It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
Interesting article about Dubai and why it's likely to see off the current attacks from Iran thanks to a highly successful economy based on immigration and a massive sovereign wealth fund.
On topic the Tories won't do a deal with Farage until they do one.
Somewhat more positive than most articles written about Dubai in the past six weeks, many of which written by people who had never been here for more than a week’s holiday.
There has been a lot of hysterical media about some exodus from Dubai . When the reality is even during the last month everyday life has gone on as normal for the vast majority of people .
Correct. A lot of companies are WFH, to avoid half the company being in the same place if something happens. Multinationals had longstanding disaster plans to evacuate key staff, which was done immediately the situation started.
I don’t know anyone who’s quit a salaried job. A few of the digital nomad and ‘influencer’ types have left temporarily, as have a number of wives and kids as schools are also remote.
Hospitality sector is struggling with the lack of tourists, and there have been some furloughs there. On the other hand the fancy hotel resorts are doing some fantastic resident offers at the moment, 5* resort for £150-£200 a night.
The death toll in UAE is 10 for a population of 11m. That’s a couple of days’ worth of road accidents. Obviously sad for those affected, but perspective…
So are you pro WFH? I thought you’d be the kind of person to say get back to the office but maybe I’m wrong and happy to say so.
I’ve done a lot of work in both WFH and office-based environments over the years, and there’s both positives and negatives to either arrangement.
While there’s a war or pandemic on, it’s absolutely the right thing to do from a risk management perspective. It’s also less productive though, unless your company is set up with the correct processes and business tools to work remotely for more than a couple of weeks. This is the public sector weakness, where they mostly measure inputs rather than outputs.
OTOH not commuting is definitely a positive for everyone, except the restaurants and bars in the business district.
The worst-of-all-worlds scenario is to have a massive expensive office building left mostly empty. You’re taking the hit to productivity without saving the money from actually closing the office.
Three days in the office, two at home seems to be a good compromise ?
The Tories would not survive a pact with Reform. They may not survive without one, but them the breaks
The LibDems survived a pact with the Tories - but only just.
Perhaps there should be a Tories-Reform pact as we all know who are the bigger sharks.
Did the LibDems survive? It’s too early to tell.
You could make an argument that they have been fatally wounded; they don’t just realize it yet.
20 years ago they would have been the obvious candidate to benefit from the current political turmoil. Today they are an after thought.
72 MPs is the largest third party representation in a century, so they clearly survived. Likely to have a good set of May elections in England too, though will be overshadowed in the headlines by the Reform and Green surges, and Con and Labour meltdown.
You are taking too short term a view.
They did well in a generational melt down for the Tories.
But if they are supplanted as the natural left party of protest what’s their USP?
The Waitrose Belt National Party. Not so much a protest party as a mild grumbling party. It's a decent slice of the electorate and of the country. Maybe 100 seats next time. It doesn't get the Lib Dems anywhere near a majority, but that's no change on the last century.
It's one of the curious things about current politics- the growth of "People Like Us" parties. It started with the Nats in Scotland, now in Wales as well. The Lib Dem map is a bit like that, except their nation is like one of those crazy old counties with loads on enclaves and exclaves. The Greens seem to be heading that way; especially under Polanski, they seem to be settling as the Voice of Funky Young Urbanites.
Not sure why it's happened, but it doesn't feel like a good thing. It will be an absolute bugger if these fairly parochial groups need to agree a plan for national government.
Part of me thinks it's a good thing as there are plenty of examples in recent history of large swathes of the population not being well represented by either of the main parties. A lot of the white working class were too socially conservative to find a home in the modern Labour Party and too dependent on the state to be well represented by the Conservatives. You could say the same thing about socially liberal and economically conservative voters post Brexit who are now gravitating to the Lib Dems. The only problem is we as a country don't have a sensible attitude to coalitions and see the compromises needed to form a government as selling out
The basic problem, surely, arose from the fact that our Parliament was designed with two 'sides'; a Government and an Opposition. "If you're not with us, you're against us!" The front benches are even far enough apart that two swords cannot meet.
Yet that was in the early 19th century when Parliament was rebuilt after fire and back then most men and certainly not most working class men could vote and no women of any class could vote. So political parties largely just represented rich and property owning elite men
What was the layout before the 1830's rebuild? I thought that, as with the WWII rebuild, it was as it is now.
Shouting abuse across the Chamber has never struck me as a very adult method of running a country.
Little difference on the point, in the 18th century less than 5% of the population could vote. Though yes when we had only 2 parties with over 3/4 of MPs and votes as we did even in 2017 and 2019 it made sense more than now where barely more than a third are backing the Tories and Labour
My comments are nothing whatsoever to do with the percentage of the population who could vote.
I'm simply interested in the layout of the Parliament. Would it be better if it was semi-circular, as is the case in, for example New Zealand and, I think, Scotland?
The reason they are laid out like that is because the Commons originally met in the chapel of the Palace of Westminster. The MPs sat in the pews, arranged either side as in a Cathedral, and the Speaker sat on a chair placed on the steps up to the altar.
When they were burned down in 1837 they kept the general layout because that was what they were familiar with, but built the chambers in a modern (well, for 1840) style.
Interesting article about Dubai and why it's likely to see off the current attacks from Iran thanks to a highly successful economy based on immigration and a massive sovereign wealth fund.
On topic the Tories won't do a deal with Farage until they do one.
Somewhat more positive than most articles written about Dubai in the past six weeks, many of which written by people who had never been here for more than a week’s holiday.
There has been a lot of hysterical media about some exodus from Dubai . When the reality is even during the last month everyday life has gone on as normal for the vast majority of people .
Correct. A lot of companies are WFH, to avoid half the company being in the same place if something happens. Multinationals had longstanding disaster plans to evacuate key staff, which was done immediately the situation started.
I don’t know anyone who’s quit a salaried job. A few of the digital nomad and ‘influencer’ types have left temporarily, as have a number of wives and kids as schools are also remote.
Hospitality sector is struggling with the lack of tourists, and there have been some furloughs there. On the other hand the fancy hotel resorts are doing some fantastic resident offers at the moment, 5* resort for £150-£200 a night.
The death toll in UAE is 10 for a population of 11m. That’s a couple of days’ worth of road accidents. Obviously sad for those affected, but perspective…
So are you pro WFH? I thought you’d be the kind of person to say get back to the office but maybe I’m wrong and happy to say so.
The WFH thing is being misunderstood. Many are not against it per se but are cross that people (particularly the more senior with power, inc public sector) cynically used the pandemic to refuse to return to their prior workplace in order to improve their terms and conditions (with no loss of salary). Many of these people are still WFH.
I work from home more than I did before the pandemic, I’m fairly senior in my current organisation. That’s the policy of my current company.
I can’t see the point in companies like Amazon forcing people in every day, can you?
If they work in the warehouse…
Yes but for say tech roles, why?
Robots will be doing the warehouse work and the tech work before too long. No employees, no problem.
That is very much Bezos plan.
I’m sure the guy who laid off a third of the Washington Post staff leaving many of the foreign reporters stranded abroad having to pay their own passage home would treat his Amazon employees fairly.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
Israeli propaganda of course.
Just blindly believing everything that portrays Israel’s enemies as anything other than angels is “israeli propaganda” is just insane. The truth is much more likely to be somewhere in the middle.
The Tories would not survive a pact with Reform. They may not survive without one, but them the breaks
The LibDems survived a pact with the Tories - but only just.
Perhaps there should be a Tories-Reform pact as we all know who are the bigger sharks.
Did the LibDems survive? It’s too early to tell.
You could make an argument that they have been fatally wounded; they don’t just realize it yet.
20 years ago they would have been the obvious candidate to benefit from the current political turmoil. Today they are an after thought.
72 MPs is the largest third party representation in a century, so they clearly survived. Likely to have a good set of May elections in England too, though will be overshadowed in the headlines by the Reform and Green surges, and Con and Labour meltdown.
You are taking too short term a view.
They did well in a generational melt down for the Tories.
But if they are supplanted as the natural left party of protest what’s their USP?
The Waitrose Belt National Party. Not so much a protest party as a mild grumbling party. It's a decent slice of the electorate and of the country. Maybe 100 seats next time. It doesn't get the Lib Dems anywhere near a majority, but that's no change on the last century.
It's one of the curious things about current politics- the growth of "People Like Us" parties. It started with the Nats in Scotland, now in Wales as well. The Lib Dem map is a bit like that, except their nation is like one of those crazy old counties with loads on enclaves and exclaves. The Greens seem to be heading that way; especially under Polanski, they seem to be settling as the Voice of Funky Young Urbanites.
Not sure why it's happened, but it doesn't feel like a good thing. It will be an absolute bugger if these fairly parochial groups need to agree a plan for national government.
Part of me thinks it's a good thing as there are plenty of examples in recent history of large swathes of the population not being well represented by either of the main parties. A lot of the white working class were too socially conservative to find a home in the modern Labour Party and too dependent on the state to be well represented by the Conservatives. You could say the same thing about socially liberal and economically conservative voters post Brexit who are now gravitating to the Lib Dems. The only problem is we as a country don't have a sensible attitude to coalitions and see the compromises needed to form a government as selling out
The basic problem, surely, arose from the fact that our Parliament was designed with two 'sides'; a Government and an Opposition. "If you're not with us, you're against us!" The front benches are even far enough apart that two swords cannot meet.
Yet that was in the early 19th century when Parliament was rebuilt after fire and back then most men and certainly not most working class men could vote and no women of any class could vote. So political parties largely just represented rich and property owning elite men
What was the layout before the 1830's rebuild? I thought that, as with the WWII rebuild, it was as it is now.
Shouting abuse across the Chamber has never struck me as a very adult method of running a country.
Little difference on the point, in the 18th century less than 5% of the population could vote. Though yes when we had only 2 parties with over 3/4 of MPs and votes as we did even in 2017 and 2019 it made sense more than now where barely more than a third are backing the Tories and Labour
My comments are nothing whatsoever to do with the percentage of the population who could vote.
I'm simply interested in the layout of the Parliament. Would it be better if it was semi-circular, as is the case in, for example New Zealand and, I think, Scotland?
The reason they are laid out like that is because the Commons originally met in the chapel of the Palace of Westminster. The MPs sat in the pews, arranged either side as in a Cathedral, and the Speaker sat on a chair placed on the steps up to the altar.
When they were burned down in 1837 they kept the general layout because that was what they were familiar with, but built the chambers in a modern (well, for 1840) style.
Ah, thank you. Or diolch yn fawr, if you prefer.
I seem to recall reading that, after the Chamber was bombed in WWII it was suggested that the rebuild should be with a semi-circular layout, but that Churchill was dead against it.
The SOPNs are trickling out and looks like Greens have greatly upped their candidates but are a little short in some areas of London - Barking and Dagenham being a surprising example. LDs will have fewest of the main 5 but not short of what you'd expect so far. Tories are struggling to fill some of the metros - S Tyneside, Knowsley, Burnley etc Labour with a few gaps but look fully loaded in London Reform so far fully represented everywhere outside London but there are gaps in the inner London boroughs - they are standimg 1 in a lot of 3 member wards in the likes of Hackney, Waltham Forest etc
Interesting article about Dubai and why it's likely to see off the current attacks from Iran thanks to a highly successful economy based on immigration and a massive sovereign wealth fund.
On topic the Tories won't do a deal with Farage until they do one.
Somewhat more positive than most articles written about Dubai in the past six weeks, many of which written by people who had never been here for more than a week’s holiday.
There has been a lot of hysterical media about some exodus from Dubai . When the reality is even during the last month everyday life has gone on as normal for the vast majority of people .
Correct. A lot of companies are WFH, to avoid half the company being in the same place if something happens. Multinationals had longstanding disaster plans to evacuate key staff, which was done immediately the situation started.
I don’t know anyone who’s quit a salaried job. A few of the digital nomad and ‘influencer’ types have left temporarily, as have a number of wives and kids as schools are also remote.
Hospitality sector is struggling with the lack of tourists, and there have been some furloughs there. On the other hand the fancy hotel resorts are doing some fantastic resident offers at the moment, 5* resort for £150-£200 a night.
The death toll in UAE is 10 for a population of 11m. That’s a couple of days’ worth of road accidents. Obviously sad for those affected, but perspective…
So are you pro WFH? I thought you’d be the kind of person to say get back to the office but maybe I’m wrong and happy to say so.
I’ve done a lot of work in both WFH and office-based environments over the years, and there’s both positives and negatives to either arrangement.
While there’s a war or pandemic on, it’s absolutely the right thing to do from a risk management perspective. It’s also less productive though, unless your company is set up with the correct processes and business tools to work remotely for more than a couple of weeks. This is the public sector weakness, where they mostly measure inputs rather than outputs.
OTOH not commuting is definitely a positive for everyone, except the restaurants and bars in the business district.
The worst-of-all-worlds scenario is to have a massive expensive office building left mostly empty. You’re taking the hit to productivity without saving the money from actually closing the office.
Three days in the office, two at home seems to be a good compromise ?
Or 2 in the office, 3 at home
2O3H is way better than the other way around. It means people can live far away from the office, commute in once and take an hotel one night a week. You can live in Rutland or Dorset, and work in London that way.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
Would I be surmising wildly that it’s the IDF alleging that Hezbollah is using ambulances as military vehicles?
Who could doubt the honesty of the guys who photoshopped Hezbollah uniforms onto executed Lebanese journalists or used an Ayrshire museum’s cgi models to represent Hamas underground control centres ?
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
There is absolutely no independent validation for this accusation. Can't believe a word from Israel sadly.
Interesting article about Dubai and why it's likely to see off the current attacks from Iran thanks to a highly successful economy based on immigration and a massive sovereign wealth fund.
On topic the Tories won't do a deal with Farage until they do one.
Somewhat more positive than most articles written about Dubai in the past six weeks, many of which written by people who had never been here for more than a week’s holiday.
There has been a lot of hysterical media about some exodus from Dubai . When the reality is even during the last month everyday life has gone on as normal for the vast majority of people .
Correct. A lot of companies are WFH, to avoid half the company being in the same place if something happens. Multinationals had longstanding disaster plans to evacuate key staff, which was done immediately the situation started.
I don’t know anyone who’s quit a salaried job. A few of the digital nomad and ‘influencer’ types have left temporarily, as have a number of wives and kids as schools are also remote.
Hospitality sector is struggling with the lack of tourists, and there have been some furloughs there. On the other hand the fancy hotel resorts are doing some fantastic resident offers at the moment, 5* resort for £150-£200 a night.
The death toll in UAE is 10 for a population of 11m. That’s a couple of days’ worth of road accidents. Obviously sad for those affected, but perspective…
So are you pro WFH? I thought you’d be the kind of person to say get back to the office but maybe I’m wrong and happy to say so.
I’ve done a lot of work in both WFH and office-based environments over the years, and there’s both positives and negatives to either arrangement.
While there’s a war or pandemic on, it’s absolutely the right thing to do from a risk management perspective. It’s also less productive though, unless your company is set up with the correct processes and business tools to work remotely for more than a couple of weeks. This is the public sector weakness, where they mostly measure inputs rather than outputs.
OTOH not commuting is definitely a positive for everyone, except the restaurants and bars in the business district.
The worst-of-all-worlds scenario is to have a massive expensive office building left mostly empty. You’re taking the hit to productivity without saving the money from actually closing the office.
Three days in the office, two at home seems to be a good compromise ?
Or 2 in the office, 3 at home
2O3H is way better than the other way around. It means people can live far away from the office, commute in once and take an hotel one night a week. You can live in Rutland or Dorset, and work in London that way.
It's what I do except a morning train is so blooming expensive it's cheaper to travel the night before and stay in a decent hotel...
LNER know how to charge for early morning trains..
Are the residential addresses of candidates in Local Elections published?
There could be some interesting analysis as to where the paper candidates live. I know one place where on a previous occasion a candidate lived in France, and we just had the one who lived at the other end of Cornwall.
Someone (not me) will need to be gearing up their resignations spreadsheet - I'm predicting 100-200 Ref UK Councillor resignations over the next 12 months. *
Or we could adopt one measure of the Welsh system, where candidates are required to be local - but that has downsides.
I was represented by a councillor living in the Dominican Republic.
Candidates need to have some link to the council area they are standing in. Either through residence, owning property, or a place of work.
But it's up to the candidate whether their address goes on the ballot paper, or is replaced with "An address in X constituency/ward/local government area" and, increasingly, candidates are opting for the latter. There is, however, a downside, particularly in local elections (especially first tier), where candidates who allow their address onto the ballot paper have a clear advantage over those who seek to withhold where they live. At town/parish level, you'd expect many voters to know, anyway, so trying to conceal it just makes the candidate look dodgy.
My address is not on the ballot. I don't want nutters turning up on my doorstep.
If you want to avoid the local nutters, best advice is not to stand for your local council.
After all, if you do get elected, you'll be spending a lot of time with a fair few of them.
Whilst a good joke the interesting thing is most candidates are pretty normal and quickly get annoyed at some of their own colleagues when discovering which ones are not very serious and act out online rhetoric in real life.
We've seen this in Reform councils with those getting stuck in vs those who just stick to onlinrle talking points and fall out with the others.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Or, America can surrender as it is going to do anyway and we can move onto the new world where America is fucked.
There is no way out now for Gilead that doesn't end with oil traded in € and ¥, US Treasuries unloaded and ROW defence contracts ripped up.
And don't get me started on Israel, who seem to have a death wish.
I hadn't realised former Senator Ben Sasse was dying. He has done an interview with the NYT about his cancer - stage 4 pancreatic, multiply metastasised.
How Ben Sasse Is Living Now That He Is Dying https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/opinion/ben-sasse-death-pancreatic-cancer.html ..Sasse: There’s a company in Silicon Valley called Revolution Medicines, and they have a drug called daraxonrasib, and that’s my drug. I’m able to take it orally, as of now. So, I don’t have an infusion port right now. I take it orally, but it’s a nasty drug. It causes crazy stuff like my body can’t grow skin and so I bleed all out of a whole bunch of parts of me that shouldn’t be bleeding.
Douthat: Yeah. You look terrible.
Sasse: Thank you.
Douthat: How do you feel?
Sasse: I feel better than I deserve...
Thank you for that. It was a read that was sad, horrifying, and inspirational all at once. I liked him a great deal, but given the extent of his cancer spread I don't think I'll be liking him for too long. It's like the interview Paul Eddington gave just before his death: a nice man shining through the weight of mortality.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
There is absolutely no independent validation for this accusation. Can't believe a word from Israel sadly.
You guys are so far down the rabbit hole it’s ridiculous. Anti-Israeli propaganda is now ubiquitous in western media and is simply swallowed without critical thought. That doesn’t mean it’s all wrong but good grief.
That’s Vanilla. I’m baffled why everyone doesn’t use it as managing comments on the main site is awful. You’re all doing yourselves a massive disservice by not using it.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
There is absolutely no independent validation for this accusation. Can't believe a word from Israel sadly.
You guys are so far down the rabbit hole it’s ridiculous. Anti-Israeli propaganda is now ubiquitous in western media and is simply swallowed without critical thought. That doesn’t mean it’s all wrong but good grief.
And you so far down the Israeli propaganda rabbit hole!
Interesting article about Dubai and why it's likely to see off the current attacks from Iran thanks to a highly successful economy based on immigration and a massive sovereign wealth fund.
On topic the Tories won't do a deal with Farage until they do one.
Somewhat more positive than most articles written about Dubai in the past six weeks, many of which written by people who had never been here for more than a week’s holiday.
There has been a lot of hysterical media about some exodus from Dubai . When the reality is even during the last month everyday life has gone on as normal for the vast majority of people .
Correct. A lot of companies are WFH, to avoid half the company being in the same place if something happens. Multinationals had longstanding disaster plans to evacuate key staff, which was done immediately the situation started.
I don’t know anyone who’s quit a salaried job. A few of the digital nomad and ‘influencer’ types have left temporarily, as have a number of wives and kids as schools are also remote.
Hospitality sector is struggling with the lack of tourists, and there have been some furloughs there. On the other hand the fancy hotel resorts are doing some fantastic resident offers at the moment, 5* resort for £150-£200 a night.
The death toll in UAE is 10 for a population of 11m. That’s a couple of days’ worth of road accidents. Obviously sad for those affected, but perspective…
So are you pro WFH? I thought you’d be the kind of person to say get back to the office but maybe I’m wrong and happy to say so.
The WFH thing is being misunderstood. Many are not against it per se but are cross that people (particularly the more senior with power, inc public sector) cynically used the pandemic to refuse to return to their prior workplace in order to improve their terms and conditions (with no loss of salary). Many of these people are still WFH.
I work from home more than I did before the pandemic, I’m fairly senior in my current organisation. That’s the policy of my current company.
I can’t see the point in companies like Amazon forcing people in every day, can you?
If they work in the warehouse…
Yes but for say tech roles, why?
Sorry. A pet hate is the WFH debate - a classic of polarisation.
To WFH effectively requires organisational changes, technical support and team level methodology. It’s usefulness varies according to the type of work - which changes on a regular basis in most roles
For example, i work in an IT dev team using agile. Our “machines” are in server room, with access via a thin client. Phones are virtualised. We all have space at home for an office - I have a proper desk, giant monitor etc.
So we have tasks that can be done by one person (mostly), easily tracked, creating code that is reviewed. This means productivity and quality are automatically checked. We have high quality, reasonably secure workspaces at home.
Even so, when new team members join, we head to the office for a few weeks, for example. We also define team days when we are all in the office.
I have seen people 100% remote, with a laptop on the ironing board in a HMO living room. Which, strangely, doesn’t work.
I am as anti permanent WFH as I am permanent in the office. It’s all about a balance.
It’s forcing people in five days a week for tech jobs I just cannot understand.
Yesterday I was in out of choice and I sat all day writing code that was urgent so I had headphones in.
Beyond social interaction at lunch being in was essentially pointless.
I ran drilling operations in the North Sea and West of Shetlands from my study in Lincolnshire for almost a decade. We would go in the office every 6 weeks or so to do team stuff but we all knew that no actual work beyond tick over would get done during that week.
For mayny companies, full time office based more often than not reflects poor management who don't trust their workforce.
Very much this. Limp-dick bosses who think their power comes from micro-managing and controlling everything.
The Tories would not survive a pact with Reform. They may not survive without one, but them the breaks
The LibDems survived a pact with the Tories - but only just.
Perhaps there should be a Tories-Reform pact as we all know who are the bigger sharks.
Did the LibDems survive? It’s too early to tell.
You could make an argument that they have been fatally wounded; they don’t just realize it yet.
20 years ago they would have been the obvious candidate to benefit from the current political turmoil. Today they are an after thought.
72 MPs is the largest third party representation in a century, so they clearly survived. Likely to have a good set of May elections in England too, though will be overshadowed in the headlines by the Reform and Green surges, and Con and Labour meltdown.
You are taking too short term a view.
They did well in a generational melt down for the Tories.
But if they are supplanted as the natural left party of protest what’s their USP?
The Waitrose Belt National Party. Not so much a protest party as a mild grumbling party. It's a decent slice of the electorate and of the country. Maybe 100 seats next time. It doesn't get the Lib Dems anywhere near a majority, but that's no change on the last century.
It's one of the curious things about current politics- the growth of "People Like Us" parties. It started with the Nats in Scotland, now in Wales as well. The Lib Dem map is a bit like that, except their nation is like one of those crazy old counties with loads on enclaves and exclaves. The Greens seem to be heading that way; especially under Polanski, they seem to be settling as the Voice of Funky Young Urbanites.
Not sure why it's happened, but it doesn't feel like a good thing. It will be an absolute bugger if these fairly parochial groups need to agree a plan for national government.
Part of me thinks it's a good thing as there are plenty of examples in recent history of large swathes of the population not being well represented by either of the main parties. A lot of the white working class were too socially conservative to find a home in the modern Labour Party and too dependent on the state to be well represented by the Conservatives. You could say the same thing about socially liberal and economically conservative voters post Brexit who are now gravitating to the Lib Dems. The only problem is we as a country don't have a sensible attitude to coalitions and see the compromises needed to form a government as selling out
The basic problem, surely, arose from the fact that our Parliament was designed with two 'sides'; a Government and an Opposition. "If you're not with us, you're against us!" The front benches are even far enough apart that two swords cannot meet.
Yet that was in the early 19th century when Parliament was rebuilt after fire and back then most men and certainly not most working class men could vote and no women of any class could vote. So political parties largely just represented rich and property owning elite men
What was the layout before the 1830's rebuild? I thought that, as with the WWII rebuild, it was as it is now.
Shouting abuse across the Chamber has never struck me as a very adult method of running a country.
Little difference on the point, in the 18th century less than 5% of the population could vote. Though yes when we had only 2 parties with over 3/4 of MPs and votes as we did even in 2017 and 2019 it made sense more than now where barely more than a third are backing the Tories and Labour
My comments are nothing whatsoever to do with the percentage of the population who could vote.
I'm simply interested in the layout of the Parliament. Would it be better if it was semi-circular, as is the case in, for example New Zealand and, I think, Scotland?
The reason they are laid out like that is because the Commons originally met in the chapel of the Palace of Westminster. The MPs sat in the pews, arranged either side as in a Cathedral, and the Speaker sat on a chair placed on the steps up to the altar.
When they were burned down in 1837 they kept the general layout because that was what they were familiar with, but built the chambers in a modern (well, for 1840) style.
I don't understand the idea politics would be better with a different layout, which many have suggested. There's footage of punch ups in semicircular parliaments, the culture of political debate is not going to be better or worse with one vs the other.
The SOPNs are trickling out and looks like Greens have greatly upped their candidates but are a little short in some areas of London - Barking and Dagenham being a surprising example. LDs will have fewest of the main 5 but not short of what you'd expect so far. Tories are struggling to fill some of the metros - S Tyneside, Knowsley, Burnley etc Labour with a few gaps but look fully loaded in London Reform so far fully represented everywhere outside London but there are gaps in the inner London boroughs - they are standimg 1 in a lot of 3 member wards in the likes of Hackney, Waltham Forest etc
On the Island we have 39 Reform (out of 39 seats), 36 Conservatives (35 using their new "local Conservatives" descriptor plus one who presumably didn't read the email), 30 varied Independents (five standing as an Indy Network - effectively the current minority administration - for the rest local knowledge is needed to know which of them are nevertheless also part of the Network, or another Indy grouping, and which are random sole candidates), 26 Greens (25 as 'The Green Party' plus one as just 'Green Party'), 17 Labour (including one standing as Labour & Co-op, a connection which regularly puts me off shopping there), 14 LibDems, and 2 Vectis (the local nutters ex-UKIP party).
The council will likely go into insolvency within the next couple of years, so if a clear majority doesn't emerge (and Reform are the only group looking in with a chance of one), whether a coherent administration will emerge from these elections remains to be seen.
Starmer’s done an interview with ITV and seems to have dropped all idea that he will be friends with Trump, virtually equating him to Putin.
I hope that is a genuine relfection of a change of direction.
Feel free to take this with as much salt as you would like but I do genuinely get a sense that since McSweeney left Starmer has started to control things himself. Of course he should have been in control from the start.
He's laying some great political land mines over War, global bullies, renewable self sufficient energy that Farage and Badenoch are going to get badly maimed by politically as we go in to 2027 and 2028.
Their rush to climb as deep as possible in to Trumps rectum will be political colonic cleansing.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
There is absolutely no independent validation for this accusation. Can't believe a word from Israel sadly.
You guys are so far down the rabbit hole it’s ridiculous. Anti-Israeli propaganda is now ubiquitous in western media and is simply swallowed without critical thought. That doesn’t mean it’s all wrong but good grief.
And you so far down the Israeli propaganda rabbit hole!
Except I am not because I acknowledge that Israel are far from angels. There’s not a single hint of condemnation of Hamas or Hezbollah from you.
Sir Tony Blair has accused Ed Miliband of taking an “ideological” approach to net zero and called on him to approve new oil and gasfields in the North Sea to protect households and businesses from energy price shocks
The Tony Blair Institute, the former prime minister’s think tank, said the government should approve new licences for the drilling of the Jackdaw gasfield and the Rosebank oilfield to help address Britain’s “systematic energy crisis”
The report, which was endorsed by Blair, argues that Britain needs to pursue a two-track approach by producing more clean energy while accelerating domestic oil and gas production to reduce Britain’s exposure to global markets
Tone Langengen, a policy adviser at the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) and author of the paper, also said the UK risked falling behind global competitors by solely focusing on clean power
“If the government doubles down on the wrong parts of the system, the UK will remain exposed to the same vulnerabilities,” he said
“But this is also an opportunity to reset — including by accelerating domestic supply to reduce reliance on volatile imports and support UK jobs and tax revenues.”
Tony Blair is correct.
Tony Blair is now right of Cameron let alone Starmer
There's only Farage on the far right and Badenoch on the far far Musk inspired right to go now for Tony
Are the residential addresses of candidates in Local Elections published?
There could be some interesting analysis as to where the paper candidates live. I know one place where on a previous occasion a candidate lived in France, and we just had the one who lived at the other end of Cornwall.
Someone (not me) will need to be gearing up their resignations spreadsheet - I'm predicting 100-200 Ref UK Councillor resignations over the next 12 months. *
Or we could adopt one measure of the Welsh system, where candidates are required to be local - but that has downsides.
I was represented by a councillor living in the Dominican Republic.
Candidates need to have some link to the council area they are standing in. Either through residence, owning property, or a place of work.
But it's up to the candidate whether their address goes on the ballot paper, or is replaced with "An address in X constituency/ward/local government area" and, increasingly, candidates are opting for the latter. There is, however, a downside, particularly in local elections (especially first tier), where candidates who allow their address onto the ballot paper have a clear advantage over those who seek to withhold where they live. At town/parish level, you'd expect many voters to know, anyway, so trying to conceal it just makes the candidate look dodgy.
My address is not on the ballot. I don't want nutters turning up on my doorstep.
If you want to avoid the local nutters, best advice is not to stand for your local council.
After all, if you do get elected, you'll be spending a lot of time with a fair few of them.
Whilst a good joke the interesting thing is most candidates are pretty normal and quickly get annoyed at some of their own colleagues when discovering which ones are not very serious and act out online rhetoric in real life.
We've seen this in Reform councils with those getting stuck in vs those who just stick to onlinrle talking points and fall out with the others.
Of course. But it is nevertheless true that if you are elected as a councillor, the local nutters will surely find a way to reach you, one way or the other. I've published my address over all thirty two years of my service on local authorities, and I've never had one turn up on my doorstep.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
There is absolutely no independent validation for this accusation. Can't believe a word from Israel sadly.
You guys are so far down the rabbit hole it’s ridiculous. Anti-Israeli propaganda is now ubiquitous in western media and is simply swallowed without critical thought. That doesn’t mean it’s all wrong but good grief.
And you so far down the Israeli propaganda rabbit hole!
Can't really take your view on this given past comments about lack of innocence of some victims on October 7th.
I don't trust statements from the IDF one bit, so yes independent validation is needed, but not every comment can be instantly dusmissed.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
You just do't get it do you Bart.
As I said the other day, you have had your regime change. You replaced a hardline theocratic regime that was willing to negitiate with a hardline military regime that isn't.
The US were very unlikely to achieve their war aims without actually putting people on the ground in Iran and they don't have the support in Congress or in the wider public to do that. Anyone with an ounce of sense could see this was the most likely outcome of this little US/Israeli adventure which is why anyone with any sense opposed it from the start.
We may not always agree Richard but we’ve been lock-step in opposing this stupid war ever since day one. It was OBVIOUS to anyone with a pulse it was going to be a disaster.
Anyone who couldn’t see that needs their judgment seriously called into question. Forget that Iran is a stupid country to get involved in, forget all the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was led by TRUMP.
Technically, it was led by Netanyahu who persuaded Trump to act to his will. The distinction matters because it is Netanyahu who is now actively trying to prolong the war by frustrating Trump's attempt to get out of the hole he was persuaded to dig.
So Israel is now acting as the catalyst threatening the UK's economic security, together with that of most of the rest of the world. It's no longer a question of just judging Israel in moral terms by its utterly vile conduct in Gaza. Now thanks to a war which Israel led and seeks to perpetuate every UK motorist is paying £20 more at the pump every time they fill up. Real and massive economic consequences for the UK. This all thanks to a nation to which the UK continues to grant most favourable trading nation status.
The UK Government's response to date? Still tut-tutting, expressing opinions that Israel really should be desisting, totally ignored as usual. Actions, not words are what matters, Israel knows that and almost treats words of condemnation alone as a green light to carry on regardless because it knows that words are an alternative to doing anything else.
With even Trump reportedly losing patience with Netanyahu, Starmer doesn't even have the excuse that a change from UK inaction would threaten UK-US relations.
The SOPNs are trickling out and looks like Greens have greatly upped their candidates but are a little short in some areas of London - Barking and Dagenham being a surprising example. LDs will have fewest of the main 5 but not short of what you'd expect so far. Tories are struggling to fill some of the metros - S Tyneside, Knowsley, Burnley etc Labour with a few gaps but look fully loaded in London Reform so far fully represented everywhere outside London but there are gaps in the inner London boroughs - they are standimg 1 in a lot of 3 member wards in the likes of Hackney, Waltham Forest etc
On the Island we have 39 Reform (out of 39 seats), 36 Conservatives (35 using their new "local Conservatives" descriptor plus one who presumably didn't read the email)
The Tories would not survive a pact with Reform. They may not survive without one, but them the breaks
The LibDems survived a pact with the Tories - but only just.
Perhaps there should be a Tories-Reform pact as we all know who are the bigger sharks.
Did the LibDems survive? It’s too early to tell.
You could make an argument that they have been fatally wounded; they don’t just realize it yet.
20 years ago they would have been the obvious candidate to benefit from the current political turmoil. Today they are an after thought.
72 MPs is the largest third party representation in a century, so they clearly survived. Likely to have a good set of May elections in England too, though will be overshadowed in the headlines by the Reform and Green surges, and Con and Labour meltdown.
You are taking too short term a view.
They did well in a generational melt down for the Tories.
But if they are supplanted as the natural left party of protest what’s their USP?
The Waitrose Belt National Party. Not so much a protest party as a mild grumbling party. It's a decent slice of the electorate and of the country. Maybe 100 seats next time. It doesn't get the Lib Dems anywhere near a majority, but that's no change on the last century.
It's one of the curious things about current politics- the growth of "People Like Us" parties. It started with the Nats in Scotland, now in Wales as well. The Lib Dem map is a bit like that, except their nation is like one of those crazy old counties with loads on enclaves and exclaves. The Greens seem to be heading that way; especially under Polanski, they seem to be settling as the Voice of Funky Young Urbanites.
Not sure why it's happened, but it doesn't feel like a good thing. It will be an absolute bugger if these fairly parochial groups need to agree a plan for national government.
Part of me thinks it's a good thing as there are plenty of examples in recent history of large swathes of the population not being well represented by either of the main parties. A lot of the white working class were too socially conservative to find a home in the modern Labour Party and too dependent on the state to be well represented by the Conservatives. You could say the same thing about socially liberal and economically conservative voters post Brexit who are now gravitating to the Lib Dems. The only problem is we as a country don't have a sensible attitude to coalitions and see the compromises needed to form a government as selling out
The basic problem, surely, arose from the fact that our Parliament was designed with two 'sides'; a Government and an Opposition. "If you're not with us, you're against us!" The front benches are even far enough apart that two swords cannot meet.
Yet that was in the early 19th century when Parliament was rebuilt after fire and back then most men and certainly not most working class men could vote and no women of any class could vote. So political parties largely just represented rich and property owning elite men
What was the layout before the 1830's rebuild? I thought that, as with the WWII rebuild, it was as it is now.
Shouting abuse across the Chamber has never struck me as a very adult method of running a country.
Little difference on the point, in the 18th century less than 5% of the population could vote. Though yes when we had only 2 parties with over 3/4 of MPs and votes as we did even in 2017 and 2019 it made sense more than now where barely more than a third are backing the Tories and Labour
My comments are nothing whatsoever to do with the percentage of the population who could vote.
I'm simply interested in the layout of the Parliament. Would it be better if it was semi-circular, as is the case in, for example New Zealand and, I think, Scotland?
The reason they are laid out like that is because the Commons originally met in the chapel of the Palace of Westminster. The MPs sat in the pews, arranged either side as in a Cathedral, and the Speaker sat on a chair placed on the steps up to the altar.
When they were burned down in 1837 they kept the general layout because that was what they were familiar with, but built the chambers in a modern (well, for 1840) style.
I don't understand the idea politics would be better with a different layout, which many have suggested. There's footage of punch ups in semicircular parliaments, the culture of political debate is not going to be better or worse with one vs the other.
It assumes far too much influence on the setting.
I was asking the question and that seems a logical comment. Why bother to change is fair enough, although I still wonder whether the present arrangements, and number of physical seats, are entirely satisfactory.
Are the residential addresses of candidates in Local Elections published?
There could be some interesting analysis as to where the paper candidates live. I know one place where on a previous occasion a candidate lived in France, and we just had the one who lived at the other end of Cornwall.
Someone (not me) will need to be gearing up their resignations spreadsheet - I'm predicting 100-200 Ref UK Councillor resignations over the next 12 months. *
Or we could adopt one measure of the Welsh system, where candidates are required to be local - but that has downsides.
I was represented by a councillor living in the Dominican Republic.
Candidates need to have some link to the council area they are standing in. Either through residence, owning property, or a place of work.
But it's up to the candidate whether their address goes on the ballot paper, or is replaced with "An address in X constituency/ward/local government area" and, increasingly, candidates are opting for the latter. There is, however, a downside, particularly in local elections (especially first tier), where candidates who allow their address onto the ballot paper have a clear advantage over those who seek to withhold where they live. At town/parish level, you'd expect many voters to know, anyway, so trying to conceal it just makes the candidate look dodgy.
My address is not on the ballot. I don't want nutters turning up on my doorstep.
If you want to avoid the local nutters, best advice is not to stand for your local council.
After all, if you do get elected, you'll be spending a lot of time with a fair few of them.
Whilst a good joke the interesting thing is most candidates are pretty normal and quickly get annoyed at some of their own colleagues when discovering which ones are not very serious and act out online rhetoric in real life.
We've seen this in Reform councils with those getting stuck in vs those who just stick to onlinrle talking points and fall out with the others.
Of course. But it is nevertheless true that if you are elected as a councillor, the local nutters will surely find a way to reach you, one way or the other. I've published my address over all thirty two years of my service on local authorities, and I've never had one turn up on my doorstep.
That's the thing about nutters (and Himself attracted the attentions of a couple over about 20 years). They're mostly as lazy as the rest of us.
In the old days, they had to turn up at your doorstep, or go and buy some green ink. Both of those required effort, which was a sufficient barrier to stop them bothering. Thanks to electronic communications and social media, it's possible for nutters to express their nutterdom far too easily.
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
The Tories would not survive a pact with Reform. They may not survive without one, but them the breaks
The LibDems survived a pact with the Tories - but only just.
Perhaps there should be a Tories-Reform pact as we all know who are the bigger sharks.
Did the LibDems survive? It’s too early to tell.
You could make an argument that they have been fatally wounded; they don’t just realize it yet.
20 years ago they would have been the obvious candidate to benefit from the current political turmoil. Today they are an after thought.
72 MPs is the largest third party representation in a century, so they clearly survived. Likely to have a good set of May elections in England too, though will be overshadowed in the headlines by the Reform and Green surges, and Con and Labour meltdown.
You are taking too short term a view.
They did well in a generational melt down for the Tories.
But if they are supplanted as the natural left party of protest what’s their USP?
The Waitrose Belt National Party. Not so much a protest party as a mild grumbling party. It's a decent slice of the electorate and of the country. Maybe 100 seats next time. It doesn't get the Lib Dems anywhere near a majority, but that's no change on the last century.
It's one of the curious things about current politics- the growth of "People Like Us" parties. It started with the Nats in Scotland, now in Wales as well. The Lib Dem map is a bit like that, except their nation is like one of those crazy old counties with loads on enclaves and exclaves. The Greens seem to be heading that way; especially under Polanski, they seem to be settling as the Voice of Funky Young Urbanites.
Not sure why it's happened, but it doesn't feel like a good thing. It will be an absolute bugger if these fairly parochial groups need to agree a plan for national government.
Part of me thinks it's a good thing as there are plenty of examples in recent history of large swathes of the population not being well represented by either of the main parties. A lot of the white working class were too socially conservative to find a home in the modern Labour Party and too dependent on the state to be well represented by the Conservatives. You could say the same thing about socially liberal and economically conservative voters post Brexit who are now gravitating to the Lib Dems. The only problem is we as a country don't have a sensible attitude to coalitions and see the compromises needed to form a government as selling out
The basic problem, surely, arose from the fact that our Parliament was designed with two 'sides'; a Government and an Opposition. "If you're not with us, you're against us!" The front benches are even far enough apart that two swords cannot meet.
Yet that was in the early 19th century when Parliament was rebuilt after fire and back then most men and certainly not most working class men could vote and no women of any class could vote. So political parties largely just represented rich and property owning elite men
What was the layout before the 1830's rebuild? I thought that, as with the WWII rebuild, it was as it is now.
Shouting abuse across the Chamber has never struck me as a very adult method of running a country.
Little difference on the point, in the 18th century less than 5% of the population could vote. Though yes when we had only 2 parties with over 3/4 of MPs and votes as we did even in 2017 and 2019 it made sense more than now where barely more than a third are backing the Tories and Labour
My comments are nothing whatsoever to do with the percentage of the population who could vote.
I'm simply interested in the layout of the Parliament. Would it be better if it was semi-circular, as is the case in, for example New Zealand and, I think, Scotland?
The reason they are laid out like that is because the Commons originally met in the chapel of the Palace of Westminster. The MPs sat in the pews, arranged either side as in a Cathedral, and the Speaker sat on a chair placed on the steps up to the altar.
When they were burned down in 1837 they kept the general layout because that was what they were familiar with, but built the chambers in a modern (well, for 1840) style.
I don't understand the idea politics would be better with a different layout, which many have suggested. There's footage of punch ups in semicircular parliaments, the culture of political debate is not going to be better or worse with one vs the other.
It assumes far too much influence on the setting.
I was asking the question and that seems a logical comment. Why bother to change is fair enough, although I still wonder whether the present arrangements, and number of physical seats, are entirely satisfactory.
I was commenting more generically than directly on your post, as it tends to be advanced as a solution to a question which is cultural not inherent in the architecture.
When the building burns down (since they refuse to move out to refurbish and the estimated cost is too high to approve) i doubt they'll keep the same set up.
The SOPNs are trickling out and looks like Greens have greatly upped their candidates but are a little short in some areas of London - Barking and Dagenham being a surprising example. LDs will have fewest of the main 5 but not short of what you'd expect so far. Tories are struggling to fill some of the metros - S Tyneside, Knowsley, Burnley etc Labour with a few gaps but look fully loaded in London Reform so far fully represented everywhere outside London but there are gaps in the inner London boroughs - they are standimg 1 in a lot of 3 member wards in the likes of Hackney, Waltham Forest etc
On the Island we have 39 Reform (out of 39 seats), 36 Conservatives (35 using their new "local Conservatives" descriptor plus one who presumably didn't read the email)
Had that in Wiltshire, pretty funny.
Rather bizarrely, Havering has published the notice of election agents and officers, which includes the names of the candidates they are each agents for, but has failed to published the notice of nominated candidates and hence there is no clue as to which is standing for which party (although a number of the agents appear to live at Margaret Thatcher House, which is perhaps a clue).
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
I think there's something on the nomination that states whether you live in the Council area but location even within very small Wards in rural areas can matter - "the only candidate from the village" syndrome if you like.
I've discussed this before, not that the Conservatives on here want to in all honesty any more than the LDs would want to talk about propping up a minority Labour Government but I call it "the Amber Valley Question".
Amber Valley was Conservative in the Thatcher years then went Labour but in 2019 the Conservatives won it back. In 2024, their candidate ended up third behind Labour and Reform but close enough so you could argue they'd have a chance. The Conservatives have been more or less expunged from the County Council and have lost ground locally to Reform.
For the Conservative voter, therefore, it's a conundrum - tactically vote Labour to keep Reform out, tactically vote Reform to get Labour out or vote Conservative and hope for the best.
A choice for the deep blue C between two Devils you might argue?
Badenoch will, if she has any sense, (which she does) say nothing about any possible support for a minority Reform Government before an election but she will be asked about it repeatedly if it appears the Conservatives will lose half their seats but be in a position to provide Confidence & Supply to a minority Reform Government. As others have said, the slightest hint a Conservative Party led by her would enable Prime Minister Farage and the support will collapse.
Even if she could enable a non-Labour Government, should she? Who are the real opponents for the Conservatives - the Reform threat is existential, Labour will always be there in some form? The Party has been quite happy with the latter for a century or more, the former is the challenge.
A second Labour term, a single chaotic Farage administration - both might open the door wide for a Conservative return in 2034?
Is Denby in Amber Valley?
The pottery company is in administration as of last week, and they employ 500.
Our local Denby shop has an "everything must go" sale.
If you have (or want) Denby now might be a good time.
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
Are the residential addresses of candidates in Local Elections published?
There could be some interesting analysis as to where the paper candidates live. I know one place where on a previous occasion a candidate lived in France, and we just had the one who lived at the other end of Cornwall.
Someone (not me) will need to be gearing up their resignations spreadsheet - I'm predicting 100-200 Ref UK Councillor resignations over the next 12 months. *
Or we could adopt one measure of the Welsh system, where candidates are required to be local - but that has downsides.
I was represented by a councillor living in the Dominican Republic.
Candidates need to have some link to the council area they are standing in. Either through residence, owning property, or a place of work.
But it's up to the candidate whether their address goes on the ballot paper, or is replaced with "An address in X constituency/ward/local government area" and, increasingly, candidates are opting for the latter. There is, however, a downside, particularly in local elections (especially first tier), where candidates who allow their address onto the ballot paper have a clear advantage over those who seek to withhold where they live. At town/parish level, you'd expect many voters to know, anyway, so trying to conceal it just makes the candidate look dodgy.
My address is not on the ballot. I don't want nutters turning up on my doorstep.
If you want to avoid the local nutters, best advice is not to stand for your local council.
After all, if you do get elected, you'll be spending a lot of time with a fair few of them.
Whilst a good joke the interesting thing is most candidates are pretty normal and quickly get annoyed at some of their own colleagues when discovering which ones are not very serious and act out online rhetoric in real life.
We've seen this in Reform councils with those getting stuck in vs those who just stick to onlinrle talking points and fall out with the others.
Of course. But it is nevertheless true that if you are elected as a councillor, the local nutters will surely find a way to reach you, one way or the other. I've published my address over all thirty two years of my service on local authorities, and I've never had one turn up on my doorstep.
That's the thing about nutters (and Himself attracted the attentions of a couple over about 20 years). They're mostly as lazy as the rest of us.
In the old days, they had to turn up at your doorstep, or go and buy some green ink. Both of those required effort, which was a sufficient barrier to stop them bothering. Thanks to electronic communications and social media, it's possible for nutters to express their nutterdom far too easily.
The key is to find a way of locating them, ideally through someone else's experience rather than your own, and then have some sort of tag to flag them for ever more as people to be avoided. Most of them, if you don't actually make the mistake of calling round or sending them anything, will leave you alone. Over my 24 years as a London councillor I accumulated quite a decent-sized list for my patch.
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
I am sure that eager young social media operatives from the main parties are already on the case....
Are the residential addresses of candidates in Local Elections published?
There could be some interesting analysis as to where the paper candidates live. I know one place where on a previous occasion a candidate lived in France, and we just had the one who lived at the other end of Cornwall.
Someone (not me) will need to be gearing up their resignations spreadsheet - I'm predicting 100-200 Ref UK Councillor resignations over the next 12 months. *
Or we could adopt one measure of the Welsh system, where candidates are required to be local - but that has downsides.
I was represented by a councillor living in the Dominican Republic.
Candidates need to have some link to the council area they are standing in. Either through residence, owning property, or a place of work.
But it's up to the candidate whether their address goes on the ballot paper, or is replaced with "An address in X constituency/ward/local government area" and, increasingly, candidates are opting for the latter. There is, however, a downside, particularly in local elections (especially first tier), where candidates who allow their address onto the ballot paper have a clear advantage over those who seek to withhold where they live. At town/parish level, you'd expect many voters to know, anyway, so trying to conceal it just makes the candidate look dodgy.
My address is not on the ballot. I don't want nutters turning up on my doorstep.
If you want to avoid the local nutters, best advice is not to stand for your local council.
After all, if you do get elected, you'll be spending a lot of time with a fair few of them.
Whilst a good joke the interesting thing is most candidates are pretty normal and quickly get annoyed at some of their own colleagues when discovering which ones are not very serious and act out online rhetoric in real life.
We've seen this in Reform councils with those getting stuck in vs those who just stick to onlinrle talking points and fall out with the others.
Of course. But it is nevertheless true that if you are elected as a councillor, the local nutters will surely find a way to reach you, one way or the other. I've published my address over all thirty two years of my service on local authorities, and I've never had one turn up on my doorstep.
That's the thing about nutters (and Himself attracted the attentions of a couple over about 20 years). They're mostly as lazy as the rest of us.
In the old days, they had to turn up at your doorstep, or go and buy some green ink. Both of those required effort, which was a sufficient barrier to stop them bothering. Thanks to electronic communications and social media, it's possible for nutters to express their nutterdom far too easily.
New councillors need to be told they will be called corrupt as part of induction training. I've known ones who have been shocked to discover local obsessives will bombard them with messages, and need advice on when its ok to ignore them.
Parties don't tend to tell candidates much, and oddly many candidates never think to ask.
One bit of advice is it is not meant to be full time (though many put in that level. Executives it makes more sense) - it will eat up as much time as you put in, it's ok to not do stuff everyday.
The SOPNs are trickling out and looks like Greens have greatly upped their candidates but are a little short in some areas of London - Barking and Dagenham being a surprising example. LDs will have fewest of the main 5 but not short of what you'd expect so far. Tories are struggling to fill some of the metros - S Tyneside, Knowsley, Burnley etc Labour with a few gaps but look fully loaded in London Reform so far fully represented everywhere outside London but there are gaps in the inner London boroughs - they are standimg 1 in a lot of 3 member wards in the likes of Hackney, Waltham Forest etc
On the Island we have 39 Reform (out of 39 seats), 36 Conservatives (35 using their new "local Conservatives" descriptor plus one who presumably didn't read the email)
Had that in Wiltshire, pretty funny.
Rather bizarrely, Havering has published the notice of election agents and officers, which includes the names of the candidates they are each agents for, but has failed to published the notice of nominated candidates and hence there is no clue as to which is standing for which party (although a number of the agents appear to live at Margaret Thatcher House, which is perhaps a clue).
It's Havering, what do you expect? Besides, it's more fun like this, a small treat before the big feast.
Looking at it and unpicking some of the patterns in the names, I think it's: Lab, Con, Residents, Green, Reform: pretty much full slates (a lot of the Greens seem to be ex-Labour) Lib Dems: one candidate per ward The guy who was Mr Reform until Rozzer defected standing as an indy
What I haven't checked is what's happening with the various renegade Residents groups (one of which is Residents Association Independent Group, or RAIG, which is a neat acronym if nothing else.)
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
You just do't get it do you Bart.
As I said the other day, you have had your regime change. You replaced a hardline theocratic regime that was willing to negitiate with a hardline military regime that isn't.
The US were very unlikely to achieve their war aims without actually putting people on the ground in Iran and they don't have the support in Congress or in the wider public to do that. Anyone with an ounce of sense could see this was the most likely outcome of this little US/Israeli adventure which is why anyone with any sense opposed it from the start.
We may not always agree Richard but we’ve been lock-step in opposing this stupid war ever since day one. It was OBVIOUS to anyone with a pulse it was going to be a disaster.
Anyone who couldn’t see that needs their judgment seriously called into question. Forget that Iran is a stupid country to get involved in, forget all the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was led by TRUMP.
Technically, it was led by Netanyahu who persuaded Trump to act to his will. The distinction matters because it is Netanyahu who is now actively trying to prolong the war by frustrating Trump's attempt to get out of the hole he was persuaded to dig.
So Israel is now acting as the catalyst threatening the UK's economic security, together with that of most of the rest of the world. It's no longer a question of just judging Israel in moral terms by its utterly vile conduct in Gaza. Now thanks to a war which Israel led and seeks to perpetuate every UK motorist is paying £20 more at the pump every time they fill up. Real and massive economic consequences for the UK. This all thanks to a nation to which the UK continues to grant most favourable trading nation status.
The UK Government's response to date? Still tut-tutting, expressing opinions that Israel really should be desisting, totally ignored as usual. Actions, not words are what matters, Israel knows that and almost treats words of condemnation alone as a green light to carry on regardless because it knows that words are an alternative to doing anything else.
With even Trump reportedly losing patience with Netanyahu, Starmer doesn't even have the excuse that a change from UK inaction would threaten UK-US relations.
The NYT article this week was eye opening, as was Jen Psaki’s interview with John Kerry on the subject.
This is all about regional supremacy. Israel is now also annexing South Lebanon. A plan for greater Israel. Even extending to taking some Greek islands in lieu of a debt.
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
What relevance is that ? As for the rest of his tweet. I’m no fan of the current Israeli regime but death to Israel and flatten Israel is going far too far.
Are the residential addresses of candidates in Local Elections published?
There could be some interesting analysis as to where the paper candidates live. I know one place where on a previous occasion a candidate lived in France, and we just had the one who lived at the other end of Cornwall.
Someone (not me) will need to be gearing up their resignations spreadsheet - I'm predicting 100-200 Ref UK Councillor resignations over the next 12 months. *
Or we could adopt one measure of the Welsh system, where candidates are required to be local - but that has downsides.
I was represented by a councillor living in the Dominican Republic.
Candidates need to have some link to the council area they are standing in. Either through residence, owning property, or a place of work.
But it's up to the candidate whether their address goes on the ballot paper, or is replaced with "An address in X constituency/ward/local government area" and, increasingly, candidates are opting for the latter. There is, however, a downside, particularly in local elections (especially first tier), where candidates who allow their address onto the ballot paper have a clear advantage over those who seek to withhold where they live. At town/parish level, you'd expect many voters to know, anyway, so trying to conceal it just makes the candidate look dodgy.
My address is not on the ballot. I don't want nutters turning up on my doorstep.
If you want to avoid the local nutters, best advice is not to stand for your local council.
After all, if you do get elected, you'll be spending a lot of time with a fair few of them.
Whilst a good joke the interesting thing is most candidates are pretty normal and quickly get annoyed at some of their own colleagues when discovering which ones are not very serious and act out online rhetoric in real life.
We've seen this in Reform councils with those getting stuck in vs those who just stick to onlinrle talking points and fall out with the others.
Of course. But it is nevertheless true that if you are elected as a councillor, the local nutters will surely find a way to reach you, one way or the other. I've published my address over all thirty two years of my service on local authorities, and I've never had one turn up on my doorstep.
That's the thing about nutters (and Himself attracted the attentions of a couple over about 20 years). They're mostly as lazy as the rest of us.
In the old days, they had to turn up at your doorstep, or go and buy some green ink. Both of those required effort, which was a sufficient barrier to stop them bothering. Thanks to electronic communications and social media, it's possible for nutters to express their nutterdom far too easily.
New councillors need to be told they will be called corrupt as part of induction training. I've known ones who have been shocked to discover local obsessives will bombard them with messages, and need advice on when its ok to ignore them.
Parties don't tend to tell candidates much, and oddly many candidates never think to ask.
One bit of advice is it is not meant to be full time (though many put in that level. Executives it makes more sense) - it will eat up as much time as you put in, it's ok to not do stuff everyday.
TBF the LibDems' councillors association - to which many of its more serious candidates join, if not many of the paper ones - puts out a lot of stuff encouraging councillors to be fairly ruthless in choosing on what to spend their time. Most local authorities are awash with potential time-sinks that can tie you up in obscure working party and sub committee meetings, or myriad social activities, at the town hall, when what matters are activities that either put you into contact with your residents, achieve something worthwhile for your patch, or might get some attention from the media.
Are the residential addresses of candidates in Local Elections published?
There could be some interesting analysis as to where the paper candidates live. I know one place where on a previous occasion a candidate lived in France, and we just had the one who lived at the other end of Cornwall.
Someone (not me) will need to be gearing up their resignations spreadsheet - I'm predicting 100-200 Ref UK Councillor resignations over the next 12 months. *
Or we could adopt one measure of the Welsh system, where candidates are required to be local - but that has downsides.
I was represented by a councillor living in the Dominican Republic.
Candidates need to have some link to the council area they are standing in. Either through residence, owning property, or a place of work.
But it's up to the candidate whether their address goes on the ballot paper, or is replaced with "An address in X constituency/ward/local government area" and, increasingly, candidates are opting for the latter. There is, however, a downside, particularly in local elections (especially first tier), where candidates who allow their address onto the ballot paper have a clear advantage over those who seek to withhold where they live. At town/parish level, you'd expect many voters to know, anyway, so trying to conceal it just makes the candidate look dodgy.
My address is not on the ballot. I don't want nutters turning up on my doorstep.
If you want to avoid the local nutters, best advice is not to stand for your local council.
After all, if you do get elected, you'll be spending a lot of time with a fair few of them.
Whilst a good joke the interesting thing is most candidates are pretty normal and quickly get annoyed at some of their own colleagues when discovering which ones are not very serious and act out online rhetoric in real life.
We've seen this in Reform councils with those getting stuck in vs those who just stick to onlinrle talking points and fall out with the others.
Of course. But it is nevertheless true that if you are elected as a councillor, the local nutters will surely find a way to reach you, one way or the other. I've published my address over all thirty two years of my service on local authorities, and I've never had one turn up on my doorstep.
That's the thing about nutters (and Himself attracted the attentions of a couple over about 20 years). They're mostly as lazy as the rest of us.
In the old days, they had to turn up at your doorstep, or go and buy some green ink. Both of those required effort, which was a sufficient barrier to stop them bothering. Thanks to electronic communications and social media, it's possible for nutters to express their nutterdom far too easily.
The key is to find a way of locating them, ideally through someone else's experience rather than your own, and then have some sort of tag to flag them for ever more as people to be avoided. Most of them, if you don't actually make the mistake of calling round or sending them anything, will leave you alone. Over my 24 years as a London councillor I accumulated quite a decent-sized list for my patch.
I wonder how our current (and future, I hope) Green County Councillor manages; he's a self-employed taxi-driver in the town. Not a lot of abuse on the local Facebook page though.
In other 'oh so there's an election is there?' news we've had two ..... yes two ...... actual 'Dear Constituent' letters this week the local Tory MP, Priti Patel, the second of which is dated March and refers to an issue which has been of interest to many residents for about two years, and which, apparently, she's just thought about. To be fair, the first does deal with a current controversy.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
There is absolutely no independent validation for this accusation. Can't believe a word from Israel sadly.
You guys are so far down the rabbit hole it’s ridiculous. Anti-Israeli propaganda is now ubiquitous in western media and is simply swallowed without critical thought. That doesn’t mean it’s all wrong but good grief.
So where is the proof ? Brixian has said no proof. If there is evidence of this it must exist. Just taking Bibi at his word is not something a rational person would do. Especially after the NYT piece this week.
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
I think he's partly arguing that without Farage it will rapidly fall back. Farage only has 2029 as his chance.
What might happen is a non-Reform minority administration in 2029 with another GE in 2030 and in that case Farage might stick around.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
You just do't get it do you Bart.
As I said the other day, you have had your regime change. You replaced a hardline theocratic regime that was willing to negitiate with a hardline military regime that isn't.
The US were very unlikely to achieve their war aims without actually putting people on the ground in Iran and they don't have the support in Congress or in the wider public to do that. Anyone with an ounce of sense could see this was the most likely outcome of this little US/Israeli adventure which is why anyone with any sense opposed it from the start.
We may not always agree Richard but we’ve been lock-step in opposing this stupid war ever since day one. It was OBVIOUS to anyone with a pulse it was going to be a disaster.
Anyone who couldn’t see that needs their judgment seriously called into question. Forget that Iran is a stupid country to get involved in, forget all the mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was led by TRUMP.
Technically, it was led by Netanyahu who persuaded Trump to act to his will. The distinction matters because it is Netanyahu who is now actively trying to prolong the war by frustrating Trump's attempt to get out of the hole he was persuaded to dig.
So Israel is now acting as the catalyst threatening the UK's economic security, together with that of most of the rest of the world. It's no longer a question of just judging Israel in moral terms by its utterly vile conduct in Gaza. Now thanks to a war which Israel led and seeks to perpetuate every UK motorist is paying £20 more at the pump every time they fill up. Real and massive economic consequences for the UK. This all thanks to a nation to which the UK continues to grant most favourable trading nation status.
The UK Government's response to date? Still tut-tutting, expressing opinions that Israel really should be desisting, totally ignored as usual. Actions, not words are what matters, Israel knows that and almost treats words of condemnation alone as a green light to carry on regardless because it knows that words are an alternative to doing anything else.
With even Trump reportedly losing patience with Netanyahu, Starmer doesn't even have the excuse that a change from UK inaction would threaten UK-US relations.
What did you expect either the UK or Europe to do yesterday, in this context ? Both our government, and EU leaders condemned Netenyahu's massive bombing of Beirut, and said quite clearly that it was sabotaging the ceasefire. In practical terms, there is little either can do to intervene directly.
It would make a lot of sense. The long range characteristics of the aircraft would be well suited to Canada's vast territory.
GCAP is the only game in town for countries that don't want to buy American, given the obvious failure of FCAS. Let's hope the UK government doesn't kill it by refusing to find enough money to push the project forward.
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
I wonder what exactly vetting involves? Surely political parties, especially the small ones, don't have the ability or authorisation to do much more than ask the candidate if they have any skeletons in the closet, Google their name and have a quick check over their socials.
Anyway, I'm a paper candidate, and I'm not saying anything
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
I think he's partly arguing that without Farage it will rapidly fall back. Farage only has 2029 as his chance.
What might happen is a non-Reform minority administration in 2029 with another GE in 2030 and in that case Farage might stick around.
He just turned 62 (3rd Apr 1964, according to Wiki).
By American standards, we’re going to have to put up with him until at least 2040 if not 2045.
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
I wonder what exactly vetting involves? Surely political parties, especially the small ones, don't have the ability or authorisation to do much more than ask the candidate if they have any skeletons in the closet, Google their name and have a quick check over their socials.
Anyway, I'm a paper candidate, and I'm not saying anything
Many still don't seem to check the socials, which should be the minimum.
Congratulations on your inevitable paper candidate victory. It happens.
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
The elephant in the room is that Nigel's not getting any younger, and this isn't America.
He's 62 now, older than Cameron, only a year younger than Starmer. He'll be 65 in 2029- that's how old Maggie was when she left office. Does he really want to spend his late sixties being PM? I'm sure he likes it as an abstract concept, but does he really want all that work (harder work than he has done in his life) at that age?
(It's the same reason that I'm sure that, although he can't say it, SKS has pencilled in a 2027/8 retirement. In indelible pencil.)
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
I think he's partly arguing that without Farage it will rapidly fall back. Farage only has 2029 as his chance.
What might happen is a non-Reform minority administration in 2029 with another GE in 2030 and in that case Farage might stick around.
He just turned 62 (3rd Apr 1964, according to Wiki).
By American standards, we’re going to have to put up with him until at least 2040 if not 2045.
I think the risk is if he's not PM in 2029 eventually he will lose personal loyalty in the party, even if as expected they massively increase seats. No one can hold on forever and as they grow others will ask if a new leader could get them over the line.
Conservative party, or what is left of it, appears to be in grave danger of splitting. Quite a few would probably work with the Lib Dems. They need to sort themselves out and quickly, if they are hammered next month anything could happen. On the basis of the seat figures in the last thread Reform, Labour, Cons and Lib Dems could all end up at about 3,500 total seats, Love to see the media sort that out. Personally I would have expected Green gains to be about 1000, in which case it would leave Reform and the Lib Dems in front. Again media reaction, probably puzzlement.
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
I wonder what exactly vetting involves? Surely political parties, especially the small ones, don't have the ability or authorisation to do much more than ask the candidate if they have any skeletons in the closet, Google their name and have a quick check over their socials.
Anyway, I'm a paper candidate, and I'm not saying anything
I think for councillors it’s difficult to do much, except have a local staffer or councillor spend an hour or two checking things like court reports and local newspapers. There’s too many people standing, including as you say purely paper candidates,
It’s more of a problem with MP candidates, where the stakes are higher. If parties are putting up £500 deposits and spending thousands on campaigning, it shouldn’t be difficult to pay £500 to an independent audit company to spend a day vetting the candidate, well ahead of time so they can be replaced if necessary.
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
I wonder what exactly vetting involves? Surely political parties, especially the small ones, don't have the ability or authorisation to do much more than ask the candidate if they have any skeletons in the closet, Google their name and have a quick check over their socials.
Anyway, I'm a paper candidate, and I'm not saying anything
I think for councillors it’s difficult to do much, except have a local staffer or councillor spend an hour or two checking things like court reports and local newspapers. There’s too many people standing, including as you say purely paper candidates,
It’s more of a problem with MP candidates, where the stakes are higher. If parties are putting up £500 deposits and spending thousands on campaigning, it shouldn’t be difficult to pay £500 to an independent audit company to spend a day vetting the candidate, well ahead of time so they can be replaced if necessary.
With AI should be dead easy. Copy and paste their twitter feed and tell them to look for 15 key words.
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
If political operatives just watched West Wing, they would discover “Opposition Research”
Having a data centre isn’t particularly economically useful (other than being a large consumer of electricity). When it comes to AI the only technology worth having is the frontier models themselves. We have none of them so we’ve missed the boat.
That’s harsh. We have Deepmind - owned by Google now - but a lot of the skills and capabilities are in the UK. That’s a function of being a smallish, high skilled, innovative and open economy: we develop great ideas but then have to sell to scale because we don’t have sufficient risk capital
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
I wonder what exactly vetting involves? Surely political parties, especially the small ones, don't have the ability or authorisation to do much more than ask the candidate if they have any skeletons in the closet, Google their name and have a quick check over their socials.
Anyway, I'm a paper candidate, and I'm not saying anything
I think for councillors it’s difficult to do much, except have a local staffer or councillor spend an hour or two checking things like court reports and local newspapers. There’s too many people standing, including as you say purely paper candidates,
It’s more of a problem with MP candidates, where the stakes are higher. If parties are putting up £500 deposits and spending thousands on campaigning, it shouldn’t be difficult to pay £500 to an independent audit company to spend a day vetting the candidate, well ahead of time so they can be replaced if necessary.
The main parties all have an approval process, done well away from election time, and if you haven’t passed the approval process, you can’t apply anywhere to stand. This generally works at parliamentary level; at local government level it’s more difficult and parties often find themselves twisting arms to persuade people to stand, whether seriously or paperly.
So, with nominations now closed, how long will it take to find candidates who clearly weren’t vetted by their parties beforehand, or who haven’t deleted old social media accounts?
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
I wonder what exactly vetting involves? Surely political parties, especially the small ones, don't have the ability or authorisation to do much more than ask the candidate if they have any skeletons in the closet, Google their name and have a quick check over their socials.
Anyway, I'm a paper candidate, and I'm not saying anything
I think for councillors it’s difficult to do much, except have a local staffer or councillor spend an hour or two checking things like court reports and local newspapers. There’s too many people standing, including as you say purely paper candidates,
It’s more of a problem with MP candidates, where the stakes are higher. If parties are putting up £500 deposits and spending thousands on campaigning, it shouldn’t be difficult to pay £500 to an independent audit company to spend a day vetting the candidate, well ahead of time so they can be replaced if necessary.
With AI should be dead easy. Copy and paste their twitter feed and tell them to look for 15 key words.
Or you can ask AI an open question like what are the strengths and weaknesses of NAME as a potential councillor, and see what it comes up with. It does have an amazing ability to pull up obscure things from way back. The difficulty, especially for people with no prior public profile, is disaggregating, especially if they have quite a common name.
New line of attack on Army Secretary Dan Driscoll: A single anonymous Pentagon official tells The Hill here that "Hegseth’s team believes they’ve uncovered proof that Driscoll has become a resistance figure within the Pentagon not only against Hegseth, but against President Trump as well.' ” https://x.com/DanLamothe/status/2042247482046878131
'Russia and Ukraine have agreed to a truce for Orthodox Easter, with Vladimir Putin saying he's ordered Russian troops to cease fire "in all directions" this weekend.
The declaration from Moscow came after Volodymyr Zelensky issued repeated calls for a ceasefire, all ignored by the Kremlin.
Now Putin has announced a truce from 16:00 local time (13:00 GMT) on Saturday 11 April through Easter Sunday, adding that he expected Ukraine to "follow the example" of Russia. He ordered his forces to be ready to intercept "possible enemy provocations" and any "aggressive actions".
Difficult to believe that this is anything except a brief pause to ramp up Russian logistics and supplies. Putin’s constantly ignored previous calls for holiday ceasefires over the past four years.
I’ll believe there’s a ceasefire on Sunday, on Monday.
Russia’s under pressure all over the place so this is a chance to regroup. Zelensky might have made a mistake in calling for a ceasefire (not expecting Putin to accept). That said, I assume this will be an Israeli-style ceasefire
Has anyone else not been able to see comments for a few days ?
No, they vanished, but are now back.
However, my efforts to revive them have actually resulted in me being able to post again after about a five year absence lurking (with one fluke exception during the 2024 election), as my password ceased to work and all efforts to work round failed.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
There is absolutely no independent validation for this accusation. Can't believe a word from Israel sadly.
You guys are so far down the rabbit hole it’s ridiculous. Anti-Israeli propaganda is now ubiquitous in western media and is simply swallowed without critical thought. That doesn’t mean it’s all wrong but good grief.
So where is the proof ? Brixian has said no proof. If there is evidence of this it must exist. Just taking Bibi at his word is not something a rational person would do. Especially after the NYT piece this week.
Just because the NYT says something doesn’t mean it’s true either.
It is absolutely criminally insane that there is a "ceasefire" that has left Hormuz closed.
What is the frigging point?
Unless Hormuz is reopened in full, there should be no ceasefire and Iranian regime and military targets like IRGC facilities, petrochemical industry and energy targets should be wiped out, until there is regime change and the new regime reopens Hormuz.
Israel is still murdering Lebanese civilians, hence no ceasefire.
Civilians and/or Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is allegedly using ambulances as military vehicles which is, you guessed it, a war crime.
There is absolutely no independent validation for this accusation. Can't believe a word from Israel sadly.
You guys are so far down the rabbit hole it’s ridiculous. Anti-Israeli propaganda is now ubiquitous in western media and is simply swallowed without critical thought. That doesn’t mean it’s all wrong but good grief.
So where is the proof ? Brixian has said no proof. If there is evidence of this it must exist. Just taking Bibi at his word is not something a rational person would do. Especially after the NYT piece this week.
Just because the NYT says something doesn’t mean it’s true either.
Just because Netanyahu says something doesn't make it true either!
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
Not sure that is correct. They could come up short in 2029 and succeed 2033. If they get into power they will collapse but we could end up with greens or the centrists back rather than extreme right.
The elephant in the room is that Nigel's not getting any younger, and this isn't America.
He's 62 now, older than Cameron, only a year younger than Starmer. He'll be 65 in 2029- that's how old Maggie was when she left office. Does he really want to spend his late sixties being PM? I'm sure he likes it as an abstract concept, but does he really want all that work (harder work than he has done in his life) at that age?
(It's the same reason that I'm sure that, although he can't say it, SKS has pencilled in a 2027/8 retirement. In indelible pencil.)
Interesting that PMs in the first half of the 20th century were significantly older when they came to power than since then.
The oldest of course was Churchill in his second term at almost 77.
Average age of PM on assuming office (including second stints)
Balfour - Churchill 2 : 62 Eden - Thatcher : 57 Major - Starmer : 50
Starmer is the oldest PM at time of first assuming office since Callaghan
Interesting article about Dubai and why it's likely to see off the current attacks from Iran thanks to a highly successful economy based on immigration and a massive sovereign wealth fund.
On topic the Tories won't do a deal with Farage until they do one.
And when they do a deal, they can do one.
As things stand, the Conservatives are only likely to be in government after 2029 as a junior partner to Reform. There is little ideological difference between Badenoch and Farage. Would they really say No, if the situation arises?
The situation may not arise, if Reform don't need the Conservatives, the Conservatives manage to displace Reform or centre/left parties form the next government. But if Reform can form a government only with the Tories, I am pretty sure they will say, Yes.
Kemi would probably back Farage in a hung parliament if he made her his Deputy PM, which he likely would if he needed Tory support for a majority. If Cleverly was Conservative leader though he probably would not back Farage and tell Tory MPs to abstain on a confidence and supply vote and just vote bill by bill.
Of course if Reform won a majority or the Conservatives remained ahead of Reform on MPs or Labour was re elected with a majority or most seats in a hung parliament the situation would not arise. If it did though there would be a difference I suspect between Kemi and Cleverly's approach to Farage and Reform
That would be a huge strategic mistake.
She would do far better to be out of government and support Reform on a case by case basis. That would maximise negotiating leverage and avoid toxicity
I hadn't realised former Senator Ben Sasse was dying. He has done an interview with the NYT about his cancer - stage 4 pancreatic, multiply metastasised.
How Ben Sasse Is Living Now That He Is Dying https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/opinion/ben-sasse-death-pancreatic-cancer.html ..Sasse: There’s a company in Silicon Valley called Revolution Medicines, and they have a drug called daraxonrasib, and that’s my drug. I’m able to take it orally, as of now. So, I don’t have an infusion port right now. I take it orally, but it’s a nasty drug. It causes crazy stuff like my body can’t grow skin and so I bleed all out of a whole bunch of parts of me that shouldn’t be bleeding.
Douthat: Yeah. You look terrible.
Sasse: Thank you.
Douthat: How do you feel?
Sasse: I feel better than I deserve...
Pancreatic cancer is very, very nasty. And frequently quickly fatal. Sympathies.
Comments
When they were burned down in 1837 they kept the general layout because that was what they were familiar with, but built the chambers in a modern (well, for 1840) style.
I seem to recall reading that, after the Chamber was bombed in WWII it was suggested that the rebuild should be with a semi-circular layout, but that Churchill was dead against it.
Who could doubt the honesty of the guys who photoshopped Hezbollah uniforms onto executed Lebanese journalists or used an Ayrshire museum’s cgi models to represent Hamas underground control centres ?
LNER know how to charge for early morning trains..
We've seen this in Reform councils with those getting stuck in vs those who just stick to onlinrle talking points and fall out with the others.
There is no way out now for Gilead that doesn't end with oil traded in € and ¥, US Treasuries unloaded and ROW defence contracts ripped up.
And don't get me started on Israel, who seem to have a death wish.
It assumes far too much influence on the setting.
The council will likely go into insolvency within the next couple of years, so if a clear majority doesn't emerge (and Reform are the only group looking in with a chance of one), whether a coherent administration will emerge from these elections remains to be seen.
Their rush to climb as deep as possible in to Trumps rectum will be political colonic cleansing.
I don't trust statements from the IDF one bit, so yes independent validation is needed, but not every comment can be instantly dusmissed.
So Israel is now acting as the catalyst threatening the UK's economic security, together with that of most of the rest of the world. It's no longer a question of just judging Israel in moral terms by its utterly vile conduct in Gaza. Now thanks to a war which Israel led and seeks to perpetuate every UK motorist is paying £20 more at the pump every time they fill up. Real and massive economic consequences for the UK. This all thanks to a nation to which the UK continues to grant most favourable trading nation status.
The UK Government's response to date? Still tut-tutting, expressing opinions that Israel really should be desisting, totally ignored as usual. Actions, not words are what matters, Israel knows that and almost treats words of condemnation alone as a green light to carry on regardless because it knows that words are an alternative to doing anything else.
With even Trump reportedly losing patience with Netanyahu, Starmer doesn't even have the excuse that a change from UK inaction would threaten UK-US relations.
In the old days, they had to turn up at your doorstep, or go and buy some green ink. Both of those required effort, which was a sufficient barrier to stop them bothering. Thanks to electronic communications and social media, it's possible for nutters to express their nutterdom far too easily.
Looking especially at you Reform, Green, and groups of ‘independents’ of various colours.
Will we manage to find a “kill the Jews” or a “sink the boats” before teatime?
When the building burns down (since they refuse to move out to refurbish and the estimated cost is too high to approve) i doubt they'll keep the same set up.
https://x.com/CharlieSimpsonA/status/2042305726643601570
The pottery company is in administration as of last week, and they employ 500.
Our local Denby shop has an "everything must go" sale.
If you have (or want) Denby now might be a good time.
Parties don't tend to tell candidates much, and oddly many candidates never think to ask.
One bit of advice is it is not meant to be full time (though many put in that level. Executives it makes more sense) - it will eat up as much time as you put in, it's ok to not do stuff everyday.
Looking at it and unpicking some of the patterns in the names, I think it's:
Lab, Con, Residents, Green, Reform: pretty much full slates
(a lot of the Greens seem to be ex-Labour)
Lib Dems: one candidate per ward
The guy who was Mr Reform until Rozzer defected standing as an indy
What I haven't checked is what's happening with the various renegade Residents groups (one of which is Residents Association Independent Group, or RAIG, which is a neat acronym if nothing else.)
This is all about regional supremacy. Israel is now also annexing South Lebanon. A plan for greater Israel. Even extending to taking some Greek islands in lieu of a debt.
https://x.com/ihabhassane/status/2042264440318439645?s=61
As for Trump he appears to be powerless to influence Israel. He’s a lame duck.
In other 'oh so there's an election is there?' news we've had two ..... yes two ...... actual 'Dear Constituent' letters this week the local Tory MP, Priti Patel, the second of which is dated March and refers to an issue which has been of interest to many residents for about two years, and which, apparently, she's just thought about. To be fair, the first does deal with a current controversy.
Glen O'Hara
@gsoh31.bsky.social
Reform UK is a one shot. They'll either fall short in 2029 and Farage will do something else, or they'll get into office (maybe way short of a majority), smash everything, have their own civil war and collapse. The next step would likely be parties emerging to their Right getting more powerful.
https://bsky.app/profile/gsoh31.bsky.social/post/3mj4yus5mk22b
What might happen is a non-Reform minority administration in 2029 with another GE in 2030 and in that case Farage might stick around.
Both our government, and EU leaders condemned Netenyahu's massive bombing of Beirut, and said quite clearly that it was sabotaging the ceasefire. In practical terms, there is little either can do to intervene directly.
Anyway, I'm a paper candidate, and I'm not saying anything
By American standards, we’re going to have to put up with him until at least 2040 if not 2045.
Congratulations on your inevitable paper candidate victory. It happens.
He's 62 now, older than Cameron, only a year younger than Starmer. He'll be 65 in 2029- that's how old Maggie was when she left office. Does he really want to spend his late sixties being PM? I'm sure he likes it as an abstract concept, but does he really want all that work (harder work than he has done in his life) at that age?
(It's the same reason that I'm sure that, although he can't say it, SKS has pencilled in a 2027/8 retirement. In indelible pencil.)
https://www.ft.com/content/801e46c7-cfb7-43c3-99bd-6a5ca971ceff?syn-25a6b1a6=1
"European airports face jet fuel shortages within three weeks"
5-day driving rotation system to get stricter in public sector amid energy crisis
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/politics/20260324/5-day-driving-rotation-system-to-get-stricter-in-public-sector-amid-energy-crisis
We believe it stands for Grand Operational Defence.
They need to sort themselves out and quickly, if they are hammered next month anything could happen.
On the basis of the seat figures in the last thread Reform, Labour, Cons and Lib Dems could all end up at about 3,500 total seats,
Love to see the media sort that out. Personally I would have expected Green gains to be about 1000, in which case it would leave Reform and the Lib Dems in front. Again media reaction, probably puzzlement.
It’s more of a problem with MP candidates, where the stakes are higher. If parties are putting up £500 deposits and spending thousands on campaigning, it shouldn’t be difficult to pay £500 to an independent audit company to spend a day vetting the candidate, well ahead of time so they can be replaced if necessary.
Didn't @Leon just leave for parts unknown a day or so ago?
It’s just about do-able, the pinch point is the maximum landing weight for the outbound leg.
(This is members only, but it should be open to all in a day or two.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6q9MrEPoO4
Grn 2,068 (39%) (+28)
Ref 1,767 (33%) (-7)
Con 811 (15%) (-5)
Lab 557 (10%) (-12)
Ind 68 (1%)
LD 63 (1%) (-2)
I mean, I know it's unfair on your local borough, but...
New line of attack on Army Secretary Dan Driscoll: A single anonymous Pentagon official tells The Hill here that "Hegseth’s team believes they’ve uncovered proof that Driscoll has become a resistance figure within the Pentagon not only against Hegseth, but against President Trump as well.' ”
https://x.com/DanLamothe/status/2042247482046878131
And the tenth is straight up Genocide.
God is a War Criminal.
However, my efforts to revive them have actually resulted in me being able to post again after about a five year absence lurking (with one fluke exception during the 2024 election), as my password ceased to work and all efforts to work round failed.
So silver linings I guess.
The oldest of course was Churchill in his second term at almost 77.
Average age of PM on assuming office (including second stints)
Balfour - Churchill 2 : 62
Eden - Thatcher : 57
Major - Starmer : 50
Starmer is the oldest PM at time of first assuming office since Callaghan
She would do far better to be out of government and support Reform on a case by case basis. That would maximise negotiating leverage and avoid toxicity