King Charles is due to visit the US on 27-29 April for a mini state visit. I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM. Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
He is actually going for the 250th anniversary of US Independence, as it will celebrate the removal of his ancestor King George III from the position of head of state of the American colonies leading to Presidents like Trump now as US head of state I doubt he would be that bothered at not going but diplomatically he has to go
Why should we be forced to go along to celebrate them kicking us out? Maybe we should invite Trump over to help us celebrate that time we burned down the White House.
Diplomatic illness. Probably resurgence of his cancer.
He should go and sing "You'll be back" in full regalia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5JAjAR_AjY&list=RDi5JAjAR_AjY&start_radio=1 You'll be back, soon, you'll see You'll remember you belong to me You'll be back, time will tell You'll remember that I served you well Oceans rise, empires fall We have seen each other through it all And when push comes to shove I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love!
The latest borrowing figures show how bad her stewadship has been. And thats before she craps all over us the latest set of tax screw ups.
Now she has a war to blame everything on so nothing is her fault.
You don’t want tax increases and it’s not possible to cut the ever growing welfare bill as that’s pensions
Exactly how was Reeves supposed to reduce Borrowing
She should have started by not caving in on the 2 child cap and the other welfare reforms. Too late now they've let the benefits bill grow exponentially so clearly no headroom for the rainy days now and to come.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
What you say would be correct if year zero was four weeks ago. But it wasn't. Many of us have watched him for four years with sinking hearts as he tossed aside every value we thought Labour held.
He tried to get rid of Diane Abbott because she said something which was irrefutably true. He made a speech about foreigners which would have embarrassed Nigel Farage. He all but allowed Mark Regev to choose his Cabinet. He tethered himself to Netanyahu when he was committing a genocide. He worshipped at te altar of Trump when everyone with a soul could see it was a mistake. We watched in blind admiration as Mark Carney made a speech we knew was way beyond our leader's capabilities. We wished it could have been Starmer
As Labour supporters all we ask for is a leader who roughly shares what we think of as Labour values. I have no idea what he'll do because his principles -if he has any- are impossible to follow
You will never get a Labour PM who is as left wing as you would like, because a Labour PM has to deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it to be. Attlee or Wilson would have infuriated you.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a cop out, pure and simple. It's the old " a big boy made me do it" line of defence. It won't wash
The only people responsible for Trump are those that voted for him, everything that follows is on their hands.
King Charles is due to visit the US on 27-29 April for a mini state visit. I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM. Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
He is actually going for the 250th anniversary of US Independence, as it will celebrate the removal of his ancestor King George III from the position of head of state of the American colonies leading to Presidents like Trump now as US head of state I doubt he would be that bothered at not going but diplomatically he has to go
They should send Beatrice and Eugrnie
By all accounts they met Trump a lot when they were children.
In the UK, we worry about replacing Churchill with a badger on a banknote. No such worries for Trump, who is just putting himself on a gold coin: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywxvgynr2o
Sadly, the BBC News overnight intern responsible for mindlessly copying US media has used the American spelling in the headline: "24-karat gold".
King Charles is due to visit the US on 27-29 April for a mini state visit. I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM. Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
He is actually going for the 250th anniversary of US Independence, as it will celebrate the removal of his ancestor King George III from the position of head of state of the American colonies leading to Presidents like Trump now as US head of state I doubt he would be that bothered at not going but diplomatically he has to go
Why should we be forced to go along to celebrate them kicking us out? Maybe we should invite Trump over to help us celebrate that time we burned down the White House.
Counter-factuals are always speculative, but I wonder how things would have turned out, had the rebels lost.
Would slavery have ended sooner, or would the US civil war have been fought across the whole British empire?
There would be less of an imperative to expand Westward, so one could expect a bigger Mexico, an independent Hawaii, and perhaps a Russian presence on the West Coast. There might even be American Indian states.
The US would have achieved independence at the same time as Canada, in 1931.
1812 wouldn't have happened so Canada and the US would likely be one country. The colonists had already dealt with their main competitor, the French. I suspect little difference with the push towards the west. Main point though, the revolutionaries would have perceived it as a temporary loss and would have eventually prevailed.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Trump never said to inject bleach, he did muse about researching if uv light could work as the equivalent of disinfectant inside the body.
Its strange that given all the things Trump has actually said and done that people still repeat bollox that he never said.
He also mused about injecting bleach. It's strange that people want to deny that.
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
So why did you feel the need to use a different word to what Trump actually said ?
Ok Mr I'm Impartial But The Left Is So Terrible I Am Always Forced To Criticise Them Exclusively, as an expert on what Trump meant, to which disinfectant was he referring?
I'm sure we'll be looking forward to your next criticism of the Scottish nationalism cause and applause for Unionists.
Now I've managed to pretty much criticize most people on most issues while I've been on PB but as I don't follow whatever the centrist dad herd is its only those thoughts which go against the approved groupthink which get noticed.
Now if you want some criticism of Trump then let me offer something which might be new for PB - sometimes, there is something weirdly homoerotic about Trump. See his 'handsome' comments about both NYC mayor Mamdami and Syria's President. For that matter there's something homoerotic about Hegseth as well. Though Hegseth comes across as a wannabe 'Spartan' tough guy whereas Trump is more of a creepy old perv.
As for Trump's disinfectant comment I would assume he was talking about uv light as a disinfectant as that was what he continued to babble on about. If Trump had been talking about bleach then he likely would have said bleach.
And if Trump had really advocated injecting bleach wouldn't he have done so explicitly and on multiple occasions ? Instead of this sole musing about disinfectant and uv light ?
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
100% sabotage, but it'll never come out. The Ford has been deployed for 255 days and that's were discipline starts to break down no matter how effective the command structure. We did 175 days on the Vinson and by then every man, woman and machine on the ship was comprehensively broken.
"We'd have LOVED to have led the line into the Straits of Hormuz, but you know, since the laundry fire - no Whites...."
Can a ship the size of the Ford get through the Suez Canal? And had it done so it would have been quite a large target for the Houthis as it approached Bab el Mandeb! Even if it did, as it would, shoot back.
Yes. It's not strictly SUEZMAX compliant but it can be done. They can't get them through the Panama because of the Miraflores locks which is why Argentina is a such an important strategic partner of the USN.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Trump never said to inject bleach, he did muse about researching if uv light could work as the equivalent of disinfectant inside the body.
Its strange that given all the things Trump has actually said and done that people still repeat bollox that he never said.
He also mused about injecting bleach. It's strange that people want to deny that.
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
So why did you feel the need to use a different word to what Trump actually said ?
Ok Mr I'm Impartial But The Left Is So Terrible I Am Always Forced To Criticise Them Exclusively, as an expert on what Trump meant, to which disinfectant was he referring?
I'm sure we'll be looking forward to your next criticism of the Scottish nationalism cause and applause for Unionists.
Now I've managed to pretty much criticize most people on most issues while I've been on PB but as I don't follow whatever the centrist dad herd is its only those thoughts which go against the approved groupthink which get noticed.
Now if you want some criticism of Trump then let me offer something which might be new for PB - sometimes, there is something weirdly homoerotic about Trump. See his 'handsome' comments about both NYC mayor Mamdami and Syria's President. For that matter there's something homoerotic about Hegseth as well. Though Hegseth comes across as a wannabe 'Spartan' tough guy whereas Trump is more of a creepy old perv.
As for Trump's disinfectant comment I would assume he was talking about uv light as a disinfectant as that was what he continued to babble on about. If Trump had been talking about bleach then he likely would have said bleach.
And if Trump had really advocated injecting bleach wouldn't he have done so explicitly and on multiple occasions ? Instead of this sole musing about disinfectant and uv light ?
If your argument is that Trump is stupid enough to think you can inject light then, well, maybe you're onto something.
The latest borrowing figures show how bad her stewadship has been. And thats before she craps all over us the latest set of tax screw ups.
Now she has a war to blame everything on so nothing is her fault.
That was partly due to some debt repayments which normally go out in January going out in February. They have upgraded the surplus from January .
Overall net borrowing is still expected to come in well under the original OBR forecasts from last November . It’s by no means great but I’m beginning to warm to Reeves especially after her speech the other day .
Me too. Rejoin is a vote winner. Ideally without Starmer to bugger it up
The latest borrowing figures show how bad her stewadship has been. And thats before she craps all over us the latest set of tax screw ups.
Now she has a war to blame everything on so nothing is her fault.
You don’t want tax increases and it’s not possible to cut the ever growing welfare bill as that’s pensions
Exactly how was Reeves supposed to reduce Borrowing
She should have started by not caving in on the 2 child cap and the other welfare reforms. Too late now they've let the benefits bill grow exponentially so clearly no headroom for the rainy days now and to come.
The 2 child cap is peanuts relatively and creates a whole different set of issues.
I suspect there is a lot of evidence that shows the cap actually costs more money than it saves - the anecdotal evidence I’ve seen screams not saving money
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
100% sabotage, but it'll never come out. The Ford has been deployed for 255 days and that's were discipline starts to break down no matter how effective the command structure. We did 175 days on the Vinson and by then every man, woman and machine on the ship was comprehensively broken.
"We'd have LOVED to have led the line into the Straits of Hormuz, but you know, since the laundry fire - no Whites...."
Can a ship the size of the Ford get through the Suez Canal? And had it done so it would have been quite a large target for the Houthis as it approached Bab el Mandeb! Even if it did, as it would, shoot back.
Ford had gone through Suez at the point where it turned back and went through the Canal again. It was lurking in northern part of the Red Sea to stay out of range of the Houthi missiles.
King Charles is due to visit the US on 27-29 April for a mini state visit. I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM. Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
He is actually going for the 250th anniversary of US Independence, as it will celebrate the removal of his ancestor King George III from the position of head of state of the American colonies leading to Presidents like Trump now as US head of state I doubt he would be that bothered at not going but diplomatically he has to go
Why should we be forced to go along to celebrate them kicking us out? Maybe we should invite Trump over to help us celebrate that time we burned down the White House.
Counter-factuals are always speculative, but I wonder how things would have turned out, had the rebels lost.
Would slavery have ended sooner, or would the US civil war have been fought across the whole British empire?
There would be less of an imperative to expand Westward, so one could expect a bigger Mexico, an independent Hawaii, and perhaps a Russian presence on the West Coast. There might even be American Indian states.
The US would have achieved independence at the same time as Canada, in 1931.
1812 wouldn't have happened so Canada and the US would likely be one country. The colonists had already dealt with their main competitor, the French. I suspect little difference with the push towards the west. Main point though, the revolutionaries would have perceived it as a temporary loss and would have eventually prevailed.
I think the colonies would push West, but I doubt if the British would have had the same interest in encouraging mass migration from Europe. They had far more interest in trading with Latin America, than conquering, so I expect California, Arizona etc. remain Mexican. They would have imposed unequal treaties on the Indians, but would be more likely to honour their terms than an independent US government. The UK explicitly ruled out efforts to seize Hawaii in the 1840’s, so I think it would remain independent.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
The last 2 weeks will have helped him remain in post, but I'm no longer bullish over Starmers long term survival chances.
How many more defeats will Labour be able to take after the inevitable skelping in May? They haven't led a UK opinion poll for almost a year, and are now finding it tough competing for second with the Tories and Greens. That's no good when they are fighting big elections in Wales and Scotland in 7 weeks.
I cant see Anas and Jackie Baillie etc putting up and shutting up - Slab have more than 30 MPs, they should be more competitive than this.
Once they start losing more councillors, and party activists are tempted by what the Greens offer, MPs will feel more nervous about their own jobs.
We could have a situation similar to what Corbyn faced in 2016, where the challenger is easily faced down, I think that is more likely than no challenge at all. If someone in the upper reaches of the party doesn't grasp the issue in May, we are then looking at conference season for a challenge, and so it drags on.
It is very hard to regain support once a PMs ratings go very negative. The saving grace for SKS is he is up against an outfit who haven't governed nationally, and Lab MPs tend to be spineless when it comes to leadership challenges.
Eventually the dam will break and we will see a challenge, its not a straight Tory/Lab fight any more, and I think activists will be aware they are firefighting various parties on many fronts
The latest borrowing figures show how bad her stewadship has been. And thats before she craps all over us the latest set of tax screw ups.
Now she has a war to blame everything on so nothing is her fault.
You don’t want tax increases and it’s not possible to cut the ever growing welfare bill as that’s pensions
Exactly how was Reeves supposed to reduce Borrowing
She should have started by not caving in on the 2 child cap and the other welfare reforms. Too late now they've let the benefits bill grow exponentially so clearly no headroom for the rainy days now and to come.
The 2 child cap is peanuts relatively and creates a whole different set of issues.
I suspect there is a lot of evidence that shows the cap actually costs more money than it saves - the anecdotal evidence I’ve seen screams not saving money
The two child cap isn't peanuts but it does a lot of damage for the relatively small amount it saves and yes it has significant consequential costs.
Nice people think it's wrong to punish children simply for existing. The others think it's good politics.
In the UK, we worry about replacing Churchill with a badger on a banknote. No such worries for Trump, who is just putting himself on a gold coin: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywxvgynr2o
Sadly, the BBC News overnight intern responsible for mindlessly copying US media has used the American spelling in the headline: "24-karat gold".
Could have been 24-carrot....
Moron
(Please check Cymraeg before flagging me....)
Eh??? Not only have I not flagged you - you haven't posted anything to flag!
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Trump never said to inject bleach, he did muse about researching if uv light could work as the equivalent of disinfectant inside the body.
Its strange that given all the things Trump has actually said and done that people still repeat bollox that he never said.
He also mused about injecting bleach. It's strange that people want to deny that.
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
So why did you feel the need to use a different word to what Trump actually said ?
Ok Mr I'm Impartial But The Left Is So Terrible I Am Always Forced To Criticise Them Exclusively, as an expert on what Trump meant, to which disinfectant was he referring?
I'm sure we'll be looking forward to your next criticism of the Scottish nationalism cause and applause for Unionists.
Now I've managed to pretty much criticize most people on most issues while I've been on PB but as I don't follow whatever the centrist dad herd is its only those thoughts which go against the approved groupthink which get noticed.
Now if you want some criticism of Trump then let me offer something which might be new for PB - sometimes, there is something weirdly homoerotic about Trump. See his 'handsome' comments about both NYC mayor Mamdami and Syria's President. For that matter there's something homoerotic about Hegseth as well. Though Hegseth comes across as a wannabe 'Spartan' tough guy whereas Trump is more of a creepy old perv.
As for Trump's disinfectant comment I would assume he was talking about uv light as a disinfectant as that was what he continued to babble on about. If Trump had been talking about bleach then he likely would have said bleach.
And if Trump had really advocated injecting bleach wouldn't he have done so explicitly and on multiple occasions ? Instead of this sole musing about disinfectant and uv light ?
If your argument is that Trump is stupid enough to think you can inject light then, well, maybe you're onto something.
Trump isn't an educated man, let alone a man with a scientific education.
So he wouldn't know either the science or its vocabulary,
I dare say he had heard something about uv sun tanning light and X rays before.
And lets not forget there was no shortage of mistakes and disagreements about covid among experienced scientists both at the time and subsequently.
The latest borrowing figures show how bad her stewadship has been. And thats before she craps all over us the latest set of tax screw ups.
Now she has a war to blame everything on so nothing is her fault.
You don’t want tax increases and it’s not possible to cut the ever growing welfare bill as that’s pensions
Exactly how was Reeves supposed to reduce Borrowing
She should have started by not caving in on the 2 child cap and the other welfare reforms. Too late now they've let the benefits bill grow exponentially so clearly no headroom for the rainy days now and to come.
The 2 child cap is peanuts relatively and creates a whole different set of issues.
I suspect there is a lot of evidence that shows the cap actually costs more money than it saves - the anecdotal evidence I’ve seen screams not saving money
The two child cap isn't peanuts but it does a lot of damage for the relatively small amount it saves and yes it has significant consequential costs.
Nice people think it's wrong to punish children simply for existing. The others think it's good politics.
No, why should taxpayers fund those on universal credit to have more than 2 children when not working? An increase in standard child benefit would be far more sensible
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
The last 2 weeks will have helped him remain in post, but I'm no longer bullish over Starmers long term survival chances.
How many more defeats will Labour be able to take after the inevitable skelping in May? They haven't led a UK opinion poll for almost a year, and are now finding it tough competing for second with the Tories and Greens. That's no good when they are fighting big elections in Wales and Scotland in 7 weeks.
I cant see Anas and Jackie Baillie etc putting up and shutting up - Slab have more than 30 MPs, they should be more competitive than this.
Once they start losing more councillors, and party activists are tempted by what the Greens offer, MPs will feel more nervous about their own jobs.
We could have a situation similar to what Corbyn faced in 2016, where the challenger is easily faced down, I think that is more likely than no challenge at all. If someone in the upper reaches of the party doesn't grasp the issue in May, we are then looking at conference season for a challenge, and so it drags on.
It is very hard to regain support once a PMs ratings go very negative. The saving grace for SKS is he is up against an outfit who haven't governed nationally, and Lab MPs tend to be spineless when it comes to leadership challenges.
Eventually the dam will break and we will see a challenge, its not a straight Tory/Lab fight any more, and I think activists will be aware they are firefighting various parties on many fronts
As long as Labour are second in May they remain the main anti Reform alternative and SKS stays, though Kemi likely goes in that scenario
In the UK, we worry about replacing Churchill with a badger on a banknote. No such worries for Trump, who is just putting himself on a gold coin: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywxvgynr2o
Sadly, the BBC News overnight intern responsible for mindlessly copying US media has used the American spelling in the headline: "24-karat gold".
Could have been 24-carrot....
Moron
(Please check Cymraeg before flagging me....)
Eh??? Not only have I not flagged you - you haven't posted anything to flag!
King Charles is due to visit the US on 27-29 April for a mini state visit. I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM. Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
He is actually going for the 250th anniversary of US Independence, as it will celebrate the removal of his ancestor King George III from the position of head of state of the American colonies leading to Presidents like Trump now as US head of state I doubt he would be that bothered at not going but diplomatically he has to go
Why should we be forced to go along to celebrate them kicking us out? Maybe we should invite Trump over to help us celebrate that time we burned down the White House.
Counter-factuals are always speculative, but I wonder how things would have turned out, had the rebels lost.
Would slavery have ended sooner, or would the US civil war have been fought across the whole British empire?
There would be less of an imperative to expand Westward, so one could expect a bigger Mexico, an independent Hawaii, and perhaps a Russian presence on the West Coast. There might even be American Indian states.
The US would have achieved independence at the same time as Canada, in 1931.
1812 wouldn't have happened so Canada and the US would likely be one country. The colonists had already dealt with their main competitor, the French. I suspect little difference with the push towards the west. Main point though, the revolutionaries would have perceived it as a temporary loss and would have eventually prevailed.
I think the colonies would push West, but I doubt if the British would have had the same interest in encouraging mass migration from Europe. They had far more interest in trading with Latin America, than conquering, so I expect California, Arizona etc. remain Mexican. They would have imposed unequal treaties on the Indians, but would be more likely to honour their terms than an independent US government. The UK explicitly ruled out efforts to seize Hawaii in the 1840’s, so I think it would remain independent.
If slavery had ended in the 1830s then Texas might have remained independent.
That, together with the California gold rush, might have led to some three way conflict.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
For such a catastrophe as Trump's second term there is more than enough blame to go around.
There is a special place in Hell for Starmer for inviting Trump and Melania on a second state visit.
Its called diplomacy, The fact that he is a **** of the highest order doesn't stop him being the president of the USA. Its easy for us dweebs on pb to go all student politics but the grown ups live in the real world.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
For such a catastrophe as Trump's second term there is more than enough blame to go around.
There is a special place in Hell for Starmer for inviting Trump and Melania on a second state visit.
Its called diplomacy, The fact that he is a **** of the highest order doesn't stop him being the president of the USA. Its easy for us dweebs on pb to go all student politics but the grown ups live in the real world.
So you’re saying without that magic invitation popped out of Starmer’s inner pocket Trump would have been publicly shitting all over the UK in his customary puréed cauliflower brained way?
I dont think that's one they were ever likely to win... D and G on the other hand ....
The 'vetting' seems odd. Not even sure if any of the previoua local elections candidates (who polled well) have been considered
Ross Lambie from Hamilton by election didnt even make it!
Galloway was gone in my estimation. Maybe back on for a hold or maybe SNP gain now. Not sure
I'm thinking Tory hold. Flinging these randoms in to bat for Reform 7 weeks before the vote may work on the list, its harder to take down an incumbent of 10 years
There is no local democracy with the selections, its clearly a top down imposition. Took ITV around 6 hours (maybe less) to find her previous posts
Define "Muslim public prayers" - our local Masjid in the Barking Road is so small all those trying to pray on a Friday have to pray outside - now, to be clear, that is NOT on the King's Highway but in what you could call the front garden (they are looking to expand and I think they have bought the Albanian cafe next door) but it is still "public" in that anyone walking by can see them pray but it is on private property so how would Farage's latest bout of inanity deal with that?
We wouldn’t want to stop individuals praying but mass prayer is banned in many Muslim countries in the Middle East itself. So, yes, we have to stop this kind of mass demonstration, provocative demonstration, in historic British sites.
Nigel is using states in the Middle East as a model for limiting British freedoms. This guy is dangerous.
WSJ: The base case, several oil officials in Saudi Arabia’s said, is that oil prices could soar past $180 a barrel if the disruptions persist until late April.
Proving that, if Reform forms the next government, we don't have a prayer
Reform will protect Christian values by banning their public expression because of their Law of Unintended Consequences stemming from every twatterance from Farages gob
I dont think that's one they were ever likely to win... D and G on the other hand ....
The 'vetting' seems odd. Not even sure if any of the previoua local elections candidates (who polled well) have been considered
Ross Lambie from Hamilton by election didnt even make it!
Galloway was gone in my estimation. Maybe back on for a hold or maybe SNP gain now. Not sure
I'm thinking Tory hold. Flinging these randoms in to bat for Reform 7 weeks before the vote may work on the list, its harder to take down an incumbent of 10 years
There is no local democracy with the selections, its clearly a top down imposition. Took ITV around 6 hours (maybe less) to find her previous posts
Could be. I'm more confident of West Aberdeenshire being a hold now after pissing off the Royal ward
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
Proving that, if Reform forms the next government, we don't have a prayer
Reform will protect Christian values by banning their public expression because of their Law of Unintended Consequences stemming from every twatterance from Farages gob
Personally, I'd be more than happy if Reform's crackdown on weird non-Christian religiosity took weird Christian religiosity down with it. First target: hymns in primary school assemblies.
Trump is studying plans to occupy or lay siege to Iran’s oil facility Kharg Island in an attempt to pressure the regime to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Axios reports.
WSJ: The base case, several oil officials in Saudi Arabia’s said, is that oil prices could soar past $180 a barrel if the disruptions persist until late April.
We wouldn’t want to stop individuals praying but mass prayer is banned in many Muslim countries in the Middle East itself. So, yes, we have to stop this kind of mass demonstration, provocative demonstration, in historic British sites.
Nigel is using states in the Middle East as a model for limiting British freedoms. This guy is dangerous.
Lol - ban public prayer because the Musims are turning us into the middle east... with the ban modelled on laws in Middle Eastern countries. What next, cut the hand off anyone practicing sharia law? Public stoning for anyone wearing a burqa?
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
To be fair, I've really aged in the past ten years too and I have a less stressful and public-facing job than he does. I occasionally look wistfully at photos of myself at 40, lamenting the loss of the youth I still had then, and wonder how I ever at 40 looked wistfully at photos of myself at 30 and lamented the loss of the youth I still had then.
What I can't get over is that the razing of South Beirut within the last fortnight has gone largely unreported in the legacy media.
Bibi has managed this under the cover of the BBC sane washing Trump's Iranian adventure.
Compare and contrast Simon Marks's withering expose of Trump madness on LBC with Sarah Smith's normalising the insanity.
I partially agree, but the BBC has a different job from LBC. Simon Marks is outstanding, but when does he make any effort to put across a diversity of opinions giving proper weight to the ones running counter to his (in my view correct) view? On a different aspect of LBC, James O'Brien has a three hour daily platform, accessible to almost 100% of the population, to promote a particular worldview. One I often agree with. How often does he give considered time to careful evaluation through judicious interviewing of articulate and able people of points of view he does not hold? How much time does this daily three hour bully pulpit devote to telling us the self evident untruth that the media is mostly a right wing conspiracy?
The fact O'Brien's programme is preceded by three hours of Ferrari seems to be an acceptable counterbalance, and Ferrari's show of itself justifies O' Brexit's thesis.
A good point, but the degree to which JO'B discusses things with (in this order) himself, dim people who have absurd and indefensible views, and people who largely agree with him already is stronger than it should be. His journalism is compelling but too flimsy. The generalised attacks on 'the right wing media' - always referring I think to stuff PBers don't much read/follow, Mail, Express, GB News etc - as if that's all there is gets boring.
To be fair, I've really aged in the past ten years too and I have a less stressful and public-facing job than he does. I occasionally look wistfully at photos of myself at 40, lamenting the loss of the youth I still had then, and wonder how I ever at 40 looked wistfully at photos of myself at 30 and lamented the loss of the youth I still had then.
Looking at a photo of a wedding recently I used to be literally half the man I am now. I found my appearance did not change much until I was 50 and after that I have increasingly identified with gargoyles. It happens to nearly all of us I'm afraid.
Proving that, if Reform forms the next government, we don't have a prayer
Reform will protect Christian values by banning their public expression because of their Law of Unintended Consequences stemming from every twatterance from Farages gob
Personally, I'd be more than happy if Reform's crackdown on weird non-Christian religiosity took weird Christian religiosity down with it. First target: hymns in primary school assemblies.
When i was at Junior School in the 1750s, the head used to present bible stories on a sticky flipboard. Just after handing out swimming certificates. They always were hotbeds of naff. Gnostics gnow the score
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
The last 2 weeks will have helped him remain in post, but I'm no longer bullish over Starmers long term survival chances.
How many more defeats will Labour be able to take after the inevitable skelping in May? They haven't led a UK opinion poll for almost a year, and are now finding it tough competing for second with the Tories and Greens. That's no good when they are fighting big elections in Wales and Scotland in 7 weeks.
I cant see Anas and Jackie Baillie etc putting up and shutting up - Slab have more than 30 MPs, they should be more competitive than this.
Once they start losing more councillors, and party activists are tempted by what the Greens offer, MPs will feel more nervous about their own jobs.
We could have a situation similar to what Corbyn faced in 2016, where the challenger is easily faced down, I think that is more likely than no challenge at all. If someone in the upper reaches of the party doesn't grasp the issue in May, we are then looking at conference season for a challenge, and so it drags on.
It is very hard to regain support once a PMs ratings go very negative. The saving grace for SKS is he is up against an outfit who haven't governed nationally, and Lab MPs tend to be spineless when it comes to leadership challenges.
Eventually the dam will break and we will see a challenge, its not a straight Tory/Lab fight any more, and I think activists will be aware they are firefighting various parties on many fronts
Labour are indeed going to receive an absolute "skelping" in May as you put it, and I think it is going to be even worse than anticipated. Remind yourself that many in Labour convinced themselves that they had hopes of retaining Gorton/Denton only to lose badly. Labour have been 3rd or 4th in every one of the last 5 opinion polls and generally do even worse at local elections than they do at general elections.
Virtually the entire PLP never mind just 20% are then going to be in shock and justly concerned for the future of their seats unless something changes. There is no need for Labour to be stuck with a leader for whom the vast majority of public have feelings ranging from disdain to contempt, and there will be no change without the leader changing.
And despite the mantra that Labour doesn't sack it's leaders, the relevant precedent is that from 2016, namely that MPs are willing to initiate a leadership contest when push comes to shove. Corbyn only survived then because of the membership, not the PLP. And Starmer won't win a members ballot, once a contest is triggered he'd be well advised to step down then with some dignity.
For me the only question now is whether a contest is initiated in May or a month or two later, but I think it's going to be May. Starmer is so dire that whoever wields the knife is I think going to receive credit for doing so, for many will be grateful for the chance of a reset. Rayner may still be tempted to hold off but she knows the other contenders will go for it so she will probably decide it's best to try to be first in the queue just like the rest.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Trump is studying plans to occupy or lay siege to Iran’s oil facility Kharg Island in an attempt to pressure the regime to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Axios reports.
Lol, from the in a hole, pass me a shovel school of military strategy.
Trump is studying plans to occupy or lay siege to Iran’s oil facility Kharg Island in an attempt to pressure the regime to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Axios reports.
Dropping a thousand mines around it should do the job. They need to be mines that the Americans can detonate remotely if the Iranians play nice.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
The last 2 weeks will have helped him remain in post, but I'm no longer bullish over Starmers long term survival chances.
How many more defeats will Labour be able to take after the inevitable skelping in May? They haven't led a UK opinion poll for almost a year, and are now finding it tough competing for second with the Tories and Greens. That's no good when they are fighting big elections in Wales and Scotland in 7 weeks.
I cant see Anas and Jackie Baillie etc putting up and shutting up - Slab have more than 30 MPs, they should be more competitive than this.
Once they start losing more councillors, and party activists are tempted by what the Greens offer, MPs will feel more nervous about their own jobs.
We could have a situation similar to what Corbyn faced in 2016, where the challenger is easily faced down, I think that is more likely than no challenge at all. If someone in the upper reaches of the party doesn't grasp the issue in May, we are then looking at conference season for a challenge, and so it drags on.
It is very hard to regain support once a PMs ratings go very negative. The saving grace for SKS is he is up against an outfit who haven't governed nationally, and Lab MPs tend to be spineless when it comes to leadership challenges.
Eventually the dam will break and we will see a challenge, its not a straight Tory/Lab fight any more, and I think activists will be aware they are firefighting various parties on many fronts
As long as Labour are second in May they remain the main anti Reform alternative and SKS stays, though Kemi likely goes in that scenario
Will Kemi go? With three years to the next general election, there will still be enough time to replace Kemi's replacement, so any rival is advised to hold their fire.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
The last 2 weeks will have helped him remain in post, but I'm no longer bullish over Starmers long term survival chances.
How many more defeats will Labour be able to take after the inevitable skelping in May? They haven't led a UK opinion poll for almost a year, and are now finding it tough competing for second with the Tories and Greens. That's no good when they are fighting big elections in Wales and Scotland in 7 weeks.
I cant see Anas and Jackie Baillie etc putting up and shutting up - Slab have more than 30 MPs, they should be more competitive than this.
Once they start losing more councillors, and party activists are tempted by what the Greens offer, MPs will feel more nervous about their own jobs.
We could have a situation similar to what Corbyn faced in 2016, where the challenger is easily faced down, I think that is more likely than no challenge at all. If someone in the upper reaches of the party doesn't grasp the issue in May, we are then looking at conference season for a challenge, and so it drags on.
It is very hard to regain support once a PMs ratings go very negative. The saving grace for SKS is he is up against an outfit who haven't governed nationally, and Lab MPs tend to be spineless when it comes to leadership challenges.
Eventually the dam will break and we will see a challenge, its not a straight Tory/Lab fight any more, and I think activists will be aware they are firefighting various parties on many fronts
As long as Labour are second in May they remain the main anti Reform alternative and SKS stays, though Kemi likely goes in that scenario
Will Kemi go? With three years to the next general election, there will still be enough time to replace Kemi's replacement, so any rival is advised to hold their fire.
One thing she doesn't seem to have grasped is what did Cameron and Starmer do when they became leader, you detoxify your brand. The best strategy is slow and steady, the public already really don't like Starmer, so half your job has been done (same as Tories after 14 years, but Starmer sped run that). What you need to do then is appear like a sensible alternative, especially when Reform are linked more closely to Trump and are an instant no for a lot of people.
You can have your outrider attack dogs, but you personally as the leader keep your powder dry and only go big on a seriously bad story for the current PM e.g. handling of Mandy appointment stinks and nobody like Mandy / Paedos so that easy win, getting in the weeds over culture war twitter stuff over who can pray where based upon one event is just moronic politics for a mainstream party.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
The last 2 weeks will have helped him remain in post, but I'm no longer bullish over Starmers long term survival chances.
How many more defeats will Labour be able to take after the inevitable skelping in May? They haven't led a UK opinion poll for almost a year, and are now finding it tough competing for second with the Tories and Greens. That's no good when they are fighting big elections in Wales and Scotland in 7 weeks.
I cant see Anas and Jackie Baillie etc putting up and shutting up - Slab have more than 30 MPs, they should be more competitive than this.
Once they start losing more councillors, and party activists are tempted by what the Greens offer, MPs will feel more nervous about their own jobs.
We could have a situation similar to what Corbyn faced in 2016, where the challenger is easily faced down, I think that is more likely than no challenge at all. If someone in the upper reaches of the party doesn't grasp the issue in May, we are then looking at conference season for a challenge, and so it drags on.
It is very hard to regain support once a PMs ratings go very negative. The saving grace for SKS is he is up against an outfit who haven't governed nationally, and Lab MPs tend to be spineless when it comes to leadership challenges.
Eventually the dam will break and we will see a challenge, its not a straight Tory/Lab fight any more, and I think activists will be aware they are firefighting various parties on many fronts
Labour are indeed going to receive an absolute "skelping" in May as you put it, and I think it is going to be even worse than anticipated. Remind yourself that many in Labour convinced themselves that they had hopes of retaining Gorton/Denton only to lose badly. Labour have been 3rd or 4th in every one of the last 5 opinion polls and generally do even worse at local elections than they do at general elections.
Virtually the entire PLP never mind just 20% are then going to be in shock and justly concerned for the future of their seats unless something changes. There is no need for Labour to be stuck with a leader for whom the vast majority of public have feelings ranging from disdain to contempt, and there will be no change without the leader changing.
And despite the mantra that Labour doesn't sack it's leaders, the relevant precedent is that from 2016, namely that MPs are willing to initiate a leadership contest when push comes to shove. Corbyn only survived then because of the membership, not the PLP. And Starmer won't win a members ballot, once a contest is triggered he'd be well advised to step down then with some dignity.
For me the only question now is whether a contest is initiated in May or a month or two later, but I think it's going to be May. Starmer is so dire that whoever wields the knife is I think going to receive credit for doing so, for many will be grateful for the chance of a reset. Rayner may still be tempted to hold off but she knows the other contenders will go for it so she will probably decide it's best to try to be first in the queue just like the rest.
Despite falling back, Reform remains 8 - 9% ahead of Labour, whose vote share is down 20% on Spring 2022. The Conservatives are down about 12%. It’s hard to see the results as anything but terrible for both parties.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
As pointed out, previously, we have bans on performative prayer by Christians (of a sort) outside abortion clinics.
So we have an operational precedent for the Process State types to create a process for (morality not included)
I find no difficulty in imagining that Chief Konstable Sir Ronald "Els" Savage of the Met (OBE, DIpSHIt) would pause only to request that the cleaner polish his awards for Muslim Community Relations before sending out the modern version of the TSG to hit @TheScreamingEagles for wearing a loud shoes in built up area.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators...
... to do what, exactly ?
The purpose of the restriction outside abortion clinics is entirely clear, and has nothing to do with banning a particular religion.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
As pointed out, previously, we have bans on performative prayer by Christians (of a sort) outside abortion clinics.
So we have an operational precedent for the Process State types to create a process for (morality not included)
I find no difficulty in imagining that Chief Konstable Sir Ronald "Els" Savage of the Met (OBE, DIpSHIt) would pause only to request that the cleaner polish his awards for Muslim Community Relations before sending out the modern version of the TSG to hit @TheScreamingEagles for wearing a loud shoes in built up area.
I don’t doubt there is a fair-sized minority of people who would eagerly ban the public profession of Christianity, so Christians should be opposed to supporting a ban on Muslim prayer.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
A Reform government will simply pass a law in Parliament declaring that prayer in public *anyware* is intimidating people. If they bother with that fig leaf.
If they banned Muslim prayer, well Parliament is supreme, remember.
Proving that, if Reform forms the next government, we don't have a prayer
Reform will protect Christian values by banning their public expression because of their Law of Unintended Consequences stemming from every twatterance from Farages gob
Personally, I'd be more than happy if Reform's crackdown on weird non-Christian religiosity took weird Christian religiosity down with it. First target: hymns in primary school assemblies.
Yes. When I was in primary school we sang wicked, sociopathic, weird, evil and dangerous words in hymns. They wrecked my life. An example was:
Splendours three, from God proceeding, May we ever love them true, Goodness, Truth, and Beauty heeding Ev'ry day, in all we do.
Truth never changes, And Beauty's her dress, And Good never changes, Which those two express.
When I first encountered Keats's 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' it helped me understand just what an evil man he was too, to think so well of beauty and truth. I have never recovered. These evils must never be visited on our vulnerable children.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
A Reform government will simply pass a law in Parliament declaring that prayer in public *anyware* is intimidating people. If they bother with that fig leaf.
If they banned Muslim prayer, well Parliament is supreme, remember.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators...
... to do what, exactly ?
The purpose of the restriction outside abortion clinics is entirely clear, and has nothing to do with banning a particular religion.
What comparable law are you proposing ?
That the (Fuck)wits of Refrom, if they have a majority in parliament will pass any number of laws banning stuff they don't like. Using primary legislation to strike down everything in their way.
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Ironically, the real Tom Moore broke the law, with abandon, in pursuit of heretics....
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
The last 2 weeks will have helped him remain in post, but I'm no longer bullish over Starmers long term survival chances.
How many more defeats will Labour be able to take after the inevitable skelping in May? They haven't led a UK opinion poll for almost a year, and are now finding it tough competing for second with the Tories and Greens. That's no good when they are fighting big elections in Wales and Scotland in 7 weeks.
I cant see Anas and Jackie Baillie etc putting up and shutting up - Slab have more than 30 MPs, they should be more competitive than this.
Once they start losing more councillors, and party activists are tempted by what the Greens offer, MPs will feel more nervous about their own jobs.
We could have a situation similar to what Corbyn faced in 2016, where the challenger is easily faced down, I think that is more likely than no challenge at all. If someone in the upper reaches of the party doesn't grasp the issue in May, we are then looking at conference season for a challenge, and so it drags on.
It is very hard to regain support once a PMs ratings go very negative. The saving grace for SKS is he is up against an outfit who haven't governed nationally, and Lab MPs tend to be spineless when it comes to leadership challenges.
Eventually the dam will break and we will see a challenge, its not a straight Tory/Lab fight any more, and I think activists will be aware they are firefighting various parties on many fronts
Labour are indeed going to receive an absolute "skelping" in May as you put it, and I think it is going to be even worse than anticipated. Remind yourself that many in Labour convinced themselves that they had hopes of retaining Gorton/Denton only to lose badly. Labour have been 3rd or 4th in every one of the last 5 opinion polls and generally do even worse at local elections than they do at general elections.
Virtually the entire PLP never mind just 20% are then going to be in shock and justly concerned for the future of their seats unless something changes. There is no need for Labour to be stuck with a leader for whom the vast majority of public have feelings ranging from disdain to contempt, and there will be no change without the leader changing.
And despite the mantra that Labour doesn't sack it's leaders, the relevant precedent is that from 2016, namely that MPs are willing to initiate a leadership contest when push comes to shove. Corbyn only survived then because of the membership, not the PLP. And Starmer won't win a members ballot, once a contest is triggered he'd be well advised to step down then with some dignity.
For me the only question now is whether a contest is initiated in May or a month or two later, but I think it's going to be May. Starmer is so dire that whoever wields the knife is I think going to receive credit for doing so, for many will be grateful for the chance of a reset. Rayner may still be tempted to hold off but she knows the other contenders will go for it so she will probably decide it's best to try to be first in the queue just like the rest.
Despite falling back, Reform remains 8 - 9% ahead of Labour, whose vote share is down 20% on Spring 2022. The Conservatives are down about 12%. It’s hard to see the results as anything but terrible for both parties.
True. But i'd point out Reform won a lot of very close races in 2025 on 30% NEV and in the ascendancy. This time theyll be (i think) much closer to 25% NEV and on the decline. I expect them to be on the wrong side of a number of close races. Whilst obviously having a good 'net' night. How they do in the 78 seats they are defending will be instructive
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
As pointed out, previously, we have bans on performative prayer by Christians (of a sort) outside abortion clinics.
So we have an operational precedent for the Process State types to create a process for (morality not included)
I find no difficulty in imagining that Chief Konstable Sir Ronald "Els" Savage of the Met (OBE, DIpSHIt) would pause only to request that the cleaner polish his awards for Muslim Community Relations before sending out the modern version of the TSG to hit @TheScreamingEagles for wearing a loud shoes in built up area.
So, what is the legal wording here? HYUFD seems to be implying, in his "As pointed out" sentence that the Abortion Clinic prayer limitations are specific to Christian prayer? The specific use of Christian in that sentence suggests that Muslim or Jewish prayer (for the unborn) outside an abortion clinic would be fine and dandy.
I suspect that is not the case, but am just checking.
Ha ha. What a prick. Completely unenforceable in any case. How do you prove that an assembly constitutes prayer or that the participants are Muslims? If Farage so wrecked our human rights law that this kind of thing became enforceable we would all be fucked, Muslim or otherwise.
If we can ban prayer outside abortion clinics then it can’t be beyond the wit of legislators.
Oh dear, we really are parotting braindead far right talking points today. You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
Funny that out of all the rich variety of moralising, oppressive. cultish religions apparently waiting to destroy Britishness that it’s the Christers that are hanging about in groups to bully women at potentially one of the worst moments of their lives.
And the unborn child is irrelevant I suppose? Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion of course except in the case of a risk to a woman's life, it is not just conservative Christian evangelicals and the Roman Catholic church anti
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
The last 2 weeks will have helped him remain in post, but I'm no longer bullish over Starmers long term survival chances.
How many more defeats will Labour be able to take after the inevitable skelping in May? They haven't led a UK opinion poll for almost a year, and are now finding it tough competing for second with the Tories and Greens. That's no good when they are fighting big elections in Wales and Scotland in 7 weeks.
I cant see Anas and Jackie Baillie etc putting up and shutting up - Slab have more than 30 MPs, they should be more competitive than this.
Once they start losing more councillors, and party activists are tempted by what the Greens offer, MPs will feel more nervous about their own jobs.
We could have a situation similar to what Corbyn faced in 2016, where the challenger is easily faced down, I think that is more likely than no challenge at all. If someone in the upper reaches of the party doesn't grasp the issue in May, we are then looking at conference season for a challenge, and so it drags on.
It is very hard to regain support once a PMs ratings go very negative. The saving grace for SKS is he is up against an outfit who haven't governed nationally, and Lab MPs tend to be spineless when it comes to leadership challenges.
Eventually the dam will break and we will see a challenge, its not a straight Tory/Lab fight any more, and I think activists will be aware they are firefighting various parties on many fronts
Labour are indeed going to receive an absolute "skelping" in May as you put it, and I think it is going to be even worse than anticipated. Remind yourself that many in Labour convinced themselves that they had hopes of retaining Gorton/Denton only to lose badly. Labour have been 3rd or 4th in every one of the last 5 opinion polls and generally do even worse at local elections than they do at general elections.
Virtually the entire PLP never mind just 20% are then going to be in shock and justly concerned for the future of their seats unless something changes. There is no need for Labour to be stuck with a leader for whom the vast majority of public have feelings ranging from disdain to contempt, and there will be no change without the leader changing.
And despite the mantra that Labour doesn't sack it's leaders, the relevant precedent is that from 2016, namely that MPs are willing to initiate a leadership contest when push comes to shove. Corbyn only survived then because of the membership, not the PLP. And Starmer won't win a members ballot, once a contest is triggered he'd be well advised to step down then with some dignity.
For me the only question now is whether a contest is initiated in May or a month or two later, but I think it's going to be May. Starmer is so dire that whoever wields the knife is I think going to receive credit for doing so, for many will be grateful for the chance of a reset. Rayner may still be tempted to hold off but she knows the other contenders will go for it so she will probably decide it's best to try to be first in the queue just like the rest.
Despite falling back, Reform remains 8 - 9% ahead of Labour, whose vote share is down 20% on Spring 2022. The Conservatives are down about 12%. It’s hard to see the results as anything but terrible for both parties.
True. But i'd point out Reform won a lot of very close races in 2025 on 30% NEV and in the ascendancy. This time theyll be (i think) much closer to 25% NEV and on the decline. I expect them to be on the wrong side of a number of close races. Whilst obviously having a good 'net' night. How they do in the 78 seats they are defending will be instructive
The thing is, last Spring, most polls were putting Labour narrowly ahead, in the mid 20’s. Now, the party is averaging 18%. The governing party almost always underperforms its poll rating, in local elections.
Comments
@bruceandy.bsky.social
💥 UK 10-year gilt yield just struck its highest level since July 2008 at 4.929%
He should go and sing "You'll be back" in full regalia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5JAjAR_AjY&list=RDi5JAjAR_AjY&start_radio=1
You'll be back, soon, you'll see
You'll remember you belong to me
You'll be back, time will tell
You'll remember that I served you well
Oceans rise, empires fall
We have seen each other through it all
And when push comes to shove
I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love!
The only people responsible for Trump are those that voted for him, everything that follows is on their hands.
By all accounts they met Trump a lot when they were children.
(Please check Cymraeg before flagging me....)
Now I've managed to pretty much criticize most people on most issues while I've been on PB but as I don't follow whatever the centrist dad herd is its only those thoughts which go against the approved groupthink which get noticed.
Now if you want some criticism of Trump then let me offer something which might be new for PB - sometimes, there is something weirdly homoerotic about Trump. See his 'handsome' comments about both NYC mayor Mamdami and Syria's President. For that matter there's something homoerotic about Hegseth as well. Though Hegseth comes across as a wannabe 'Spartan' tough guy whereas Trump is more of a creepy old perv.
As for Trump's disinfectant comment I would assume he was talking about uv light as a disinfectant as that was what he continued to babble on about. If Trump had been talking about bleach then he likely would have said bleach.
And if Trump had really advocated injecting bleach wouldn't he have done so explicitly and on multiple occasions ? Instead of this sole musing about disinfectant and uv light ?
https://x.com/sadiqkhan/status/2034937643570491438
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/19/nigel-farage-condemned-over-call-to-ban-public-prayer-for-muslims-in-the-uk
I suspect there is a lot of evidence that shows the cap actually costs more money than it saves - the anecdotal evidence I’ve seen screams not saving money
It started in America
Gordon off\
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGwFJh9idig
How many more defeats will Labour be able to take after the inevitable skelping in May? They haven't led a UK opinion poll for almost a year, and are now finding it tough competing for second with the Tories and Greens. That's no good when they are fighting big elections in Wales and Scotland in 7 weeks.
I cant see Anas and Jackie Baillie etc putting up and shutting up - Slab have more than 30 MPs, they should be more competitive than this.
Once they start losing more councillors, and party activists are tempted by what the Greens offer, MPs will feel more nervous about their own jobs.
We could have a situation similar to what Corbyn faced in 2016, where the challenger is easily faced down, I think that is more likely than no challenge at all. If someone in the upper reaches of the party doesn't grasp the issue in May, we are then looking at conference season for a challenge, and so it drags on.
It is very hard to regain support once a PMs ratings go very negative. The saving grace for SKS is he is up against an outfit who haven't governed nationally, and Lab MPs tend to be spineless when it comes to leadership challenges.
Eventually the dam will break and we will see a challenge, its not a straight Tory/Lab fight any more, and I think activists will be aware they are firefighting various parties on many fronts
Nice people think it's wrong to punish children simply for existing. The others think it's good politics.
So he wouldn't know either the science or its vocabulary,
I dare say he had heard something about uv sun tanning light and X rays before.
And lets not forget there was no shortage of mistakes and disagreements about covid among experienced scientists both at the time and subsequently.
1 down, 72 to go
Good vetting lads
The 'vetting' seems odd. Not even sure if any of the previoua local elections candidates (who polled well) have been considered
Offord running the 'let c**** be c****' strategy
That, together with the California gold rush, might have led to some three way conflict.
Tomorrow's front page: Paolo Nutini caught starting pro-IRA chant as shocking St Patrick’s Day pub sing-along blasted
https://x.com/scottishsun/status/2034398856260051401?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Galloway was gone in my estimation. Maybe back on for a hold or maybe SNP gain now. Not sure
When I think I could happily vote reform they do guff like this
There is no local democracy with the selections, its clearly a top down imposition. Took ITV around 6 hours (maybe less) to find her previous posts
Define "Muslim public prayers" - our local Masjid in the Barking Road is so small all those trying to pray on a Friday have to pray outside - now, to be clear, that is NOT on the King's Highway but in what you could call the front garden (they are looking to expand and I think they have bought the Albanian cafe next door) but it is still "public" in that anyone walking by can see them pray but it is on private property so how would Farage's latest bout of inanity deal with that?
We wouldn’t want to stop individuals praying but mass prayer is banned in many Muslim countries in the Middle East itself. So, yes, we have to stop this kind of mass demonstration, provocative demonstration, in historic British sites.
Nigel is using states in the Middle East as a model for limiting British freedoms. This guy is dangerous.
WSJ: The base case, several oil officials in Saudi Arabia’s said, is that oil prices could soar past $180 a barrel if the disruptions persist until late April.
I went to the mosque today, it was hell.
I'm more confident of West Aberdeenshire being a hold now after pissing off the Royal ward
Trump is studying plans to occupy or lay siege to Iran’s oil facility Kharg Island in an attempt to pressure the regime to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Axios reports.
I occasionally look wistfully at photos of myself at 40, lamenting the loss of the youth I still had then, and wonder how I ever at 40 looked wistfully at photos of myself at 30 and lamented the loss of the youth I still had then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGwFJh9idig
Gnostics gnow the score
Virtually the entire PLP never mind just 20% are then going to be in shock and justly concerned for the future of their seats unless something changes. There is no need for Labour to be stuck with a leader for whom the vast majority of public have feelings ranging from disdain to contempt, and there will be no change without the leader changing.
And despite the mantra that Labour doesn't sack it's leaders, the relevant precedent is that from 2016, namely that MPs are willing to initiate a leadership contest when push comes to shove. Corbyn only survived then because of the membership, not the PLP. And Starmer won't win a members ballot, once a contest is triggered he'd be well advised to step down then with some dignity.
For me the only question now is whether a contest is initiated in May or a month or two later, but I think it's going to be May. Starmer is so dire that whoever wields the knife is I think going to receive credit for doing so, for many will be grateful for the chance of a reset. Rayner may still be tempted to hold off but she knows the other contenders will go for it so she will probably decide it's best to try to be first in the queue just like the rest.
You can ban protests in specific places, sure. So you could ban anyone from Trafalgar Square. The ban on "prayer" outside abortion clinics is a ban on any gathering designed to intimidate users of abortion clinics. It would apply to Muslims praying, Christians praying or atheists protesting without prayer. If the abortion clinic law attempted to ban Christian prayer specifically it would be laughed out of court and rightly so.
This will be open sourced at the same time.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2034773787749884177
You can have your outrider attack dogs, but you personally as the leader keep your powder dry and only go big on a seriously bad story for the current PM e.g. handling of Mandy appointment stinks and nobody like Mandy / Paedos so that easy win, getting in the weeds over culture war twitter stuff over who can pray where based upon one event is just moronic politics for a mainstream party.
So we have an operational precedent for the Process State types to create a process for (morality not included)
I find no difficulty in imagining that Chief Konstable Sir Ronald "Els" Savage of the Met (OBE, DIpSHIt) would pause only to request that the cleaner polish his awards for Muslim Community Relations before sending out the modern version of the TSG to hit @TheScreamingEagles for wearing a loud shoes in built up area.
https://youtu.be/32KRwzJsy1o?si=vySZbDg0HB5_hYgX
The purpose of the restriction outside abortion clinics is entirely clear, and has nothing to do with banning a particular religion.
What comparable law are you proposing ?
I really thought this Farage iteration would be different.
If they banned Muslim prayer, well Parliament is supreme, remember.
Splendours three, from God proceeding,
May we ever love them true,
Goodness, Truth, and Beauty heeding
Ev'ry day, in all we do.
Truth never changes,
And Beauty's her dress,
And Good never changes,
Which those two express.
When I first encountered Keats's 'Ode on a Grecian Urn' it helped me understand just what an evil man he was too, to think so well of beauty and truth. I have never recovered. These evils must never be visited on our vulnerable children.
And Farage gets tips from the US right.
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
Ironically, the real Tom Moore broke the law, with abandon, in pursuit of heretics....
This time theyll be (i think) much closer to 25% NEV and on the decline. I expect them to be on the wrong side of a number of close races.
Whilst obviously having a good 'net' night.
How they do in the 78 seats they are defending will be instructive
As a wise chap of this parish put it - if someone tells you who they are, believe them.
I suspect that is not the case, but am just checking.
Contrast with James the Clever one who greet them with a cuppa and a nice biscuit
The Tories are also down on last Spring.