On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
The names flying around that are rumoured to be on the list to stand aside from Burnham is getting smaller. Several MPs this week denying they have any intention to do so:
- Peter Dowd - Navendu Mishra - Marie Rimmer - Afzal Kahn
Burnham camp suggest a move is imminent. Who will it be, and if not now, when?
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
The damage being done to Labour is getting worse by the hour. Who the fuck would ever vote for them, ever again, after all this?
Not even me, for bantz
Yeah, it all a bit too Tory for me, but without the ruthlessness.
Yes, it's like the incredible, vivid, speedy assassination of Ceaser, except Brutus has tripped over his own sandals and accidentally stabbed Ptolemy, who only came to ask directions. Then Cassius lunged nobly but missed and stabbed a pineapple, Casca started yodelling for no reason then fainted into a porphyry urn, while Decimus just cut off his own penis by mistake
The names flying around that are rumoured to be on the list to stand aside from Burnham is getting smaller. Several MPs this week denying they have any intention to do so:
- Peter Dowd - Navendu Mishra - Marie Rimmer - Afzal Kahn
Burnham camp suggest a move is imminent. Who will it be, and if not now, when?
The names flying around that are rumoured to be on the list to stand aside from Burnham is getting smaller. Several MPs this week denying they have any intention to do so:
- Peter Dowd - Navendu Mishra - Marie Rimmer - Afzal Kahn
Burnham camp suggest a move is imminent. Who will it be, and if not now, when?
The damage being done to Labour is getting worse by the hour. Who the fuck would ever vote for them, ever again, after all this?
Not even me, for bantz
Yeah, it all a bit too Tory for me, but without the ruthlessness.
Yes, it's like the incredible, vivid, speedy assassination of Ceaser, except Brutus has tripped over his own sandals and accidentally stabbed Ptolemy, who only came to ask directions. Then Cassius lunged nobly but missed and stabbed a pineapple, Casca started yodelling for no reason then fainted into a porphyry urn, while Decimus just cut off his own penis by mistake
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
A fascinating presentation by Kate Carpenter, Vice President of the Chartered Institute for Highways and Transportation, about how demographics and population variability affects transportation and safety.
(An example is the impact that Crash Test dummies largely being based on a 50th-percentile man has on the safety of women - who are smaller and have different muscular-skeletal and soft-tissue, children - who are very different, and older people - who's bodies are not used, has on their safety in motor vehicles.)
There's a Q&A at the end for enthusiasts, and a further short presentation on the effect of sideroad Zebra Crossings.
Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm.
Indeedy !
She makes an argument that a proper equality comes from understanding all the data about your whole user population, rather than philosophical or political dogmas of any sort.
I quite like that.
Also the greatest ‘90s music reference in the history of PB!
More seriously they do now use female and child dummies in crash tests, modeling the elderly is a little more difficult but you could mostly do it with different sensor thresholds.
Looking at the EuroNCAP details, it appears to be only partial.
Nonetheless, a good wide range of things to think about.
Another interesting one is design of public information leaflets not fully reflecting the need to allow for the greater instance of male colour-blindness.
And the impact of a higher male pass rate on the practical driving test, whilst women have a higher pass rate on the driving theory test, whilst men have more collisions in their early years after passing than women. A complex question but is our driving test as good as it could be, and does it meet the need?
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Burnham-Backing Labour MP: “The Markets Will Have to Fall in Line”
Have they not heard of Liz Truss?
Ironically, no-one had heard of the bond markets until Liz Truss's premiership.
"I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody"
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
It’s worse than that, it sounds like she’s suggesting that Starmer actually has the power to put Burnham in the Commons, as opposed to him needling to win an election to have that right.
Or is she suggesting that Burnham becomes PM from the Lords and Rayner is his deputy and nominated as party leader from the Commons?
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
The names flying around that are rumoured to be on the list to stand aside from Burnham is getting smaller. Several MPs this week denying they have any intention to do so:
- Peter Dowd - Navendu Mishra - Marie Rimmer - Afzal Kahn
Burnham camp suggest a move is imminent. Who will it be, and if not now, when?
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Burnham-Backing Labour MP: “The Markets Will Have to Fall in Line”
Have they not heard of Liz Truss?
Ironically, no-one had heard of the bond markets until Liz Truss's premiership.
"I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody"
James Carville, Clinton aide, 1993
We wouldn’t be so beholden to them if we didn’t have to borrow so much. Oh for the days of the Long Term Economic Plan.
The names flying around that are rumoured to be on the list to stand aside from Burnham is getting smaller. Several MPs this week denying they have any intention to do so:
- Peter Dowd - Navendu Mishra - Marie Rimmer - Afzal Kahn
Burnham camp suggest a move is imminent. Who will it be, and if not now, when?
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
Vance is favourite because he is the sitting VP and could be the sitting P if Trump goes first.
The damage being done to Labour is getting worse by the hour. Who the fuck would ever vote for them, ever again, after all this?
Not even me, for bantz
Yeah, it all a bit too Tory for me, but without the ruthlessness.
Yes, it's like the incredible, vivid, speedy assassination of Ceaser, except Brutus has tripped over his own sandals and accidentally stabbed Ptolemy, who only came to ask directions. Then Cassius lunged nobly but missed and stabbed a pineapple, Casca started yodelling for no reason then fainted into a porphyry urn, while Decimus just cut off his own penis by mistake
megan kenyon @meganekenyon · 21m Rhun ap Iorwerth becomes the first Plaid Cymru First Minister of Wales - and the first non-Labour FM since the Senedd was created 27 years ago. A historic moment for Wales.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
It’s worse than that, it sounds like she’s suggesting that Starmer actually has the power to put Burnham in the Commons, as opposed to him needling to win an election to have that right.
Or is she suggesting that Burnham becomes PM from the Lords and Rayner is his deputy and nominated as party leader from the Commons?
Simon: Captain, your navigator, Mr. Unger, and your first officer, Mr. Dunn. Capt. Oveur: Unger. Unger: Oveur. Dunn: Oveur. Capt. Oveur: Dunn. Gentlemen, let's get to work. Simon: Unger, didn't you serve under Oveur in the Air Force? Unger: Not directly. Technically, Dunn was under Oveur and I was under Dunn. Dunn: Yep. Simon: So, Dunn, you were under Oveur and over Unger. Unger: Yep. Capt. Oveur: That's right. Dunn was over Unger and I was over Dunn. Unger: So, you see, both Dunn and I were under Oveur, even though I was under Dunn. Capt. Oveur: Dunn was over Unger, and I was over Dunn.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Burnham-Backing Labour MP: “The Markets Will Have to Fall in Line”
Have they not heard of Liz Truss?
Ironically, no-one had heard of the bond markets until Liz Truss's premiership.
"I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody"
James Carville, Clinton aide, 1993
We wouldn’t be so beholden to them if we didn’t have to borrow so much. Oh for the days of the Long Term Economic Plan.
If only Gordon Brown hadn’t split with Prudence in 2001…
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Burnham-Backing Labour MP: “The Markets Will Have to Fall in Line”
Have they not heard of Liz Truss?
Ironically, no-one had heard of the bond markets until Liz Truss's premiership.
"I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody"
James Carville, Clinton aide, 1993
We wouldn’t be so beholden to them if we didn’t have to borrow so much. Oh for the days of the Long Term Economic Plan.
If only Gordon Brown hadn’t split with Prudence in 2001…
Debt interest payments of £100bn each year. Imagine spending £100bn on the Navy each year…
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
Vance is favourite because he is the sitting VP and could be the sitting P if Trump goes first.
Yes, but he’s also leading in the polling of GOP voters.
My working theory is that when the two of them debate each other, Rubio will likely come out on top.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Burnham-Backing Labour MP: “The Markets Will Have to Fall in Line”
Have they not heard of Liz Truss?
Ironically, no-one had heard of the bond markets until Liz Truss's premiership.
"I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody"
James Carville, Clinton aide, 1993
We wouldn’t be so beholden to them if we didn’t have to borrow so much. Oh for the days of the Long Term Economic Plan.
If only Gordon Brown hadn’t split with Prudence in 2001…
Debt interest payments of £100bn each year. Imagine spending £100bn on the Navy each year…
We should just stop paying them. Whip them into line
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
The damage being done to Labour is getting worse by the hour. Who the fuck would ever vote for them, ever again, after all this?
Not even me, for bantz
Yeah, it all a bit too Tory for me, but without the ruthlessness.
Yes, it's like the incredible, vivid, speedy assassination of Ceaser, except Brutus has tripped over his own sandals and accidentally stabbed Ptolemy, who only came to ask directions. Then Cassius lunged nobly but missed and stabbed a pineapple, Casca started yodelling for no reason then fainted into a porphyry urn, while Decimus just cut off his own penis by mistake
Isn't that essentially Carry On Cleo?
While Trump is busy trying to wage a war, Starmer's busy trying to make a peace.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
Not so much quality Streeting, he would be a cul-de-sac.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
I doubt that would bring the matter to a close.
If Streeting's bid turns into a squib, does that make it easier or harder for Labour to avenue leader?
Austrian Eurofighters scrambled twice in two days to intercept USAF PC-12 aircraft that entered Austrian airspace without permission, Die Welt reports.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Designated terrorists for life too.
To be clear, I’d have convicted these idiots for criminal damage. But to have been deceived like this by the court… well, there’d likely be criminal damage conviction coming my way too if I was on the jury.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Designated terrorists for life too.
To be clear, I’d have convicted these idiots for criminal damage. But to have been deceived like this by the court… well, there’d likely be criminal damage conviction coming my way too if I was on the jury.
Disgusting.
I think the book needs to be thrown at Corner, his actions with the sledgehammer crossed a massive line. The others should not be on indeterminate sentences.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
I doubt that would bring the matter to a close.
If Streeting's bid turns into a squib, does that make it easier or harder for Labour to avenue leader?
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Burnham-Backing Labour MP: “The Markets Will Have to Fall in Line”
Have they not heard of Liz Truss?
Ironically, no-one had heard of the bond markets until Liz Truss's premiership.
"I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody"
James Carville, Clinton aide, 1993
We wouldn’t be so beholden to them if we didn’t have to borrow so much. Oh for the days of the Long Term Economic Plan.
I think in the run up to 2029 Kemi (or whoever replaces her) should bring Long Term Economic Plan back and Balance the Books back. We're going to be spending such a huge, eyewatering amount on debt interest by then just cutting that with sound finances will enable tens of billions worth of headroom.
One of the great achievements of the coalition government was to keep the debt interest bill from spiralling by having such a strong plan on cutting spending and reducing the structural deficit. Labour have utterly failed to do this and we're all paying for it.
I've no idea if this Tweeter is reliable, or doing it for gags, but still. Just in case
BREAKING NEWS
Reporters on the ground say Angela Rayner was seen in the rear of the vehicle alongside Andy Burnham.
The car appears to be heading toward the Millbank Studios (BBC/Sky News). This strongly suggests a televised joint statement is imminent.
We are no longer waiting for a "slow move." The arrival of Burnham and Rayner at a TV studio, combined with the 81-letter threshold being hit, means we are likely hours away from an official leadership contest being triggered."
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
I doubt that would bring the matter to a close.
If Streeting's bid turns into a squib, does that make it easier or harder for Labour to avenue leader?
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
The sledgehammer attacker deserves a couple of years inside, that's close to attempted murder
I don't think anyone is defending that. It's the terror charges being added after the event and hidden from the jury. THAT stinks - but I feel we are missing something
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
megan kenyon @meganekenyon · 21m Rhun ap Iorwerth becomes the first Plaid Cymru First Minister of Wales - and the first non-Labour FM since the Senedd was created 27 years ago. A historic moment for Wales.
I wish him well and very pleased the conservative group did not back Reform in the vote
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It’s not fair in any sense at all.
You know how they could have avoided this fate? It's an easy one.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It’s not fair in any sense at all.
I'm staggered Corner wasn't convicted of GBH with intent. It is not a pub brawl gone wrong when you swing a sledgehammer into someone's back.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It’s not fair in any sense at all.
You know how they could have avoided this fate? It's an easy one.
You’re a fool. This malpractice will be used against people like you one day.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
I should imagine it includes i) Gavin Newsom, ii) diapers, and iii) fraud. But beyond that I dunno
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Burnham-Backing Labour MP: “The Markets Will Have to Fall in Line”
Have they not heard of Liz Truss?
Ironically, no-one had heard of the bond markets until Liz Truss's premiership.
James Carville - Bill Clinton's chief political strategist - initially made the gag all the way back in 1993:
I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Designated terrorists for life too.
To be clear, I’d have convicted these idiots for criminal damage. But to have been deceived like this by the court… well, there’d likely be criminal damage conviction coming my way too if I was on the jury.
Disgusting.
The biggest red flag here is the fact it’s a retrial. The original jury didn’t give the state the result it wanted, so it’s engineered a different result.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It’s not fair in any sense at all.
You know how they could have avoided this fate? It's an easy one.
You’re a fool. This malpractice will be used against people like you one day.
Are sentences usually considered at the conviction phase? I thought it was just a factual finding of whether someone did something or not.
I think they must be brainstorming to resurrect alternative leadership candidates from the past. Expect to see Tristram Hunt in Downing Street next, followed by James Purnell.
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes Burnham-Backing Labour MP: “The Markets Will Have to Fall in Line”
Have they not heard of Liz Truss?
Ironically, no-one had heard of the bond markets until Liz Truss's premiership.
James Carville - Bill Clinton's chief political strategist - initially made the gag all the way back in 1993:
I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It’s not fair in any sense at all.
I'm staggered Corner wasn't convicted of GBH with intent. It is not a pub brawl gone wrong when you swing a sledgehammer into someone's back.
Why wasn’t that the charge?
Hitting people with heavy objects is illegal. And has been since before the Anglo-Saxons.
Health minister Zubir Ahmed become latest Streeting ally to resign, saying Starmer's position now 'wholly untenable' This is from Pippa Crerar, the Guardian’s political editor.
EXCL: Zubir Ahmed, health minister and another close ally of Wes Streeting, quits calling for Keir Starmer to step aside.
I think they must be brainstorming to resurrect alternative leadership candidates from the past. Expect to see Tristram Hunt in Downing Street next, followed by James Purnell.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It’s not fair in any sense at all.
I'm staggered Corner wasn't convicted of GBH with intent. It is not a pub brawl gone wrong when you swing a sledgehammer into someone's back.
Why wasn’t that the charge?
Hitting people with heavy objects is illegal. And has been since before the Anglo-Saxons.
They were found innocent on that charge, amazingly.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Designated terrorists for life too.
To be clear, I’d have convicted these idiots for criminal damage. But to have been deceived like this by the court… well, there’d likely be criminal damage conviction coming my way too if I was on the jury.
Disgusting.
The biggest red flag here is the fact it’s a retrial. The original jury didn’t give the state the result it wanted, so it’s engineered a different result.
I think they must be brainstorming to resurrect alternative leadership candidates from the past. Expect to see Tristram Hunt in Downing Street next, followed by James Purnell.
Owen Smith, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt seen entering Downing Street.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It’s not fair in any sense at all.
I'm staggered Corner wasn't convicted of GBH with intent. It is not a pub brawl gone wrong when you swing a sledgehammer into someone's back.
Why wasn’t that the charge?
Hitting people with heavy objects is illegal. And has been since before the Anglo-Saxons.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Designated terrorists for life too.
To be clear, I’d have convicted these idiots for criminal damage. But to have been deceived like this by the court… well, there’d likely be criminal damage conviction coming my way too if I was on the jury.
Disgusting.
The biggest red flag here is the fact it’s a retrial. The original jury didn’t give the state the result it wanted, so it’s engineered a different result.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
We appear to be in a bit of a Mexican stand-off now.
Keir Starmer digging in and refusing to resign.
Wes Streeting not wanting to declare until there is a contest.
So Streeting's in a bit of a dead end? In that case, he's at risk of a cull. De sack is what normally awaits disloyal ministers.
Hard to imagine that Zubir Ahmed would have resigned without his boss's encouragement. Streeting is getting closer and closer to the line but choosing not to cross himself.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
Health minister Zubir Ahmed become latest Streeting ally to resign, saying Starmer's position now 'wholly untenable' This is from Pippa Crerar, the Guardian’s political editor.
EXCL: Zubir Ahmed, health minister and another close ally of Wes Streeting, quits calling for Keir Starmer to step aside.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Comments
Not even me, for bantz
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
The Tories dicked around for months over Boris.
The names flying around that are rumoured to be on the list to stand aside from Burnham is getting smaller. Several MPs this week denying they have any intention to do so:
- Peter Dowd
- Navendu Mishra
- Marie Rimmer
- Afzal Kahn
Burnham camp suggest a move is imminent. Who will it be, and if not now, when?
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
* In an alternative universe perhaps.
The one Powellite saying we can all agree on.
https://x.com/Peston/status/2054212936998985750
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Nonetheless, a good wide range of things to think about.
Another interesting one is design of public information leaflets not fully reflecting the need to allow for the greater instance of male colour-blindness.
And the impact of a higher male pass rate on the practical driving test, whilst women have a higher pass rate on the driving theory test, whilst men have more collisions in their early years after passing than women. A complex question but is our driving test as good as it could be, and does it meet the need?
James Carville, Clinton aide, 1993
Or is she suggesting that Burnham becomes PM from the Lords and Rayner is his deputy and nominated as party leader from the Commons?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
megan kenyon
@meganekenyon
·
21m
Rhun ap Iorwerth becomes the first Plaid Cymru First Minister of Wales - and the first non-Labour FM since the Senedd was created 27 years ago. A historic moment for Wales.
Simon: Captain, your navigator, Mr. Unger, and your first officer, Mr. Dunn.
Capt. Oveur: Unger.
Unger: Oveur.
Dunn: Oveur.
Capt. Oveur: Dunn. Gentlemen, let's get to work.
Simon: Unger, didn't you serve under Oveur in the Air Force?
Unger: Not directly. Technically, Dunn was under Oveur and I was under Dunn.
Dunn: Yep.
Simon: So, Dunn, you were under Oveur and over Unger.
Unger: Yep.
Capt. Oveur: That's right. Dunn was over Unger and I was over Dunn.
Unger: So, you see, both Dunn and I were under Oveur, even though I was under Dunn.
Capt. Oveur: Dunn was over Unger, and I was over Dunn.
One suspects that many of the new Lab backbenchers don’t think to pay an appropriate amount of deference to the occasion.
My working theory is that when the two of them debate each other, Rubio will likely come out on top.
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Austrian Eurofighters scrambled twice in two days to intercept USAF PC-12 aircraft that entered Austrian airspace without permission, Die Welt reports.
To be clear, I’d have convicted these idiots for criminal damage. But to have been deceived like this by the court… well, there’d likely be criminal damage conviction coming my way too if I was on the jury.
Disgusting.
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
One of the great achievements of the coalition government was to keep the debt interest bill from spiralling by having such a strong plan on cutting spending and reducing the structural deficit. Labour have utterly failed to do this and we're all paying for it.
https://x.com/danieljmath1/status/2053959925345177761?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
I don't think anyone is defending that. It's the terror charges being added after the event and hidden from the jury. THAT stinks - but I feel we are missing something
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It’s not fair in any sense at all.
We appear to be in a bit of a Mexican stand-off now.
Keir Starmer digging in and refusing to resign.
Wes Streeting not wanting to declare until there is a contest.
I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or a .400 baseball hitter. But now I want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.
You snooze, you lose, I guess.
Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
Hitting people with heavy objects is illegal. And has been since before the Anglo-Saxons.
This is from Pippa Crerar, the Guardian’s political editor.
EXCL: Zubir Ahmed, health minister and another close ally of Wes Streeting, quits calling for Keir Starmer to step aside.
Feels like the Streeting bid could be on
Here is the letter.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/may/12/keir-starmer-prime-minister-resignation-labour-leadership-cabinet-meeting-yvette-cooper-shabana-mahmood-andy-burnham-wes-streeting-uk-politics-latest-news-updates
It's Kafkaesque.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.