If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
I don't think there is constitutional limit to the size of the court. So...
Omnisis normally do online polling but it would be more difficult to do that in this instance . If it was a phone poll then the Reform figure is likely to be an underestimate.
It could well underestimate the Green vote too, as youngsters are notoriously hard to get a representative poll from.
Labour need to stop chasing Reform voters.
Many of those will not be coming back to Labour or are new voters . If Reform win it will be down to a progressive split and should act as a wake up call .
If this poll is accurate, the difference between first and third place will be about 1,800 votes.
Now McSweeney gone Labour will focus a lot more on Polanski
Labour are actually a lot Greener than Polanski.
If they attack on that basis, the critical difference between core Green policy and corbyn heavy Polanski the cult figure, they can make significant inroads in time.
But Polanski is more socialist than Labour.
A bit of raw communism would be a welcome change from almost 80 years of capitalist/ mixed economy failure.
If Labour play their cards right particularly with regard to Gaza and Trump in most places where the election is close enough most Greens will vote Labour. Most people I know are saying they'll vote Green including me but faced with a possible fascist or quasi-fascist like Kemi I'm sure we'd all weaken
As we speak Lammy is in Washington to explain/capitulate on why we don't fancy carpet bombing Tehran.
I reckon Labour will relent and give the go ahead. I’m 100% sure of it.
It’s true though, with Cooper and Lammy Stateside, there’s a lot of serious top level discussions about what the mission statement given out at the start of it is going to be.
I suspect you are right. Anyway our PM in waiting considers not providing assistance to the Mango Mussolini to carpet bomb Tehran is Starmer-treason.
This bunch of purported Canadians taking on the Swedes in this nail-biting curling contest are clearly, from their accents, all Scots masquerading as colonials.
If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
There's no way he was not tipped off. I know they've clamped down on leaks, but let's be real.
If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
They've already said they will re-introduce any tariffs for different reasons and wait for those new reasons to get through the courts.
Omnisis normally do online polling but it would be more difficult to do that in this instance . If it was a phone poll then the Reform figure is likely to be an underestimate.
It could well underestimate the Green vote too, as youngsters are notoriously hard to get a representative poll from.
Labour need to stop chasing Reform voters.
Many of those will not be coming back to Labour or are new voters . If Reform win it will be down to a progressive split and should act as a wake up call .
If this poll is accurate, the difference between first and third place will be about 1,800 votes.
Now McSweeney gone Labour will focus a lot more on Polanski
Labour are actually a lot Greener than Polanski.
If they attack on that basis, the critical difference between core Green policy and corbyn heavy Polanski the cult figure, they can make significant inroads in time.
But Polanski is more socialist than Labour.
A bit of raw communism would be a welcome change from almost 80 years of capitalist/ mixed economy failure.
Yes, but the Greens never talk ecology, never trumpet their policies on climate action, or spell out what the green economy is, and green foreign policy actually is - or defend the cost of it. They are acting simply as a mid term protest party, every day now they are making shrinking of their vote to virtually zero come tight contested General Election perfectly predictable.
The Green Parties weakness is their lack of green credentials, something that can sway Green votes back to the Labour Party.
The poor Green strategists probably think they only need to talk Green policies in the 4 weeks of the 2029 General Election, blissfully unaware of the damage they are doing to themselves today.
There’s a significant body of younger voters who see the injustice of the current economic settlement and are looking to someone to champion their cause, against the established status quo of the boomer generation, enjoying their triple lock and almost complete protection from austerity. Clegg captured some of this during the brief ‘Cleggmania’ in 2010, only to sacrifice it on the altar of higher tuition fees. Next up was that Corbyn, celebrity from Glasto, during his 2017 campaign. The Greens are simply the latest manifestation of the younger generation’s desire to take control of our politics. Whether they’ll succeed at this latest attempt, I don’t know, but the brutal reality of ageing is that, sooner or later, the boomer generation will have to cede control of our politics, earlier in the UK and Europe than in the US, given our understandable reluctance to elect people to rule us who are already suffering from pre-dementia.
Wasn't 2024 the first time in ages (perhaps ever in their adult lifetimes) that the boomer generation didn't get the government that they had voted for? Hence some of the outrage at the very idea of PM Starmer, and some of Starmer's fear of older voters.
I wonder what proportion would agree that Andrew should be hanged,
Probably above 50%.
He might take the Epstein Checkout....
It's unlikely Epstein checked himself out. Would his assassins do the same for Andrew? He is probably less of a threat, as long as he doesn't start singing, and one imagines he'd be a little less easy to access.
So unless he's a DIY man, he's going to be around for a while.
The problem the rich and powerful have with AMW, of course, is that he's stupid. Very stupid. Very very very stupid. Like, dafter than a bag of spanners, but without the charm or from-within-a-paper-bag-navigational ability. So who knows what he'll do if left alone.
Andrew is what used to be described as “educationally sub-normal”.
This upsets me. Are we saying he's a sick c*** because he's what? Autistic. That is often the PB go to in a situation like this.
On the other hand it could be that he's both lazy and entitled because he was spoilt and smothered by his mum.
It might be the assumption that he is somewhat limited and thus has no interesting hobbies or pursuits to keep him occupied. But then the royals always used to be about the shagging. The current king is a good example.
The D of Edinburgh was notorious, but smart enough to keep it discreet.
Assume you mean the older version, not my Chancellor!
Hi folks, @viewcode here. Some days ago, somebody on PB mentioned an aphorism about research required to rebut a point on the internet took ten times more time than it took to put it there in the first place. They called it "B___"s Law, where "B___" was a longish word beginning with "B". The AIs are unhelpful so can somebody recall it for me?
(and no, I'm not thinking of Cunningham's Law)
It's literally the first result if you google "research required to rebut a point on the internet took ten times more time than it took to put it there in the first place"
People still use “ye olde ygoogle”?
Aww. Bless. That’s like looking up a number in the Yellow Pages
I used "Ye olde Google" only this morning to answer a question that Copilot said had no answer
Strikes me that Trump's views on tariffs aligns sonewhat with many climate campaigners, in that if you consider there's an emergency then the laws don't matter.
In dissent, Thomas debuts a new, Trump-friendly theory that the non-delegation doctrine does not apply to former "powers of the Crown," including tariffs, which are ostensibly not "within the core legislative power." This seems brazenly gerrymandered to accommodate Trump's wishes ...
Hi folks, @viewcode here. Some days ago, somebody on PB mentioned an aphorism about research required to rebut a point on the internet took ten times more time than it took to put it there in the first place. They called it "B___"s Law, where "B___" was a longish word beginning with "B". The AIs are unhelpful so can somebody recall it for me?
(and no, I'm not thinking of Cunningham's Law)
It's literally the first result if you google "research required to rebut a point on the internet took ten times more time than it took to put it there in the first place"
People still use “ye olde ygoogle”?
Aww. Bless. That’s like looking up a number in the Yellow Pages
I used "Ye olde Google" only this morning to answer a question that Copilot said had no answer
It's notable that the AI summary pushed at the top of google results is very often obviously wrong in at least one key aspect. Something that I know Leon, with his eye for detail and reputation for consistency, would be quick to pick up.
Hi folks, @viewcode here. Some days ago, somebody on PB mentioned an aphorism about research required to rebut a point on the internet took ten times more time than it took to put it there in the first place. They called it "B___"s Law, where "B___" was a longish word beginning with "B". The AIs are unhelpful so can somebody recall it for me?
(and no, I'm not thinking of Cunningham's Law)
It's literally the first result if you google "research required to rebut a point on the internet took ten times more time than it took to put it there in the first place"
People still use “ye olde ygoogle”?
Aww. Bless. That’s like looking up a number in the Yellow Pages
I used "Ye olde Google" only this morning to answer a question that Copilot said had no answer
Omnisis normally do online polling but it would be more difficult to do that in this instance . If it was a phone poll then the Reform figure is likely to be an underestimate.
It could well underestimate the Green vote too, as youngsters are notoriously hard to get a representative poll from.
Labour need to stop chasing Reform voters.
Many of those will not be coming back to Labour or are new voters . If Reform win it will be down to a progressive split and should act as a wake up call .
If this poll is accurate, the difference between first and third place will be about 1,800 votes.
Now McSweeney gone Labour will focus a lot more on Polanski
Labour are actually a lot Greener than Polanski.
If they attack on that basis, the critical difference between core Green policy and corbyn heavy Polanski the cult figure, they can make significant inroads in time.
But Polanski is more socialist than Labour.
A bit of raw communism would be a welcome change from almost 80 years of capitalist/ mixed economy failure.
Yes, but the Greens never talk ecology, never trumpet their policies on climate action, or spell out what the green economy is, and green foreign policy actually is - or defend the cost of it. They are acting simply as a mid term protest party, every day now they are making shrinking of their vote to virtually zero come tight contested General Election perfectly predictable.
The Green Parties weakness is their lack of green credentials, something that can sway Green votes back to the Labour Party.
The poor Green strategists probably think they only need to talk Green policies in the 4 weeks of the 2029 General Election, blissfully unaware of the damage they are doing to themselves today.
There’s a significant body of younger voters who see the injustice of the current economic settlement and are looking to someone to champion their cause, against the established status quo of the boomer generation, enjoying their triple lock and almost complete protection from austerity. Clegg captured some of this during the brief ‘Cleggmania’ in 2010, only to sacrifice it on the altar of higher tuition fees. Next up was that Corbyn, celebrity from Glasto, during his 2017 campaign. The Greens are simply the latest manifestation of the younger generation’s desire to take control of our politics. Whether they’ll succeed at this latest attempt, I don’t know, but the brutal reality of ageing is that, sooner or later, the boomer generation will have to cede control of our politics, earlier in the UK and Europe than in the US, given our understandable reluctance to elect people to rule us who are already suffering from pre-dementia.
Yes. But That’s a bit like saying the Green Party exists for those who want to vote Economic & Social Equality, Human Rights & Democracy in Foreign Policy & Global Justice, leaving Labour and Lib Dem’s to mop up all votes those who value Climate Action, the Net Zero created by the Conservatives with the painfully quick conversion to renewables.
in terms of fighting the for votes at the next General, you have to do that today and everyday till the GE, not wait till then.
If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
They've already said they will re-introduce any tariffs for different reasons and wait for those new reasons to get through the courts.
If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
I don't think there is constitutional limit to the size of the court. So...
There is not. But there is also very little chance indeed of Trump being able to persuade Congress to increase the numbers.
The Republicans are too terrified of him to actually stop him doing stuff, as we've seen on multiple occasions, but increasing court numbers is in the hands of Congress not the president. And they can (and have already) just sit on their hands.
Presumably his clarion call for why they need to vote Republican in the mid terms.
The mid terms that aren't going to be fair. Hmm.....
Some tariffs remain in place. ..The country-wide tariffs Trump imposed on most of the world. The ruling centres on Trump’s use of a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), that gives the president the power to "regulate" trade in response to an emergency. Trump first invoked it in February 2025 to tax goods from China, Mexico and Canada, saying drug trafficking from those countries constituted an emergency. He deployed it again in April, ordering levies from 10% to 50% on goods from almost every country in the world. He said the US trade deficit – where the US imports more than it exports – posed an "extraordinary and unusual threat". The unaffected tariffs The industry-specific steel, aluminium, lumber and automotive tariffs, which were implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, citing national-security concerns...
If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
They've already said they will re-introduce any tariffs for different reasons and wait for those new reasons to get through the courts.
If they get through next time.
I doubt they really care. Its a repeatable process unless the SC stops them taking the piss.
In dissent, Thomas debuts a new, Trump-friendly theory that the non-delegation doctrine does not apply to former "powers of the Crown," including tariffs, which are ostensibly not "within the core legislative power." This seems brazenly gerrymandered to accommodate Trump's wishes ...
Presumably his clarion call for why they need to vote Republican in the mid terms.
The mid terms that aren't going to be fair. Hmm.....
Some tariffs remain in place. ..The country-wide tariffs Trump imposed on most of the world. The ruling centres on Trump’s use of a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), that gives the president the power to "regulate" trade in response to an emergency. Trump first invoked it in February 2025 to tax goods from China, Mexico and Canada, saying drug trafficking from those countries constituted an emergency. He deployed it again in April, ordering levies from 10% to 50% on goods from almost every country in the world. He said the US trade deficit – where the US imports more than it exports – posed an "extraordinary and unusual threat". The unaffected tariffs The industry-specific steel, aluminium, lumber and automotive tariffs, which were implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, citing national-security concerns...
Omnisis normally do online polling but it would be more difficult to do that in this instance . If it was a phone poll then the Reform figure is likely to be an underestimate.
It could well underestimate the Green vote too, as youngsters are notoriously hard to get a representative poll from.
Labour need to stop chasing Reform voters.
Many of those will not be coming back to Labour or are new voters . If Reform win it will be down to a progressive split and should act as a wake up call .
If this poll is accurate, the difference between first and third place will be about 1,800 votes.
Now McSweeney gone Labour will focus a lot more on Polanski
Labour are actually a lot Greener than Polanski.
If they attack on that basis, the critical difference between core Green policy and corbyn heavy Polanski the cult figure, they can make significant inroads in time.
But Polanski is more socialist than Labour.
A bit of raw communism would be a welcome change from almost 80 years of capitalist/ mixed economy failure.
Yes, but the Greens never talk ecology, never trumpet their policies on climate action, or spell out what the green economy is, and green foreign policy actually is - or defend the cost of it. They are acting simply as a mid term protest party, every day now they are making shrinking of their vote to virtually zero come tight contested General Election perfectly predictable.
The Green Parties weakness is their lack of green credentials, something that can sway Green votes back to the Labour Party.
The poor Green strategists probably think they only need to talk Green policies in the 4 weeks of the 2029 General Election, blissfully unaware of the damage they are doing to themselves today.
There’s a significant body of younger voters who see the injustice of the current economic settlement and are looking to someone to champion their cause, against the established status quo of the boomer generation, enjoying their triple lock and almost complete protection from austerity. Clegg captured some of this during the brief ‘Cleggmania’ in 2010, only to sacrifice it on the altar of higher tuition fees. Next up was that Corbyn, celebrity from Glasto, during his 2017 campaign. The Greens are simply the latest manifestation of the younger generation’s desire to take control of our politics. Whether they’ll succeed at this latest attempt, I don’t know, but the brutal reality of ageing is that, sooner or later, the boomer generation will have to cede control of our politics, earlier in the UK and Europe than in the US, given our understandable reluctance to elect people to rule us who are already suffering from pre-dementia.
Wasn't 2024 the first time in ages (perhaps ever in their adult lifetimes) that the boomer generation didn't get the government that they had voted for? Hence some of the outrage at the very idea of PM Starmer, and some of Starmer's fear of older voters.
Indeed, Labour won most voters 18-65 but the Tories still won voters over 65, hence Starmer and Reeves axed pensioners WFA as one of their first acts
If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
I don't think there is constitutional limit to the size of the court. So...
You'd have to pack it a tonne to get a decision where Gorsuch, Barrett and Roberts are in agreement with Kagan, Jackson & Sotomayor are outweighed by Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh and the as yet not existing justices. Requires 4 more very very Trumpite (Not just conservative) justices. tldr Not going to happen before the midterms after which all such moves are going to be blocked.
If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
I don't think there is constitutional limit to the size of the court. So...
You'd have to pack it a tonne to get a decision where Gorsuch, Barrett and Roberts are in agreement with Kagan, Jackson & Sotomayor are outweighed by Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh and the as yet not existing justices. Requires 4 more very very Trumpite (Not just conservative) justices. tldr Not going to happen before the midterms after which all such moves are going to be blocked.
It would require legislative change as well, as the limit of 9 is fixed by statute.
That could be changed, but probably not in the next nine months.
On the one hand this trial seems to have been very successful in improving cancer detection in screening.
On the other hand, it seems to have made not a huge amount of difference to clinical outcomes. Despite the positive spin put on the results by the manufacturer in the PR below, the highlighted bit is the most important result they were looking for.
The primary endpoint of statistically significant Stage III-IV reduction was not observed. However, there was a favorable trend toward fewer Stage III-IV cancers in a pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers* in the intervention arm after the prevalent screening round. Adding Galleri to standard of care screening resulted in a substantial and clinically meaningful reduction in Stage IV diagnoses compared with standard of care alone across the pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers. Stage IV diagnoses in these cancers decreased with each year of sequential screening, with a greater than 20% reduction in the second and third rounds. Similar reductions were observed across all cancers. Annual screening with the Galleri test plus standard of care screening resulted in a four-fold improvement in the overall cancer detection rate compared to standard of care screening alone in England for breast, colorectal, cervical and high risk lung cancer. Substantial increase in the absolute number of Stage I-II cancers in the 12 pre-specified deadly cancer types that are typically found in late stages were observed in the intervention arm. Screening with the Galleri test resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of cancers detected clinically through emergency presentation, which are associated with significantly higher mortality and healthcare costs. ..
I look forward to Alito and Thomas twisting words beyond all meaning to explain why it's ok if Trump does it.
(No i'm not saying the liberal justices are not very political)
Don't know about Alito but Thomas has only to hear his boss say jump and the only question he asks is how high. He won't worry about meaning.
Bit surprised about Kavanaugh. He's crooked too, but a long way from stupid. I'd have thought he might have figured he could be better off siding with justice this time.
I wonder what proportion would agree that Andrew should be hanged,
Probably above 50%.
He might take the Epstein Checkout....
It's unlikely Epstein checked himself out. Would his assassins do the same for Andrew? He is probably less of a threat, as long as he doesn't start singing, and one imagines he'd be a little less easy to access.
So unless he's a DIY man, he's going to be around for a while.
The problem the rich and powerful have with AMW, of course, is that he's stupid. Very stupid. Very very very stupid. Like, dafter than a bag of spanners, but without the charm or from-within-a-paper-bag-navigational ability. So who knows what he'll do if left alone.
Andrew is what used to be described as “educationally sub-normal”.
This upsets me. Are we saying he's a sick c*** because he's what? Autistic. That is often the PB go to in a situation like this.
On the other hand it could be that he's both lazy and entitled because he was spoilt and smothered by his mum.
It might be the assumption that he is somewhat limited and thus has no interesting hobbies or pursuits to keep him occupied. But then the royals always used to be about the shagging. The current king is a good example.
The D of Edinburgh was notorious, but smart enough to keep it discreet.
Assume you mean the older version, not my Chancellor!
Listening to Radio 4 I understand that the go to get out for unacceptable personal behaviour will now be side effects of dopamine agonists, restless leg syndrome is enough for a prescription. Get yourself written up, get out there and then join the class action *
I wonder what proportion would agree that Andrew should be hanged,
Probably above 50%.
He might take the Epstein Checkout....
It's unlikely Epstein checked himself out. Would his assassins do the same for Andrew? He is probably less of a threat, as long as he doesn't start singing, and one imagines he'd be a little less easy to access.
So unless he's a DIY man, he's going to be around for a while.
The problem the rich and powerful have with AMW, of course, is that he's stupid. Very stupid. Very very very stupid. Like, dafter than a bag of spanners, but without the charm or from-within-a-paper-bag-navigational ability. So who knows what he'll do if left alone.
Andrew is what used to be described as “educationally sub-normal”.
Did he not fly helicopters in the Falklands? He cannot be that stupid, surely? Or do those things basically fly themselves?
Exactly, he got 3 A levels in English, Economics and History and most people don't even have A levels.
Andrew is not educationally sub normal even if not very high IQ either, he just showed poor judgement. Though then so did self made billionaires like Gates and 2 Presidents of the USA , Trump and Clinton and Cabinet Ministers and Ambassadors like Mandelson, many of whom had Ivy League and Oxbridge degrees and high IQs but still socialised with Epstein and even went to his dodgy island in some cases
Presumably his clarion call for why they need to vote Republican in the mid terms.
The mid terms that aren't going to be fair. Hmm.....
Some tariffs remain in place. ..The country-wide tariffs Trump imposed on most of the world. The ruling centres on Trump’s use of a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), that gives the president the power to "regulate" trade in response to an emergency. Trump first invoked it in February 2025 to tax goods from China, Mexico and Canada, saying drug trafficking from those countries constituted an emergency. He deployed it again in April, ordering levies from 10% to 50% on goods from almost every country in the world. He said the US trade deficit – where the US imports more than it exports – posed an "extraordinary and unusual threat". The unaffected tariffs The industry-specific steel, aluminium, lumber and automotive tariffs, which were implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, citing national-security concerns...
The good news: Trump can't unilaterally impose tariffs without Congress approving.
The bad news: there's not been a similar ruling on the use of military force, which he might be more likely to favour if he's lost his favourite weapon of diplomacy...
So much for the SC being Trump's puppets. Though the USC said Congress can uphold the tariffs and the GOP control Congress for now
The occasional pushback does not mean they are not too accomodating. They are all politicians but the SC justices should be more independent minded even though they are partisan because they will be around after Trump. It's why the broadness of the immunity decision was so stupid as they didn't need to go that far to protect Trump. And it's why even though they too often display puppet tendencies they are never totally puppets. There are many decisions all agree on.
If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
I don't think there is constitutional limit to the size of the court. So...
You'd have to pack it a tonne to get a decision where Gorsuch, Barrett and Roberts are in agreement with Kagan, Jackson & Sotomayor are outweighed by Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh and the as yet not existing justices. Requires 4 more very very Trumpite (Not just conservative) justices. tldr Not going to happen before the midterms after which all such moves are going to be blocked.
It would require legislative change as well, as the limit of 9 is fixed by statute.
That could be changed, but probably not in the next nine months.
Isn't this just pre-'24 thinking? The tariffs were unlawful but that stop Trump causing a serious degree of economic chaos for a year. He's brazenly stolen $10 billion. Not sure why he'd suddenly start playing by the rules.
If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
I don't think there is constitutional limit to the size of the court. So...
You'd have to pack it a tonne to get a decision where Gorsuch, Barrett and Roberts are in agreement with Kagan, Jackson & Sotomayor are outweighed by Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh and the as yet not existing justices. Requires 4 more very very Trumpite (Not just conservative) justices. tldr Not going to happen before the midterms after which all such moves are going to be blocked.
The only change I expect for the court before the midterms is Alito's probable retirement, to be replaced by someone even more extreme.
It's nice to see that Gorsuch (as he did early in his tenure on the Supreme Court and which had been sadly lacking lately) taking a sceptical view of executive overreach.
I wonder what proportion would agree that Andrew should be hanged,
Probably above 50%.
He might take the Epstein Checkout....
It's unlikely Epstein checked himself out. Would his assassins do the same for Andrew? He is probably less of a threat, as long as he doesn't start singing, and one imagines he'd be a little less easy to access.
So unless he's a DIY man, he's going to be around for a while.
The problem the rich and powerful have with AMW, of course, is that he's stupid. Very stupid. Very very very stupid. Like, dafter than a bag of spanners, but without the charm or from-within-a-paper-bag-navigational ability. So who knows what he'll do if left alone.
Andrew is what used to be described as “educationally sub-normal”.
How do you know? I imagine there are criteria for being educationally sub-normal? I have worked with two of his ex's and both were bright and attractive. That doesn't say he isn't educationally sub-normal but I can't see why such attractive and sparky girls would have wanted to spend time with someone stupid. There is something quite judgemental about this thread. As DJ pointed out girls or boys who choose to sell their services for sex might well have done so by choice.
"but I can't see why such attractive and sparky girls would have wanted to spend time with someone stupid"
Hmm, I wonder. The response of ex footballer Peter Crouch when asked what he would have been if he hadn't been a footballer springs to mind.*
Can you really not imagine why attractive and sparky women might want to hang around the 2nd in line to the throne, a man who would give you the ticket to a lifetime of luxury and privilege? Really?
*"A virgin"
I think you missed the memo. Women who sell themselves have no choice. They have been trafficked or coerced. They don't make decisions for themselves
What do Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, Rotherham taxi drivers, Paula Vennells & The Prince Formerly Known as Andrew have in common?
I wonder what proportion would agree that Andrew should be hanged,
Probably above 50%.
He might take the Epstein Checkout....
It's unlikely Epstein checked himself out. Would his assassins do the same for Andrew? He is probably less of a threat, as long as he doesn't start singing, and one imagines he'd be a little less easy to access.
So unless he's a DIY man, he's going to be around for a while.
The problem the rich and powerful have with AMW, of course, is that he's stupid. Very stupid. Very very very stupid. Like, dafter than a bag of spanners, but without the charm or from-within-a-paper-bag-navigational ability. So who knows what he'll do if left alone.
Andrew is what used to be described as “educationally sub-normal”.
How do you know? I imagine there are criteria for being educationally sub-normal? I have worked with two of his ex's and both were bright and attractive. That doesn't say he isn't educationally sub-normal but I can't see why such attractive and sparky girls would have wanted to spend time with someone stupid. There is something quite judgemental about this thread. As DJ pointed out girls or boys who choose to sell their services for sex might well have done so by choice.
"but I can't see why such attractive and sparky girls would have wanted to spend time with someone stupid"
Hmm, I wonder. The response of ex footballer Peter Crouch when asked what he would have been if he hadn't been a footballer springs to mind.*
Can you really not imagine why attractive and sparky women might want to hang around the 2nd in line to the throne, a man who would give you the ticket to a lifetime of luxury and privilege? Really?
*"A virgin"
I think you missed the memo. Women who sell themselves have no choice. They have been trafficked or coerced. They don't make decisions for themselves
What do Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, Rotherham taxi drivers, Paula Vennells & The Prince Formerly Known as Andrew have in common?
Omnisis normally do online polling but it would be more difficult to do that in this instance . If it was a phone poll then the Reform figure is likely to be an underestimate.
It could well underestimate the Green vote too, as youngsters are notoriously hard to get a representative poll from.
Labour need to stop chasing Reform voters.
Many of those will not be coming back to Labour or are new voters . If Reform win it will be down to a progressive split and should act as a wake up call .
If this poll is accurate, the difference between first and third place will be about 1,800 votes.
Now McSweeney gone Labour will focus a lot more on Polanski
Labour are actually a lot Greener than Polanski.
If they attack on that basis, the critical difference between core Green policy and corbyn heavy Polanski the cult figure, they can make significant inroads in time.
But Polanski is more socialist than Labour.
A bit of raw communism would be a welcome change from almost 80 years of capitalist/ mixed economy failure.
If Labour play their cards right particularly with regard to Gaza and Trump in most places where the election is close enough most Greens will vote Labour. Most people I know are saying they'll vote Green including me but faced with a possible fascist or quasi-fascist like Kemi I'm sure we'd all weaken
As we speak Lammy is in Washington to explain/capitulate on why we don't fancy carpet bombing Tehran.
I reckon Labour will relent and give the go ahead. I’m 100% sure of it.
It’s true though, with Cooper and Lammy Stateside, there’s a lot of serious top level discussions about what the mission statement given out at the start of it is going to be.
I suspect you are right. Anyway our PM in waiting considers not providing assistance to the Mango Mussolini to carpet bomb Tehran is Starmer-treason.
Yes, strong provocative words from you. But let’s calmly nail down where this is.
If it was as straightforward as bombing to prevent Iran’s Nuclear bomb, Labour will allow - without a vote in the commons - USA to use UK bases. I’m still convinced US can take off from Chagos without our permission.
If it’s regime change, the spectre of lessons learned from Iraq after decapitation of its leadership, becomes part of the discussion. I was too young to understand at the time, but rightly understand today Iraq was massively unpopular with UK voters in the noughties. Correct me where wrong. Maybe Labour would put that to the commons, if the mission statement is that. Which it isn’t.
Either way, some sort of bombing is going to happen by Israel and USA, and UK WILL assist them in use of our bases AND our intelligence of what targets to hit. It’s not just the use of bases that is the ask, but for our intelligence too.
If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
I don't think there is constitutional limit to the size of the court. So...
You'd have to pack it a tonne to get a decision where Gorsuch, Barrett and Roberts are in agreement with Kagan, Jackson & Sotomayor are outweighed by Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh and the as yet not existing justices. Requires 4 more very very Trumpite (Not just conservative) justices. tldr Not going to happen before the midterms after which all such moves are going to be blocked.
It would require legislative change as well, as the limit of 9 is fixed by statute.
That could be changed, but probably not in the next nine months.
Isn't this just pre-'24 thinking? The tariffs were unlawful but that stop Trump causing a serious degree of economic chaos for a year. He's brazenly stolen $10 billion. Not sure why he'd suddenly start playing by the rules.
He won't, but there's still no way for him to pack the court... short of an outright coup and declaring himself dictator.
If I know President Trump like I think I do, he'll be sanguine about this reversal, won't take it personally, and will carefully read and consider the legal judgment before commenting further.
I don't think there is constitutional limit to the size of the court. So...
You'd have to pack it a tonne to get a decision where Gorsuch, Barrett and Roberts are in agreement with Kagan, Jackson & Sotomayor are outweighed by Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh and the as yet not existing justices. Requires 4 more very very Trumpite (Not just conservative) justices. tldr Not going to happen before the midterms after which all such moves are going to be blocked.
It would require legislative change as well, as the limit of 9 is fixed by statute.
That could be changed, but probably not in the next nine months.
Isn't this just pre-'24 thinking? The tariffs were unlawful but that stop Trump causing a serious degree of economic chaos for a year. He's brazenly stolen $10 billion. Not sure why he'd suddenly start playing by the rules.
He won't, but there's still no way for him to pack the court... short of an outright coup and declaring himself dictator.
Chief Justice Thomas: It's what the Founding Fathers intended.
I wonder what proportion would agree that Andrew should be hanged,
Probably above 50%.
He might take the Epstein Checkout....
It's unlikely Epstein checked himself out. Would his assassins do the same for Andrew? He is probably less of a threat, as long as he doesn't start singing, and one imagines he'd be a little less easy to access.
So unless he's a DIY man, he's going to be around for a while.
The problem the rich and powerful have with AMW, of course, is that he's stupid. Very stupid. Very very very stupid. Like, dafter than a bag of spanners, but without the charm or from-within-a-paper-bag-navigational ability. So who knows what he'll do if left alone.
Andrew is what used to be described as “educationally sub-normal”.
How do you know? I imagine there are criteria for being educationally sub-normal? I have worked with two of his ex's and both were bright and attractive. That doesn't say he isn't educationally sub-normal but I can't see why such attractive and sparky girls would have wanted to spend time with someone stupid. There is something quite judgemental about this thread. As DJ pointed out girls or boys who choose to sell their services for sex might well have done so by choice.
"but I can't see why such attractive and sparky girls would have wanted to spend time with someone stupid"
Hmm, I wonder. The response of ex footballer Peter Crouch when asked what he would have been if he hadn't been a footballer springs to mind.*
Can you really not imagine why attractive and sparky women might want to hang around the 2nd in line to the throne, a man who would give you the ticket to a lifetime of luxury and privilege? Really?
*"A virgin"
I think you missed the memo. Women who sell themselves have no choice. They have been trafficked or coerced. They don't make decisions for themselves
What do Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, Rotherham taxi drivers, Paula Vennells & The Prince Formerly Known as Andrew have in common?
Omnisis normally do online polling but it would be more difficult to do that in this instance . If it was a phone poll then the Reform figure is likely to be an underestimate.
It could well underestimate the Green vote too, as youngsters are notoriously hard to get a representative poll from.
Labour need to stop chasing Reform voters.
Many of those will not be coming back to Labour or are new voters . If Reform win it will be down to a progressive split and should act as a wake up call .
If this poll is accurate, the difference between first and third place will be about 1,800 votes.
Now McSweeney gone Labour will focus a lot more on Polanski
Labour are actually a lot Greener than Polanski.
If they attack on that basis, the critical difference between core Green policy and corbyn heavy Polanski the cult figure, they can make significant inroads in time.
But Polanski is more socialist than Labour.
A bit of raw communism would be a welcome change from almost 80 years of capitalist/ mixed economy failure.
If Labour play their cards right particularly with regard to Gaza and Trump in most places where the election is close enough most Greens will vote Labour. Most people I know are saying they'll vote Green including me but faced with a possible fascist or quasi-fascist like Kemi I'm sure we'd all weaken
As we speak Lammy is in Washington to explain/capitulate on why we don't fancy carpet bombing Tehran.
I reckon Labour will relent and give the go ahead. I’m 100% sure of it.
It’s true though, with Cooper and Lammy Stateside, there’s a lot of serious top level discussions about what the mission statement given out at the start of it is going to be.
I suspect you are right. Anyway our PM in waiting considers not providing assistance to the Mango Mussolini to carpet bomb Tehran is Starmer-treason.
Yes, strong provocative words from you. But let’s calmly nail down where this is.
If it was as straightforward as bombing to prevent Iran’s Nuclear bomb, Labour will allow - without a vote in the commons - USA to use UK bases. I’m still convinced US can take off from Chagos without our permission.
If it’s regime change, the spectre of lessons learned from Iraq after decapitation of its leadership, becomes part of the discussion. I was too young to understand at the time, but rightly understand today Iraq was massively unpopular with UK voters in the noughties. Correct me where wrong. Maybe Labour would put that to the commons, if the mission statement is that. Which it isn’t.
Either way, some sort of bombing is going to happen by Israel and USA, and UK WILL assist them in use of our bases AND our intelligence of what targets to hit. It’s not just the use of bases that is the ask, but for our intelligence too.
Our sometimes token efforts can seem almost comical. UK launches one missile vs 1000 american ones etc.
Don't blame them, we're not rich enough to afford to destroy any of our equipment.
Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin faced GB News complaint over colleague’s claim of ‘inappropriate comments’
Exclusive: Nigel Farage understood to have known of grievance against byelection candidate, whose lawyer described it as resolved ‘minor workplace matter’ of miscommunication
...the vast majority of trans women (i.e. a man) who has kept his male genitalia. Most do, after all...
I had an argument with Cyclefree some years ago about whether that was true. Then the same week - possibly the same day - a trans woman performer on a TV show stripped off and waved their willy about. So I'm not overkeen on revisiting this statistic. But the following points remain true
We can't agree on the number of trans people
We can't agree on the definition of a trans person
We can work out the number of genital surgeries carried out by the NHS, but it's more difficult to work out the number of genital surgeries carried out by all surgeons in the UK, and it's damn nearly impossible to estimate the number of genital surgeries carried out worldwide on British residents.
(Plus there's the thorny problem of trans inward migration to/outward migration from the UK, but let's put that to one side for the moment)
So while I'm content to accept the argument that N trans women/biological male/MTF/whatevers have got a penis for a nontrivial value of N, more than that is a bit of a reach.
I think it true that only a minority of Trans-folk have had gender confirmation surgery, but at least part of this is access. Over recent years accessing drug treatments, living in the new gender role and access to surgery have all become much more difficult, then Trans-folk are stigmatised for not having surgery. Its a real Catch 22.
Of course there a % who never seek these things and simply cross dress.
It's worth remembering that surgery as a prerequisite for gender recognition was declared unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights some time ago. The court ruled that forcing people to have surgery which effectively castrates and sterilises them in order to get their gender recognised was, for obvious reasons, wrong.
That only emphasises the problem which is that the word trans encompasses everyone from those who have had full surgery to those with dysphoria but live with it, cross-dressers, some only part-time, men with sexual fetishes and men who are simply sexual predators taking advantage. And there is no way of distinguishing between any of them. None of them have any business being in women only spaces.
Why do you say there is no way of distinguishing between any of them? Or why is that any different to the inability to distinguish between criminals and non-criminals more generally?
What a silly question. You cannot tell which man is a predator, which is why you keep the entire category out of women-only spaces.
It's nice to see that Gorsuch (as he did early in his tenure on the Supreme Court and which had been sadly lacking lately) taking a sceptical view of executive overreach.
It's sad to see Kavanagh dissenting.
And Thomas and Alito are partisan hacks.
Word is Alito is stepping down.
Good luck on getting his replacement through the House before the mid-terms.
It's nice to see that Gorsuch (as he did early in his tenure on the Supreme Court and which had been sadly lacking lately) taking a sceptical view of executive overreach.
It's sad to see Kavanagh dissenting.
And Thomas and Alito are partisan hacks.
Word is Alito is stepping down.
Good luck on getting his replacement through the House before the mid-terms.
It's the Senate that confirms, and they will rush it through to make sure it's a MAGA loon.
Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin faced GB News complaint over colleague’s claim of ‘inappropriate comments’
Exclusive: Nigel Farage understood to have known of grievance against byelection candidate, whose lawyer described it as resolved ‘minor workplace matter’ of miscommunication
Will this turn out to be the tip of an iceberg? Or is it all a simple misunderstanding? Maybe Cyclefree's header is relevant here.
I see in the previous thread PB tories are now complaining about a budget surplus in self assessment month. Good grief.
It's the BIGGEST ACHILLES HEEL of having an argumentaive know all with no policy of her own as Leader. All she can do is complain about everything even good news.
This is welcome news Ms Badenoch!
-----
The government's finances had a record monthly surplus in January as it took in more tax receipts than it spent.
The surplus - the difference between public spending and the tax take - was £30.4bn in January, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
The ONS said it was the highest surplus in any month since records began in 1993, and nearly double last January's £15.4bn monthly surplus.
Analysts had expected the surplus to be £23.8bn. The government usually collects more tax than it spends in January compared with other months due to the collection of self-assessed taxes, but higher levels of capital gains tax payments to HMRC pushed the figure to a record.
Borrowing in the 10 months to January was £112.1bn - 11.5% lower than the same 10 month period a year ago - although the ONS noted that it was the fifth-highest borrowing for the period on record.
HM Treasury said borrowing for 2026 is forecast to be "the lowest since before the pandemic."
Chief Secretary to the Treasury, James Murray said: "We know there is more to do to stop one in every £10 the government spends going on debt interest, and we will more than halve borrowing by 2030-31 so that money can be spent on policing, schools and the NHS."
This is undoubtedly good news and it would be churlish to say otherwise but that sentence from the Chief Secretary. They are going to HALVE borrowing (so still borrowing quite a lot) "so that the money (what money? reduced debt at best) can be SPENT (thereby not reducing borrowing) on policing, schools and hospitals."
Murray is supposed to be one of the smarter ones. That is frighteningly illiterate for a Chief Secretary.
Better to halve borrowing than to double it. I don’t understand those people who suggest this means we’re paying too much tax. If anything it shows we’re not paying enough tax.
Oh I agree. We should be running a surplus right now and should continue to do so for many years until the excesses of the Covid and Gas bill madness are paid back. This is a modest step in the right direction and very welcome on that basis but our finances remain seriously out of kilter.
You don't reduce the interest rate bill by halving borrowing, in those circumstances it is still going up. You reduce debt interest by repaying debt.
By repaying existing debt and by increasing market confidence in your future ability to repay, thus securing lower rates for new borrowing...
But they are not repaying existing debt, they are still borrowing more (at half the rate they are just now).
Just like the last government. Just like the next government.
Taking from the next generation to fund the lifestyles of the current generation.
At some point the government is spending over £100bn per year on debt interest.
At a later point the country imitates Greece or Argentina.
I think you have that way out of kilter. They are taking from the current generation to fund the lifestyle of the triple lock generation. Those are the ones that spent North Sea Oil, Council House receipts and privatisation receipts while simultaneously increasing national debt. When the young realise this and reject the accusations of the gerontocracy then there will be a reckoning.
Which brings me back to my proposal to extend the franchise to all British humans, not just adults, with the votes of those under a certain age (16? 18?) to be exercised on their behalf by their parents. At present, the old are disproportionately represented and the young not at all. It's no wonder the country is not run in the interests of the young.
So glad someone else has come to this conclusion!
I'd let children of whatever age claim their vote from their parents whenever they were able to find the relevant form and complete the request to their returning officer. That way young nerds such as myself would have been able to claim their vote earlier than people who weren't interested, and those adults with severe learning difficulties, or deemed unable to vote due to severe mental illness, would still have their vote exercised on their behalf by their guardian.
I also heard a recent interesting argument in favour of compulsory voting that would also rebalance things. Democracy is a duty as well as a right, perhaps.
Having the ability to fill in a particular form be the determiner for who gets to vote didn’t work well during the Jim Crow era.
How would you register people to vote without asking them to complete a form?
Are you comparing Britain's electoral registration system to Jim Crow laws? How bizarre.
You were, it appears to me, suggesting that mental capacity (a child having sufficient maturity, excluding adults with severe learning difficulties, or those with severe mental illness) should be assessed by the ability to fill in a particular type of form. That approach was abused under Jim Crow. If your plan is to stick with the current very simple form, then it doesn't seem like you it would fulfill your aims. You'd basically just be dropping the voting age to 10 or so.
I note that current UK law does not stop adults with severe learning difficulties or severe mental illness from voting.
I don't foresee most 11 year olds being sufficiently interested or motivated to claim their vote, but I don't see it being a problem if they are.
Dropping the voting age to 0 could be a low cost way to improve birth rates.
Wouldn't the anti-abortion crowd want it dropped to minus 9 months?
Doubt it, as it introduces the moral hazard of women getting pregnant obtaining 2 votes then aborting. Also it's difficult to verify if someone is say a day pregnant, women could just claim they are.
Compulsory ultrasound when you go vote to see how many votes should be counted.
While my view is votes from birth, not before, I'm not sure you'd get massive numbers of pregnancies-then-abortions for the sake of an extra vote. It seems a remarkable level of inconvenience to go to for a very marginal gain.
It would be an interesting conflict of law: pre-birth the foetus is not considered to be a person thus can be legally aborted, yet this mere clump of cells would qualify for a vote.
It's nice to see that Gorsuch (as he did early in his tenure on the Supreme Court and which had been sadly lacking lately) taking a sceptical view of executive overreach.
It's sad to see Kavanagh dissenting.
And Thomas and Alito are partisan hacks.
Word is Alito is stepping down.
Good luck on getting his replacement through the House before the mid-terms.
It's the Senate that confirms, and they will rush it through to make sure it's a MAGA loon.
I understood he is standing down {to go off and make money} precisely so they easily replace him whilst they can.
Learning the lesson from the mistake democrats made.
Can't quite tell whether Gordon Brown is sending the police useful info based on his past experience in govt or is going full amateur private detective in his retirement.
Remember it is Gordon Brown whose government was being betrayed and undermined by Mandelson with his leaks to Epstein's circle. For Brown it is personal as well as political and criminal.
This would be the Gordon Brown who brought Mandelson back into government and allowed him to conduct government business on his personal email, would it? That Gordon Brown.
Yes he might well feel betrayed. But why was he so stupid as to bring him back into government, especially with his record? He demonstrated appalling judgment. And he ran a government which put government records, compliance with the FoI and market rules at risk. He should not be excused criticism for this.
Omnisis normally do online polling but it would be more difficult to do that in this instance . If it was a phone poll then the Reform figure is likely to be an underestimate.
It could well underestimate the Green vote too, as youngsters are notoriously hard to get a representative poll from.
Labour need to stop chasing Reform voters.
Many of those will not be coming back to Labour or are new voters . If Reform win it will be down to a progressive split and should act as a wake up call .
If this poll is accurate, the difference between first and third place will be about 1,800 votes.
Now McSweeney gone Labour will focus a lot more on Polanski
Labour are actually a lot Greener than Polanski.
If they attack on that basis, the critical difference between core Green policy and corbyn heavy Polanski the cult figure, they can make significant inroads in time.
But Polanski is more socialist than Labour.
A bit of raw communism would be a welcome change from almost 80 years of capitalist/ mixed economy failure.
If Labour play their cards right particularly with regard to Gaza and Trump in most places where the election is close enough most Greens will vote Labour. Most people I know are saying they'll vote Green including me but faced with a possible fascist or quasi-fascist like Kemi I'm sure we'd all weaken
As we speak Lammy is in Washington to explain/capitulate on why we don't fancy carpet bombing Tehran.
I reckon Labour will relent and give the go ahead. I’m 100% sure of it.
It’s true though, with Cooper and Lammy Stateside, there’s a lot of serious top level discussions about what the mission statement given out at the start of it is going to be.
I suspect you are right. Anyway our PM in waiting considers not providing assistance to the Mango Mussolini to carpet bomb Tehran is Starmer-treason.
Yes, strong provocative words from you. But let’s calmly nail down where this is.
If it was as straightforward as bombing to prevent Iran’s Nuclear bomb, Labour will allow - without a vote in the commons - USA to use UK bases. I’m still convinced US can take off from Chagos without our permission.
If it’s regime change, the spectre of lessons learned from Iraq after decapitation of its leadership, becomes part of the discussion. I was too young to understand at the time, but rightly understand today Iraq was massively unpopular with UK voters in the noughties. Correct me where wrong. Maybe Labour would put that to the commons, if the mission statement is that. Which it isn’t.
Either way, some sort of bombing is going to happen by Israel and USA, and UK WILL assist them in use of our bases AND our intelligence of what targets to hit. It’s not just the use of bases that is the ask, but for our intelligence too.
Our sometimes token efforts can seem almost comical. UK launches one missile vs 1000 american ones etc.
Don't blame them, we're not rich enough to afford to destroy any of our equipment.
I don’t think we will go as far as flying missions or firing missiles. Bases and intelligence we will provide.
International Law - love it or hate it - will still regard us equally as culpable. 👩⚖️
Can't quite tell whether Gordon Brown is sending the police useful info based on his past experience in govt or is going full amateur private detective in his retirement.
Remember it is Gordon Brown whose government was being betrayed and undermined by Mandelson with his leaks to Epstein's circle. For Brown it is personal as well as political and criminal.
This would be the Gordon Brown who brought Mandelson back into government and allowed him to conduct government business on his personal email, would it? That Gordon Brown.
Yes he might well feel betrayed. But why was he so stupid as to bring him back into government, especially with his record? He demonstrated appalling judgment. And he ran a government which put government records, compliance with the FoI and market rules at risk. He should not be excused criticism for this.
"I think most people would say it was a pretty straight sort of government."
Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin faced GB News complaint over colleague’s claim of ‘inappropriate comments’
Exclusive: Nigel Farage understood to have known of grievance against byelection candidate, whose lawyer described it as resolved ‘minor workplace matter’ of miscommunication
I see FIFA has joined the "Board of Peace', further enhancing its credibility.
Even for Fifa it's so pathetic to watch. I didn't expect any shame, and dignity went long ago, but do none of them have limits?
How does Infantino fool himself when looking in the mirror that he is just a football administrator who loves peace? We all make ourselves a hero in our heads, but that's a tricky one.
Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin faced GB News complaint over colleague’s claim of ‘inappropriate comments’
Exclusive: Nigel Farage understood to have known of grievance against byelection candidate, whose lawyer described it as resolved ‘minor workplace matter’ of miscommunication
I'm sure it's all fine. ..Farage is understood to have decided the complaint was not serious enough to warrant a rethink about Goodwin’s selection. A source at GB News told the Guardian that Farage had characterised the complaint as “that is just Matt being Matt”...
Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin faced GB News complaint over colleague’s claim of ‘inappropriate comments’
Exclusive: Nigel Farage understood to have known of grievance against byelection candidate, whose lawyer described it as resolved ‘minor workplace matter’ of miscommunication
Well knock me down with a feather.
As a doctor surely if you are capable of being knocked down by a feather you should consult a colleague?
Makerfield is just about the worst place I could think of for a Labour by election. Absolute nailed on Reform gain. Even Burnham wouldn't want it.
Yep. Reform 50% plus. The question is, is there any other party that could pose the 'stop reform' option? It doesnt seem Green or Galloway adjacent, not trad LD and the Con vote was chunky but has gone Ref. So Lab lose but their vote holds up a little bit by default?
It's where I grew up and where my family still live. All of those points are correct. It's also by most measures the longest continuously held Labour seat in the UK. The only possibility is a genuinely local soft Left Indy running against the government. But not one who bangs on about Palestine. Even then.
I think Rupert Lowe's setup will do significant damage to Reform, perhaps by peeling off quit a number of their grass roots leaders.
There's chatter this morning about the possibility of Jeremy Clarkson perhaps coming on board.
(Rupes says that Clarkson's sidekick Caleb dumps Clarkson's shit on the Lowe doorstep.)
Could be a classic case of "and you enforce that how?" From the White House.
The first lawyer who manages to figure that out will become very rich indeed, so half the legal brains in the US will be working on it.
.."A coalition of 800 small businesses across the country who weren't happy about the tariffs saying they were the ones paying the brunt of these costs. They just put out a statement saying they are sending immediate letters to the white house and congress demanding full, fast and automatic tariff refunds. We talk about how the refunds work for the tariffs, how messy you envision this getting?"
Businesses will now request refunds, and there will likely be huge class action lawsuits against the US government. Additionally, the budget is about to have major issues.. https://x.com/EdKrassen/status/2024872055162704087
Can't quite tell whether Gordon Brown is sending the police useful info based on his past experience in govt or is going full amateur private detective in his retirement.
Remember it is Gordon Brown whose government was being betrayed and undermined by Mandelson with his leaks to Epstein's circle. For Brown it is personal as well as political and criminal.
This would be the Gordon Brown who brought Mandelson back into government and allowed him to conduct government business on his personal email, would it? That Gordon Brown.
Yes he might well feel betrayed. But why was he so stupid as to bring him back into government, especially with his record? He demonstrated appalling judgment. And he ran a government which put government records, compliance with the FoI and market rules at risk. He should not be excused criticism for this.
Mandelson seems to be a classic case where despite repeatedly causing trouble he was always brought back as he was just too damn competent to leave out, and hired to advise as he was do smart, only to reveal he has to rely on a defence of being a naiive fool to avoid larger culpability, and wasn't even competent on thd government side.
Omnisis normally do online polling but it would be more difficult to do that in this instance . If it was a phone poll then the Reform figure is likely to be an underestimate.
It could well underestimate the Green vote too, as youngsters are notoriously hard to get a representative poll from.
Labour need to stop chasing Reform voters.
Many of those will not be coming back to Labour or are new voters . If Reform win it will be down to a progressive split and should act as a wake up call .
If this poll is accurate, the difference between first and third place will be about 1,800 votes.
Now McSweeney gone Labour will focus a lot more on Polanski
Labour are actually a lot Greener than Polanski.
If they attack on that basis, the critical difference between core Green policy and corbyn heavy Polanski the cult figure, they can make significant inroads in time.
But Polanski is more socialist than Labour.
A bit of raw communism would be a welcome change from almost 80 years of capitalist/ mixed economy failure.
If Labour play their cards right particularly with regard to Gaza and Trump in most places where the election is close enough most Greens will vote Labour. Most people I know are saying they'll vote Green including me but faced with a possible fascist or quasi-fascist like Kemi I'm sure we'd all weaken
As we speak Lammy is in Washington to explain/capitulate on why we don't fancy carpet bombing Tehran.
I reckon Labour will relent and give the go ahead. I’m 100% sure of it.
It’s true though, with Cooper and Lammy Stateside, there’s a lot of serious top level discussions about what the mission statement given out at the start of it is going to be.
Supreme Court rules against Trump's global tariffs
Woo, I wasn't expecting that. The Roberts court telling Trump "no"? He'll go ballistic. Hopefully not literally.
The markets have been unaccountably positive the past few weeks so I expect the White House knew this was coming and Trump and his mates have been quietly adding to their portfolios in anticipation.
On the one hand this trial seems to have been very successful in improving cancer detection in screening.
On the other hand, it seems to have made not a huge amount of difference to clinical outcomes. Despite the positive spin put on the results by the manufacturer in the PR below, the highlighted bit is the most important result they were looking for.
The primary endpoint of statistically significant Stage III-IV reduction was not observed. However, there was a favorable trend toward fewer Stage III-IV cancers in a pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers* in the intervention arm after the prevalent screening round. Adding Galleri to standard of care screening resulted in a substantial and clinically meaningful reduction in Stage IV diagnoses compared with standard of care alone across the pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers. Stage IV diagnoses in these cancers decreased with each year of sequential screening, with a greater than 20% reduction in the second and third rounds. Similar reductions were observed across all cancers. Annual screening with the Galleri test plus standard of care screening resulted in a four-fold improvement in the overall cancer detection rate compared to standard of care screening alone in England for breast, colorectal, cervical and high risk lung cancer. Substantial increase in the absolute number of Stage I-II cancers in the 12 pre-specified deadly cancer types that are typically found in late stages were observed in the intervention arm. Screening with the Galleri test resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of cancers detected clinically through emergency presentation, which are associated with significantly higher mortality and healthcare costs. ..
If it wasn't statistically significant in a 2 year trial of 140 000 participants it doesn't appear a big effect.
Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin faced GB News complaint over colleague’s claim of ‘inappropriate comments’
Exclusive: Nigel Farage understood to have known of grievance against byelection candidate, whose lawyer described it as resolved ‘minor workplace matter’ of miscommunication
Well knock me down with a feather.
I would not rule out a labour hold
Seems Andy Burnham is there most days
I would suggest that if labour do hold the irony Burnham did it for Starmer would be worth a chuckle
News: President Trump commented on the Supreme Court ruling striking down his tariffs while inside the White House breakfast with governors this morning, calling it a "disgrace," I'm told. He told those gathered that he has a backup plan. https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/2024868731264888882
Makerfield is just about the worst place I could think of for a Labour by election. Absolute nailed on Reform gain. Even Burnham wouldn't want it.
Yep. Reform 50% plus. The question is, is there any other party that could pose the 'stop reform' option? It doesnt seem Green or Galloway adjacent, not trad LD and the Con vote was chunky but has gone Ref. So Lab lose but their vote holds up a little bit by default?
It's where I grew up and where my family still live. All of those points are correct. It's also by most measures the longest continuously held Labour seat in the UK. The only possibility is a genuinely local soft Left Indy running against the government. But not one who bangs on about Palestine. Even then.
I think Rupert Lowe's setup will do significant damage to Reform, perhaps by peeling off quit a number of their grass roots leaders.
There's chatter this morning about the possibility of Jeremy Clarkson perhaps coming on board.
(Rupes says that Clarkson's sidekick Caleb dumps Clarkson's shit on the Lowe doorstep.)
On the one hand this trial seems to have been very successful in improving cancer detection in screening.
On the other hand, it seems to have made not a huge amount of difference to clinical outcomes. Despite the positive spin put on the results by the manufacturer in the PR below, the highlighted bit is the most important result they were looking for.
The primary endpoint of statistically significant Stage III-IV reduction was not observed. However, there was a favorable trend toward fewer Stage III-IV cancers in a pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers* in the intervention arm after the prevalent screening round. Adding Galleri to standard of care screening resulted in a substantial and clinically meaningful reduction in Stage IV diagnoses compared with standard of care alone across the pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers. Stage IV diagnoses in these cancers decreased with each year of sequential screening, with a greater than 20% reduction in the second and third rounds. Similar reductions were observed across all cancers. Annual screening with the Galleri test plus standard of care screening resulted in a four-fold improvement in the overall cancer detection rate compared to standard of care screening alone in England for breast, colorectal, cervical and high risk lung cancer. Substantial increase in the absolute number of Stage I-II cancers in the 12 pre-specified deadly cancer types that are typically found in late stages were observed in the intervention arm. Screening with the Galleri test resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of cancers detected clinically through emergency presentation, which are associated with significantly higher mortality and healthcare costs. ..
If it wasn't statistically significant in a 2 year trial of 140 000 participants it doesn't appear a big effect.
Yes, exactly. What this seems to imply is that earlier detection doesn't help outcomes all that much ? Which rather goes against conventional wisdom.
Is it just that this group of cancers are particularly hard to treat ? Or that the more aggressive examples of them get to Stage III-IV really quickly ?
Could be a classic case of "and you enforce that how?" From the White House.
The first lawyer who manages to figure that out will become very rich indeed, so half the legal brains in the US will be working on it.
.."A coalition of 800 small businesses across the country who weren't happy about the tariffs saying they were the ones paying the brunt of these costs. They just put out a statement saying they are sending immediate letters to the white house and congress demanding full, fast and automatic tariff refunds. We talk about how the refunds work for the tariffs, how messy you envision this getting?"
Businesses will now request refunds, and there will likely be huge class action lawsuits against the US government. Additionally, the budget is about to have major issues.. https://x.com/EdKrassen/status/2024872055162704087
Will the White House and Trump get a Big Beautiful Bill?
I wonder what proportion would agree that Andrew should be hanged,
Probably above 50%.
He might take the Epstein Checkout....
It's unlikely Epstein checked himself out. Would his assassins do the same for Andrew? He is probably less of a threat, as long as he doesn't start singing, and one imagines he'd be a little less easy to access.
So unless he's a DIY man, he's going to be around for a while.
The problem the rich and powerful have with AMW, of course, is that he's stupid. Very stupid. Very very very stupid. Like, dafter than a bag of spanners, but without the charm or from-within-a-paper-bag-navigational ability. So who knows what he'll do if left alone.
Andrew is what used to be described as “educationally sub-normal”.
This upsets me. Are we saying he's a sick c*** because he's what? Autistic. That is often the PB go to in a situation like this.
On the other hand it could be that he's both lazy and entitled because he was spoilt and smothered by his mum.
It might be the assumption that he is somewhat limited and thus has no interesting hobbies or pursuits to keep him occupied. But then the royals always used to be about the shagging. The current king is a good example.
The D of Edinburgh was notorious, but smart enough to keep it discreet.
Assume you mean the older version, not my Chancellor!
Can't quite tell whether Gordon Brown is sending the police useful info based on his past experience in govt or is going full amateur private detective in his retirement.
Remember it is Gordon Brown whose government was being betrayed and undermined by Mandelson with his leaks to Epstein's circle. For Brown it is personal as well as political and criminal.
This would be the Gordon Brown who brought Mandelson back into government and allowed him to conduct government business on his personal email, would it? That Gordon Brown.
Yes he might well feel betrayed. But why was he so stupid as to bring him back into government, especially with his record? He demonstrated appalling judgment. And he ran a government which put government records, compliance with the FoI and market rules at risk. He should not be excused criticism for this.
Mandelson seems to be a classic case where despite repeatedly causing trouble he was always brought back as he was just too damn competent to leave out, and hired to advise as he was do smart, only to reveal he has to rely on a defence of being a naiive fool to avoid larger culpability, and wasn't even competent on thd government side.
I don't think Mandelson was particularly competent in his relatively brief times in government before he was forced to resign - certainly no strokes of genius spring to mind, and quite a few missteps, most obviously the Horizon system in the Post Office that we're still dealing with and the Millennium dome.
The reason he was repeatedly reappointed was almost certainly that he was very good at sucking up to the right people.
Or, in the case of Epstein, ultimately the wrong people.
So compulsive networking was both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.
If Trump wants the tariffs to remain he needs Congress to vote for them .
Given it’s the mid-terms coming up it could get awkward as now the spineless GOP won’t be able to hide .
No. You completely miss what the simple framing is that wins US elections.
No Tarrifs - No Golden Age or Liberation Day for America!
Don’t you think that’s a vote winning Slogan in Blue Collar, Trailer Park America?
This is exactly what Trump and MAGA needed. Any vote for Democrats now, is a vote for Surrender to China.
Simple choice for voters. Vote for your jobs, you’re livelihoods, you homes, your children’s and grandchildren’s future. Or vote Democrat to surrender America without a fight.
It's nice to see that Gorsuch (as he did early in his tenure on the Supreme Court and which had been sadly lacking lately) taking a sceptical view of executive overreach.
It's sad to see Kavanagh dissenting.
And Thomas and Alito are partisan hacks.
Word is Alito is stepping down.
Good luck on getting his replacement through the House before the mid-terms.
They managed to get Bader Ginsberg replaced in a much shorter time span.
I think the possible issue is overreach. Trump wants an uber-loyalist - someone like Emil Bove on the court.
The people he's put on so far, while showing a degree of loyalty, have not bowed to his every wish.
But can he get Bove through? Would Tills or McConnell or Murkowski vote for Trump's former personal lawyer?
Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin faced GB News complaint over colleague’s claim of ‘inappropriate comments’
Exclusive: Nigel Farage understood to have known of grievance against byelection candidate, whose lawyer described it as resolved ‘minor workplace matter’ of miscommunication
Well knock me down with a feather.
As a doctor surely if you are capable of being knocked down by a feather you should consult a colleague?
Could be a bird allergy or maybe a balance disorder, but probably just low blood pressure.
It's nice to see that Gorsuch (as he did early in his tenure on the Supreme Court and which had been sadly lacking lately) taking a sceptical view of executive overreach.
It's sad to see Kavanagh dissenting.
And Thomas and Alito are partisan hacks.
Word is Alito is stepping down.
Good luck on getting his replacement through the House before the mid-terms.
They managed to get Bader Ginsberg replaced in a much shorter time span.
I think the possible issue is overreach. Trump wants an uber-loyalist - someone like Emil Bove on the court.
The people he's put on so far, while showing a degree of loyalty, have not bowed to his every wish.
But can he get Bove through? Would Tills or McConnell or Murkowski vote for Trump's former personal lawyer?
Comments
Presumably his clarion call for why they need to vote Republican in the mid terms.
The mid terms that aren't going to be fair. Hmm.....
In dissent, Thomas debuts a new, Trump-friendly theory that the non-delegation doctrine does not apply to former "powers of the Crown," including tariffs, which are ostensibly not "within the core legislative power." This seems brazenly gerrymandered to accommodate Trump's wishes ...
https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3mfcfwhghrc27
Kavanaugh, Alito & Thomas dissent.
'Peter Mandelson 'helped Andrew get trade envoy job against the wishes of King Charles' as he insisted royal was 'well qualified' for the role'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15576689/Peter-Mandelson-helped-Andrew-trade-envoy-job-against-wishes-King-Charles-insisted-royal-qualified-role.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline
"Vote for me and you get $2000"
And CoPilot was not having it
in terms of fighting the for votes at the next General, you have to do that today and everyday till the GE, not wait till then.
But there is also very little chance indeed of Trump being able to persuade Congress to increase the numbers.
The Republicans are too terrified of him to actually stop him doing stuff, as we've seen on multiple occasions, but increasing court numbers is in the hands of Congress not the president. And they can (and have already) just sit on their hands.
Supreme Court absolutely bodies Trump on IEEPA.
Just complete groin kicking.
They could have said that IEEPA lets him impose tariffs in an emergency but that this didn't qualify as one of those, or he failed to define one.
It didn't.
It ruled IEEPA doesn't let him impose tariffs at all.
https://bsky.app/profile/explaintrade.com/post/3mfcfcf5ocs2i
..The country-wide tariffs Trump imposed on most of the world.
The ruling centres on Trump’s use of a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), that gives the president the power to "regulate" trade in response to an emergency.
Trump first invoked it in February 2025 to tax goods from China, Mexico and Canada, saying drug trafficking from those countries constituted an emergency.
He deployed it again in April, ordering levies from 10% to 50% on goods from almost every country in the world. He said the US trade deficit – where the US imports more than it exports – posed an "extraordinary and unusual threat".
The unaffected tariffs
The industry-specific steel, aluminium, lumber and automotive tariffs, which were implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, citing national-security concerns...
He is not going to take it well, when the world shows him their shit-eating grins.
That could be changed, but probably not in the next nine months.
On the one hand this trial seems to have been very successful in improving cancer detection in screening.
On the other hand, it seems to have made not a huge amount of difference to clinical outcomes. Despite the positive spin put on the results by the manufacturer in the PR below, the highlighted bit is the most important result they were looking for.
Landmark NHS-Galleri Trial Demonstrates a Substantial Reduction in Stage IV Cancer Diagnoses, Increased Stage I and II Detection of Deadly Cancers, and Four-Fold Higher Cancer Detection Rate
https://grail.com/press-releases/landmark-nhs-galleri-trial-demonstrates-a-substantial-reduction-in-stage-iv-cancer-diagnoses-increased-stage-i-and-ii-detection-of-deadly-cancers-and-four-fold-higher-cancer-detection-rate/
..Key trial results include:
The primary endpoint of statistically significant Stage III-IV reduction was not observed. However, there was a favorable trend toward fewer Stage III-IV cancers in a pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers* in the intervention arm after the prevalent screening round.
Adding Galleri to standard of care screening resulted in a substantial and clinically meaningful reduction in Stage IV diagnoses compared with standard of care alone across the pre-specified group of 12 deadly cancers. Stage IV diagnoses in these cancers decreased with each year of sequential screening, with a greater than 20% reduction in the second and third rounds. Similar reductions were observed across all cancers.
Annual screening with the Galleri test plus standard of care screening resulted in a four-fold improvement in the overall cancer detection rate compared to standard of care screening alone in England for breast, colorectal, cervical and high risk lung cancer.
Substantial increase in the absolute number of Stage I-II cancers in the 12 pre-specified deadly cancer types that are typically found in late stages were observed in the intervention arm.
Screening with the Galleri test resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of cancers detected clinically through emergency presentation, which are associated with significantly higher mortality and healthcare costs. ..
Bit surprised about Kavanaugh. He's crooked too, but a long way from stupid. I'd have thought he might have figured he could be better off siding with justice this time.
The bad news: there's not been a similar ruling on the use of military force, which he might be more likely to favour if he's lost his favourite weapon of diplomacy...
It's nice to see that Gorsuch (as he did early in his tenure on the Supreme Court and which had been sadly lacking lately) taking a sceptical view of executive overreach.
It's sad to see Kavanagh dissenting.
And Thomas and Alito are partisan hacks.
If it was as straightforward as bombing to prevent Iran’s Nuclear bomb, Labour will allow - without a vote in the commons - USA to use UK bases. I’m still convinced US can take off from Chagos without our permission.
If it’s regime change, the spectre of lessons learned from Iraq after decapitation of its leadership, becomes part of the discussion. I was too young to understand at the time, but rightly understand today Iraq was massively unpopular with UK voters in the noughties. Correct me where wrong.
Maybe Labour would put that to the commons, if the mission statement is that. Which it isn’t.
Either way, some sort of bombing is going to happen by Israel and USA, and UK WILL assist them in use of our bases AND our intelligence of what targets to hit. It’s not just the use of bases that is the ask, but for our intelligence too.
All have been supported by our mutual friend, above.
Fun list, isn't it.
https://x.com/wallstengine/status/2024864135264243872?s=61
Don't blame them, we're not rich enough to afford to destroy any of our equipment.
Reform UK’s Matt Goodwin faced GB News complaint over colleague’s claim of ‘inappropriate comments’
Exclusive: Nigel Farage understood to have known of grievance against byelection candidate, whose lawyer described it as resolved ‘minor workplace matter’ of miscommunication
Good luck on getting his replacement through the House before the mid-terms.
Before the 11th I will post name of every single Festival winner.
Learning the lesson from the mistake democrats made.
Yes he might well feel betrayed. But why was he so stupid as to bring him back into government, especially with his record? He demonstrated appalling judgment. And he ran a government which put government records, compliance with the FoI and market rules at risk. He should not be excused criticism for this.
Or possibly, given who's on it, 'Board of Paedos' would work.
International Law - love it or hate it - will still regard us equally as culpable. 👩⚖️
Given it’s the mid-terms coming up it could get awkward as now the spineless GOP won’t be able to hide .
How does Infantino fool himself when looking in the mirror that he is just a football administrator who loves peace? We all make ourselves a hero in our heads, but that's a tricky one.
..Farage is understood to have decided the complaint was not serious enough to warrant a rethink about Goodwin’s selection. A source at GB News told the Guardian that Farage had characterised the complaint as “that is just Matt being Matt”...
Businesses will now request refunds, and there will likely be huge class action lawsuits against the US government. Additionally, the budget is about to have major issues..
https://x.com/EdKrassen/status/2024872055162704087
Seems Andy Burnham is there most days
I would suggest that if labour do hold the irony Burnham did it for Starmer would be worth a chuckle
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/20/gorton-and-denton-reform-labour-greens?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
News: President Trump commented on the Supreme Court ruling striking down his tariffs while inside the White House breakfast with governors this morning, calling it a "disgrace," I'm told. He told those gathered that he has a backup plan.
https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/2024868731264888882
Can't see him joining any ^Re*
What this seems to imply is that earlier detection doesn't help outcomes all that much ?
Which rather goes against conventional wisdom.
Is it just that this group of cancers are particularly hard to treat ? Or that the more aggressive examples of them get to Stage III-IV really quickly ?
The reason he was repeatedly reappointed was almost certainly that he was very good at sucking up to the right people.
Or, in the case of Epstein, ultimately the wrong people.
So compulsive networking was both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.
https://x.com/ATabarrok/status/2024868972584181898
No Tarrifs - No Golden Age or Liberation Day for America!
Don’t you think that’s a vote winning Slogan in Blue Collar, Trailer Park America?
This is exactly what Trump and MAGA needed. Any vote for Democrats now, is a vote for Surrender to China.
Simple choice for voters. Vote for your jobs, you’re livelihoods, you homes, your children’s and grandchildren’s future. Or vote Democrat to surrender America without a fight.
I think the possible issue is overreach. Trump wants an uber-loyalist - someone like Emil Bove on the court.
The people he's put on so far, while showing a degree of loyalty, have not bowed to his every wish.
But can he get Bove through? Would Tills or McConnell or Murkowski vote for Trump's former personal lawyer?