A lot of betting on the Greens. Do we know if that's large bets from a small number of punters, or small bets from a large number?
Either way given the current febrile nature of politics I would say the value is probably to lay the favourites at the moment. If Reform hadn't selected that lunatic Goodwin as their candidate they'd probably be the best value. As it is, probably Labour offer more even as a trading bet.
I just found out that my friend has a secret life as a priest.
It's his altar ego.
Really? I'm sure he conceals it well. But he can't hold a candle to Epstein's acolytes in terms of a double life. Why, most of them apparently didn't even know about it themselves.
Looking at Social Media there do seem to be loads of Green posters and boards up. How representive these are geographically and how many Reform voters are seething behind their net curtains who knows?
On this mornings YouGov, just to show how shallow they have Reforms 'dominance', a 1% swing from Ref to both Lab and Con and losing just 1% to Restore sees the fall to second in seats with Nowcast and a virtual 3 way tie in seats between Lab, Ref and Con
I think the Greens also benefit from not having the same kind of anti- vote that Reform does. If this is seen as a two horse race I could see Lab, Con, and Lib Dem voters all lending their vote to the Greens.
That Ashcroft focus group had most participants expecting Reform to win. Are Reform now value?
The key Quote may be at the end. People feeling safe voting Green because they expect Reform to win....... How much do you trust the focus groups grasp of the actual probabilities is the question...... are they speaking from knowledge locally or from watching the constant Reform ramping in the media?
https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/2023456213397061787 A few things about this unprecedented disgrace. One, the United States needs nothing from Hungary that would depend on the outcome of this election, but clearly Donald Trump does. Two, weakening Europe is a hobby for MAGA, but an existential necessity for Putin. 1/2 Rubio is visiting Fico and Orban, who aren’t ideologically aligned but are the most anti-Ukraine, pro-Russia leaders. There is no diplomatic or geopolitical reasoning for the White House to prioritize their success unless directed to do so by the Kremlin. 2/2
The next crisis in EU - US relations will be Hungarian elections on April 12. Trump & Putin’s puppet Orban is trailing by 10 points but likely will try and steal elections. Watch for mass demonstrations and use of force then by Orban, backed by Trump & Putin. https://x.com/tashecon/status/2023377312910028909
Apart from warm words for kindred spirit, back by the US in wot way?
On this mornings YouGov, just to show how shallow they have Reforms 'dominance', a 1% swing from Ref to both Lab and Con and losing just 1% to Restore sees the fall to second in seats with Nowcast and a virtual 3 way tie in seats between Lab, Ref and Con
The next GE is very unpredictable
The future often is, despite what Orwell said in 1984. On one view political betting is based on that.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
On this mornings YouGov, just to show how shallow they have Reforms 'dominance', a 1% swing from Ref to both Lab and Con and losing just 1% to Restore sees the fall to second in seats with Nowcast and a virtual 3 way tie in seats between Lab, Ref and Con
The next GE is very unpredictable
The future often is, despite what Orwell said in 1984. On one view political betting is based on that.
An elephant foot bone found by archaeologists digging in southern Spain may be evidence that a troop of war elephants stomped through ancient Europe.
It would be the first concrete proof of the legendary LOSER Carthaginian General Hannibal's troop of battle elephants, according to academics.
Drawings of Hannibal's LOSING war against the Romans had long suggested that the beasts were used in fighting, but no hard evidence backed up the theories.
Now the creatures' skeletal remains appear to have been found in an Iron Age dig near Cordoba.
An elephant foot bone found by archaeologists digging in southern Spain may be evidence that a troop of war elephants stomped through ancient Europe.
It would be the first concrete proof of the legendary LOSER Carthaginian General Hannibal's troop of battle elephants, according to academics.
Drawings of Hannibal's LOSING war against the Romans had long suggested that the beasts were used in fighting, but no hard evidence backed up the theories.
Now the creatures' skeletal remains appear to have been found in an Iron Age dig near Cordoba.
An elephant foot bone found by archaeologists digging in southern Spain may be evidence that a troop of war elephants stomped through ancient Europe.
It would be the first concrete proof of the legendary LOSER Carthaginian General Hannibal's troop of battle elephants, according to academics.
Drawings of Hannibal's LOSING war against the Romans had long suggested that the beasts were used in fighting, but no hard evidence backed up the theories.
Now the creatures' skeletal remains appear to have been found in an Iron Age dig near Cordoba.
If Reform slip to second or third, then I expect their certainty-to-vote to crash. They fire people up when they can Make A Difference. That means smashing the Labour-Tory duopoly. When that prospect goes away, some will slink back to their former party, but many will sign up for the Can't Be Arsed Party - and stay home.
An elephant foot bone found by archaeologists digging in southern Spain may be evidence that a troop of war elephants stomped through ancient Europe.
It would be the first concrete proof of the legendary LOSER Carthaginian General Hannibal's troop of battle elephants, according to academics.
Drawings of Hannibal's LOSING war against the Romans had long suggested that the beasts were used in fighting, but no hard evidence backed up the theories.
Now the creatures' skeletal remains appear to have been found in an Iron Age dig near Cordoba.
AIUI it is her then boss who is complaining about her behaviour and saying very loudly that she should not be promoted.
That strikes me as unusual. It suggests something was going on.
It is unusual. People don't normally start pointing out how catastrophically unsuited to the role Starmer's appointments are until after they are in place.
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.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigger picture.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
AIUI it is her then boss who is complaining about her behaviour and saying very loudly that she should not be promoted.
That strikes me as unusual. It suggests something was going on.
From reading the article it was multiple people making allegations.
What is interesting is this.
[In 2017] Sir Tim Hitchens, a former ambassador to Japan, was flown to New York to carry out a week-long review during which he spoke to many of Romeo’s colleagues.
His report was then submitted to Sir Simon McDonald, then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office. Sources have said that the report found a serious case to answer against Romeo and included a number of recommendations....
...As reports about Romeo’s imminent promotion amplified last week, McDonald used a television interview to warn that it would be a mistake. The unusual intervention saw McDonald call for the government to carry out due diligence.
Fun fact, Sir Simon in 2022
In July 2022 McDonald wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards stating that denials of previous allegations against Chris Pincher by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson were untrue. The letter was described as an "extraordinary, devastating intervention", and was followed by resignations of senior cabinet ministers, ultimately leading to Johnson's announcement of his resignation on 7 July 2022
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
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.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigger picture.
Saying there was new legal advice admits incompetence, which is a last resort option, i find it hard to believe they'd choose that over 'we're taking time to do this right, so now we think we don't need to delay these elections' if they had the option.
As usual the news is mostly doom and gloom so here's a story of survival against ridiculous odds I heard yesterday.
In 1972 a Yugoslav Airlines flight flight was bombed by Croat nationalists. The only survivor was Vesna Vukovic who survived a fall from 33,000 feet. Apparently that's the highest fall any human being has ever suffered without a parachute. She was in a coma for several days and in hospital for several months but made an almost complete recovery, though she still limped. She had no memory of the disaster and was happy to fly again, but the airline gave her a desk job instead.
So incredible things can happen. Surviving a fall from 33,000 feet is apparently possible.
In fact, I'd say it's likelier than, ,e.g. Trump doing something nice or Labour coming up with, and implementing, a credible growth strategy.
It does, it says Labour's wall/house is about to fall, give it a shove then blames Labour for being complicit in the genocide in Gaza, don't let Reform win, Muslims should vote Green.
AIUI it is her then boss who is complaining about her behaviour and saying very loudly that she should not be promoted.
That strikes me as unusual. It suggests something was going on.
From reading the article it was multiple people making allegations.
What is interesting is this.
[In 2017] Sir Tim Hitchens, a former ambassador to Japan, was flown to New York to carry out a week-long review during which he spoke to many of Romeo’s colleagues.
His report was then submitted to Sir Simon McDonald, then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office. Sources have said that the report found a serious case to answer against Romeo and included a number of recommendations....
...As reports about Romeo’s imminent promotion amplified last week, McDonald used a television interview to warn that it would be a mistake. The unusual intervention saw McDonald call for the government to carry out due diligence.
Fun fact, Sir Simon in 2022
In July 2022 McDonald wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards stating that denials of previous allegations against Chris Pincher by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson were untrue. The letter was described as an "extraordinary, devastating intervention", and was followed by resignations of senior cabinet ministers, ultimately leading to Johnson's announcement of his resignation on 7 July 2022
He's unusually media friendly for a former civil servant. I'm not sure if that's a good thing - someone actually willing to be independent and defend principles - or a bit suspect.
Without more evidence, it's hard to judge the significance of the allegations. This kind of phrase does not inspire confidence, though: “..the process has determined that there is no case to answer”.
AIUI it is her then boss who is complaining about her behaviour and saying very loudly that she should not be promoted.
That strikes me as unusual. It suggests something was going on.
From reading the article it was multiple people making allegations.
What is interesting is this.
[In 2017] Sir Tim Hitchens, a former ambassador to Japan, was flown to New York to carry out a week-long review during which he spoke to many of Romeo’s colleagues.
His report was then submitted to Sir Simon McDonald, then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office. Sources have said that the report found a serious case to answer against Romeo and included a number of recommendations....
...As reports about Romeo’s imminent promotion amplified last week, McDonald used a television interview to warn that it would be a mistake. The unusual intervention saw McDonald call for the government to carry out due diligence.
Fun fact, Sir Simon in 2022
In July 2022 McDonald wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards stating that denials of previous allegations against Chris Pincher by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson were untrue. The letter was described as an "extraordinary, devastating intervention", and was followed by resignations of senior cabinet ministers, ultimately leading to Johnson's announcement of his resignation on 7 July 2022
He's unusually media friendly for a former civil servant. I'm not sure if that's a good thing - someone actually willing to be independent and defend principles - or a bit suspect.
An elephant foot bone found by archaeologists digging in southern Spain may be evidence that a troop of war elephants stomped through ancient Europe.
It would be the first concrete proof of the legendary LOSER Carthaginian General Hannibal's troop of battle elephants, according to academics.
Drawings of Hannibal's LOSING war against the Romans had long suggested that the beasts were used in fighting, but no hard evidence backed up the theories.
Now the creatures' skeletal remains appear to have been found in an Iron Age dig near Cordoba.
Looking at Social Media there do seem to be loads of Green posters and boards up. How representive these are geographically and how many Reform voters are seething behind their net curtains who knows?
Any PB local enough to comment?
I drove through the length of the Manchester half of the seat on Sunday. Green signs are everywhere, way more than when I did the same journey the previous weekend. There is some visible Labour support in Longsight. A number of the local businesses are hedging their bets by displaying both Green and Labour posters in the window. Once you get to Levenshulme it is wall to wall Green boards, there must be hundreds. In Burnage there is less visible support for anyone, but Green signs outnumber Labour by maybe 4 to 1 - there are just two Labour ones on the A34 Kingsway, when you'd normally see loads. The only time I saw any support for Reform was last week when I saw a Green board that had been defaced with black paint. Reform support within the Manchester wards is definitely shy in nature, supporters not wanting to get a reputation with the neighbours.
I haven't travelled through the Tameside bit (or the Gorton and Abbey Hey ward), from what I've heard the Greens have found that much tougher going and I expect that Green visibility is way lower, and Reform more visible. I must stress that the areas I've been to are those where you'd expect a stronger Green performance, but they've undoubtedly got their ground game going strong.
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.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes (Turn and face the strange) Ch-ch-changes Don't want to be a richer man Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes (Turn and face the strange) Ch-ch-changes Just gonna have to be a different man Time may change me But I can't trace time
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes (Turn and face the strange) Ch-ch-changes Don't want to be a richer man Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes (Turn and face the strange) Ch-ch-changes Just gonna have to be a different man Time may change me But I can't trace time
Without more evidence, it's hard to judge the significance of the allegations. This kind of phrase does not inspire confidence, though: “..the process has determined that there is no case to answer”.
It does inspire great confidence, in light of Mandelson.
AIUI it is her then boss who is complaining about her behaviour and saying very loudly that she should not be promoted.
That strikes me as unusual. It suggests something was going on.
From reading the article it was multiple people making allegations.
What is interesting is this.
[In 2017] Sir Tim Hitchens, a former ambassador to Japan, was flown to New York to carry out a week-long review during which he spoke to many of Romeo’s colleagues.
His report was then submitted to Sir Simon McDonald, then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office. Sources have said that the report found a serious case to answer against Romeo and included a number of recommendations....
...As reports about Romeo’s imminent promotion amplified last week, McDonald used a television interview to warn that it would be a mistake. The unusual intervention saw McDonald call for the government to carry out due diligence.
Fun fact, Sir Simon in 2022
In July 2022 McDonald wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards stating that denials of previous allegations against Chris Pincher by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson were untrue. The letter was described as an "extraordinary, devastating intervention", and was followed by resignations of senior cabinet ministers, ultimately leading to Johnson's announcement of his resignation on 7 July 2022
McDonald is a typical Civil Service mysogonist.
Romeo may or may not have done something to alert his pique in 2016 - 2017.
Since then she has held a variety of Roles, mostly for a Conservative Government and there has been absolutely no indication of impropriety or issues. Indeed those who work for her say she is direct, achieves results and is a breath of fresh air.
The usual Right Wing mysogonist tripe rages like the Telegraph , Mail and Times all actually reported that she was may be "too close ti the Tories" when she did not get the job a year ago.
Now some old Civil Servie mandarin and some pricks in wholly discredited newspapers start a smear campaign against her.
Its pure unadultered bile and sexism on a typically grand right wing stitich up scale.
High turnout - would favour Labour. Disillusioned voters staying at home was their biggest obstacle even before blocking Burnham.
Low turnout - would favour Reform. While both Reform and Green have an enthusiastic base motivated to turn out, there is the added wrinkle that the election falls during Ramadan. A less motivated Muslim voter may prioritise iftar over getting to the polling station, where they would be much more likely to vote Green or Labour.
Which leaves a middling turnout favouring Green.
GE turnout was 46%. Neighbouring Manchester Central set historic lows for by-election turnout (18.2%), but that was 14 years ago now, in a one horse race. It'll be plenty higher than that. However, the winning vote total could be very low. A 35% turnout and a 35% winning vote share would see a winning total below 10,000, which would be the lowest in a by-election since 1946.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
It’s a difficult one because “the future” i.e. AI will make things worse not better
AIUI it is her then boss who is complaining about her behaviour and saying very loudly that she should not be promoted.
That strikes me as unusual. It suggests something was going on.
From reading the article it was multiple people making allegations.
What is interesting is this.
[In 2017] Sir Tim Hitchens, a former ambassador to Japan, was flown to New York to carry out a week-long review during which he spoke to many of Romeo’s colleagues.
His report was then submitted to Sir Simon McDonald, then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office. Sources have said that the report found a serious case to answer against Romeo and included a number of recommendations....
...As reports about Romeo’s imminent promotion amplified last week, McDonald used a television interview to warn that it would be a mistake. The unusual intervention saw McDonald call for the government to carry out due diligence.
Fun fact, Sir Simon in 2022
In July 2022 McDonald wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards stating that denials of previous allegations against Chris Pincher by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson were untrue. The letter was described as an "extraordinary, devastating intervention", and was followed by resignations of senior cabinet ministers, ultimately leading to Johnson's announcement of his resignation on 7 July 2022
McDonald is a typical Civil Service mysogonist.
Romeo may or may not have done something to alert his pique in 2016 - 2017.
Since then she has held a variety of Roles, mostly for a Conservative Government and there has been absolutely no indication of impropriety or issues. Indeed those who work for her say she is direct, achieves results and is a breath of fresh air.
The usual Right Wing mysogonist tripe rages like the Telegraph , Mail and Times all actually reported that she was may be "too close ti the Tories" when she did not get the job a year ago.
Now some old Civil Servie mandarin and some pricks in wholly discredited newspapers start a smear campaign against her.
Its pure unadultered bile and sexism on a typically grand right wing stitich up scale.
Is anyone surprised? Yes, the unemployment trend has been upwards since covid, but this government has made it more expensive to take on new workers, and so must take the blame.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack the right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
If Cleverly was Tory leader by then the Tories would also be in the anti Reform group
AIUI it is her then boss who is complaining about her behaviour and saying very loudly that she should not be promoted.
That strikes me as unusual. It suggests something was going on.
From reading the article it was multiple people making allegations.
What is interesting is this.
[In 2017] Sir Tim Hitchens, a former ambassador to Japan, was flown to New York to carry out a week-long review during which he spoke to many of Romeo’s colleagues.
His report was then submitted to Sir Simon McDonald, then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office. Sources have said that the report found a serious case to answer against Romeo and included a number of recommendations....
...As reports about Romeo’s imminent promotion amplified last week, McDonald used a television interview to warn that it would be a mistake. The unusual intervention saw McDonald call for the government to carry out due diligence.
Fun fact, Sir Simon in 2022
In July 2022 McDonald wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards stating that denials of previous allegations against Chris Pincher by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson were untrue. The letter was described as an "extraordinary, devastating intervention", and was followed by resignations of senior cabinet ministers, ultimately leading to Johnson's announcement of his resignation on 7 July 2022
He's unusually media friendly for a former civil servant. I'm not sure if that's a good thing - someone actually willing to be independent and defend principles - or a bit suspect.
He's a Cambridge man, the best of the best.
Isn't Cambridge where all the spies are recruited by Russia?
Mark Carney wants to allow some form of cumulation between the EU and the CPTPP, as far as I can work out:
"Ottawa is “championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership [CPTPP] and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people,” Carney told world leaders and the global business elite in Davos.
The EU and CPTPP are starting talks this year to strike an agreement to intertwine the supply chains of members like Canada, Singapore, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia with Europe. It would bring nearly 40 nations on opposite sides of the globe closer together with the aim of reaching a deal on so-called rules of origin.
These rules determine the economic nationality of a product. A deal would allow manufacturers throughout the two blocs to trade goods and their parts more seamlessly in a low-tariff process known as cumulation."
(I suspect the lectures we heard during Britain's CPTPP accession about how Europe and the Pacific are really far apart will be mysteriously absent).
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
It’s a difficult one because “the future” i.e. AI will make things worse not better
Whilst this is undoubtedly true stacking the deck against employment by over increasing the NMW and Employers NI is, well, counter intuitive.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
It will of course cause decades of depression for them and for the economy as a whole, but they will be on benefits so prime voting fodder for Labour, the party of welfare scroungers. Same with the fake mentally ill.
And to do anything about it, they'd have to admit that raising the minimum wage and business taxes and drowning business in red tape has destroyed the private sector's willingness to take risks.
So, just as politicians never admit that their policies have been disasters, and turkeys rarely vote for Christmas, the chances of Labour doing anything about either are close to zero, as we saw last year.
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.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Ha the brass cheek of Lionel Schriver criticising immigration etc on Today and then discussing how she has left the UK and moved to Portugal. So a double immigrant in her life.
Without more evidence, it's hard to judge the significance of the allegations. This kind of phrase does not inspire confidence, though: “..the process has determined that there is no case to answer”.
Occasionally a process comes up with an outcome that basically says, if we set aside the evidence as irrelevant, there's no evidence of any problems.
Is anyone surprised? Yes, the unemployment trend has been upwards since covid, but this government has made it more expensive to take on new workers, and so must take the blame.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
It will of course cause decades of depression for them and for the economy as a whole, but they will be on benefits so prime voting fodder for Labour, the party of welfare scroungers. Same with the fake mentally ill.
And to do anything about it, they'd have to admit that raising the minimum wage and business taxes and drowning business in red tape has destroyed the private sector's willingness to take risks.
So, just as politicians never admit that their policies have been disasters, and turkeys rarely vote for Christmas, the chances of Labour doing anything about either are close to zero, as we saw last year.
You are also missing a whole set of under employment from Graduates who are doing part time minimum wage bar / shop work while trying to find something better.
I wouldn’t be surprised if graduate underemployment / unemployment for those who graduated post 2020 is 50%+
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
It will of course cause decades of depression for them and for the economy as a whole, but they will be on benefits so prime voting fodder for Labour, the party of welfare scroungers. Same with the fake mentally ill.
And to do anything about it, they'd have to admit that raising the minimum wage and business taxes and drowning business in red tape has destroyed the private sector's willingness to take risks.
So, just as politicians never admit that their policies have been disasters, and turkeys rarely vote for Christmas, the chances of Labour doing anything about either are close to zero, as we saw last year.
One of the Tories's great - and largely unheralded - achievements was to end youth unemployment.
Actually in 2013 I dialled into a focus group of Eastleigh voters for the forthcoming by-election, the common view was that it was a two horse race between the Tories and UKIP and nobody knew anyone who was voting for the Lib Dems.
There was a time voting LibDem was social death. Then it became all cool and groovy. Now it's back to being "meh".
Without GTTO they've got a limited offer. I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
LDs have got "Stop Reform" as their message.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats. It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
It's a bit different here in Birmingham with regard to the upcoming council elections, where Labour are very much in the LD firing line. While "Stop Reform" is indeed a message, presenting outselves as a capable alternative to Labour (and, to some extent, the Conservatives) is also an important message. Regarding the bin strike, for example, we would be prepared, like the Tories and Reform, to move towards privatisation of refuse collection if that's what it takes, but without the associated racism and incompetence. Economic and social liberalism is our USP.
High turnout - would favour Labour. Disillusioned voters staying at home was their biggest obstacle even before blocking Burnham.
Low turnout - would favour Reform. While both Reform and Green have an enthusiastic base motivated to turn out, there is the added wrinkle that the election falls during Ramadan. A less motivated Muslim voter may prioritise iftar over getting to the polling station, where they would be much more likely to vote Green or Labour.
Which leaves a middling turnout favouring Green.
GE turnout was 46%. Neighbouring Manchester Central set historic lows for by-election turnout (18.2%), but that was 14 years ago now, in a one horse race. It'll be plenty higher than that. However, the winning vote total could be very low. A 35% turnout and a 35% winning vote share would see a winning total below 10,000, which would be the lowest in a by-election since 1946.
Early weather forecast is mild with light rain.
Forecasting light rain. Well, that's really sticking your neck out!
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.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Neil Kinnock has just said they had legal advice and concluded that if they had gone to court and lost, it would have looked worse [ if that is possible]
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
The predictions early on when NMW was introduced didn’t really come to fruition - but the recent combination of an increasing working age population and above-inflation rises in the minimum wage, against already high inflation figures, have now seen the effect many of us wrongly predicted nearly three decades ago.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
It’s a difficult one because “the future” i.e. AI will make things worse not better
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.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Politico, quoting the Times, this morning seemed to suggest that an Op Ed by the Minister on the subject before any decisions on postponement had been taken swung the legal advice. If that was the case then any JR against the decision would likely argue on the basis that the decision maker had a closed mind / apparent bias (or something similar). I.e. the Minister should have been weighing up each request on its merits and the article suggested that he already had made up his mind.
Politico also points out that the Op Ed in question appeared in The Times.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
It also means small business and supermarkets higher fewer NMW workers as it rises too high
Mark Carney wants to allow some form of cumulation between the EU and the CPTPP, as far as I can work out:
"Ottawa is “championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership [CPTPP] and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people,” Carney told world leaders and the global business elite in Davos.
The EU and CPTPP are starting talks this year to strike an agreement to intertwine the supply chains of members like Canada, Singapore, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia with Europe. It would bring nearly 40 nations on opposite sides of the globe closer together with the aim of reaching a deal on so-called rules of origin.
These rules determine the economic nationality of a product. A deal would allow manufacturers throughout the two blocs to trade goods and their parts more seamlessly in a low-tariff process known as cumulation."
(I suspect the lectures we heard during Britain's CPTPP accession about how Europe and the Pacific are really far apart will be mysteriously absent).
That would be very good news, would give most of the advantages of EU trade but without the politics and without the French having a veto.
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.
Where is your legal opinion on your last sentence
Sky reports government lawyers said they would not only lose but their action was illegal, hence today's PR disaster for Starmer
“ Sky reports government lawyers said”
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigpicture.
I really do not understand your belief this was not based on legal advice
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
What we are not told, is why is it not legal. What is the legal principle it failed on? What was the legal advice?
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Neil Kinnock has just said they had legal advice and concluded that if they had gone to court and lost, it would have looked worse [ if that is possible]
Parliament is sovereign, they could have amended the Local Government Acts to make clear delays helped reorganisation prep.
As it is Reform likely win the county councils holding elections and block the moves to Mayors and unitaries
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Hmmm, the employment rate (PB's favourite metric when unemployment is low) for 16-24 is basically unchanged. It's all from the LFS so subject to significant error. I think the fall in student numbers is at least partly the driver of the unemployment rate for the young.
That's not a good thing though, id we're going to have fewer people in education then we need jobs for them instead.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
The predictions early on when NMW was introduced didn’t really come to fruition - but the recent combination of an increasing working age population and above-inflation rises in the minimum wage, against already high inflation figures, have now seen the effect many of us wrongly predicted nearly three decades ago.
Not only that but at a time of a crisis in youth unemployment, the most recent announcement included a bigger percentage rise in the youth rate than in the older one.
When the inverse would have been far more logical.
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Hmmm, the employment rate (PB's favourite metric when unemployment is low) for 16-24 is basically unchanged. It's all from the LFS so subject to significant error. I think the fall in student numbers is at least partly the driver of the unemployment rate for the young.
That's not a good thing though, id we're going to have fewer people in education then we need jobs for them instead.
Do you mean the masturbatathon about the NMW being too high by people earning significantly above the NMW is not the whole story? Say it aint so
Unemployment continues to grow. There is a serious problem with employment for grads and young people, and as usual the response from the government is nothing and the response from the real opposition is "lets cut the minimum wage to make people poorer"
Youth unemployment is 16.1% and rising yet the government just doesn't seem to care. Add in spurious benefits claimants for "mental health" etc... and the true scale of unemployment among young people will be closer to 30%.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
Regrettably, the NMW has proven yet again that you can have too much of a good thing.
Increasing the NMW has two effects. It makes work worth doing and it takes people off the UC indirect subsidy that companies get. There may be a third where there is a greater tax take but that depends on fiscal drag. Essentially a higher NMW converts those from taking from the state via UC to those contributing to the state via taxes.
Bollocks.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.
Comments
Like Labour in Gorton and Denton !!!!
It's his altar ego.
Either way given the current febrile nature of politics I would say the value is probably to lay the favourites at the moment. If Reform hadn't selected that lunatic Goodwin as their candidate they'd probably be the best value. As it is, probably Labour offer more even as a trading bet.
Any PB local enough to comment?
The next GE is very unpredictable
How much do you trust the focus groups grasp of the actual probabilities is the question...... are they speaking from knowledge locally or from watching the constant Reform ramping in the media?
Where, yet again, the best sausage was the wurst.
I remember 1 I went to where between myself and a friend we knew everyone there
https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/2023456213397061787
A few things about this unprecedented disgrace. One, the United States needs nothing from Hungary that would depend on the outcome of this election, but clearly Donald Trump does. Two, weakening Europe is a hobby for MAGA, but an existential necessity for Putin. 1/2
Rubio is visiting Fico and Orban, who aren’t ideologically aligned but are the most anti-Ukraine, pro-Russia leaders. There is no diplomatic or geopolitical reasoning for the White House to prioritize their success unless directed to do so by the Kremlin. 2/2
NEW: Weekly YouGov voting intention poll for The Times/Sky News
Reform lead down to five points over Labour
RFM 24% (-3)
LAB 19% (=)
CON 18% (=)
GRN 17% (+1)
LDEM 13% (-1)
Bullying claims against Antonia Romeo ‘covered up’
Officials dropped an investigation into the woman Keir Starmer is tipped to make cabinet secretary
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/antonia-romeo-news-keir-starmer-nc5fgxj2z
It would be the first concrete proof of the legendary Carthaginian General Hannibal's troop of battle elephants, according to academics.
Drawings of Hannibal's war against the Romans had long suggested that the beasts were used in fighting, but no hard evidence backed up the theories.
Now the creatures' skeletal remains appear to have been found in an Iron Age dig near Cordoba.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr2xl1e41eo
That strikes me as unusual. It suggests something was going on.
Edit - yes.
Britain fought against Germany and Japan at the same time and won.
Which reminds me of that B5 quote.
Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts.
Have Sky seen the original advice and changed advice?
This U turn, and tax payers money poured into Reform coffers, was not based on legal advice, it was based on political decision to make life, the campaign and result easier for Labour.
News organisations merely quoting the Labour lies {about being certain to lose in the courts so we had to U-turn} without challenging those lies and asking for evidence, are simply embarrassing and not worth their salaries.
All the Conservative Parties years of hard work on improving local democracy abandoned, surrendered to the Nazi’s, by a gutless Labour government without a fight for it, is what actually happened yesterday BigG.
This isn’t criticism, I’m not getting at you, but you live in the most immediate headline a bit too much without seeing the bigger picture.
What is interesting is this.
[In 2017] Sir Tim Hitchens, a former ambassador to Japan, was flown to New York to carry out a week-long review during which he spoke to many of Romeo’s colleagues.
His report was then submitted to Sir Simon McDonald, then permanent secretary to the Foreign Office. Sources have said that the report found a serious case to answer against Romeo and included a number of recommendations....
...As reports about Romeo’s imminent promotion amplified last week, McDonald used a television interview to warn that it would be a mistake. The unusual intervention saw McDonald call for the government to carry out due diligence.
Fun fact, Sir Simon in 2022
In July 2022 McDonald wrote a letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards stating that denials of previous allegations against Chris Pincher by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson were untrue. The letter was described as an "extraordinary, devastating intervention", and was followed by resignations of senior cabinet ministers, ultimately leading to Johnson's announcement of his resignation on 7 July 2022
https://x.com/93vintagejones/status/2023419176635990436
Also, what’s the story about the Labour Party party, where voters were treated to food and drink?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/02/14/labour-activists-referred-to-police-over-by-election-gala/
I expect them to go backwards in 2028/9 (but not so far as for it to be painful, 50 seats perhaps)
In 1972 a Yugoslav Airlines flight flight was bombed by Croat nationalists. The only survivor was Vesna Vukovic who survived a fall from 33,000 feet. Apparently that's the highest fall any human being has ever suffered without a parachute. She was in a coma for several days and in hospital for several months but made an almost complete recovery, though she still limped. She had no memory of the disaster and was happy to fly again, but the airline gave her a desk job instead.
So incredible things can happen. Surviving a fall from 33,000 feet is apparently possible.
In fact, I'd say it's likelier than, ,e.g. Trump doing something nice or Labour coming up with, and implementing, a credible growth strategy.
But miracles can happen.
This kind of phrase does not inspire confidence, though: “..the process has determined that there is no case to answer”.
I haven't travelled through the Tameside bit (or the Gorton and Abbey Hey ward), from what I've heard the Greens have found that much tougher going and I expect that Green visibility is way lower, and Reform more visible. I must stress that the areas I've been to are those where you'd expect a stronger Green performance, but they've undoubtedly got their ground game going strong.
Of course it was and is reported widely across the media including labour having to pay Reform's costs
(Turn and face the strange)
Ch-ch-changes
Don't want to be a richer man
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(Turn and face the strange)
Ch-ch-changes
Just gonna have to be a different man
Time may change me
But I can't trace time
And they don't get much stranger than this lot.
Just for one day.
Confidence that she had a case to answer.
Romeo may or may not have done something to alert his pique in 2016 - 2017.
Since then she has held a variety of Roles, mostly for a Conservative Government and there has been absolutely no indication of impropriety or issues. Indeed those who work for her say she is direct, achieves results and is a breath of fresh air.
The usual Right Wing mysogonist tripe rages like the Telegraph , Mail and Times all actually reported that she was may be "too close ti the Tories" when she did not get the job a year ago.
Now some old Civil Servie mandarin and some pricks in wholly discredited newspapers start a smear campaign against her.
Its pure unadultered bile and sexism on a typically grand right wing stitich up scale.
High turnout - would favour Labour. Disillusioned voters staying at home was their biggest obstacle even before blocking Burnham.
Low turnout - would favour Reform. While both Reform and Green have an enthusiastic base motivated to turn out, there is the added wrinkle that the election falls during Ramadan. A less motivated Muslim voter may prioritise iftar over getting to the polling station, where they would be much more likely to vote Green or Labour.
Which leaves a middling turnout favouring Green.
GE turnout was 46%. Neighbouring Manchester Central set historic lows for by-election turnout (18.2%), but that was 14 years ago now, in a one horse race. It'll be plenty higher than that. However, the winning vote total could be very low. A 35% turnout and a 35% winning vote share would see a winning total below 10,000, which would be the lowest in a by-election since 1946.
Early weather forecast is mild with light rain.
But I presume you mean is a focus group of former Labour voters any value in predicting the outcome of this by-election? Maybe a little.
This is the most urgent emergency of the day. The Tories need a relentless focus on youth unemployment and creating opportunities for the next generation. Literally spend the next three years on it. Labour are creating a jobless generation that won't have the skills or motivation for work and not only will it be terrible for state finances, it will cause decades of depression for those who are never able to start a career and find themselves constantly in temporary or casual work.
I see the next general election being a fight between two blocs - the right wing (Tory, Reform) and the progressives (Labour, LD and Green) with tactical voting all over the place.
LDs need to attack Tories and Reform parties, but hold off attacking the Labour and Green parties because they need Labour and Green supporters to lend them their votes in LD target seats.
It would be foolish to piss them off by attacking their parties but motivational to attack their enemies - right wing parties.
LDs need to seduce Labour and Green supporters not attack their parties.
LDs 80-85 seats.
It’s confirmed when it’s officially denied
Is anyone surprised? Yes, the unemployment trend has been upwards since covid, but this government has made it more expensive to take on new workers, and so must take the blame.
Mark Carney wants to allow some form of cumulation between the EU and the CPTPP, as far as I can work out:
"Ottawa is “championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership [CPTPP] and the European Union, which would create a new trading bloc of 1.5 billion people,” Carney told world leaders and the global business elite in Davos.
The EU and CPTPP are starting talks this year to strike an agreement to intertwine the supply chains of members like Canada, Singapore, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Australia with Europe.
It would bring nearly 40 nations on opposite sides of the globe closer together with the aim of reaching a deal on so-called rules of origin.
These rules determine the economic nationality of a product. A deal would allow manufacturers throughout the two blocs to trade goods and their parts more seamlessly in a low-tariff process known as cumulation."
(I suspect the lectures we heard during Britain's CPTPP accession about how Europe and the Pacific are really far apart will be mysteriously absent).
And to do anything about it, they'd have to admit that raising the minimum wage and business taxes and drowning business in red tape has destroyed the private sector's willingness to take risks.
So, just as politicians never admit that their policies have been disasters, and turkeys rarely vote for Christmas, the chances of Labour doing anything about either are close to zero, as we saw last year.
Were previous postponements of elections not legal either, and just not challenged, or are there some different circumstances this time which means that this time it is not legal?
Good morning, everyone.
I wouldn’t be surprised if graduate underemployment / unemployment for those who graduated post 2020 is 50%+
Kemi really needs to hammer Starmer on this.
Politico also points out that the Op Ed in question appeared in The Times.
Gee, who could have thought that jacking up taxes on employment at the same time as employment costs rise could have led to unemployment?
Not the morons in Downing Street apparently.
As it is Reform likely win the county councils holding elections and block the moves to Mayors and unitaries
That's not a good thing though, id we're going to have fewer people in education then we need jobs for them instead.
When the inverse would have been far more logical.
Fools.
There is no UC indirect subsidy. A childless couple working full time on minimum wage have absolutely zero entitlement to UC.
UC is only open effectively to either people without full time employment, or parents. Or parents who work part time or do not work at all primarily.
If a rise in NMW results in less employment, then UC goes up not down.