I asked @ZackPolanski yesterday what is the Green Party's response to the recent wave of attacks against Jewish sites in the UK. His response: “I'm concerned about rising antisemitic attacks. We saw arson attacks on ambulances for instance and we know that increasingly jewish communities are feeling unsafe. There’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety, but neither are acceptable”.
Oh so he's going full Corbyn, unfit.
"neither are acceptable..."
I thought the statistics were pretty clear that there had been a large rise in antisemitic attacks. It isn't really on for a party leader to be casting doubt on whether it is actually happening. It minimises the seriousness of the situation and creates confusion about what needs responding to and so what needs to be done.
I hope Polanski will admit that was a mistake.
Perhaps he has been reading some of the advice from Israel.
'Competitive Victimhood': Britain Is Combating Antisemitism the Wrong Way, Academic Experts Argue
Current methods of defining, measuring and reacting to it are deeply contested and politicised;
The arguments that anti-Zionism always equates to antisemitism prevents meaningful and productive action to eradicate antisemitism in the UK;
Like other forms of racism, antisemitism in the UK consists of hateful attitudes and individual incidents but also institutional and structural racism;
The UK must move beyond framing and discussing antisemitism in ways that pit communities against one another, prohibit solidarity and encourage division;
Combating antisemitism must be undertaken as part of wider anti-racist initiatives, including building alliances with other racialised minorities.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
That doesn’t make any sense. Badenoch doesn’t have to tread a fine line because she can’t remove Starmer. The idea that if she was a bit more devastating at PMQs, then Starmer would be off, is silly.
The big difference today in PMQs was Starmer answered the questions, no what about squirrels.
What security vetting did Jonathan Powell have when he was getting sensitive info from FCDO before his appointment?
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
That doesn’t make any sense. Badenoch doesn’t have to tread a fine line because she can’t remove Starmer. The idea that if she was a bit more devastating at PMQs, then Starmer would be off, is silly.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
The question for Labour MPs and councillors is surely whether forcing him out right now would get them a 'relief bounce' May 7th
Forcing him out now will be a very poor decision IMHO. They can this the end of an era and ended by the local elections.
Provided the Tories beat Labour, if Labour beat the Tories on NEV and seats won in May Starmer will likely survive even if Reform win.
Though if the Greens and Reform beat Labour and the Tories both Starmer and Kemi will likely be gone
You are going to have a large number of posts you will have to say you got it wrong on when Kemi remains in post and fights GE 29
I suspect HYUFD has the jump on you here. She is not going to be LOTO at the next GE.
I disagree and not least because I see no evidence any other conservative mp would improve the party in the polls
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
The question for Labour MPs and councillors is surely whether forcing him out right now would get them a 'relief bounce' May 7th
To some extent Starmer has succeeded in turning this into a process story, but if you take a step back from the detail, blaming the civil service is farcical.
It was a political appointment. The system did what the prime minister wanted and did it in the right way, obtaining the necessary mitigations for Mandelson. Nobody is responsible for that except the prime minister, and he's busy doing the thing he claimed he would never do and blaming his team.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
Huh? She *does not want* to get rid of him. The Tories want him to stay in place as its beneficial to their own recovery.
I disagree, it's to the Tories (and others) advantage if he goes because what comes next might be worse for Labour (and, sadly, the country).
She does not wat to get rid of him - at least before the locals. Absolutely in the Tories interests to have Labour candidates having to defend Starmer.
The turnout suppressor in chief
Yes, especially at the locals where turnout is lower anyway. Labour supporters not bothered about voting because they are fed up with Starmer could cost them hundreds of seats.
Exactly. Don't people get this? Badenoch has to tread a fine line, to keep wounding him and undermining his credibility whilst leaving him in office.
Its not Badenoch or Davey or anyone in opposition who will remove him...
The question for Labour MPs and councillors is surely whether forcing him out right now would get them a 'relief bounce' May 7th
Forcing him out now will be a very poor decision IMHO. They can this the end of an era and ended by the local elections.
Provided the Tories beat Labour, if Labour beat the Tories on NEV and seats won in May Starmer will likely survive even if Reform win.
Though if the Greens and Reform beat Labour and the Tories both Starmer and Kemi will likely be gone
You are going to have a large number of posts you will have to say you got it wrong on when Kemi remains in post and fights GE 29
I suspect HYUFD has the jump on you here. She is not going to be LOTO at the next GE.
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
Conservatives in Wales are going to have a bad night but nothing like labour who have been in power since devolution and are heading to fringe party status
This feels like labour's surrender to SNP in Scotland from which they have not recovered
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
I watched it. Not one of Badenoch's best performances: middling I would say.
Objectively speaking, in more words she concluded she was wrong to call him a liar. She did that quite well I thought - but she was wrong. And that's that.
However I struggle to disagree with much of what else she said, even if she's a massive hypocrite. But then, so is Starmer.
But what is all of this for? Starmer is just going to stagger on whilst nothing gets done. What exactly is this government for now?
Forget Starmer for a moment. Actually, the government has done, and is doing, lots of things broadly in line with their manifesto. Some have already had an impact, but most will not come to fruition until towards the end of this parliament, in some cases later. To give one of many examples, renters' rights will improve significantly next week.
I acknowledge, however, that the government is incredibly poor at communicating both its achievements and its plans.
Part 1:Acts It is doing things in line with its manifesto, in the sense they are advancing bills which, when they become acts and are implemented, will have a vaguely left-wing definition. As you say, renters' rights. Yay
Part 2:Ministers But legislation is only part of Government. Let's look at the cabinet. Since Labour has been elected,it has restricted the right to protest (Cooper), restricted the right to trial by jury (Lammy), abolished the concept of sex-changes (Phillipson after the SC), invited private industry into the NHS (Streeting), let the armed forces dwindle below capability (Healey), fuck knows at the DWP but he can't speak coherently (McFadden), introduced voluntary repatriation (Mahmood) and delayed/postponed elections (?). That's not left wing. At best, it's authoritarian left-wing, but that's really not good.
Part 3:PM Starmer can't make his mind up from day to day, frequently contradicts himself, makes meaningless statements, and his only popular policy (against the Iran War) was created not from his core beliefs but because Milliband and told him to. The only time he went out on a limb was assisted dying(!) which he dropped as soon as it became difficult. He is neither left-wing nor right-wing, having no core beliefs other than keeping his job.
This isn't a left-wing government. It's all over the shop and not in a good way.
Starmer knows he is taking the Labour cause backwards. He would stand down if he felt there was somebody in his team who could do a better job.
But he looks around and his inflated self-worth says "Nah. Nobody will do better."
What is this 'Labour cause' of which you speak, Mark?
As far as I can see there is no cause as such, just an attempt to run the shop reasonably sensibly. That isn't setting the bar very high, although some way higher than some of the governments of the past ten or so years.
Unfortunately I can't see that Nobody would indeed do better. If Labour had a Nobody who might, the Party would surely be lining him up right now. They haven't, and they aren't.
It's why I'm considering joining the Greens, after over 50 years in Labour. Yes, they're a bit wild, with policy-making very much on the hoof and only solidified at their annual conference. But they do seem to have energy and a positive can-do attitude to politics, which the established parties have somehow mislaid...
The 'can-do' thing is fine as a start, but it is what they plan that counts. Four sample questions for Greens;
1) Outline the next 10 years, allowing for contingencies with regard to borrowing, deficit and debt 2) Nearly all big lorries are powered by fossil fuels. What's the plan? 3) How will you manage the UK's defence needs, including the nuclear issue, and our relationship with NATO? 4) Who will be allowed and who will not be allowed to take up residence in the UK and on what basis?
The risk the Greens run is of being Reformgreen, in that they rely on popularity by having simple answers to fashionable or populist questions. The test of political parties is where they stand in relation to hard realities that won't be top of the list for their supporters.
And, finally, if conference is the policy arbiter, how do you avoid multiple policies that contradict each other like the standard 'high spend but low tax especially for our voters' sorts of nonsense?
Agreed, there's some way to go before they're a potential governing party,, but there's also some way to go before the next GE - point 1) in particular would be premature. I suspect that there will be winners and losers before the next election manifesto, and some defections among the latter. But starting in the right place is preferable to bumbling along in no particular direction.
Farage has been up in my neck of the woods today - not the ward I'm standing in, however.
Meanwhile the Greens have circulated a leaflet which amazingly doesn't mention Gaza or blokes in dresses. Instead, it focuses on opposing development on greenfield sites. I agree with them. So it looks like there are still pockets of green Greens in rural wards, with the Trot takeover perhaps more confined to urban areas.
It's going to get much, much worse. Cancelling flights because of fuel prices is one thing, but at some point it will be fuel availability that is the limiting factor.
Farage has been up in my neck of the woods today - not the ward I'm standing in, however.
Meanwhile the Greens have circulated a leaflet which amazingly doesn't mention Gaza or blokes in dresses. Instead, it focuses on opposing development on greenfield sites. I agree with them. So it looks like there are still pockets of green Greens in rural wards, with the Trot takeover perhaps more confined to urban areas.
Just watched PMQs. It seems I'm in a minority of one, but I thought Starmer dealt with it pretty well under the circumstances - relatively calm, coherent and unflustered; and Badenoch didn't make any progress if her aim is to get rid of him. He's a bit Teflon, and may live to fight another day (despite the fact that I thought he was doomed after the Robbins session yesterday).
I watched it. Not one of Badenoch's best performances: middling I would say.
Objectively speaking, in more words she concluded she was wrong to call him a liar. She did that quite well I thought - but she was wrong. And that's that.
However I struggle to disagree with much of what else she said, even if she's a massive hypocrite. But then, so is Starmer.
But what is all of this for? Starmer is just going to stagger on whilst nothing gets done. What exactly is this government for now?
Forget Starmer for a moment. Actually, the government has done, and is doing, lots of things broadly in line with their manifesto. Some have already had an impact, but most will not come to fruition until towards the end of this parliament, in some cases later. To give one of many examples, renters' rights will improve significantly next week.
I acknowledge, however, that the government is incredibly poor at communicating both its achievements and its plans.
They have committed to very many of their election pledges, but they have managed to do it all under the cover of darkness. I suspect Starmer is still of the opinion he is not terrible at communications.
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
I don't think you can infer that. The poll measures favoured parties, not most-disliked parties. The SDP have few people favoiring them but that doesn't make them 'toxic'.
Farage has been up in my neck of the woods today - not the ward I'm standing in, however.
Meanwhile the Greens have circulated a leaflet which amazingly doesn't mention Gaza or blokes in dresses. Instead, it focuses on opposing development on greenfield sites. I agree with them. So it looks like there are still pockets of green Greens in rural wards, with the Trot takeover perhaps more confined to urban areas.
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
Conservatives in Wales are going to have a bad night but nothing like labour who have been in power since devolution and are heading to fringe party status
This feels like labour's surrender to SNP in Scotland from which they have not recovered
As you say Labour have been in power since devolution and every party eventually runs out of steam. They are also suffering from the mid-term blues that affects just about every government. What is the Tories excuse for their performance?
Farage has been up in my neck of the woods today - not the ward I'm standing in, however.
Meanwhile the Greens have circulated a leaflet which amazingly doesn't mention Gaza or blokes in dresses. Instead, it focuses on opposing development on greenfield sites. I agree with them. So it looks like there are still pockets of green Greens in rural wards, with the Trot takeover perhaps more confined to urban areas.
Maybe says more about your predjudices than theirs! 😘
Farage has been up in my neck of the woods today - not the ward I'm standing in, however.
Meanwhile the Greens have circulated a leaflet which amazingly doesn't mention Gaza or blokes in dresses. Instead, it focuses on opposing development on greenfield sites. I agree with them. So it looks like there are still pockets of green Greens in rural wards, with the Trot takeover perhaps more confined to urban areas.
"Independents" here in Ilford (Redbridge) circulating leaflets that also omit any mention of Gaza!
Also got a Tory leaflet on Monday.
Labour already sent a couple of flyers over the last few weeks.
Farage has been up in my neck of the woods today - not the ward I'm standing in, however.
Meanwhile the Greens have circulated a leaflet which amazingly doesn't mention Gaza or blokes in dresses. Instead, it focuses on opposing development on greenfield sites. I agree with them. So it looks like there are still pockets of green Greens in rural wards, with the Trot takeover perhaps more confined to urban areas.
Maybe says more about your predjudices than theirs! 😘
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
I don't think you can infer that. The poll measures favoured parties, not most-disliked parties. The SDP have few people favoiring them but that doesn't make them 'toxic'.
I suspect a fair old number of the Tory faithful remain unaware of how toxic their party became post 2019. My biggest surprise is how quickly Labour followed them into the wilderness.
I asked @ZackPolanski yesterday what is the Green Party's response to the recent wave of attacks against Jewish sites in the UK. His response: “I'm concerned about rising antisemitic attacks. We saw arson attacks on ambulances for instance and we know that increasingly jewish communities are feeling unsafe. There’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s a perception of unsafety or whether it’s actual unsafety, but neither are acceptable”.
Oh so he's going full Corbyn, unfit.
"neither are acceptable..."
I thought the statistics were pretty clear that there had been a large rise in antisemitic attacks. It isn't really on for a party leader to be casting doubt on whether it is actually happening. It minimises the seriousness of the situation and creates confusion about what needs responding to and so what needs to be done.
I hope Polanski will admit that was a mistake.
When people are setting fire to buildings, then anyone associated with said building will feel unsafe. No ifs, buts, maybes.
Same as with immigrants.
Remember Uncle Malmesbury’s Rules for Not Being Racist (CPS lawyers hate this trick)
1) don’t set immigrants on fire 2) not even small ones 3) especially not small ones 4) don’t advocate setting immigrants on fire
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
Conservatives in Wales are going to have a bad night but nothing like labour who have been in power since devolution and are heading to fringe party status
This feels like labour's surrender to SNP in Scotland from which they have not recovered
As you say Labour have been in power since devolution and every party eventually runs out of steam. They are also suffering from the mid-term blues that affects just about every government. What is the Tories excuse for their performance?
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
Conservatives in Wales are going to have a bad night but nothing like labour who have been in power since devolution and are heading to fringe party status
This feels like labour's surrender to SNP in Scotland from which they have not recovered
As you say Labour have been in power since devolution and every party eventually runs out of steam. They are also suffering from the mid-term blues that affects just about every government. What is the Tories excuse for their performance?
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
Large chunks of Wales disliking the Tories is the status quo, large chunks of Wales disliking Labour is not.
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
I don't think you can infer that. The poll measures favoured parties, not most-disliked parties. The SDP have few people favoiring them but that doesn't make them 'toxic'.
I suspect a fair old number of the Tory faithful remain unaware of how toxic their party became post 2019. My biggest surprise is how quickly Labour followed them into the wilderness.
This is why Reform are doing so well.
To be clear, I'm not saying the Tories AREN'T toxic - just that you can't necessarily infer that from that poll!
It's going to get much, much worse. Cancelling flights because of fuel prices is one thing, but at some point it will be fuel availability that is the limiting factor.
Well, LH has several problems, of which jet fuel is only one. They have ongoing strikes concerning the staff pension funds, they are closing their Cityline subsidiary and facing problems with several other subsidiaries. The new terminal at FRA opens this week... wonder how that will go?
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
Conservatives in Wales are going to have a bad night but nothing like labour who have been in power since devolution and are heading to fringe party status
This feels like labour's surrender to SNP in Scotland from which they have not recovered
As you say Labour have been in power since devolution and every party eventually runs out of steam. They are also suffering from the mid-term blues that affects just about every government. What is the Tories excuse for their performance?
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
Large chunks of Wales disliking the Tories is the status quo, large chunks of Wales disliking Labour is not.
That really isn't as true as you think it is. Wales were very much in the Johnson camp during GE2019 as I recall. Much of SE Wales, rural Wales and coastal North Wales was very much on side with Thatcher, industrial Wales on the whole excepted, during the 80s.Yes it was Tory free in 1997 but that was the exception rather than the rule. Welsh Tories only reached the Senedd because of the list system in the first time of asking but Welsh Tories in the Senedd have subsequently on the whole been remarkably poor.
Surely, rather than allowing him to repeat ad nauseam that he made a mistake for which he apologises, the question to which we need an answer from Starmer is "Why did you appoint Mandelson?"
The answer is obvious. The man had been trade secretary for the EU. He knew more about international trade agreements than almost anyone. He was very well connected. The UK got a good deal from Trump, one of the best. Starmer thought it was a risk worth taking. He just didn’t appreciate how stacked the deck was. His upset was that he should have been told more about that.
I was really impressed by Sir Olly’s evidence yesterday and I understand a lot more about the precautions built into vetting but if I had been PM and had not been told I would have been pissed. Severely.
Still think sacking him was a major mistake though.
I’m still more at a loss about the weirdness of how vetting decisions are passed on and applied.
I would have assumed prior to this farrago that anyone being proposed for a gov role requiring security or politically sensitive would be vetted and then if they pass cleanly they are appointed and if they are borderline then it should be down to the PM to sign off as it is their responsibility to run the country (haha) so that risk should be on them and if they fail vetting they just cannot be appointed.
The PM should have to look at the circs and mitigations for being classed borderline and approve or fail.
I don’t understand why it isn’t this straightforward.
The logic ( and my understanding really comes from Olly’s evidence yesterday) is that it is critical that the person is completely candid. The expectation is that this will only happen if the candidate is absolutely confident that the information obtained in the DV is in a sealed box and not available to anyone in its original form or detail. Even Olly Robbins got a briefing on this, he did not see the original report. I suspect that the UKSV would also be very nervous if their techniques and the extent of their inquiries became known. For people with complicated lives it’s not going to be unusual for there to be areas of concern. The question then is how to mitigate these by, for example, not letting these issues or information cross the desk of the candidate.
The problem is that there must be limits to this. To take a hypothetical example if the DV had disclosed that Starmer had been forwarding confidential and highly commercially sensitive material to a foreign bank or Epstein is Robbins really saying that he would not have told the PM this? That can’t be right. Can it?
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
Conservatives in Wales are going to have a bad night but nothing like labour who have been in power since devolution and are heading to fringe party status
This feels like labour's surrender to SNP in Scotland from which they have not recovered
As you say Labour have been in power since devolution and every party eventually runs out of steam. They are also suffering from the mid-term blues that affects just about every government. What is the Tories excuse for their performance?
Long Johnson.
You must mention Boris around ten times every day
It does seem a smidgeon excessive
Nowhere near as many times as you mention Skyr. Although during these days of Starmer jeopardy that is perfectly acceptable.
Anyway, you don't like me posting at all so why not make like the a good right winger and plant some flags on me .
It's going to get much, much worse. Cancelling flights because of fuel prices is one thing, but at some point it will be fuel availability that is the limiting factor.
Well, LH has several problems, of which jet fuel is only one. They have ongoing strikes concerning the staff pension funds, they are closing their Cityline subsidiary and facing problems with several other subsidiaries. The new terminal at FRA opens this week... wonder how that will go?
City Airlines subsidiary was the effective replacement for Cityline.
It's going to get much, much worse. Cancelling flights because of fuel prices is one thing, but at some point it will be fuel availability that is the limiting factor.
Well, LH has several problems, of which jet fuel is only one. They have ongoing strikes concerning the staff pension funds, they are closing their Cityline subsidiary and facing problems with several other subsidiaries. The new terminal at FRA opens this week... wonder how that will go?
Terminal 3 soft opens tomorrow - got to say at least this building has somewhere to get food and drink unlike Berlin
David Algonquin @surplustakes Useful case study of how Whitehall diffuses responsibility
1) Vetting team ticks not one but two red boxes on the Mandelson form but tells FO "of course you may choose to YOLO"
2) Collard, head of FO security, verbally finesses this vetting finding to "leaning against" for his boss Robbins, who does not see the forms
3) Robbins and Collard agree unknown mitigations will be sufficient to grant vetting but don't write down their thought process for "security reasons"
4) Collard leaves the civil service
5) Ostensibly to safegaurd vetting process norms, Robbins tells no one about the adverse vetting finding, not Cab Sec, not No 10. In the short term sense this helps Starmer out by allowing him to appoint Mandelson with a clear conscience, but causes him to inadvertently mislead the House.
Moreover, Starmer is now angry that what he wanted to happen was allowed to happen. Starmer couldn't care less about security concerns. Mandelson became toxic because of Epstein. Starmer now wishes someone in the civil service had stopped him.
Israeli forces have attacked mourners attending the funeral of two Palestinians killed in the village of al-Mughayyir in the occupied West Bank.
TBH Israel under its current leadership has ceased to have the right to exist.
The more atrocities the more it becomes enviable to prop it up
Presumably Germany lost the right to exist after Hitler? (And while I'm no fan of Netanyahu or his government, I would suggest that the Nazis were a teeny weeny bit more evil that the current Israeli administration.)
Surely, rather than allowing him to repeat ad nauseam that he made a mistake for which he apologises, the question to which we need an answer from Starmer is "Why did you appoint Mandelson?"
The answer is obvious. The man had been trade secretary for the EU. He knew more about international trade agreements than almost anyone. He was very well connected. The UK got a good deal from Trump, one of the best. Starmer thought it was a risk worth taking. He just didn’t appreciate how stacked the deck was. His upset was that he should have been told more about that.
I was really impressed by Sir Olly’s evidence yesterday and I understand a lot more about the precautions built into vetting but if I had been PM and had not been told I would have been pissed. Severely.
Still think sacking him was a major mistake though.
I’m still more at a loss about the weirdness of how vetting decisions are passed on and applied.
I would have assumed prior to this farrago that anyone being proposed for a gov role requiring security or politically sensitive would be vetted and then if they pass cleanly they are appointed and if they are borderline then it should be down to the PM to sign off as it is their responsibility to run the country (haha) so that risk should be on them and if they fail vetting they just cannot be appointed.
The PM should have to look at the circs and mitigations for being classed borderline and approve or fail.
I don’t understand why it isn’t this straightforward.
The logic ( and my understanding really comes from Olly’s evidence yesterday) is that it is critical that the person is completely candid. The expectation is that this will only happen if the candidate is absolutely confident that the information obtained in the DV is in a sealed box and not available to anyone in its original form or detail. Even Olly Robbins got a briefing on this, he did not see the original report. I suspect that the UKSV would also be very nervous if their techniques and the extent of their inquiries became known. For people with complicated lives it’s not going to be unusual for there to be areas of concern. The question then is how to mitigate these by, for example, not letting these issues or information cross the desk of the candidate.
The problem is that there must be limits to this. To take a hypothetical example if the DV had disclosed that Starmer had been forwarding confidential and highly commercially sensitive material to a foreign bank or Epstein is Robbins really saying that he would not have told the PM this? That can’t be right. Can it?
PM should be able to be informed about, well everything though ?
He is under OSA and I'm sure knows plenty of information he'd rather not (Applies to any PM, not just Starmer)
It's going to get much, much worse. Cancelling flights because of fuel prices is one thing, but at some point it will be fuel availability that is the limiting factor.
Well, LH has several problems, of which jet fuel is only one. They have ongoing strikes concerning the staff pension funds, they are closing their Cityline subsidiary and facing problems with several other subsidiaries. The new terminal at FRA opens this week... wonder how that will go?
Terminal 3 soft opens tomorrow - got to say at least this building has somewhere to get food and drink unlike Berlin
“So it begins…”
“Hi, I would like to book a WhiteStar to Z'ha'dum. Yes, I need an extra allowance for luggage. HOW MUCH?!?”
Sky just ran their YG MRP for London, details should be online shortly Vote shares were
Lab 26 Grn 22 Con 17 LD 15 Ref 14
There's also a new Senedd MRP here. It has Labour on 13%.
I've looked at the Senedd mRP link you provided. It's...awful for the legacy parties. Labour might be the junior partner in a PC-Lab coalition. The Conservatives won't have enough members for a group. The LDs will have one member.
As for the newer ones, Reform will have a plurality at 37 (49 needed for a majority), Green rise from 0 to seven members, and Plaid will have 36.
Only plausible majority solution is PC+Lab+Lib=36+12+1=49, assuming PC+Ref is implausible. PC+Lab =48 which would work for a while. Minority administrations by Ref or PC possible
But the takeaway from this is Labour (nominal) losing 32 out of 44 members. That is as bad for Labour in Wales as the Scottish realignment in the 2010s. How do they recover from this?
On the bright side for Labour, Plaid and the SNP will have to beg them for support to get power and legislation through and keep Reform out in Scotland and Wales as neither will win a majority. Indeed in Scotland the latest MiC poll has the SNP even failing to have a majority with the Greens
Neither will 'beg' labour for support
Plaid has made it clear they will govern as a minority government if necessary
You do not seem to understand how toxic labour are in Wales
But nowhere near as toxic the Tories if that poll is correct.
Large chunks of Wales disliking the Tories is the status quo, large chunks of Wales disliking Labour is not.
That really isn't as true as you think it is. Wales were very much in the Johnson camp during GE2019 as I recall. Much of SE Wales, rural Wales and coastal North Wales was very much on side with Thatcher, industrial Wales on the whole excepted, during the 80s.Yes it was Tory free in 1997 but that was the exception rather than the rule. Welsh Tories only reached the Senedd because of the list system in the first time of asking but Welsh Tories in the Senedd have subsequently on the whole been remarkably poor.
xxxxxx - See next thread
(Pinched from wiki)
Labour have never had less than 40% of the seats and are usually closer to 50%. YouGov are predicting a tremendous drop from 44 seats to 12 or 12.5% of the total.
Israeli forces have attacked mourners attending the funeral of two Palestinians killed in the village of al-Mughayyir in the occupied West Bank.
TBH Israel under its current leadership has ceased to have the right to exist.
The more atrocities the more it becomes enviable to prop it up
Presumably Germany lost the right to exist after Hitler? (And while I'm no fan of Netanyahu or his government, I would suggest that the Nazis were a teeny weeny bit more evil that the current Israeli administration.)
Rightly or wrongly Germany did lose the right to exist for a bit and was forcibly divided into West and East Germany to decrease its power.
For the avoidance of doubt I am making no comparison with Israel here.
Surely, rather than allowing him to repeat ad nauseam that he made a mistake for which he apologises, the question to which we need an answer from Starmer is "Why did you appoint Mandelson?"
The answer is obvious. The man had been trade secretary for the EU. He knew more about international trade agreements than almost anyone. He was very well connected. The UK got a good deal from Trump, one of the best. Starmer thought it was a risk worth taking. He just didn’t appreciate how stacked the deck was. His upset was that he should have been told more about that.
I was really impressed by Sir Olly’s evidence yesterday and I understand a lot more about the precautions built into vetting but if I had been PM and had not been told I would have been pissed. Severely.
Still think sacking him was a major mistake though.
I’m still more at a loss about the weirdness of how vetting decisions are passed on and applied.
I would have assumed prior to this farrago that anyone being proposed for a gov role requiring security or politically sensitive would be vetted and then if they pass cleanly they are appointed and if they are borderline then it should be down to the PM to sign off as it is their responsibility to run the country (haha) so that risk should be on them and if they fail vetting they just cannot be appointed.
The PM should have to look at the circs and mitigations for being classed borderline and approve or fail.
I don’t understand why it isn’t this straightforward.
The logic ( and my understanding really comes from Olly’s evidence yesterday) is that it is critical that the person is completely candid. The expectation is that this will only happen if the candidate is absolutely confident that the information obtained in the DV is in a sealed box and not available to anyone in its original form or detail. Even Olly Robbins got a briefing on this, he did not see the original report. I suspect that the UKSV would also be very nervous if their techniques and the extent of their inquiries became known. For people with complicated lives it’s not going to be unusual for there to be areas of concern. The question then is how to mitigate these by, for example, not letting these issues or information cross the desk of the candidate.
The problem is that there must be limits to this. To take a hypothetical example if the DV had disclosed that Starmer had been forwarding confidential and highly commercially sensitive material to a foreign bank or Epstein is Robbins really saying that he would not have told the PM this? That can’t be right. Can it?
Indeed, how do you mitigate a conflict of interest if no one knows where the conflict lies.
Israeli forces have attacked mourners attending the funeral of two Palestinians killed in the village of al-Mughayyir in the occupied West Bank.
TBH Israel under its current leadership has ceased to have the right to exist.
The more atrocities the more it becomes enviable to prop it up
Presumably Germany lost the right to exist after Hitler? (And while I'm no fan of Netanyahu or his government, I would suggest that the Nazis were a teeny weeny bit more evil that the current Israeli administration.)
I would be offended by the comment that "Israel under its current leadership has ceased to have the right to exist". This is straight out of the Corbyn playbook mistaking Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben Gvir for ordinary Israelis living out their life in relative harmony with their neighbours. It's a shame Zack seems to have fallen into the same bear trap as BJO and Corbyn.
She was heckled for being Reform-lite. So she said she wanted to taser and then deport Nigel Farage, Kemi Badenoch, Zack Polanski and Sir Ed Davey. She said claims if being Reform-lite were “just a way of delegitimising the point of view that I bring to the table”, which includes the "perfectly valid, legitimate views of millions of people in this country, including ethnic minorities in this country".
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/camZc0Zk7Pg
Govt minister James Murray says Olly Robbins was sacked for following due process because he should have realised the due process was wrong.
I imagine that'll help Robbins in any tribunal/settlement!
'Competitive Victimhood': Britain Is Combating Antisemitism the Wrong Way, Academic Experts Argue
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2025-01-20/ty-article/.premium/competitive-victimhood-britain-is-fighting-antisemitism-the-wrong-way-experts-argue/00000194-828b-d57c-a597-a38f3c120000
and
https://www.runnymedetrust.org/publications/facing-antisemitism-the-struggle-for-safety-and-solidarity
Jonathan Powell is doing an excellent job
Not really answering the question
(Ok it already had)
Lufthansa cuts 20,000 summer flights as fuel prices surge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cre1r4n5j5wo
This feels like labour's surrender to SNP in Scotland from which they have not recovered
It is doing things in line with its manifesto, in the sense they are advancing bills which, when they become acts and are implemented, will have a vaguely left-wing definition. As you say, renters' rights. Yay
Part 2:Ministers
But legislation is only part of Government. Let's look at the cabinet. Since Labour has been elected,it has restricted the right to protest (Cooper), restricted the right to trial by jury (Lammy), abolished the concept of sex-changes (Phillipson after the SC), invited private industry into the NHS (Streeting), let the armed forces dwindle below capability (Healey), fuck knows at the DWP but he can't speak coherently (McFadden), introduced voluntary repatriation (Mahmood) and delayed/postponed elections (?). That's not left wing. At best, it's authoritarian left-wing, but that's really not good.
Part 3:PM
Starmer can't make his mind up from day to day, frequently contradicts himself, makes meaningless statements, and his only popular policy (against the Iran War) was created not from his core beliefs but because Milliband and told him to. The only time he went out on a limb was assisted dying(!) which he dropped as soon as it became difficult. He is neither left-wing nor right-wing, having no core beliefs other than keeping his job.
This isn't a left-wing government. It's all over the shop and not in a good way.
Meanwhile the Greens have circulated a leaflet which amazingly doesn't mention Gaza or blokes in dresses. Instead, it focuses on opposing development on greenfield sites. I agree with them. So it looks like there are still pockets of green Greens in rural wards, with the Trot takeover perhaps more confined to urban areas.
The SDP have few people favoiring them but that doesn't make them 'toxic'.
Obviously thinks they’re in with a shout
Also got a Tory leaflet on Monday.
Labour already sent a couple of flyers over the last few weeks.
This is why Reform are doing so well.
Same as with immigrants.
Remember Uncle Malmesbury’s Rules for Not Being Racist (CPS lawyers hate this trick)
1) don’t set immigrants on fire
2) not even small ones
3) especially not small ones
4) don’t advocate setting immigrants on fire
The vetting agency used an LLM. Which thought a conviction for supplying party drugs was pretty awesome for a party.
Funny that.
It does seem a smidgeon excessive
I suspect that the UKSV would also be very nervous if their techniques and the extent of their inquiries became known.
For people with complicated lives it’s not going to be unusual for there to be areas of concern. The question then is how to mitigate these by, for example, not letting these issues or information cross the desk of the candidate.
The problem is that there must be limits to this. To take a hypothetical example if the DV had disclosed that Starmer had been forwarding confidential and highly commercially sensitive material to a foreign bank or Epstein is Robbins really saying that he would not have told the PM this? That can’t be right. Can it?
Anyway, you don't like me posting at all so why not make like the a good right winger and plant some flags on me .
Having a conviction* should not be a problem as long as it is in the past, with no ongoing activity.
*after all we need more conviction politicians.
David Algonquin
@surplustakes
Useful case study of how Whitehall diffuses responsibility
1) Vetting team ticks not one but two red boxes on the Mandelson form but tells FO "of course you may choose to YOLO"
2) Collard, head of FO security, verbally finesses this vetting finding to "leaning against" for his boss Robbins, who does not see the forms
3) Robbins and Collard agree unknown mitigations will be sufficient to grant vetting but don't write down their thought process for "security reasons"
4) Collard leaves the civil service
5) Ostensibly to safegaurd vetting process norms, Robbins tells no one about the adverse vetting finding, not Cab Sec, not No 10. In the short term sense this helps Starmer out by allowing him to appoint Mandelson with a clear conscience, but causes him to inadvertently mislead the House.
Moreover, Starmer is now angry that what he wanted to happen was allowed to happen. Starmer couldn't care less about security concerns. Mandelson became toxic because of Epstein. Starmer now wishes someone in the civil service had stopped him.
He is under OSA and I'm sure knows plenty of information he'd rather not (Applies to any PM, not just Starmer)
NEW THREAD
“Hi, I would like to book a WhiteStar to Z'ha'dum. Yes, I need an extra allowance for luggage. HOW MUCH?!?”
(Pinched from wiki)
Labour have never had less than 40% of the seats and are usually closer to 50%. YouGov are predicting a tremendous drop from 44 seats to 12 or 12.5% of the total.
For the avoidance of doubt I am making no comparison with Israel here.
(Copyright Henry VIII, Wonder Woman or Theresa May.)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/21/shabana-mahmood-home-secretary-tells-white-liberals-f-off/
She was heckled for being Reform-lite. So she said she wanted to taser and then deport Nigel Farage, Kemi Badenoch, Zack Polanski and Sir Ed Davey. She said claims if being Reform-lite were “just a way of delegitimising the point of view that I bring to the table”, which includes the "perfectly valid, legitimate views of millions of people in this country, including ethnic minorities in this country".
Well, that told them.