats up they would lose control
Both Reform defectors are facing reelection so Broxbourne is a Tory Hold
They will likely hold their seats as Reform
Yes but there are only 7 Tories facing reelection and 25/30 on the council. If they lose every ward (very unlikely) they have 18/30
Not if 1 of the 30 not facing election defected to Reform too
3 would need to defect to reduce 18 to 15 And we deal with reality not 'stuff that might happen if we wish hard enough'
Wouldn't it be better for Ministers to listen to legal advice before rather than after they act?
Parliament is sovereign, if Ministers wanted they could make clear in statute law delayed elections was required to reorganise those councils to unitaries and no court in the land could object
Without seeing the advice, we don't know if this boils down to 'The government can win, but Farage could make your life hell on the way. Do you really want to put yourselves through that?'
There are people who use the court system like that, after all.
And the government will now face Reform controlled county councils ripping to shreds their plans to move to unitaries and demanding to keep the county councils they now control and the district councils
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
So Cruella will not be taking her voters with her to Reform?
Some probably.
Semi-relevantly, none of Romford's Conservative councillors have joined Andrew Rosindell in crossing over to the turquoise side.
That's all the more surprising as they generally had to be Rosindell loyalists to be selected. The ones who didn't care for him are now mostly in the RAs, and some in Reform (or were!)
Is Labour trying to cover up fresh revelations about the grooming gangs scandal? The Ministry of Justice has ordered the deletion of millions of court case records https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/60b20c6919437308
A bit of a stretch to ‘that’ affair but the deletion of records should be a scandal in itself (and why does a private company hold them in the first place?). From another angle, Katie Lam backers can see she is still around.
The headlines are all framed terribly for Starmer:
Times: Starmer abandons plan to cancel council elections Telegraph: Starmer abandons plan to cancel local elections Guardian: Government abandons plans to cancel local elections in 30 council areas in May BBC: Government abandons plans to delay 30 council elections Sky: Starmer abandons plans to cancel 30 local council elections in May in another U-turn
Only the Sky one is especially damning. The rest are factually accurate. I am not suggesting this is good news for Labour but neither is it your crash and burn analysis.
Having the words "Starmer", "plan", "cancel" and "elections" in a sentence together isn't a good look for him.
I don't for one moment suggest this looks anything other than chaotic but it isn't anything like as serious as the Mandelson scandal. For what it is worth I thought Starmer should have gone over Mandelson. Not because he made a flawed decision (it was always a gamble to find someone to deal with your President) but it blew up on his watch. That's why he should have gone. This doesn't even register compared to the manifold Johnson scandals.
Starmer is like Johnson in that his hubris leads him to make errors continually. If it wasn't Pincher that got Johnson then something else would have. If Mandelson didn't get Starmer it won't be long before a new incompetence comes along.
Fortunately Pincher floored Johnson. Mandelson unfortunately didn't fell Starmer, although it certainly should have done so.
Hubris is not a word I'd ever associate with Starmer
He wanted us to believe that he had such confidence in his charismatic oration, that he didn't need to bother reading his party conference speech before he delivered it. So he accidentally said island of strangers
I'd say that's a kind of hubris. Or that he's a liar
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
The election U turn is an extraordinary piece of government incompetence on two levels. Changing its mind + legal amateurishness.
If it was important to postpone, it was important to get the law right so as not to be open to challenge. The rest of us will have taken for granted that this was done, as Reform would have an interest in challenging any illegality.
If it wasn't important to postpone - as clearly it wasn't as they are not planning an act of parliament to allow it - then it was a bad idea. It looks Trumpian.
This government has tried everything except the only thing it was elected to do: to run the country very well following some years of mess, while explaining the plan and the timetable and the progress.
I get the impression it has just gone through on the nod in previous years, with no challenge to a long standing practice.
Is there anywhere that gives a full list out of postponed local elections back to 1979, from previous reading I believe they are very numerous.
I asked Claude for "since 1990", and this was the answer. It is probably about right, and there is enough there for the Govt to throw back at the Conservatives if accurate (especially 2019, 2020, 2021), but they won't do it effectively because they dance to others' tunes, when they should be writing the music.
--- 2001 - Foot and Mouth Disease All local elections in England, Wales and Northern Ireland originally scheduled for May 2001 were postponed by one month to 7 June 2001 due to the foot-and-mouth outbreak.
2019 - Local Government Reorganisation District council elections across Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire, scheduled for May 2019, were postponed ahead of the creation of new unitary authorities in those areas Electoral Reform Society.
2020 - COVID-19 Pandemic All local elections scheduled for May 2020 in England were postponed to May 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This included:
County councils in England Police and Crime Commissioners London Mayor and London Assembly elections Metropolitan borough elections Various mayoral elections
2021 - Local Government Reorganisation County council elections in Cumbria, North Yorkshire, and Somerset, scheduled for May 2021, were postponed to May 2022 because of plans to reorganise local government structure.
2025 - Local Government Reorganisation Elections to nine councils (seven county councils and two unitary authorities) were postponed from May 2025 to 2026 Wikipedia. The affected councils were: Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire (county councils), plus Thurrock and Isle of Wight (unitary authorities).
2026 - Local Government Reorganisation 29 council elections have been postponed from May 2026 as part of the ongoing local government reorganisation programme, though on 16 February 2026, the government withdrew its plans to delay elections after receiving legal advice that the move would be unlawful.
Based on that, surely all Starmer has to do is to use the excuse of foot-in-mouth disease to postpone the election?
Twitter not working again, happened earlier today to.
Oh those Russians.
Aren't they working hand in glove with Elon?
Unlikely given he screwed their Starlink up.
Probably revenge for that.
You know how everyone laughed when Elon cut the cables in the datacentre and sacked half the Twitter team? Well, it turns out resilience is expensive. It is an important commercial decision: pay a fortune for backup capacity you probably won't need, or risk occasional outages. See also Microsoft bricking users each month with poorly-tested updates to Windows.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
You wonder why they didn't get that advice *before* trying to postpone elections.
Good question. I thought Starmer was meant to be in thrall to legal niceties. This seems to have been more a case of JFDI. But now not as it turns out. Odd one.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
You wonder why they didn't get that advice *before* trying to postpone elections.
Good question. I thought Starmer was meant to be in thrall to legal niceties. This seems to have been more a case of JFDI. But now not as it turns out. Odd one.
Is that u turn #19 or 20?
Sure someone must be keeping a list!
If we start with his leadership campaign promises, then yeah we're probably up just above nineteen hundred
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
Calgie @christiancalgie · 1h A sign of the times as members of the Cambridge University Conservative Association have travelled down to Romford today for the Reform UK rally.
Once a poaching ground for the brightest and best Tory MPs and ministers, one says its leadership is now crawling with Faragists.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
You wonder why they didn't get that advice *before* trying to postpone elections.
Good question. I thought Starmer was meant to be in thrall to legal niceties. This seems to have been more a case of JFDI. But now not as it turns out. Odd one.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
You wonder why they didn't get that advice *before* trying to postpone elections.
Good question. I thought Starmer was meant to be in thrall to legal niceties. This seems to have been more a case of JFDI. But now not as it turns out. Odd one.
Is that u turn #19 or 20?
Sure someone must be keeping a list!
I'm not sure the public cares much. It is Mrs Thatcher who convinced the media U-turns are a bad thing. Before then we would quote Maynard Keynes on "when the facts change". Probably most voters welcome the government coming into line with public opinion.
ETA of course, a better run government would not have taken that wrong road in the first place.
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
The Tories have already seen 2 Broxbourne cllrs defect to Reform, if 1 more goes then if the Tories lost all their seats up in May in Broxbourne that would also go NOC.
Braverman will be hoping her defection enables Reform to win most Fareham seats up in May and if the Tories lose 8 or more out of their 13 seats up they would lose control
Both Reform defectors are facing reelection so Broxbourne is a Tory Hold
They will likely hold their seats as Reform
Yes but there are only 7 Tories facing reelection and 25/30 on the council. If they lose every ward (very unlikely) they have 18/30
Not if 1 of the 30 not facing election defected to Reform too
3 would need to defect to reduce 18 to 15 And we deal with reality not 'stuff that might happen if we wish hard enough'
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
You wonder why they didn't get that advice *before* trying to postpone elections.
Good question. I thought Starmer was meant to be in thrall to legal niceties. This seems to have been more a case of JFDI. But now not as it turns out. Odd one.
Is that u turn #19 or 20?
Sure someone must be keeping a list!
I'm not sure the public cares much. It is Mrs Thatcher who convinced the media U-turns are a bad thing. Before then we would quote Maynard Keynes on "when the facts change". Probably most voters welcome the government coming into line with public opinion.
He u-turns too quickly for the facts to have changed
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
Today's decision on the elections is broadly to be welcomed particularly with regard to those County Councils who were hoping for a second postponement having already postponed in 2025. The idea of a Councillor elected in 2021 serving nearly seven years of a four year term is absurd. The pace of consultation has bene funereal in some areas not helped, I suspect, by the clearout of the DCLOG (or whatever it's called now) Ministry following Angela Rayner's resignation.
Just over 5,000 council seats will now be contested in May with Labour defending 40% of them. The London local elections account for 36% of all the seats being fought.
I was musing on the way home what might have happened had this occurred a year ago and whether an even more painful night for the Conservatives (including losses in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hampshire and the two Sussexes) might have precipitated a challenge against Kemi Badenoch last May or June.
I see we are already playing the expectations management game in terms of Conservative gains and losses. According to Wiki, the party is defending 854 seats but the conversation seems to be more about NEV than gains or losses and with more Conservative areas like some of the aforementioned, the chances of a better NEV, albeit tempered by more seat losses, might work in Badenoch's favour.
The line among Conservative supporters and sympathisers seems to be crystallising around finishing in front of Labour on NEV so it becomes all about the right votes if not necessarily in the right places.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
You wonder why they didn't get that advice *before* trying to postpone elections.
Good question. I thought Starmer was meant to be in thrall to legal niceties. This seems to have been more a case of JFDI. But now not as it turns out. Odd one.
Is that u turn #19 or 20?
Sure someone must be keeping a list!
I'm not sure the public cares much. It is Mrs Thatcher who convinced the media U-turns are a bad thing. Before then we would quote Maynard Keynes on "when the facts change". Probably most voters welcome the government coming into line with public opinion.
He u-turns too quickly for the facts to have changed
Indeed but I still doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus cares about U-turns the way the pundit class does. (See also tax-and-spend.)
The headlines are all framed terribly for Starmer:
Times: Starmer abandons plan to cancel council elections Telegraph: Starmer abandons plan to cancel local elections Guardian: Government abandons plans to cancel local elections in 30 council areas in May BBC: Government abandons plans to delay 30 council elections Sky: Starmer abandons plans to cancel 30 local council elections in May in another U-turn
Only the Sky one is especially damning. The rest are factually accurate. I am not suggesting this is good news for Labour but neither is it your crash and burn analysis.
Having the words "Starmer", "plan", "cancel" and "elections" in a sentence together isn't a good look for him.
I don't for one moment suggest this looks anything other than chaotic but it isn't anything like as serious as the Mandelson scandal. For what it is worth I thought Starmer should have gone over Mandelson. Not because he made a flawed decision (it was always a gamble to find someone to deal with your President) but it blew up on his watch. That's why he should have gone. This doesn't even register compared to the manifold Johnson scandals.
Starmer is like Johnson in that his hubris leads him to make errors continually. If it wasn't Pincher that got Johnson then something else would have. If Mandelson didn't get Starmer it won't be long before a new incompetence comes along.
Too… Fortunately Pincher floored Johnson. Mandelson unfortunately didn't fell Starmer, although it certainly should have done so.
Hubris is not a word I'd ever associate with Starmer
He wanted us to believe that he had such confidence in his charismatic oration, that he didn't need to bother reading his party conference speech before he delivered it. So he accidentally said island of strangers
I'd say that's a kind of hubris. Or that he's a liar
The hubris of being ‘not Tories’ as a plan for government
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
You wonder why they didn't get that advice *before* trying to postpone elections.
Good question. I thought Starmer was meant to be in thrall to legal niceties. This seems to have been more a case of JFDI. But now not as it turns out. Odd one.
Is that u turn #19 or 20?
Sure someone must be keeping a list!
I'm not sure the public cares much. It is Mrs Thatcher who convinced the media U-turns are a bad thing. Before then we would quote Maynard Keynes on "when the facts change". Probably most voters welcome the government coming into line with public opinion.
He u-turns too quickly for the facts to have changed
A u turn for one man is being pragmatic and sensible for another.
Besides many aren't u turns anyway just tweaks and amendments
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
How many candidates do we think Rupert can bear to stand?
Full slate in the Yarmouth wards id imagine plus as many as he can muster for the rest of Norfolk and aside from that, some targetted approach. He might try and target one Welsh and one Scottish region
Wales doesnt have regions like before (or like Scotland still does). We have super-constituencies - 16 of them compared to previous 5 regions. But each one returning 6 MSs.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
You wonder why they didn't get that advice *before* trying to postpone elections.
Good question. I thought Starmer was meant to be in thrall to legal niceties. This seems to have been more a case of JFDI. But now not as it turns out. Odd one.
Is that u turn #19 or 20?
Sure someone must be keeping a list!
I'm not sure the public cares much. It is Mrs Thatcher who convinced the media U-turns are a bad thing. Before then we would quote Maynard Keynes on "when the facts change". Probably most voters welcome the government coming into line with public opinion.
He u-turns too quickly for the facts to have changed
Indeed but I still doubt the voter on the Clapham omnibus cares about U-turns the way the pundit class does. (See also tax-and-spend.)
Never u-turning wouldn't be such a great thing. My dad was a bit like that until he turned 90 when he mellowed a bit.
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
How many candidates do we think Rupert can bear to stand?
Full slate in the Yarmouth wards id imagine plus as many as he can muster for the rest of Norfolk and aside from that, some targetted approach. He might try and target one Welsh and one Scottish region
Wales doesnt have regions like before (or like Scotland still does). We have super-constituencies - 16 of them compared to previous 5 regions. But each one returning 6 MSs.
I've lost count of the number of times this fact has to be made to be honest. You'd have thought the pb experts would be aware of this.
Essex Reform Gain East and West Sussex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire NOC
Norfolk and Suffolk will also almost certainly be Reform gains, maybe even East Sussex too.
West Sussex and Hampshire will be close between Tories, LDs and Reform for largest party
What are you basing 'almost certainly' on? We will see on May 8
To be fair to HYUFD, the concept of political betting, which despite appearances lies at the heart of the PB enterprise, is rather based on the idea of making predictions which may or may not turn out to be true, especially about measurable outcomes in the political realm.
I don't think Arsenal will win the Premiership this year. If you ask me what I am basing it on, the answer is uninformed guesswork. I think HYUFD is better informed on his prediction than I am on mine.
The same applies to my thought that Greens will win G and D next week. Uninformed guesswork. I stand to gain or lose thankfully modest sums on each contingency.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
You wonder why they didn't get that advice *before* trying to postpone elections.
Good question. I thought Starmer was meant to be in thrall to legal niceties. This seems to have been more a case of JFDI. But now not as it turns out. Odd one.
Is that u turn #19 or 20?
Sure someone must be keeping a list!
I'm not sure the public cares much. It is Mrs Thatcher who convinced the media U-turns are a bad thing. Before then we would quote Maynard Keynes on "when the facts change". Probably most voters welcome the government coming into line with public opinion.
He u-turns too quickly for the facts to have changed
A u turn for one man is being pragmatic and sensible for another.
Besides many aren't u turns anyway just tweaks and amendments
Just the same old rabid right wing media lies.
You are rattled
Sky journalist just looking at the optics
'There has been months and months of opposition parties calling you undemocratic for cancelling people's local elections and you have now been proven wrong legally, and even proven that what you were doing was illegal, when you are run by a lawyer who says everything should be done by the book and respecting the law
Add on top of that you now have a labour government giving tax payer money to Reform UK, the opposition party they are most afraid off and they are most alive to that threat and having to hand over cash of upto six figures
Combine that altogether, then it makes labour look unable to gain control over an already challenging and messy premiership for Keir Starmer and I think of them altogether are incredibly damaging and are going to frustrate labour footsoldiers and councillors who are to campaign now in short notice and will ask Keir Starmer, why are we in this position ? '
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
The joy of claiming to rely on legal advice is that there are almost no occasions on which you are obliged to disclose it. Client privilege is a wondrous thing.
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench playing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
I think she might beat Vance, but would lose to Rubio.
A Morning Consult poll late last year had Don Trump Jr second to Vance amongst Republican primary voters with DeSantis third, Haley 4th and Rubio only 5th. This poll also has Rubio only 4th.
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
The joy of claiming to rely on legal advice is that there are almost no occasions on which you are obliged to disclose it. Client privilege is a wondrous thing.
Yes. Was this legal advice from someone appointed by a Prime Minister to sit in his government and cabinet?
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench doing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
12 months? Luxury.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
I'm currently going thru Jonathan Sumption's first two non-history books, "Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics" and "Law in a Time of Crisis". He makes the point quite forcefully that the courts have expanded out of their natural scope into actively creating law, contradicting Parliament, interfering in peoples lives when unpermitted, and taking control of things that should be down to individual responsibility. The idea that courts just "fill in the blanks" is decades out of date.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
Really? Gosh.
The quality of legislation has been piss poor for 20+ years (and that’s not the objectives it’s the actual quality of the legislation)
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
This will likely end the move to unitaries.
Those 5 councils plus Essex were all the priority areas for devolution, Mayors and unitaries. Reform oppose all that, want to keep county and district councils and will refuse to co operate with any local government reorganisation if as is likely they win control of those 6 councils or most seats in May.
So the government today has likely killed off local government reform for the rest of this parliament unless it is willing to go into battle with Reform led county councils which given its gutless u turns is unlikely
I think it's Helmut Norpoth whose prediction method looks at primary votes. If Vance continues to hoover up Rep votes, and the Dems keep floundering, we have to start thinking about Vance as Prez
I think she might beat Vance, but would lose to Rubio.
Maybe. But from the betting pov I think she's overpriced. Lost last time, yes, but it was a decent effort from a badly handicapped start position. It raised her profile massively and she relished being the candidate. There's little doubt in my mind she'll be going for it.
I think it's Helmut Norpoth whose prediction method looks at primary votes. If Vance continues to hoover up Rep votes, and the Dems keep floundering, we have to start thinking about Vance as Prez
We are also 2 years before primary season begins - that's an awful long time during which things could change..
I think she might beat Vance, but would lose to Rubio.
Maybe. But from the betting pov I think she's overpriced. Lost last time, yes, but it was a decent effort from a badly handicapped start position. It raised her profile massively and she relished being the candidate. There's little doubt in my mind she'll be going for it.
She probably takes inspiration from Trump's comeback win.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
I'm currently going thru Jonathan Sumption's first two non-history books, "Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics" and "Law in a Time of Crisis". He makes the point quite forcefully that the courts have expanded out of their natural scope into actively creating law, contradicting Parliament, interfering in peoples lives when unpermitted, and taking control of things that should be down to individual responsibility. The idea that courts just "fill in the blanks" is decades out of date.
This is an attractive thesis - of course. However, all these elements need examples, and also an account of how instead courts should answer questions when they are asked.
For example, when the courts, finally the Supreme Court, were asked what 'woman' means in a particular act of parliament, everyone knowing that whatever they said would be divisive and would create both law and consequences, should the courts have said 'Go away we are not bothered, answer it yourself'?
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
You wonder why they didn't get that advice *before* trying to postpone elections.
Good question. I thought Starmer was meant to be in thrall to legal niceties. This seems to have been more a case of JFDI. But now not as it turns out. Odd one.
Is that u turn #19 or 20?
Sure someone must be keeping a list!
I'm not sure the public cares much. It is Mrs Thatcher who convinced the media U-turns are a bad thing. Before then we would quote Maynard Keynes on "when the facts change". Probably most voters welcome the government coming into line with public opinion.
He u-turns too quickly for the facts to have changed
A u turn for one man is being pragmatic and sensible for another.
Besides many aren't u turns anyway just tweaks and amendments
Just the same old rabid right wing media lies.
You are rattled
Sky journalist just looking at the optics
'There has been months and months of opposition parties calling you undemocratic for cancelling people's local elections and you have now been proven wrong legally, and even proven that what you were doing was illegal, when you are run by a lawyer who says everything should be done by the book and respecting the law
Add on top of that you now have a labour government giving tax payer money to Reform UK, the opposition party they are most afraid off and they are most alive to that threat and having to hand over cash of upto six figures
Combine that altogether, then it makes labour look unable to gain control over an already challenging and messy premiership for Keir Starmer and I think of them altogether are incredibly damaging and are going to frustrate labour footsoldiers and councillors who are to campaign now in short notice and will ask Keir Starmer, why are we in this position ? '
“ you have now been proven wrong legally,”
They haven’t been proved wrong legally though! No one on PB believes that for one second.
How could the principle be proved wrong legally if not tested in court? The government already went ahead and done it 4 years ago, would the court not have taken that precedent into consideration, and arguments of saving tax payer money and focussing resources into abolishing councils on time to avoid further delay into some serious consideration too. And courts will have found on the opposite side of this argument, that extending a 4 year council term for 12 months to aid drawdown of the role and abolishing the council means local democracy in UK falls apart?
Labour have put party first over what’s right for the country - for an easier local election campaign for Labour bought with hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax payers money, handed over to Reform. That is exactly the true history of today.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
I'm currently going thru Jonathan Sumption's first two non-history books, "Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics" and "Law in a Time of Crisis". He makes the point quite forcefully that the courts have expanded out of their natural scope into actively creating law, contradicting Parliament, interfering in peoples lives when unpermitted, and taking control of things that should be down to individual responsibility. The idea that courts just "fill in the blanks" is decades out of date.
I think it's Helmut Norpoth whose prediction method looks at primary votes. If Vance continues to hoover up Rep votes, and the Dems keep floundering, we have to start thinking about Vance as Prez
We should be thinking about that anyway given that Trump is in a bad way and getting worse with increasing rapidity.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
I'm currently going thru Jonathan Sumption's first two non-history books, "Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics" and "Law in a Time of Crisis". He makes the point quite forcefully that the courts have expanded out of their natural scope into actively creating law, contradicting Parliament, interfering in peoples lives when unpermitted, and taking control of things that should be down to individual responsibility. The idea that courts just "fill in the blanks" is decades out of date.
This is an attractive thesis - of course. However, all these elements need examples, and also an account of how instead courts should answer questions when they are asked.
For example, when the courts, finally the Supreme Court, were asked what 'woman' means in a particular act of parliament, everyone knowing that whatever they said would be divisive and would create both law and consequences, should the courts have said 'Go away we are not bothered, answer it yourself'?
That is basically what they said: this is the current law and if parliament wants to change it they can
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
I'm currently going thru Jonathan Sumption's first two non-history books, "Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics" and "Law in a Time of Crisis". He makes the point quite forcefully that the courts have expanded out of their natural scope into actively creating law, contradicting Parliament, interfering in peoples lives when unpermitted, and taking control of things that should be down to individual responsibility. The idea that courts just "fill in the blanks" is decades out of date.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
Really? Gosh.
The quality of legislation has been piss poor for 20+ years (and that’s not the objectives it’s the actual quality of the legislation)
Poor show in that case. I wonder why standards have slipped.
I think it's Helmut Norpoth whose prediction method looks at primary votes. If Vance continues to hoover up Rep votes, and the Dems keep floundering, we have to start thinking about Vance as Prez
We are also 2 years before primary season begins - that's an awful long time during which things could change..
I think it's Helmut Norpoth whose prediction method looks at primary votes. If Vance continues to hoover up Rep votes, and the Dems keep floundering, we have to start thinking about Vance as Prez
We are also 2 years before primary season begins - that's an awful long time during which things could change..
Spoof advert doing the rounds on FB
It may be a joke but I'm not planning to visit America in the near future...
I think she might beat Vance, but would lose to Rubio.
Maybe. But from the betting pov I think she's overpriced. Lost last time, yes, but it was a decent effort from a badly handicapped start position. It raised her profile massively and she relished being the candidate. There's little doubt in my mind she'll be going for it.
She probably takes inspiration from Trump's comeback win.
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
Really? Gosh.
The quality of legislation has been piss poor for 20+ years (and that’s not the objectives it’s the actual quality of the legislation)
Poor show in that case. I wonder why standards have slipped.
Robin Butler blamed Tony Blair's habit of forcing stuff through to meet random soundbites rather than detailed policy with proper committee stages.
And said so publicly as well during an election campaign, which was rather unusual for an ex-civil servant of his generation.
I think she might beat Vance, but would lose to Rubio.
Maybe. But from the betting pov I think she's overpriced. Lost last time, yes, but it was a decent effort from a badly handicapped start position. It raised her profile massively and she relished being the candidate. There's little doubt in my mind she'll be going for it.
She probably takes inspiration from Trump's comeback win.
"I get knocked down ..."
Given her wine-mom reputation, that's either a genius idea as an anthem or a terrible one.
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
The Tories have already seen 2 Broxbourne cllrs defect to Reform, if 1 more goes then if the Tories lost all their seats up in May in Broxbourne that would also go NOC.
Braverman will be hoping her defection enables Reform to win most Fareham seats up in May and if the Tories lose 8 or more out of their 13 seats up they would lose control
Both Reform defectors are facing reelection so Broxbourne is a Tory Hold
They will likely hold their seats as Reform
Yes but there are only 7 Tories facing reelection and 25/30 on the council. If they lose every ward (very unlikely) they have 18/30
Not if 1 of the 30 not facing election defected to Reform too
3 would need to defect to reduce 18 to 15 And we deal with reality not 'stuff that might happen if we wish hard enough'
It doesn't make sense to want to replace Kemi with Cleverly unless you see Kemi as a problem for Reform
He has litlle englander right wing sympathies and playing the Trojan horse would suits this agenda
Where is the evidence Kemi is a problem for Reform? Under Rishi the Tories were 10% ahead of Reform, now the Tories are 5 to 10% at least behind Reform.
Cleverly also polls better with 2024 Tory voters than Kemi, ironically Kemi and Jenrick polled better with 2024 Reform voters than Cleverly.
Labour and LD voters who might tactically vote Tory to beat Reform also preferred Cleverly to Kemi in polling in the leadership election
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
Really? Gosh.
The quality of legislation has been piss poor for 20+ years (and that’s not the objectives it’s the actual quality of the legislation)
Poor show in that case. I wonder why standards have slipped.
I suspect it’s related to the Campbell / post Campbell era - when politicians started legislating for headlines rather than to actually care about good law.
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
The Tories have already seen 2 Broxbourne cllrs defect to Reform, if 1 more goes then if the Tories lost all their seats up in May in Broxbourne that would also go NOC.
Braverman will be hoping her defection enables Reform to win most Fareham seats up in May and if the Tories lose 8 or more out of their 13 seats up they would lose control
Both Reform defectors are facing reelection so Broxbourne is a Tory Hold
They will likely hold their seats as Reform
Yes but there are only 7 Tories facing reelection and 25/30 on the council. If they lose every ward (very unlikely) they have 18/30
Not if 1 of the 30 not facing election defected to Reform too
3 would need to defect to reduce 18 to 15 And we deal with reality not 'stuff that might happen if we wish hard enough'
It doesn't make sense to want to replace Kemi with Cleverly unless you see Kemi as a problem for Reform
He has litlle englander right wing sympathies and playing the Trojan horse would suits this agenda
Where is the evidence Kemi is a problem for Reform? Under Rishi the Tories were 10% ahead of Reform, now the Tories are 5 to 10% at least behind Reform.
Cleverly also polls better with 2024 Tory voters than Kemi, ironically Kemi and Jenrick polled better with 2024 Reform voters than Cleverly.
Labour and LD voters who might tactically vote Tory to beat Reform also preferred Cleverly to Kemi in polling in the leadership election
Do you think that Sunak would still be polling 10% more than Reform if he were still Tory leader?
I think she might beat Vance, but would lose to Rubio.
Maybe. But from the betting pov I think she's overpriced. Lost last time, yes, but it was a decent effort from a badly handicapped start position. It raised her profile massively and she relished being the candidate. There's little doubt in my mind she'll be going for it.
She probably takes inspiration from Trump's comeback win.
"I get knocked down ..."
Given her wine-mom reputation, that's either a genius idea as an anthem or a terrible one.
Wasn’t she trailing a count down to something a few days ago? What was it?
I think it's Helmut Norpoth whose prediction method looks at primary votes. If Vance continues to hoover up Rep votes, and the Dems keep floundering, we have to start thinking about Vance as Prez
Not unless Trump improves his approval rating otherwise the Democrat likely wins Independents.
Otherwise John McCain would have easily beaten Obama in 2008 as he wrapped up the GOP nomination months before Obama beat Hillary for the Dem nomination
Worth bearimg in mind if youre expecting Reform to take dozens of councils, 23 of the 30 are only a third up, 2 are half and only Thurrock and the Tory counties are all up
Ah, the lesser spotted elections by half councils, the degenerates.
But it is a sensible decision, with the delays in reorganisations it was silly to delay elections.
In Nuneaton and Bedworth, council leader ousted in a vote of no confidence specifically over his support for the postponements. What Reform have done with this, like the goons they are, is create a brain dead populist stink, not founded upon protecting democracy or any sane arguments at all, just to serve their own interests of getting publicity.
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
The Tories have already seen 2 Broxbourne cllrs defect to Reform, if 1 more goes then if the Tories lost all their seats up in May in Broxbourne that would also go NOC.
Braverman will be hoping her defection enables Reform to win most Fareham seats up in May and if the Tories lose 8 or more out of their 13 seats up they would lose control
Both Reform defectors are facing reelection so Broxbourne is a Tory Hold
They will likely hold their seats as Reform
Yes but there are only 7 Tories facing reelection and 25/30 on the council. If they lose every ward (very unlikely) they have 18/30
Not if 1 of the 30 not facing election defected to Reform too
3 would need to defect to reduce 18 to 15 And we deal with reality not 'stuff that might happen if we wish hard enough'
It doesn't make sense to want to replace Kemi with Cleverly unless you see Kemi as a problem for Reform
He has litlle englander right wing sympathies and playing the Trojan horse would suits this agenda
Where is the evidence Kemi is a problem for Reform? Under Rishi the Tories were 10% ahead of Reform, now the Tories are 5 to 10% at least behind Reform.
Cleverly also polls better with 2024 Tory voters than Kemi, ironically Kemi and Jenrick polled better with 2024 Reform voters than Cleverly.
Labour and LD voters who might tactically vote Tory to beat Reform also preferred Cleverly to Kemi in polling in the leadership election
Do you think that Sunak would still be polling 10% more than Reform if he were still Tory leader?
A MiC poll after last year's local elections had a Sunak led Tories unchanged on 2024 on 24%, tied with Reform also on 24% and ahead of Labour on 22%.
The Kemi led Tories though were on only 21%, 3% down on 2024 and behind Reform on 29% and Labour on 22%
I bet many of the people who regularly decry judicial interference in government policy like this example of it.
What judicial interference? They U-turned on the back of their legal advice saying the move would be illegal.
Exactly. Judicial interference = applying the law. Like the outcome in any particular instance or not, it's an essential protection.
Where it becomes interference - and it’s not really the judges’ fault - is where they fill in the blanks where parliament has not done its job properly
It tends to be interference if you don't like the outcome. If you do it's upholding the law.
Try reading what I read instead of regurgitating your prior post
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
I'm currently going thru Jonathan Sumption's first two non-history books, "Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics" and "Law in a Time of Crisis". He makes the point quite forcefully that the courts have expanded out of their natural scope into actively creating law, contradicting Parliament, interfering in peoples lives when unpermitted, and taking control of things that should be down to individual responsibility. The idea that courts just "fill in the blanks" is decades out of date.
He's a good writer, to be sure, and is mostly pretty persuasive. I've been meaning to check out his 100 years war history.
IIRC he supports the prorogation decision (which he was not on the court for), when many of his political views might make people think he'd not.
Worth bearimg in mind if youre expecting Reform to take dozens of councils, 23 of the 30 are only a third up, 2 are half and only Thurrock and the Tory counties are all up
Ah, the lesser spotted elections by half councils, the degenerates.
But it is a sensible decision, with the delays in reorganisations it was silly to delay elections.
Reorganisations are DONE, NADA, OVER.
This clueless inept government by holding local elections in EVERY county council and district council it had prioritised to move to unitaries and Mayors has ensured it is dead once Reform sweep the board in May. Reform will vote down any further moves to local government reform and reorganisation. Local government reorginisation RIPd today for the rest of this parliament. The Essex Mayoral election is also likely now never happening
I think she might beat Vance, but would lose to Rubio.
Maybe. But from the betting pov I think she's overpriced. Lost last time, yes, but it was a decent effort from a badly handicapped start position. It raised her profile massively and she relished being the candidate. There's little doubt in my mind she'll be going for it.
She probably takes inspiration from Trump's comeback win.
"I get knocked down ..."
Given her wine-mom reputation, that's either a genius idea as an anthem or a terrible one.
Oi, save the smearing for if she is the candidate! You don't want to leave yourself with an empty chamber.
I think she might beat Vance, but would lose to Rubio.
Maybe. But from the betting pov I think she's overpriced. Lost last time, yes, but it was a decent effort from a badly handicapped start position. It raised her profile massively and she relished being the candidate. There's little doubt in my mind she'll be going for it.
She probably takes inspiration from Trump's comeback win.
"I get knocked down ..."
Given her wine-mom reputation, that's either a genius idea as an anthem or a terrible one.
Wasn’t she trailing a count down to something a few days ago? What was it?
Relaunching some social media thing from her presidential campaign.
In Nuneaton and Bedworth, council leader ousted in a vote of no confidence specifically over his support for the postponements. What Reform have done with this, like the goons they are, is create a brain dead populist stink, not founded upon protecting democracy or any sane arguments at all, just to serve their own interests of getting publicity.
As Angus Deayton used to say when Have I Got News For You was new and amusing,
so no change there, then.
Thing is, creating brain-dead populist stinks gets you to thirty percent in the polls, which currently gets you into first place. And it's fun for hacks to cover that sort of thing, so they do.
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
The Tories have already seen 2 Broxbourne cllrs defect to Reform, if 1 more goes then if the Tories lost all their seats up in May in Broxbourne that would also go NOC.
Braverman will be hoping her defection enables Reform to win most Fareham seats up in May and if the Tories lose 8 or more out of their 13 seats up they would lose control
Both Reform defectors are facing reelection so Broxbourne is a Tory Hold
They will likely hold their seats as Reform
Yes but there are only 7 Tories facing reelection and 25/30 on the council. If they lose every ward (very unlikely) they have 18/30
Not if 1 of the 30 not facing election defected to Reform too
3 would need to defect to reduce 18 to 15 And we deal with reality not 'stuff that might happen if we wish hard enough'
It doesn't make sense to want to replace Kemi with Cleverly unless you see Kemi as a problem for Reform
He has litlle englander right wing sympathies and playing the Trojan horse would suits this agenda
Where is the evidence Kemi is a problem for Reform? Under Rishi the Tories were 10% ahead of Reform, now the Tories are 5 to 10% at least behind Reform.
Cleverly also polls better with 2024 Tory voters than Kemi, ironically Kemi and Jenrick polled better with 2024 Reform voters than Cleverly.
Labour and LD voters who might tactically vote Tory to beat Reform also preferred Cleverly to Kemi in polling in the leadership election
Do you think that Sunak would still be polling 10% more than Reform if he were still Tory leader?
A MiC poll after last year's local elections had a Sunak led Tories unchanged on 2024 on 24%, tied with Reform also on 24% and ahead of Labour on 22%.
The Kemi led Tories though were on only 21%, 3% down on 2024 and behind Reform on 29% and Labour on 22%
In Nuneaton and Bedworth, council leader ousted in a vote of no confidence specifically over his support for the postponements. What Reform have done with this, like the goons they are, is create a brain dead populist stink, not founded upon protecting democracy or any sane arguments at all, just to serve their own interests of getting publicity.
On topic. No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
As usual, I find myself splitting the difference on this. The cancellation of elections for a second year in places like Norfolk, Suffolk, Hampshire and the two Sussexes was and is indefensible but for those in the earlier stages of re-organisation, I think a 12-month postponement is justifiable and as you say this was a game the Conservatives played when in office.
It’s no game. What is the point holding elections electing someone to a council role and a council that doesn’t exist in less than 12 months? What is harm in extending for 1 year someone only elected 4 years ago?
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench doing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
12 months? Luxury.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
Was it legally obliged to happen? Or like Parliament constituencies, the timing of by-election a political plaything?
When 2019 elections cancelled, the Conservative Party defended it as a necessary step to support local government reorganisation. The primary reasons provided were: * Protecting Reorganisation Work: Postponing the polls enabled councils to focus their time and energy on implementing the transition from a "two-tier" system (county and district councils) to new, single unitary authorities. * Avoiding Waste of Resources: The government argued it would be "financially wasteful" and "distracting" to hold elections for short-term posts on councils that were due to be abolished shortly thereafter. * Capacity Constraints: Ministers stated that councils undergoing significant structural changes might lack the capacity to manage resource-intensive election administration simultaneously with the reorganisation process. * Ensuring Continuity: Existing councillors had their terms extended to maintain leadership and stability until the new unitary councils were established.
The only fundamental difference now from then is scale. The Cancellations 2019-2021 were pilot schemes, to prove the change of scrapping local authorities to next step be rolled out.
There’s no way the Government would have lost this challenge to the glib paper thin Reform position in court.
Surely even Starmer would realise Parliament is sovereign and if he really wanted he could use the Local Government Acts to make clear via statute law the election delays were needed for councils moving to unitaries to reorganise for that? As it is Reform are opposed to unitaries and want to keep county and district councils, so if they take control of most county and district councils up this year as they won most county councils up last year they could try and block the move to unitaries and Mayors completely, setting up a clash with the govenment on that,
Kemi now facing potential Tory losses of Norfolk, Suffolk and East and West Sussex county councils as well as Essex and Hampshire county councils and failing to win the new Surrey unitaries and facing the Tories coming 4th in the Holyrood and Senedd elections could well be under severe pressure in May. As TSE suggests if the Tories are 3rd on NEV in May behind Labour a VONC by Tory MPs in Kemi's leadership could be asked for and she could be gone, replaced by Cleverly
In 1993 the Tories amongst County Councils were left with just Buckinghamshire. Looks like they will be in the same boat in 2026. Remaining largest party in some is needed for them The Districts and London will be much more mixed
Given all county councils will have held local elections by the end of the first week of May and the Tories won zero county councils last year, the Tories may do even worse than 1993 and control not a single county council by majority by the Spring.
Even Bucks unitary council is now NOC after elections last year, even if the Tories won most seats
Bucks is Majority Con aftrr a defection from Reform
Well something but again that was because of defection not election.
It is possible of the English councils up in May the Tories could not win majority control of a single one outside London, indeed it may be that the Tories only win Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Barnet councils in this year's local elections.
Which would say something about how relatively posh the Tories now are relative to 2019, most of those who voted for Boris then are now voting Reform
Broxbourne will remain Con majority They have a reasonable chance of holding Fareham. We will see with the rest
The Tories have already seen 2 Broxbourne cllrs defect to Reform, if 1 more goes then if the Tories lost all their seats up in May in Broxbourne that would also go NOC.
Braverman will be hoping her defection enables Reform to win most Fareham seats up in May and if the Tories lose 8 or more out of their 13 seats up they would lose control
Both Reform defectors are facing reelection so Broxbourne is a Tory Hold
They will likely hold their seats as Reform
Yes but there are only 7 Tories facing reelection and 25/30 on the council. If they lose every ward (very unlikely) they have 18/30
Not if 1 of the 30 not facing election defected to Reform too
3 would need to defect to reduce 18 to 15 And we deal with reality not 'stuff that might happen if we wish hard enough'
It doesn't make sense to want to replace Kemi with Cleverly unless you see Kemi as a problem for Reform
He has litlle englander right wing sympathies and playing the Trojan horse would suits this agenda
Where is the evidence Kemi is a problem for Reform? Under Rishi the Tories were 10% ahead of Reform, now the Tories are 5 to 10% at least behind Reform.
Cleverly also polls better with 2024 Tory voters than Kemi, ironically Kemi and Jenrick polled better with 2024 Reform voters than Cleverly.
Labour and LD voters who might tactically vote Tory to beat Reform also preferred Cleverly to Kemi in polling in the leadership election
Kemi beats all leaders in approval ratings including Farage
Unless you post a recent poll then anything else is you usuing polls to suit your argument, even 2 year old ones
Anyway here's the deal
If Kemi faces a VONC after May I will hold up my hands and say I got it wrong with no caveats
If Kemi does not, you will hold up your hands and say you got it wrong with no caveats
In Nuneaton and Bedworth, council leader ousted in a vote of no confidence specifically over his support for the postponements. What Reform have done with this, like the goons they are, is create a brain dead populist stink, not founded upon protecting democracy or any sane arguments at all, just to serve their own interests of getting publicity.
Comments
If they lose every ward (very unlikely) they have 18/30
Sooner or later there are no Ministers dumb enough to do the media round.
There are people who use the court system like that, after all.
And we deal with reality not 'stuff that might happen if we wish hard enough'
Will Reform's control of the County Council have much of an effect?
Assuming, of course, that someone was offering decent odds.
Probably revenge for that.
The Ministry of Justice has ordered the deletion of millions of court case records
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/60b20c6919437308
A bit of a stretch to ‘that’ affair but the deletion of records should be a scandal in itself (and why does a private company hold them in the first place?). From another angle, Katie Lam backers can see she is still around.
I'd say that's a kind of hubris. Or that he's a liar
Sure someone must be keeping a list!
No. Labour are hiding behind “legal opinion” for a political decision to u-turn before the campaign kicks off and is made all about Labour cancelling democracy to save their skins.
The Conservatives successfully cancelled elections for this reorganisation in both 2019 and 2022, so there is NO WAY this government would have lost this case in the courts, even if it may have taken more than one visit.
Todays definitely not based on legal advice but wholly political u-turn from Labour, knowingly and unnecessarily puts hundreds of thousands of tax payers money straight into Nigel’s and Zia’s pockets.
Calgie
@christiancalgie
·
1h
A sign of the times as members of the Cambridge University Conservative Association have travelled down to Romford today for the Reform UK rally.
Once a poaching ground for the brightest and best Tory MPs and ministers, one says its leadership is now crawling with Faragists.
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/2023445008271970812
ETA of course, a better run government would not have taken that wrong road in the first place.
It doesn't make sense to want to replace Kemi with Cleverly unless you see Kemi as a problem for Reform
He has litlle englander right wing sympathies and playing the Trojan horse would suits this agenda
Judges uphold the law.
Sometimes parliament doesn’t cover all cases and the judges need to do things that are properly done by parliament.
Today's decision on the elections is broadly to be welcomed particularly with regard to those County Councils who were hoping for a second postponement having already postponed in 2025. The idea of a Councillor elected in 2021 serving nearly seven years of a four year term is absurd. The pace of consultation has bene funereal in some areas not helped, I suspect, by the clearout of the DCLOG (or whatever it's called now) Ministry following Angela Rayner's resignation.
Just over 5,000 council seats will now be contested in May with Labour defending 40% of them. The London local elections account for 36% of all the seats being fought.
I was musing on the way home what might have happened had this occurred a year ago and whether an even more painful night for the Conservatives (including losses in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hampshire and the two Sussexes) might have precipitated a challenge against Kemi Badenoch last May or June.
I see we are already playing the expectations management game in terms of Conservative gains and losses. According to Wiki, the party is defending 854 seats but the conversation seems to be more about NEV than gains or losses and with more Conservative areas like some of the aforementioned, the chances of a better NEV, albeit tempered by more seat losses, might work in Badenoch's favour.
The line among Conservative supporters and sympathisers seems to be crystallising around finishing in front of Labour on NEV so it becomes all about the right votes if not necessarily in the right places.
Besides many aren't u turns anyway just tweaks and amendments
Just the same old rabid right wing media lies.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/i-did-so-many-things-for-that-company-erika-kirk-accused-of-wrecking-charlie-kirk-s-company-as-ex-employee-spills-on-gossip-and-petty-firings/ar-AA1WmywS
https://x.com/PpollingNumbers/status/2023406235614359909
New - 2028 primary polls
🔵 Harris 38%
🔵 Newsom 13%
🔵 Buttigieg 5%
🔵 Shapiro 4%
🔴 Vance 43%
🔴 Trump Jr 18%
🔴 DeSantis 5%
🔴 Rubio 5%
Tipp #A - RV - 1/29
I don't think Arsenal will win the Premiership this year. If you ask me what I am basing it on, the answer is uninformed guesswork. I think HYUFD is better informed on his prediction than I am on mine.
The same applies to my thought that Greens will win G and D next week. Uninformed guesswork. I stand to gain or lose thankfully modest sums on each contingency.
https://x.com/gbpolitcs/status/2023464921925570889
Sky journalist just looking at the optics
'There has been months and months of opposition parties calling you undemocratic for cancelling people's local elections and you have now been proven wrong legally, and even proven that what you were doing was illegal, when you are run by a lawyer who says everything should be done by the book and respecting the law
Add on top of that you now have a labour government giving tax payer money to Reform UK, the opposition party they are most afraid off and they are most alive to that threat and having to hand over cash of upto six figures
Combine that altogether, then it makes labour look unable to gain control over an already challenging and messy premiership for Keir Starmer and I think of them altogether are incredibly damaging and are going to frustrate labour footsoldiers and councillors who are to campaign now in short notice and will ask Keir Starmer, why are we in this position ? '
The game Farage and the Daily Telegraph been playing here is utterly, money wasting nimbyism. The type of opportunist shit that holds this country back.
What’s so special about councillors can’t extend a year over 4 or it’s an outrage and democracy starts falling apart?
And what game Kemi and her front bench playing here? They were actually in a government that actually done this, they justified on grounds it’s sound fiscal conservatism!
Harris beat Rubio by 2% though but beat Vance by only 1%.
https://pro.morningconsult.com/analysis/2028-presidential-polling-primary-november-2025
So after trying to deny the vote to millions, Labour is now asking those same people to vote Labour.
Fat chance.
We've just had a byelection to Bradford council less than 3 months before the winning candidate has to seek re-election.
There Buttigieg leads in the latest New Hampshire poll of Democratic voters ahead of Newsom with Harris a poor third.
https://www.anselm.edu/about/anselmian-hub/news/new-poll-saint-anselm-college-survey-shows-declining-optimism-democracy-dominant-issue-and-early-partisan-divides-ahead-2026
Newsom leads in Nevada with Buttigieg second and Harris again third.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/nevada-2026-poll/
Buttigieg also leads in North Carolina with Harris second and Newsom third.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/north-carolina-2026-poll-cooper-starts-us-senate-race-with-six-point-lead-and-clear-name-recognition-advantage-over-whatley/
VP Vance to be fair leads with GOP voters in New Hampshire, Nevada and North Carolina as he leads nationally. The Democratic race though is far more open
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/north-carolina-2026-poll-cooper-starts-us-senate-race-with-six-point-lead-and-clear-name-recognition-advantage-over-whatley/
Those 5 councils plus Essex were all the priority areas for devolution, Mayors and unitaries. Reform oppose all that, want to keep county and district councils and will refuse to co operate with any local government reorganisation if as is likely they win control of those 6 councils or most seats in May.
So the government today has likely killed off local government reform for the rest of this parliament unless it is willing to go into battle with Reform led county councils which given its gutless u turns is unlikely
For example, when the courts, finally the Supreme Court, were asked what 'woman' means in a particular act of parliament, everyone knowing that whatever they said would be divisive and would create both law and consequences, should the courts have said 'Go away we are not bothered, answer it yourself'?
They haven’t been proved wrong legally though! No one on PB believes that for one second.
How could the principle be proved wrong legally if not tested in court? The government already went ahead and done it 4 years ago, would the court not have taken that precedent into consideration, and arguments of saving tax payer money and focussing resources into abolishing councils on time to avoid further delay into some serious consideration too. And courts will have found on the opposite side of this argument, that extending a 4 year council term for 12 months to aid drawdown of the role and abolishing the council means local democracy in UK falls apart?
Labour have put party first over what’s right for the country - for an easier local election campaign for Labour bought with hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax payers money, handed over to Reform. That is exactly the true history of today.
https://x.com/paoloseb05/status/2021768060101886403
We could cheer on Ireland to beat Zimbabwe, and Sri Lanka to beat Zimbabwe.
And then Oman to beat Australia, which would be hilarious.
But is also not going to happen.
So while I have enormous respect and affection for the Irish cricket team, I will be cheering on Zimbabwe.
And said so publicly as well during an election campaign, which was rather unusual for an ex-civil servant of his generation.
Cleverly also polls better with 2024 Tory voters than Kemi, ironically Kemi and Jenrick polled better with 2024 Reform voters than Cleverly.
Labour and LD voters who might tactically vote Tory to beat Reform also preferred Cleverly to Kemi in polling in the leadership election
Great actor who never got the number of lead roles he deserved,
Magnificent in Lonesome Dove.
Otherwise John McCain would have easily beaten Obama in 2008 as he wrapped up the GOP nomination months before Obama beat Hillary for the Dem nomination
But it is a sensible decision, with the delays in reorganisations it was silly to delay elections.
The Kemi led Tories though were on only 21%, 3% down on 2024 and behind Reform on 29% and Labour on 22%
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/j5jhk22f/more-in-common-post-election-briefing-4.pdf (p50)
IIRC he supports the prorogation decision (which he was not on the court for), when many of his political views might make people think he'd not.
This clueless inept government by holding local elections in EVERY county council and district council it had prioritised to move to unitaries and Mayors has ensured it is dead once Reform sweep the board in May. Reform will vote down any further moves to local government reform and reorganisation. Local government reorginisation RIPd today for the rest of this parliament. The Essex Mayoral election is also likely now never happening
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/05/politics/kamala-hq-account-kamala-harris
so no change there, then.
Thing is, creating brain-dead populist stinks gets you to thirty percent in the polls, which currently gets you into first place. And it's fun for hacks to cover that sort of thing, so they do.
You don't think that things might have changed at all in the last nine months?
When 2019 elections cancelled, the Conservative Party defended it as a necessary step to support local government reorganisation.
The primary reasons provided were:
* Protecting Reorganisation Work: Postponing the polls enabled councils to focus their time and energy on implementing the transition from a "two-tier" system (county and district councils) to new, single unitary authorities.
* Avoiding Waste of Resources: The government argued it would be "financially wasteful" and "distracting" to hold elections for short-term posts on councils that were due to be abolished shortly thereafter.
* Capacity Constraints: Ministers stated that councils undergoing significant structural changes might lack the capacity to manage resource-intensive election administration simultaneously with the reorganisation process.
* Ensuring Continuity: Existing councillors had their terms extended to maintain leadership and stability until the new unitary councils were established.
The only fundamental difference now from then is scale. The Cancellations 2019-2021 were pilot schemes, to prove the change of scrapping local authorities to next step be rolled out.
There’s no way the Government would have lost this challenge to the glib paper thin Reform position in court.
Unless you post a recent poll then anything else is you usuing polls to suit your argument, even 2 year old ones
Anyway here's the deal
If Kemi faces a VONC after May I will hold up my hands and say I got it wrong with no caveats
If Kemi does not, you will hold up your hands and say you got it wrong with no caveats