Would Reform give the SNP another referendum on independence in exchange for the SNP only voting on legislation that impacted Scotland? Would give Reform a comfortable majority on all non-Scottish bills...
No as a Reform caving to the SNP would destroy the party and make Farage look pathetically weak when Tory support would be enough for a Reform majority. Jenrick would almost certainly launch an immediate leadership challenge to Farage if he did that
Would it?
It's not immediately clear to me that: a) Farage cares much about Scotland b) The SNP are likely to win a referendum anyway
Scotland disproportionately drags the UK parliament a long way leftwards of where it naturally "should" be - I suspect Farage might well consider that losing Scotland was easily a price worth paying for a permanently right wing England.
More problematic for Farage is that that he would still need Tory votes for all the really important stuff he intends to do - i.e. unpicking the broken Blairite settlement which makes it impossible to do almost anything as a government without ending up in a legal quagmire, as almost all of that is UK wide legislation.
I know we are not allowed to criticise BPC pollsters but this has absolute crock written all over it.
Which bit? The VI or the seat projections?
The VI seems pretty in-line with recent polling by just about everyone.
I'm not sure anyone has a particularly convincing model of seat distribution that covers a result resembling a VI similar to this poll. IMHO it's too big a change from anything we've got a precident for to model even halfway reliably.
I know we are not allowed to criticise BPC pollsters but this has absolute crock written all over it.
I think the seats projection is the work of LeftieStats, and it's only the poll that Find Out Now are responsible for. Electoral Calculus gives Labour 67% more seats on the same vote shares.
Also worth pointing out that the highest opinion poll score for Labour since the Gorton and Denton by-election is 22% (same for the Tories) so it's not that far out from the consensus.
Opinion polling is hard, so I can easily believe that they are all wrong. The difficulty is in knowing in what way they are wrong.
I know we are not allowed to criticise BPC pollsters but this has absolute crock written all over it.
Which bit? The VI or the seat projections?
The VI seems pretty in-line with recent polling by just about everyone.
I'm not sure anyone has a particularly convincing model of seat distribution that covers a result resembling a VI similar to this poll. IMHO it's too big a change from anything we've got a precident for to model even halfway reliably.
I think you'd expect an MRP to do reasonably well, particularly as vote shares seem to vary quite strongly in different demographic groups.
Would Reform give the SNP another referendum on independence in exchange for the SNP only voting on legislation that impacted Scotland? Would give Reform a comfortable majority on all non-Scottish bills...
No as a Reform caving to the SNP would destroy the party and make Farage look pathetically weak when Tory support would be enough for a Reform majority. Jenrick would almost certainly launch an immediate leadership challenge to Farage if he did that
Would it?
It's not immediately clear to me that: a) Farage cares much about Scotland b) The SNP are likely to win a referendum anyway
Scotland disproportionately drags the UK parliament a long way leftwards of where it naturally "should" be - I suspect Farage might well consider that losing Scotland was easily a price worth paying for a permanently right wing England.
More problematic for Farage is that that he would still need Tory votes for all the really important stuff he intends to do - i.e. unpicking the broken Blairite settlement which makes it impossible to do almost anything as a government without ending up in a legal quagmire, as almost all of that is UK wide legislation.
Farage has made clear he opposes indyref2 for at least a decade, the SNP want a left of Blair settlement, voters under 50 in England don't like Reform any more than most Scots do
Would Reform give the SNP another referendum on independence in exchange for the SNP only voting on legislation that impacted Scotland? Would give Reform a comfortable majority on all non-Scottish bills...
No as a Reform caving to the SNP would destroy the party and make Farage look pathetically weak when Tory support would be enough for a Reform majority. Jenrick would almost certainly launch an immediate leadership challenge to Farage if he did that
Reform's constitution allows for a leadership challenge to Farage? Are you sure? And besides, surely any errant questioning the Leader's authority would get suspended long before that happened. cf. Rupert Lowe.
A Reform leader can be challenged if 50% of members request a VONC in them or if 50% of MPs do, given over half of Reform's MPs are ex Tory MPs and staunch Unionists that would not be difficult for Jenrick to get
I found it through Google, iirc. But it was so long ago that I no longer recall the details.
I wanted to generate some money from my interest in politics, and indeed there have been profitable nights on here, but more betting insights, rather than egotistical, repetitive, boring opinions, would be very welcome.
I know we are not allowed to criticise BPC pollsters but this has absolute crock written all over it.
Which bit? The VI or the seat projections?
The VI seems pretty in-line with recent polling by just about everyone.
I'm not sure anyone has a particularly convincing model of seat distribution that covers a result resembling a VI similar to this poll. IMHO it's too big a change from anything we've got a precident for to model even halfway reliably.
I think you'd expect an MRP to do reasonably well, particularly as vote shares seem to vary quite strongly in different demographic groups.
Sure:
But at the same time, with so many parties with such small gaps between them, there are going to be a lot of very close contests.
Off on a trip at the weekend. Looking forward to it
Partly because I have just been told the cost of the trip, WERE I paying (I am not paying)
Somewhere between £30,000-£35,000. For a week
Miami for the F1? Although for most it will be a lot more expensive than £35k.
I've been trying to work out if it is the single most expensive week long trip I've ever taken
Probably it is. I did the maiden voyage of the Greg Mortimer to Antarctica, with Antarctic sea kayaking led by the man who invented Antarctic sea-kayaying. That was about £20,000 back then and might be £30k now, but it's nearly two weeks
Private helicoptering around the Whitsundays? My personal safari right across Zambia with my own little aircraft at various points? The Oberoi-only jaunt across north India?
All insanely expensive, were I paying, but I still think this tops out. Wow
That someone is prepared to spend so much to keep you and your ignorant poisonous bile out of the country for a while might surprise the person on the Clapham omnibus, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any regular PB’er.
That’s just unpleasant
Not just unpleasant, mildly humourous and unpleasant. If posters are happy to dish out unpleasantness themselves, then inevitably they get some back. And he can take it, he probably even prefers it to not getting a mention at all.
I disagree. There was nothing humorous about it. It was just a simple unprovoked insult. Completely uncalled for
TBH I can't recall the exact circumstances when I first encountered PB. Well before the switchover to vanilla forums/Wordpress. I recall a few election night IRC sessions, but for the life of me I can't recall which GE.
I do recall PB Tories being a thing, Tim, SeanT and many more
Off on a trip at the weekend. Looking forward to it
Partly because I have just been told the cost of the trip, WERE I paying (I am not paying)
Somewhere between £30,000-£35,000. For a week
Miami for the F1? Although for most it will be a lot more expensive than £35k.
I've been trying to work out if it is the single most expensive week long trip I've ever taken
Probably it is. I did the maiden voyage of the Greg Mortimer to Antarctica, with Antarctic sea kayaking led by the man who invented Antarctic sea-kayaying. That was about £20,000 back then and might be £30k now, but it's nearly two weeks
Private helicoptering around the Whitsundays? My personal safari right across Zambia with my own little aircraft at various points? The Oberoi-only jaunt across north India?
All insanely expensive, were I paying, but I still think this tops out. Wow
That someone is prepared to spend so much to keep you and your ignorant poisonous bile out of the country for a while might surprise the person on the Clapham omnibus, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any regular PB’er.
That’s just unpleasant
Not just unpleasant, mildly humourous and unpleasant. If posters are happy to dish out unpleasantness themselves, then inevitably they get some back. And he can take it, he probably even prefers it to not getting a mention at all.
I disagree. There was nothing humorous about it. It was just a simple unprovoked insult. Completely uncalled for
He's an unpleasant person - I recall similar nastiness to BigG.
I know we are not allowed to criticise BPC pollsters but this has absolute crock written all over it.
Which bit? The VI or the seat projections?
The VI seems pretty in-line with recent polling by just about everyone.
I'm not sure anyone has a particularly convincing model of seat distribution that covers a result resembling a VI similar to this poll. IMHO it's too big a change from anything we've got a precident for to model even halfway reliably.
Specifically the seat projection. I'm not convinced by Greens on 21 or Tories on 16 either.
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this way!
Its hard to imagine SKS withdrawing mandelson as ambassador on the basis of this report. But he might have done (he does love a process!) and he should have had a chance to make that decision.
Off on a trip at the weekend. Looking forward to it
Partly because I have just been told the cost of the trip, WERE I paying (I am not paying)
Somewhere between £30,000-£35,000. For a week
Miami for the F1? Although for most it will be a lot more expensive than £35k.
I've been trying to work out if it is the single most expensive week long trip I've ever taken
Probably it is. I did the maiden voyage of the Greg Mortimer to Antarctica, with Antarctic sea kayaking led by the man who invented Antarctic sea-kayaying. That was about £20,000 back then and might be £30k now, but it's nearly two weeks
Private helicoptering around the Whitsundays? My personal safari right across Zambia with my own little aircraft at various points? The Oberoi-only jaunt across north India?
All insanely expensive, were I paying, but I still think this tops out. Wow
That someone is prepared to spend so much to keep you and your ignorant poisonous bile out of the country for a while might surprise the person on the Clapham omnibus, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any regular PB’er.
That’s just unpleasant
Not just unpleasant, mildly humourous and unpleasant. If posters are happy to dish out unpleasantness themselves, then inevitably they get some back. And he can take it, he probably even prefers it to not getting a mention at all.
I disagree. There was nothing humorous about it. It was just a simple unprovoked insult. Completely uncalled for
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this way!
Its hard to imagine SKS withdrawing mandelson as ambassador on the basis of this report. But he might have done (he does love a process!) and he should have had a chance to make that decision.
I agree. This is a story of the Civil Service being unfit for purpose. However, Sir Useless is clearly not the person to sort it out, because he is basically a member of it.
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this way!
Its hard to imagine SKS withdrawing mandelson as ambassador on the basis of this report. But he might have done (he does love a process!) and he should have had a chance to make that decision.
Come on!
If I, a semi-retired doctor in provincial England, can know that Mandelson is a wrong 'un then how come the PM and leader of the Labour party does not?
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this way!
Its hard to imagine SKS withdrawing mandelson as ambassador on the basis of this report. But he might have done (he does love a process!) and he should have had a chance to make that decision.
Good morning
Cat Little's evidence was the cabinet secretary's view but was not quite the counter to Robbins you seem to think
There is no doubt there are discrepancies between her evidence and Robbins but more important evidence is due next week from McSweeney and Sir Philip Barton, Robbins predecessor, who will give evidence why he strongly opposed rushing the appointment
There is more to come and more document releases which with virtually a daily drip drip on Starmer is parayalsing government
His cabinet and mps are in despair and saw the sacking of Olly Robbins as a serious mistake by Starmer
Where this ends goodness knows but it is not good for labour or the country to have a lame duck PM
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this way!
Its hard to imagine SKS withdrawing mandelson as ambassador on the basis of this report. But he might have done (he does love a process!) and he should have had a chance to make that decision.
Come on!
If I, a semi-retired doctor in provincial England, can know that Mandelson is a wrong 'un then how come the PM and leader of the Labour party does not?
It didn't need vetting in the first place.
I think we're all forgetting Starmer had brought Lord Sleaze back to advise on his election campaign, and felt deeply grateful to him. I would consider it entirely plausible that Mandy's price was a big job, e.g. the Washington embassy.
Does that excuse this? No. Does it explain the shambles involved? Possibly.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
If we are giving migrants trouser presses then I'm out. I'm done. Enough. Turn the boats back. Send for Nelson.
Obviously, well I think it must be the case, the asylum seekers don’t get the same treatment (3*) as paying guests, but it looks like a decent part of the world to stroll around, and no doubt the residents of the village aren’t too pleased to have a charming little hotel replaced by an asylum seekers pen. What’s the upside for a local family?
Based on local knowledge, if you replace an asylum hotel with a barracks for asylum seekers then Labour won't stand any candidates in that area. Gives you options locally.
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this way!
Its hard to imagine SKS withdrawing mandelson as ambassador on the basis of this report. But he might have done (he does love a process!) and he should have had a chance to make that decision.
Come on!
If I, a semi-retired doctor in provincial England, can know that Mandelson is a wrong 'un then how come the PM and leader of the Labour party does not?
It didn't need vetting in the first place.
Perhaps you have better judgment! The Mandelson appointment was widely welcomed at the time I think so it's not like everyone said it was a bad idea. I agree Starmer was foolish to have done it.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
If we are giving migrants trouser presses then I'm out. I'm done. Enough. Turn the boats back. Send for Nelson.
Obviously, well I think it must be the case, the asylum seekers don’t get the same treatment (3*) as paying guests, but it looks like a decent part of the world to stroll around, and no doubt the residents of the village aren’t too pleased to have a charming little hotel replaced by an asylum seekers pen. What’s the upside for a local family?
Based on local knowledge, if you replace an asylum hotel with a barracks for asylum seekers then Labour won't stand any candidates in that area. Gives you options locally.
Do you think the distant owner of the hotel is going to care about what the locals think he doesn’t live locally but likes the regular large pay cheque
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this way!
Its hard to imagine SKS withdrawing mandelson as ambassador on the basis of this report. But he might have done (he does love a process!) and he should have had a chance to make that decision.
Come on!
If I, a semi-retired doctor in provincial England, can know that Mandelson is a wrong 'un then how come the PM and leader of the Labour party does not?
It didn't need vetting in the first place.
Perhaps you have better judgment! The Mandelson appointment was widely welcomed at the time I think so it's not like everyone said it was a bad idea. I agree Starmer was foolish to have done it.
The vetting only considered what was in the public domain, Starmer and his team knew all about it anyway and made their own assessment.
That level of vetting is indeed pointless form ticking, hence the the civil servants found a way to give the answer Starmer wanted at the time, and doesn't want now.
Off on a trip at the weekend. Looking forward to it
Partly because I have just been told the cost of the trip, WERE I paying (I am not paying)
Somewhere between £30,000-£35,000. For a week
Miami for the F1? Although for most it will be a lot more expensive than £35k.
I've been trying to work out if it is the single most expensive week long trip I've ever taken
Probably it is. I did the maiden voyage of the Greg Mortimer to Antarctica, with Antarctic sea kayaking led by the man who invented Antarctic sea-kayaying. That was about £20,000 back then and might be £30k now, but it's nearly two weeks
Private helicoptering around the Whitsundays? My personal safari right across Zambia with my own little aircraft at various points? The Oberoi-only jaunt across north India?
All insanely expensive, were I paying, but I still think this tops out. Wow
That someone is prepared to spend so much to keep you and your ignorant poisonous bile out of the country for a while might surprise the person on the Clapham omnibus, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any regular PB’er.
That’s just unpleasant
Not just unpleasant, mildly humourous and unpleasant. If posters are happy to dish out unpleasantness themselves, then inevitably they get some back. And he can take it, he probably even prefers it to not getting a mention at all.
I disagree. There was nothing humorous about it. It was just a simple unprovoked insult. Completely uncalled for
If you feel the poster doesn't provoke then clearly we come from different worlds. He dishes it out and gets some back. A bit unpleasant on all sides I would accept, but mildly so relative to the internet generally and not one-sided against that poster.
Off on a trip at the weekend. Looking forward to it
Partly because I have just been told the cost of the trip, WERE I paying (I am not paying)
Somewhere between £30,000-£35,000. For a week
Miami for the F1? Although for most it will be a lot more expensive than £35k.
I've been trying to work out if it is the single most expensive week long trip I've ever taken
Probably it is. I did the maiden voyage of the Greg Mortimer to Antarctica, with Antarctic sea kayaking led by the man who invented Antarctic sea-kayaying. That was about £20,000 back then and might be £30k now, but it's nearly two weeks
Private helicoptering around the Whitsundays? My personal safari right across Zambia with my own little aircraft at various points? The Oberoi-only jaunt across north India?
All insanely expensive, were I paying, but I still think this tops out. Wow
That someone is prepared to spend so much to keep you and your ignorant poisonous bile out of the country for a while might surprise the person on the Clapham omnibus, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any regular PB’er.
That’s just unpleasant
Not just unpleasant, mildly humourous and unpleasant. If posters are happy to dish out unpleasantness themselves, then inevitably they get some back. And he can take it, he probably even prefers it to not getting a mention at all.
I disagree. There was nothing humorous about it. It was just a simple unprovoked insult. Completely uncalled for
Certainly not unprovoked!
There is certainly animus between the two.
But this was a new assault and unprovoked by anything other than a tedious boastful post by @Leon
Off on a trip at the weekend. Looking forward to it
Partly because I have just been told the cost of the trip, WERE I paying (I am not paying)
Somewhere between £30,000-£35,000. For a week
Miami for the F1? Although for most it will be a lot more expensive than £35k.
I've been trying to work out if it is the single most expensive week long trip I've ever taken
Probably it is. I did the maiden voyage of the Greg Mortimer to Antarctica, with Antarctic sea kayaking led by the man who invented Antarctic sea-kayaying. That was about £20,000 back then and might be £30k now, but it's nearly two weeks
Private helicoptering around the Whitsundays? My personal safari right across Zambia with my own little aircraft at various points? The Oberoi-only jaunt across north India?
All insanely expensive, were I paying, but I still think this tops out. Wow
That someone is prepared to spend so much to keep you and your ignorant poisonous bile out of the country for a while might surprise the person on the Clapham omnibus, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any regular PB’er.
That’s just unpleasant
Not just unpleasant, mildly humourous and unpleasant. If posters are happy to dish out unpleasantness themselves, then inevitably they get some back. And he can take it, he probably even prefers it to not getting a mention at all.
I disagree. There was nothing humorous about it. It was just a simple unprovoked insult. Completely uncalled for
If you feel the poster doesn't provoke then clearly we come from different worlds. He dishes it out and gets some back. A bit unpleasant on all sides I would accept, but mildly so relative to the internet generally and not one-sided against that poster.
He does provoke (sometimes amusingly sometimes less so). But that doesn’t excuse @IanB2 ‘s post.
It came out of nowhere, was not funny, and had a deeply unpleasant undertone to it. PB should be better than that.
Please feel free to point out anything amusing in the post.
Off on a trip at the weekend. Looking forward to it
Partly because I have just been told the cost of the trip, WERE I paying (I am not paying)
Somewhere between £30,000-£35,000. For a week
Miami for the F1? Although for most it will be a lot more expensive than £35k.
I've been trying to work out if it is the single most expensive week long trip I've ever taken
Probably it is. I did the maiden voyage of the Greg Mortimer to Antarctica, with Antarctic sea kayaking led by the man who invented Antarctic sea-kayaying. That was about £20,000 back then and might be £30k now, but it's nearly two weeks
Private helicoptering around the Whitsundays? My personal safari right across Zambia with my own little aircraft at various points? The Oberoi-only jaunt across north India?
All insanely expensive, were I paying, but I still think this tops out. Wow
That someone is prepared to spend so much to keep you and your ignorant poisonous bile out of the country for a while might surprise the person on the Clapham omnibus, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any regular PB’er.
That’s just unpleasant
Not just unpleasant, mildly humourous and unpleasant. If posters are happy to dish out unpleasantness themselves, then inevitably they get some back. And he can take it, he probably even prefers it to not getting a mention at all.
I disagree. There was nothing humorous about it. It was just a simple unprovoked insult. Completely uncalled for
If you feel the poster doesn't provoke then clearly we come from different worlds. He dishes it out and gets some back. A bit unpleasant on all sides I would accept, but mildly so relative to the internet generally and not one-sided against that poster.
He does provoke (sometimes amusingly sometimes less so). But that doesn’t excuse @IanB2 ‘s post.
It came out of nowhere, was not funny, and had a deeply unpleasant undertone to it. PB should be better than that.
Please feel free to point out anything amusing in the post.
People have different sense of humour shocker. Anyway enough on this. More interesting things to pointlessly argue about.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
If we are giving migrants trouser presses then I'm out. I'm done. Enough. Turn the boats back. Send for Nelson.
Obviously, well I think it must be the case, the asylum seekers don’t get the same treatment (3*) as paying guests, but it looks like a decent part of the world to stroll around, and no doubt the residents of the village aren’t too pleased to have a charming little hotel replaced by an asylum seekers pen. What’s the upside for a local family?
Based on local knowledge, if you replace an asylum hotel with a barracks for asylum seekers then Labour won't stand any candidates in that area. Gives you options locally.
Do you think the distant owner of the hotel is going to care about what the locals think he doesn’t live locally but likes the regular large pay cheque
Because the government are literally paying the daily rack rate for every room in the hotel, while not expecting many of the usual services.
It’s a total ripoff to the taxpayer, and the hotelier will be easily able to fund a full refurb when the govt contract ends.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
If we are giving migrants trouser presses then I'm out. I'm done. Enough. Turn the boats back. Send for Nelson.
Obviously, well I think it must be the case, the asylum seekers don’t get the same treatment (3*) as paying guests, but it looks like a decent part of the world to stroll around, and no doubt the residents of the village aren’t too pleased to have a charming little hotel replaced by an asylum seekers pen. What’s the upside for a local family?
Based on local knowledge, if you replace an asylum hotel with a barracks for asylum seekers then Labour won't stand any candidates in that area. Gives you options locally.
Do you think the distant owner of the hotel is going to care about what the locals think he doesn’t live locally but likes the regular large pay cheque
Because the government are literally paying the daily rack rate for every room in the hotel, while not expecting many of the usual services.
It’s a total ripoff to the taxpayer, and the hotelier will be easily able to fund a full refurb when the govt contract ends.
My wife worked for a Hotel group that looked at this some years ago though. It wasn't economic compared to the rate (far from rack) they got from bus tour operators. So if it has changed, could you cite your sources.
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Glad I'm not the only one thinking this way!
Its hard to imagine SKS withdrawing mandelson as ambassador on the basis of this report. But he might have done (he does love a process!) and he should have had a chance to make that decision.
Good morning
Cat Little's evidence was the cabinet secretary's view but was not quite the counter to Robbins you seem to think
There is no doubt there are discrepancies between her evidence and Robbins but more important evidence is due next week from McSweeney and Sir Philip Barton, Robbins predecessor, who will give evidence why he strongly opposed rushing the appointment
There is more to come and more document releases which with virtually a daily drip drip on Starmer is parayalsing government
His cabinet and mps are in despair and saw the sacking of Olly Robbins as a serious mistake by Starmer
Where this ends goodness knows but it is not good for labour or the country to have a lame duck PM
You can view the testimony on UK Parliament. The relevant parts are Thornberry's questions, the other MPs tended to ask Little to opine on other people's thinking or for classified info which Little declined to answer with good reason. The key points are: Email trail shows FCDO tried to skip DV, not CO and FCDO were told "it's your decision but we advise DV" UKSV provided a 10 page summary to the FCDO of their conclusions UKSV provided that "in writing" on a secure portal, that is how UKSV provides reports, not an oral discussion There is no record of Robbins oral discussion of Mandelson being "borderline" Civil Service code requires record keeping of key discussions September, FCDO requests documents from UKSV on vetting which are provided same day No record of Robbins having requested vetting report or that being refused Robbins refused to provide Little with UKSV summary or audit trail related to his decision to pass Mandelson on security/confidentiality grounds Little requested summary from and was provided it by UKSV
The only point on which Little was rattled was taking 3 weeks to tell Starmer, she has gathered all the paperwork she can for the humble address and has an audit trail that refutes key parts of Robbins' testimony.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
If we are giving migrants trouser presses then I'm out. I'm done. Enough. Turn the boats back. Send for Nelson.
Obviously, well I think it must be the case, the asylum seekers don’t get the same treatment (3*) as paying guests, but it looks like a decent part of the world to stroll around, and no doubt the residents of the village aren’t too pleased to have a charming little hotel replaced by an asylum seekers pen. What’s the upside for a local family?
Based on local knowledge, if you replace an asylum hotel with a barracks for asylum seekers then Labour won't stand any candidates in that area. Gives you options locally.
Do you think the distant owner of the hotel is going to care about what the locals think he doesn’t live locally but likes the regular large pay cheque
Because the government are literally paying the daily rack rate for every room in the hotel, while not expecting many of the usual services.
It’s a total ripoff to the taxpayer, and the hotelier will be easily able to fund a full refurb when the govt contract ends.
For the Britannia Hotel in Canary Wharf the taxpayer was paying £81 per person per night. National average is around £119 per night.
Taken together pretty sure that means contracts are negotiated locally and not based on rack rates.
Off on a trip at the weekend. Looking forward to it
Partly because I have just been told the cost of the trip, WERE I paying (I am not paying)
Somewhere between £30,000-£35,000. For a week
Miami for the F1? Although for most it will be a lot more expensive than £35k.
I've been trying to work out if it is the single most expensive week long trip I've ever taken
Probably it is. I did the maiden voyage of the Greg Mortimer to Antarctica, with Antarctic sea kayaking led by the man who invented Antarctic sea-kayaying. That was about £20,000 back then and might be £30k now, but it's nearly two weeks
Private helicoptering around the Whitsundays? My personal safari right across Zambia with my own little aircraft at various points? The Oberoi-only jaunt across north India?
All insanely expensive, were I paying, but I still think this tops out. Wow
That someone is prepared to spend so much to keep you and your ignorant poisonous bile out of the country for a while might surprise the person on the Clapham omnibus, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise to any regular PB’er.
That’s just unpleasant
Not just unpleasant, mildly humourous and unpleasant. If posters are happy to dish out unpleasantness themselves, then inevitably they get some back. And he can take it, he probably even prefers it to not getting a mention at all.
I disagree. There was nothing humorous about it. It was just a simple unprovoked insult. Completely uncalled for
If you feel the poster doesn't provoke then clearly we come from different worlds. He dishes it out and gets some back. A bit unpleasant on all sides I would accept, but mildly so relative to the internet generally and not one-sided against that poster.
He does provoke (sometimes amusingly sometimes less so). But that doesn’t excuse @IanB2 ‘s post.
It came out of nowhere, was not funny, and had a deeply unpleasant undertone to it. PB should be better than that.
Please feel free to point out anything amusing in the post.
People have different sense of humour shocker. Anyway enough on this. More interesting things to pointlessly argue about.
Feel free to explain the amusing bit. I just see invective
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
If we are giving migrants trouser presses then I'm out. I'm done. Enough. Turn the boats back. Send for Nelson.
Obviously, well I think it must be the case, the asylum seekers don’t get the same treatment (3*) as paying guests, but it looks like a decent part of the world to stroll around, and no doubt the residents of the village aren’t too pleased to have a charming little hotel replaced by an asylum seekers pen. What’s the upside for a local family?
Based on local knowledge, if you replace an asylum hotel with a barracks for asylum seekers then Labour won't stand any candidates in that area. Gives you options locally.
Do you think the distant owner of the hotel is going to care about what the locals think he doesn’t live locally but likes the regular large pay cheque
Because the government are literally paying the daily rack rate for every room in the hotel, while not expecting many of the usual services.
It’s a total ripoff to the taxpayer, and the hotelier will be easily able to fund a full refurb when the govt contract ends.
For the Britannia Hotel in Canary Wharf the taxpayer was paying £81 per person per night. National average is around £119 per night.
Taken together pretty sure that means contracts are negotiated locally and not based on rack rates.
A lot of the cost of running hotels is housekeeping - making beds, changing sheets and towels, hoovering and dusting. Don't see any reports of this in asylum hotels so there is a question about how the cost based changes from public occupation to asylum seeker occupation. For example, is is security costs or perhaps excess profits*.
I know we are not allowed to criticise BPC pollsters but this has absolute crock written all over it.
Which bit? The VI or the seat projections?
The VI seems pretty in-line with recent polling by just about everyone.
I'm not sure anyone has a particularly convincing model of seat distribution that covers a result resembling a VI similar to this poll. IMHO it's too big a change from anything we've got a precident for to model even halfway reliably.
I think you'd expect an MRP to do reasonably well, particularly as vote shares seem to vary quite strongly in different demographic groups.
Sure:
But at the same time, with so many parties with such small gaps between them, there are going to be a lot of very close contests.
Well, that depends. The national vote shares are quite close, but I'd expect the Green vote to be fairly strongly concentrated in the most urban third of the country, and the Reform vote to be strongly concentrated in the other two thirds. We know the Lib Dem vote is currently quite strongly concentrated in ~100 seats. So you might expect quite a large number of seats where it isn't that close.
There's probably an interesting article to be written based on looking in detail at an MRP.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
"men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women.
Try and understand the distinction between a category and individuals within it. As a category the male sex is a risk to women. That is a fact. Loads of individuals within that category are no risk at all - wouldn't dream of committing sexual crimes etc. But policies to minimise the risk have to be based on categories not on individuals. And the only way we can teach individual men to behave with restraint and self-control is by recognising the risk.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.
Comments
It's not immediately clear to me that:
a) Farage cares much about Scotland
b) The SNP are likely to win a referendum anyway
Scotland disproportionately drags the UK parliament a long way leftwards of where it naturally "should" be - I suspect Farage might well consider that losing Scotland was easily a price worth paying for a permanently right wing England.
More problematic for Farage is that that he would still need Tory votes for all the really important stuff he intends to do - i.e. unpicking the broken Blairite settlement which makes it impossible to do almost anything as a government without ending up in a legal quagmire, as almost all of that is UK wide legislation.
The VI seems pretty in-line with recent polling by just about everyone.
I'm not sure anyone has a particularly convincing model of seat distribution that covers a result resembling a VI similar to this poll. IMHO it's too big a change from anything we've got a precident for to model even halfway reliably.
Also worth pointing out that the highest opinion poll score for Labour since the Gorton and Denton by-election is 22% (same for the Tories) so it's not that far out from the consensus.
Opinion polling is hard, so I can easily believe that they are all wrong. The difficulty is in knowing in what way they are wrong.
https://www.gbnews.com/politics/indyref2-brexit-scotland-nigel-farage-politics
I wanted to generate some money from my interest in politics, and indeed there have been profitable nights on here, but more betting insights, rather than egotistical, repetitive, boring opinions, would be very welcome.
But at the same time, with so many parties with such small gaps between them, there are going to be a lot of very close contests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPfZX7wJDLA
Its hard to imagine SKS withdrawing mandelson as ambassador on the basis of this report. But he might have done (he does love a process!) and he should have had a chance to make that decision.
If I, a semi-retired doctor in provincial England, can know that Mandelson is a wrong 'un then how come the PM and leader of the Labour party does not?
It didn't need vetting in the first place.
Cat Little's evidence was the cabinet secretary's view but was not quite the counter to Robbins you seem to think
There is no doubt there are discrepancies between her evidence and Robbins but more important evidence is due next week from McSweeney and Sir Philip Barton, Robbins predecessor, who will give evidence why he strongly opposed rushing the appointment
There is more to come and more document releases which with virtually a daily drip drip on Starmer is parayalsing government
His cabinet and mps are in despair and saw the sacking of Olly Robbins as a serious mistake by Starmer
Where this ends goodness knows but it is not good for labour or the country to have a lame duck PM
Does that excuse this? No. Does it explain the shambles involved? Possibly.
The Mandelson appointment was widely welcomed at the time I think so it's not like everyone said it was a bad idea. I agree Starmer was foolish to have done it.
That level of vetting is indeed pointless form ticking, hence the the civil servants found a way to give the answer Starmer wanted at the time, and doesn't want now.
But this was a new assault and unprovoked by anything other than a tedious boastful post by @Leon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBKhyIkEeGg
(Trump won the state by 13%)
It came out of nowhere, was not funny, and had a deeply unpleasant undertone to it. PB should be better than that.
Please feel free to point out anything amusing in the post.
I think we’re now passed the point of no return with the situation in Iran .
Which leadership candidate wants to take over with the economy in free fall ?
Stats for Lefties is someone on the internet who really dislikes Starmer and Starmerism. Clue is in the name.
Put the two together, and...
It’s a total ripoff to the taxpayer, and the hotelier will be easily able to fund a full refurb when the govt contract ends.
NEW THREAD
The key points are:
Email trail shows FCDO tried to skip DV, not CO and FCDO were told "it's your decision but we advise DV"
UKSV provided a 10 page summary to the FCDO of their conclusions
UKSV provided that "in writing" on a secure portal, that is how UKSV provides reports, not an oral discussion
There is no record of Robbins oral discussion of Mandelson being "borderline"
Civil Service code requires record keeping of key discussions
September, FCDO requests documents from UKSV on vetting which are provided same day
No record of Robbins having requested vetting report or that being refused
Robbins refused to provide Little with UKSV summary or audit trail related to his decision to pass Mandelson on security/confidentiality grounds
Little requested summary from and was provided it by UKSV
The only point on which Little was rattled was taking 3 weeks to tell Starmer, she has gathered all the paperwork she can for the humble address and has an audit trail that refutes key parts of Robbins' testimony.
Taken together pretty sure that means contracts are negotiated locally and not based on rack rates.
*Not likely on previous calculations.
There's probably an interesting article to be written based on looking in detail at an MRP.
I put it as bluntly as I did because too often discussion on this topic by men seems to me to fail to recognise that men are the risk, that men - if not controlled and taught restraint effectively - are more likely to misbehave than you seem to think (I was raped by a lawyer who everyone thought was a great friendly bloke, wouldn't harm a fly sort of chap), the risk does not simply come from a class called rapists) and, above all, there is little realisation about how having to manage this risk affects women throughout her life from about 11 onwards.
I am well aware that loads of men are decent wonderful people. But loads aren't and women have to arrange their lives on the basis that they aren't. We can't afford to be Pollyanna-ish about this. I agree that men have to teach other men and boys what is or is not acceptable.
Might I gently also suggest that teaching other men what is or is not acceptable starts with learning from and listening to women how they feel about this and how this unacceptable behaviour affects women's lives in ways that men often - because it does not happen to them in anything like the same way - do not appreciate.