Is is possible Nicola didn't know? I suppose if it was "only" £35k per year it is.
It is possible. If she is as stupid as she claims and has as bad a memory.
Now let us ask a different question.
Is it plausible that somebody who rose to the top of the SNP and put together perhaps the most formidable election winning machine in Europe is as stupid and forgetful as Sturgeon claims to be?
I suppose it depends on the breakdown. A camper van is hard to ignore. But a £10k steel mens watch looks much like a £1k steel mens watch to the average observer, for example.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
After a few gins, he starts banging on about IQ being race based and The Muslamics are all going to kill us. Oh, and we need to expel zillions of immigrants.
Sounds fairly racialist* to me.
*Not sure why i think this word should be used more. But I do.
Britain’s justice system is creaking at the seams.Wanted criminals are fleeing the country, escaping the reaches of the UK police. In this new investigation, @C4Dispatches reveals an unprecedented rise in British criminals, skipping court and going on the run.
Britain’s justice system is creaking at the seams.Wanted criminals are fleeing the country, escaping the reaches of the UK police. In this new investigation, @C4Dispatches reveals an unprecedented rise in British criminals, skipping court and going on the run.
Britain’s justice system is creaking at the seams.Wanted criminals are fleeing the country, escaping the reaches of the UK police. In this new investigation, @C4Dispatches reveals an unprecedented rise in British criminals, skipping court and going on the run.
"In place by the election after next", what is this weak lame pathetic pile of meh.
If you're going to do the thing, do the thing. Don't make a plan to do the thing that will be aborted by the next majority government.
Putting it in the manifesto and then delivering it after avoids another dreaded referendum. But there’s nothing to stop Burnham committing to align local government to the same STV system already used in Scotland, sooner, which could be done very quickly.
Burnham (assuming he threads the needle to pm) making a clear commitment to electoral reform then actually following through on it would be a clear break with the modus operandi of Starmerism.
Why would he do that when he can win a solid majority under FPTP?
Because he thinks it would be good for the country?
That's rather touching.
Yes and no. Most dispassionate observers can see that our voting system is no longer fit for purpose - and no longer delivering against what most would agree was its original purpose - and as someone who’s been outside the Westminster system for a while, Burnham likely sees that clearer than most MPs. And comes from a party inside which there’s long been majority support for PR amongst the membership. Plus he as a track record of working with politicians of other parties across Greater Manchester, which few MPs will have, and understands the strengths of political systems based on co-operation and compromise rather than the often futile adversarial system we have in Parliament.
Not convinced. What is the original purpose of everyone having a vote? And what counts as a good outcome now?
What about this: When people vote they vote in favour of a thing - let us say in favour of a Starmer led Labour government because all the alternatives are worse. Ditto Reform voters are voting in favour of a quite distinct thing, not some diluted thing.
We are not collectively, because we are not individually, voting for 20% of thing X and 24% of thing Y and 5% of lunatic thing Z like in Israel. We are voting for the best available government, and (increasingly) to prevent lunatic thing Z, and we are voting for a specific individual to be 100% our representative whether as part of governing or not.
IMHO straight FPTP achieves this mostly, AV achieves it better and PR does it worse.
You can't have a government which to the degree of 25% acts in favour of nationalist white ethnocentricity and 75% doesn't. At least I hope you can't.
I grew up in Denmark so I'm very familiar with their system - it works pretty well most of the time, with two clear blocs indicating which coalition will be put into power, and five or so parties offering nuances in that, e.g. more or less direct taxation or investment in schools. To my mind it's much fairer than AV, which is I think largely unknown outside the English-speaking countries, but it does defer detailed coalition-building to after the election. Arguably that reflects most people's interest in politics - it gives the chance to express a definite positive preference (right down to 2% of the vote) while leaving the details to the parties to work out. Where you have parties who might side with either bloc it complicates matters, but that does reflect popular opinion if there's no clear preference.
As a former MP I'm familiar with the argument that one's elected on the basis of personal qualities. It's true to a limit of maybe 10% of the electorate - most of the remainder don't have a clear view that candidate X is better than Y, and a significant proportion couldn't tell you who X and Y were.
The trouble with AV - which I acknowledge is what we'd get in Britain - is a clear bias to the centre parties, beyond that relfecting actual support for them. That works if politics is a smooth left-right axis, but in reality there are numerous dimensions, with the nominally centre parties out on one extreme (e.g. the LibDem preference for rejoining the EU as quickly as possible). Nonetheless, AV does give a fairer reflection of what most voters want. And let's be honest - most of the time one vote isn't going to decide anything - it's a general impression that counts.
For once I agree with you, Nick. I favour PR and dislike AV.
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
In NYC, every building just has an AC in the window, I am not sure why we don't allow that here.
The reason for no A/C is regulations stating that passive cooling must be used (unless absolutely impossible)
These came from the time that energy efficiency was being pushed, without considering the energy source.
In turn this means having complex geometries for flats - multiple aspects - more expensive and lower density.
I'd vaguely heard of these, but was unaware of just how extensive they were/are (an entire Saharan civilisation depended on them for centuries, for example).
I'm going to need a historical long read on this. Will this be covering all those (allegedly) dodgy front organisations associated with the Sindy campaign?
1) does this signify a movement away from his previous pro-Putin remarks?
2) it also seems to imply that he had no intention of declaring this £5 million pounds.
The second bit is clearly true.
The "it was Russia" thing ... smells of BS, but frankly, who cares ?
There was a hack from somewhere. Why not Russia? It admits the £5M though.
Why does there have to have been a hack? More likely that someone just blabbed to the Guardian.
A hack or a leak. Potato tomato. Unless you think it was either Harborne or Farage himself who phoned the papers. That's the point. Whether it was Russians, Iranians or Restore is a mere detail.
It says a lot about the narrative that Farage is trying to establish, of a man under attack. A hack speaks to malevolent powers attacking him.
A leak, however, speaks to disenchanted allies, or pissed off staff. It echoes with the many, many people who have fallen out with Farage. A leak is a failing.
So far, most of what Farage has said about the £5 million has been demonstrably false or irrelevant. These are not defences against the breach of the code of conduct. They are attempts to establish a narrative in the minds of his supporters because he knows the story is damaging. Understanding what story Farage wants to tell is illuminating.
1) does this signify a movement away from his previous pro-Putin remarks?
2) it also seems to imply that he had no intention of declaring this £5 million pounds.
The second bit is clearly true.
The "it was Russia" thing ... smells of BS, but frankly, who cares ?
There was a hack from somewhere. Why not Russia? It admits the £5M though.
Why does there have to have been a hack? More likely that someone just blabbed to the Guardian.
A hack or a leak. Potato tomato. Unless you think it was either Harborne or Farage himself who phoned the papers. That's the point. Whether it was Russians, Iranians or Restore is a mere detail.
It says a lot about the narrative that Farage is trying to establish, of a man under attack. A hack speaks to malevolent powers attacking him.
A leak, however, speaks to disenchanted allies, or pissed off staff. It echoes with the many, many people who have fallen out with Farage. A leak is a failing.
So far, most of what Farage has said about the £5 million has been demonstrably false or irrelevant. These are not defences against the breach of the code of conduct. They are attempts to establish a narrative in the minds of his supporters because he knows the story is damaging. Understanding what story Farage wants to tell is illuminating.
With Farage I'd lean towards 99% of what he says just being another twist of the flim-flam kaleidoscope. That's his record - why would it change? Yes, he's playing narrative games to distract, and that illuminates - but the technique is essentially the same as Trump.
And that the way to identify what has happened or is happening is entirely to ignore what he says, and follow the evidence.
I'm going to need a historical long read on this. Will this be covering all those (allegedly) dodgy front organisations associated with the Sindy campaign?
This I didn't know, on the difference between theft and embezzlement:
"Crosbie, of Edinburgh-based Black Chambers, says it does not matter what the accused’s purpose was, as long as it was dishonest.
He writes: “It also doesn’t matter whether the ‘borrowed’ funds were later repaid. In other words, the accused does not necessarily need to have gained anything.”"
It is all aligning for Andy to rebuild the 2024 coalition with Zack giving up
Reform and Conservatives combined well ahead of Labour and the Greens combined though, 48% to 33%.
Even adding the LDs only gets Labour and the Greens to 45% combined, so Labour need some of that Burnham bounce to take voters from Reform not just the Greens
IF we moved to PR for local elections, it wouldn't make much difference.
At Westminster, however, we'd have, as we see in other countries, a period of interregnum between Government formation. Denmark voted on 24th March - two months on, they still don't have a new Government.
I remember the almost panic in 2010 when we went without a Government for four days - imagine four weeks or four months with the previous PM in a caretaker capacity.We are used to the instant certainty of rapid change - within 12-18 hours of the end of polling, we have a new Prime Minister and Government.
That's an advantage of the current system - we wouldn't have paralysis without a Government - we'd have the good old tradition of paralysis with a Government.
I broadly agree.
Some form of PR, or even full PR via party lists, for local elections actually makes a fair amount of sense. Local government is structurally much better suited to consensus and coalition politics anyway.
It just does not scale naturally to Westminster as it is currently structured and organised.
Westminster still operates culturally and procedurally on the assumption that:
one party governs one party opposes manifestos are quasi-contractual governments are expected to implement a coherent programme elections are mechanisms for choosing executives, not simply representative assemblies
Trying to graft permanent coalition politics onto that system without wider constitutional redesign could easily create instability and voter confusion rather than greater legitimacy.
Constitutional systems are ecosystems. Electoral systems cannot really be analysed in isolation from the institutions and political culture around them.
I don't see why local government is different to Westminster.
Because Westminster is not simply a representative chamber. It is also the mechanism by which the national executive is created and sustained.
Local government does not carry the same constitutional role, political expectations or concentration of sovereign authority.
That distinction matters because different electoral systems optimise for different things. PR systems tend to prioritise representational fairness and negotiated consensus, whereas Westminster historically prioritised decisive executive formation and clear electoral accountability.
You can absolutely argue the latter model should change, but that is a broader constitutional argument than simply “PR is fairer”.
If you have lots of parties, then no system, not FPTP or anything else, will deliver a majority in Parliament. The choice is not between clear majorities with FPTP versus messy coalitions with PR. No, the choice is between messy coalitions with FPTP and messy coalitions with PR, but at least with the latter the parties start with results representing their national support.
If you want decisive executive formation, you need to have a two-party system (or close thereto) when electing a parliament. But if the voters insist on voting for lots of different parties, it won’t happen.
Unless you stop electing a parliament and start directly electing the executive, e.g. with a President. If you are electing a single position, then you necessarily have decisive executive formation.
1) does this signify a movement away from his previous pro-Putin remarks?
2) it also seems to imply that he had no intention of declaring this £5 million pounds.
The second bit is clearly true.
The "it was Russia" thing ... smells of BS, but frankly, who cares ?
There was a hack from somewhere. Why not Russia? It admits the £5M though.
Why does there have to have been a hack? More likely that someone just blabbed to the Guardian.
A hack or a leak. Potato tomato. Unless you think it was either Harborne or Farage himself who phoned the papers. That's the point. Whether it was Russians, Iranians or Restore is a mere detail.
It says a lot about the narrative that Farage is trying to establish, of a man under attack. A hack speaks to malevolent powers attacking him.
A leak, however, speaks to disenchanted allies, or pissed off staff. It echoes with the many, many people who have fallen out with Farage. A leak is a failing.
So far, most of what Farage has said about the £5 million has been demonstrably false or irrelevant. These are not defences against the breach of the code of conduct. They are attempts to establish a narrative in the minds of his supporters because he knows the story is damaging. Understanding what story Farage wants to tell is illuminating.
With Farage I'd lean towards 99% of what he says just being another twist of the flim-flam kaleidoscope. That's his record - why would it change? Yes, he's playing narrative games to distract, and that illuminates - but the technique is essentially the same as Trump.
And that the way to identify what has happened or is happening is entirely to ignore what he says, and follow the evidence.
Rather like Trump and his minions, it is the projection that is so much of the giveaway.
Farage clearly had no intention of making this £5 million bung public.
1) does this signify a movement away from his previous pro-Putin remarks?
2) it also seems to imply that he had no intention of declaring this £5 million pounds.
The second bit is clearly true.
The "it was Russia" thing ... smells of BS, but frankly, who cares ?
There was a hack from somewhere. Why not Russia? It admits the £5M though.
Why does there have to have been a hack? More likely that someone just blabbed to the Guardian.
A hack or a leak. Potato tomato. Unless you think it was either Harborne or Farage himself who phoned the papers. That's the point. Whether it was Russians, Iranians or Restore is a mere detail.
It says a lot about the narrative that Farage is trying to establish, of a man under attack. A hack speaks to malevolent powers attacking him.
A leak, however, speaks to disenchanted allies, or pissed off staff. It echoes with the many, many people who have fallen out with Farage. A leak is a failing.
So far, most of what Farage has said about the £5 million has been demonstrably false or irrelevant. These are not defences against the breach of the code of conduct. They are attempts to establish a narrative in the minds of his supporters because he knows the story is damaging. Understanding what story Farage wants to tell is illuminating.
It shows that the 3 in 10 voters who think he represents something better than has gone on in our recent politics is going to be seriously pissed off if he ever gets into power.
Russia is toxic to Reform and Farage. He was happy to take Putin's rubles when power was a pipe dream. Now the polling suggests maybe not, he is trying to erase those black marks. With all the lack of sophistication you'd expect. I don't believe for one minute that he was hacked by "the Russians". I do believe it shows why he is a lying arsehole though.
IF we moved to PR for local elections, it wouldn't make much difference.
At Westminster, however, we'd have, as we see in other countries, a period of interregnum between Government formation. Denmark voted on 24th March - two months on, they still don't have a new Government.
I remember the almost panic in 2010 when we went without a Government for four days - imagine four weeks or four months with the previous PM in a caretaker capacity.We are used to the instant certainty of rapid change - within 12-18 hours of the end of polling, we have a new Prime Minister and Government.
That's an advantage of the current system - we wouldn't have paralysis without a Government - we'd have the good old tradition of paralysis with a Government.
I broadly agree.
Some form of PR, or even full PR via party lists, for local elections actually makes a fair amount of sense. Local government is structurally much better suited to consensus and coalition politics anyway.
It just does not scale naturally to Westminster as it is currently structured and organised.
Westminster still operates culturally and procedurally on the assumption that:
one party governs one party opposes manifestos are quasi-contractual governments are expected to implement a coherent programme elections are mechanisms for choosing executives, not simply representative assemblies
Trying to graft permanent coalition politics onto that system without wider constitutional redesign could easily create instability and voter confusion rather than greater legitimacy.
Constitutional systems are ecosystems. Electoral systems cannot really be analysed in isolation from the institutions and political culture around them.
I don't see why local government is different to Westminster.
Because Westminster is not simply a representative chamber. It is also the mechanism by which the national executive is created and sustained.
Local government does not carry the same constitutional role, political expectations or concentration of sovereign authority.
That distinction matters because different electoral systems optimise for different things. PR systems tend to prioritise representational fairness and negotiated consensus, whereas Westminster historically prioritised decisive executive formation and clear electoral accountability.
You can absolutely argue the latter model should change, but that is a broader constitutional argument than simply “PR is fairer”.
If you have lots of parties, then no system, not FPTP or anything else, will deliver a majority in Parliament. The choice is not between clear majorities with FPTP versus messy coalitions with PR. No, the choice is between messy coalitions with FPTP and messy coalitions with PR, but at least with the latter the parties start with results representing their national support.
If you want decisive executive formation, you need to have a two-party system (or close thereto) when electing a parliament. But if the voters insist on voting for lots of different parties, it won’t happen.
Unless you stop electing a parliament and start directly electing the executive, e.g. with a President. If you are electing a single position, then you necessarily have decisive executive formation.
Looking across the Atlantic at this moment, that seems like a VERY BAD IDEA!
On EU law, Spain have built railways since the supposed EU environmental laws came in.
Just legislate that we approve a railway and it can’t be challenged. It gets built and job done.
Governments are VERY reluctant to legislate directly on major infrastructure projects, as I remember from my time working on government infrastructure policy.
Firstly, the moment you introduce a bill into Parliament, the issue becomes completely political. While it's down to the planning inspector, you can pretend it's a non-political process, even if the planning guidelines are comprehensively rigged so that they never veto a development that government really wants.
Second, the opposition pretty much has to oppose it, which raises the expectation that, when they take power, they will stop the project, causing all kinds of problems for contracts and compulsory purchase.
Thirdly, though you can't challenge the legislation direclty, you immediately challenge the government's process in deciding on the policy, for instance through leading to all kinds of intrusive information requirements that might show up embarassing things that governments would really rather not reveal.
Fourthly, the Lords might find a way to block it, especially if the legislation wasn't in the government's manifesto. That adds years onto the process.
So, overall, though a government might do this as an absolutely last resort, in practice there is are a number of reasons why it never happens.
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
In NYC, every building just has an AC in the window, I am not sure why we don't allow that here.
The reason for no A/C is regulations stating that passive cooling must be used (unless absolutely impossible)
These came from the time that energy efficiency was being pushed, without considering the energy source.
In turn this means having complex geometries for flats - multiple aspects - more expensive and lower density.
Natural air flow is ineffective above 25c
The minimum nighttime temperature in London hardly ever exceeds 25C, which means that overnight purge ventilation should be effective the vast majority of the time, with overnight cooling followed by shutting ventilation during the day to retain the coolth.
I incline to well insulated and passive ventilation, with minimal heating for the short period it is needed in winter, and minimal air con for the corresponding short period it is needed in the winter.
So I'd support passive ventilation expectations, with the efficient A2A heating / cooling on top say with a Coefficient of Performance of at least 2.5, plus reasonably expensive energy as a behaviour control. That's how I've been running my home for the last 3-4 years now - just with a small portable A2A unit to cover the gaps. I'll install the real thing when the newish boiler dies, or if I want to get gas out completely.
(I have lived in about 6 or 7 flats in London, including single and dual aspect, but none of them built post-2000 - so I do not have direct experience of new, energy efficient flats, since we really raised our building standards from ~2010.)
The Office for Students, which regulates the sector, found this month that 43 per cent of universities were likely to have ended 2025-26 in deficit after “over-optimistic” attempts to boost student recruitment.
Lucrative overseas students, who have helped universities subsidise UK students, fell by 10 per cent in 2025-26. This was the second successive annual decline as ministers tighten visa rules and economic turmoil in countries such as Nigeria reduces demand.
On Monday an annual survey by Universities UK, the umbrella body for higher education, found 38 per cent of the third of members that replied were carrying out compulsory redundancies, up from 11 per cent in 2024.
Some 79 per cent said they were making voluntary redundancies, the first time the question has been asked.
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
In NYC, every building just has an AC in the window, I am not sure why we don't allow that here.
The reason for no A/C is regulations stating that passive cooling must be used (unless absolutely impossible)
These came from the time that energy efficiency was being pushed, without considering the energy source.
In turn this means having complex geometries for flats - multiple aspects - more expensive and lower density.
I'd vaguely heard of these, but was unaware of just how extensive they were/are (an entire Saharan civilisation depended on them for centuries, for example).
There is a reason that air conditioning is ubiquitous in many countries.
It allows you to build far more flexibly than depending natural air flow, and works at higher temperatures.
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
Or build them as they did here in Italy in earlier centuries; where I am staying now has an AC unit in the living room attached to the house all, but I’ve not really needed it; despite the same temperatures outside that you’ve been having, this 17th C building always seems cool indoors
In NYC, every building just has an AC in the window, I am not sure why we don't allow that here.
The reason for no A/C is regulations stating that passive cooling must be used (unless absolutely impossible)
These came from the time that energy efficiency was being pushed, without considering the energy source.
In turn this means having complex geometries for flats - multiple aspects - more expensive and lower density.
I'd vaguely heard of these, but was unaware of just how extensive they were/are (an entire Saharan civilisation depended on them for centuries, for example).
There is a reason that air conditioning is ubiquitous in many countries.
It allows you to build far more flexibly than depending natural air flow, and works at higher temperatures.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
Poor form to analyse him in his absence.
How is it poor form? I am basically defending the bloke, who I don't think to be a racist.
It is impossible to have windows into mens souls, but certainly @Leon_VotedForStarmer is prone to making racist and islamophobic posts.
I don't think he has the intellectual depth of Enoch Powell in his racism. It is more that he is gullible to what ever bit of rage bait that is circulating in the sewers of right wing social media. He has the intellectual backbone of a jelly fish combined with a narcissm that makes him lash out whenever someone points out his obvious ignorance.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
Poor form to analyse him in his absence.
How is it poor form? I am basically defending the bloke, who I don't think to be a racist.
It is impossible to have windows into mens souls, but certainly @Leon_VotedForStarmer is prone to making racist and islamophobic posts.
I don't think he has the intellectual depth of Enoch Powell in his racism. It is more that he is gullible to what ever bit of rage bait that is circulating in the sewers of right wing social media. He has the intellectual backbone of a jelly fish combined with a narcissm that makes him lash out whenever someone points out his obvious ignorance.
Hang on a minute, @foxy. The chap's banned and can't defend himself. I'm not a fan by any means, but ......
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
Poor form to analyse him in his absence.
How is it poor form? I am basically defending the bloke, who I don't think to be a racist.
It is impossible to have windows into mens souls, but certainly @Leon_VotedForStarmer is prone to making racist and islamophobic posts.
I don't think he has the intellectual depth of Enoch Powell in his racism. It is more that he is gullible to what ever bit of rage bait that is circulating in the sewers of right wing social media. He has the intellectual backbone of a jelly fish combined with a narcissm that makes him lash out whenever someone points out his obvious ignorance.
Hang on a minute, @foxy. The chap's banned and can't defend himself. I'm not a fan by any means, but ......
He doesn’t defend himself when he’s here, unless doubling down on the offensive abuse and attacking whoever challenged him counts as defence (which it doesn’t)
Anyhow, the bottom line is that the quality of analysis and discussion improves considerably when he’s not around, so let’s enjoy it while we can?
"Now the [Iran] war is ending on disadvantageous terms for the United States. Trump’s old methods will be turned to a new task: trying to deceive the American people and the world into believing that the war he lost was really a big win, the biggest ever, so big you cannot believe it. He’s likely to discover that, indeed, nobody does believe it."
Is is possible Nicola didn't know? I suppose if it was "only" £35k per year it is.
Sturgeon was deputy leader then leader from 2004 until 2023, Murrell was Chief Exec for virtually her entire tenure. Astonishing if she didn't realise there was something going on.
I can understand the treasurer Colin Beattie not being aware, but NS? Wow. I wonder what Murrell gets out of this not going to trial other than a lighter sentence. He has chosen not to let the dirty linen hang out to dry
John Swinney was deputy FM during Nicola's period as FM. The same period of time that Mr Murrell was up to his tricks.
Make your own minds up.
To be fair, given his track record is less than sparkling I can believe he probably was ignorant of what was going on.
But that's hardly a great look. It reminds me of a recent firm of solicitors being sued for negligence after their bungling over a wholly unnecessary indemnity was blamed for a major property deal collapsing. Their barrister's defence amounted to, 'yes, the solicitors are utter fucking cretins but it would have collapsed even if they weren't for other reasons.'
It may be true, but if you want to hold a responsible position it's not a great look...
Bear in mind that this activity must have been going on during the Salmond imbroglio. It's all extremely murky and smacks of extreme entitlement from all concerned to say the least. The SNP really needs to move on from this generation of politicians.
I think it will have been trashed by sitting on the their driveway for years and not being maintained or used.
That is why the SNP camper van never made sense. You don't buy outright vehicles that will be used only for a month every four or five years.
Maybe there was some Thelma and Louise style denoument in the offing, with the campervan making a flying leap to freedom slow descent down a hillside into Loch Ness...
The vast list of luxury items bought by Murrell with other people's money is jawdropping. Like £200 Fortnum & Mason advent calendars and £2.6K Lalique salt and pepper grinders. But my fav so far is £160 for Folio Society edition of 'The Origins of Totalitarianism'.
The vast list of luxury items bought by Murrell with other people's money is jawdropping. Like £200 Fortnum & Mason advent calendars and £2.6K Lalique salt and pepper grinders. But my fav so far is £160 for Folio Society edition of 'The Origins of Totalitarianism'.
Murrell embezzled to “bankroll the lavish lifestyle he craved but could not afford”, says Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston. Yet Nicola Sturgeon was ignorant of this? I don’t understand how they arranged their marital finances, but I think I’d notice if my spouse was enjoying a lavish lifestyle beyond what they could afford.
Come on, people, in what world do we want or need folks reposting examples of someone else’s offensive abuse and racism? DuracelHorse should know better.
The vast list of luxury items bought by Murrell with other people's money is jawdropping. Like £200 Fortnum & Mason advent calendars and £2.6K Lalique salt and pepper grinders. But my fav so far is £160 for Folio Society edition of 'The Origins of Totalitarianism'.
Murrell embezzled to “bankroll the lavish lifestyle he craved but could not afford”, says Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston. Yet Nicola Sturgeon was ignorant of this? I don’t understand how they arranged their marital finances, but I think I’d notice if my spouse was enjoying a lavish lifestyle beyond what they could afford.
(Not that I am currently espoused.)
Can't even claim the excuse of "well I got a bonus from work this year".....
Murrell embezzled to “bankroll the lavish lifestyle he craved but could not afford”, says Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston. Yet Nicola Sturgeon was ignorant of this? I don’t understand how they arranged their marital finances, but I think I’d notice if my spouse was enjoying a lavish lifestyle beyond what they could afford.
(Not that I am currently espoused.)
There was nothing outrageous in the other post. Lalique pepper pots and Fortnum's hampers are within the range of any dual-income professional household. You might wonder if maybe the old man should be maxxing out his ISA and SIPP allowances before caning the Amex down the Royal Mile, but you would not be surprised he could afford it.
Nicola Sturgeon is a formidable communicator (possible the best of her generation) but I'm sorry on this occasion I just don't believe a word she's saying.
Did Elon ever explain going off his old chum Nigel Farage? Was it connected with Elon's own split with Nige's other mate, Trump? Was it the gall of taking a billionaire to beg Musk for a few million? Was it just that Farage falls out with everyone in time?
Murrell embezzled to “bankroll the lavish lifestyle he craved but could not afford”, says Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston. Yet Nicola Sturgeon was ignorant of this? I don’t understand how they arranged their marital finances, but I think I’d notice if my spouse was enjoying a lavish lifestyle beyond what they could afford.
(Not that I am currently espoused.)
There was nothing outrageous in the other post. Lalique pepper pots and Fortnum's hampers are within the range of any dual-income professional household. You might wonder if maybe the old man should be maxxing out his ISA and SIPP allowances before caning the Amex down the Royal Mile, but you would not be surprised he could afford it.
Among motorhomes, cars, etc, he £82k on Amazon purchases, even Mrs U doesn't get anywhere near that....
Earlier there was some speculation about the fate and whereabouts of the winnebago. BBC has some helpful indicators:
The motorhome - or more precisely its current value - would be treated as realisable property representing the benefit of criminal conduct.
Having sat unused in a police yard for over three years, it will have depreciated sharply, perhaps to less than half its original price.
As the victim of crime, the SNP also has a competing claim - but the Crown's interest takes priority.
In practice, Lord Young is likely to set a confiscation order reflecting the total benefit from the embezzlement - roughly £400,000 across all charges - and the motorhome's residual value would simply count toward satisfying that broader order.
It would most likely be sold, with the proceeds applied to the confiscation amount.
Either way, Peter Murrell won't be getting it back.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
Poor form to analyse him in his absence.
How is it poor form? I am basically defending the bloke, who I don't think to be a racist.
It is impossible to have windows into mens souls, but certainly @Leon_VotedForStarmer is prone to making racist and islamophobic posts.
I don't think he has the intellectual depth of Enoch Powell in his racism. It is more that he is gullible to what ever bit of rage bait that is circulating in the sewers of right wing social media. He has the intellectual backbone of a jelly fish combined with a narcissm that makes him lash out whenever someone points out his obvious ignorance.
So far I have yet to see any serious suggestions from yourself about how to better integrate our Muslim population into UK society.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
Poor form to analyse him in his absence.
How is it poor form? I am basically defending the bloke, who I don't think to be a racist.
It is impossible to have windows into mens souls, but certainly @Leon_VotedForStarmer is prone to making racist and islamophobic posts.
I don't think he has the intellectual depth of Enoch Powell in his racism. It is more that he is gullible to what ever bit of rage bait that is circulating in the sewers of right wing social media. He has the intellectual backbone of a jelly fish combined with a narcissm that makes him lash out whenever someone points out his obvious ignorance.
So far I have yet to see any serious suggestions from yourself about how to better integrate our Muslim population into UK society.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
Poor form to analyse him in his absence.
How is it poor form? I am basically defending the bloke, who I don't think to be a racist.
It is impossible to have windows into mens souls, but certainly @Leon_VotedForStarmer is prone to making racist and islamophobic posts.
I don't think he has the intellectual depth of Enoch Powell in his racism. It is more that he is gullible to what ever bit of rage bait that is circulating in the sewers of right wing social media. He has the intellectual backbone of a jelly fish combined with a narcissm that makes him lash out whenever someone points out his obvious ignorance.
So far I have yet to see any serious suggestions from yourself about how to better integrate our Muslim population into UK society.
Stop telling them they are the source of all ills in the country? I think that would go a long way to improve integration.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
Poor form to analyse him in his absence.
How is it poor form? I am basically defending the bloke, who I don't think to be a racist.
It is impossible to have windows into mens souls, but certainly @Leon_VotedForStarmer is prone to making racist and islamophobic posts.
I don't think he has the intellectual depth of Enoch Powell in his racism. It is more that he is gullible to what ever bit of rage bait that is circulating in the sewers of right wing social media. He has the intellectual backbone of a jelly fish combined with a narcissm that makes him lash out whenever someone points out his obvious ignorance.
So far I have yet to see any serious suggestions from yourself about how to better integrate our Muslim population into UK society.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
Poor form to analyse him in his absence.
How is it poor form? I am basically defending the bloke, who I don't think to be a racist.
It is impossible to have windows into mens souls, but certainly @Leon_VotedForStarmer is prone to making racist and islamophobic posts.
I don't think he has the intellectual depth of Enoch Powell in his racism. It is more that he is gullible to what ever bit of rage bait that is circulating in the sewers of right wing social media. He has the intellectual backbone of a jelly fish combined with a narcissm that makes him lash out whenever someone points out his obvious ignorance.
So far I have yet to see any serious suggestions from yourself about how to better integrate our Muslim population into UK society.
Stop telling them they are the source of all ills in the country? I think that would go a long way to improve integration.
When Brits setup enclaves in Spain I’d like to know what the remigration folks think about that.
I think unless all patriotic voters unite behind Reform in Makerfield then Andy Burnham will win, call an early snap general election and put Britain under a hard left government until 2031.
If you don’t want this to happen then vote Reform.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
After a few gins, he starts banging on about IQ being race based and The Muslamics are all going to kill us. Oh, and we need to expel zillions of immigrants.
Sounds fairly racialist* to me.
*Not sure why i think this word should be used more. But I do.
When has he ever posted that?
Just pervious to his other, previous, bans.
Can’t see anything like that for Leon
General point. If someone posts something egregious enough to merit a ban, you would remove both the poster and the post.
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
After a few gins, he starts banging on about IQ being race based and The Muslamics are all going to kill us. Oh, and we need to expel zillions of immigrants.
Sounds fairly racialist* to me.
*Not sure why i think this word should be used more. But I do.
When has he ever posted that?
Just pervious to his other, previous, bans.
Can’t see anything like that for Leon
General point. If someone posts something egregious enough to merit a ban, you would remove both the poster and the post.
Murrell embezzled to “bankroll the lavish lifestyle he craved but could not afford”, says Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston. Yet Nicola Sturgeon was ignorant of this? I don’t understand how they arranged their marital finances, but I think I’d notice if my spouse was enjoying a lavish lifestyle beyond what they could afford.
(Not that I am currently espoused.)
Sometimes (and let's just keep this between us) I manage to sneak a Snicker bar without my wife finding out.
To me those purchases on expenses were every bit as unacceptable as anything Murrell has done (I can be definitive as he pled guilty), since they involved declarations of being required for Parliamentary purposes (or similar words).
To give the rest of us some peace from his witterings.
But then why am I not banned?
You don't combine racism with aggressively insulting other posters?
Is Leon racist? I don’t think he is.
The truth is he’s a very liberal bloke who I am not allowed to name, playing a character.
Poor form to analyse him in his absence.
How is it poor form? I am basically defending the bloke, who I don't think to be a racist.
It is impossible to have windows into mens souls, but certainly @Leon_VotedForStarmer is prone to making racist and islamophobic posts.
I don't think he has the intellectual depth of Enoch Powell in his racism. It is more that he is gullible to what ever bit of rage bait that is circulating in the sewers of right wing social media. He has the intellectual backbone of a jelly fish combined with a narcissm that makes him lash out whenever someone points out his obvious ignorance.
So far I have yet to see any serious suggestions from yourself about how to better integrate our Muslim population into UK society.
Murrell embezzled to “bankroll the lavish lifestyle he craved but could not afford”, says Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston. Yet Nicola Sturgeon was ignorant of this? I don’t understand how they arranged their marital finances, but I think I’d notice if my spouse was enjoying a lavish lifestyle beyond what they could afford.
(Not that I am currently espoused.)
There was nothing outrageous in the other post. Lalique pepper pots and Fortnum's hampers are within the range of any dual-income professional household. You might wonder if maybe the old man should be maxxing out his ISA and SIPP allowances before caning the Amex down the Royal Mile, but you would not be surprised he could afford it.
exactly he was on £100K plus expenses and she would be same.
To me those purchases on expenses were every bit as unacceptable as anything Murrell has done (I can be definitive as he pled guilty), since they involved declarations of being required for Parliamentary purposes (or similar words).
Point of order...the duck house wasn't bought on the expenses. I don't think the moat cleaning was paid for either. The duck house was part of a big list of stuff that the MP chucked in and said basically from this what can I claim for, stick what can be on expenses and the duck house was not part of that. It seems incredibly arrogant, but it was actually quite common.
Sometimes it wasn't done so arrogantly and there was an MP who got blasted by the Telegraph where they ignored his response where he was able to show he didn't start from a position of can I claim the maximum. It started with been an MP for 10+ years, I am allowed to expense kitchen refit, I have had a somebody design the refit, but I think some of the things won't be claim-able, I will paid for them myself, but would like clarity before we agree final design.
Whatever it is we need to do on housing, it's not this.
So many of Britain's problems in a nutshell:
1952 council block falling apart, sewage leaking into flats, loose cladding, dangerous wiring £48m bill to completely overhaul it and ensure it's habitable, so cheaper to demolish and rebuild council evacuates most social tenants and tries to buy up a majority of flats to be able to demolish
BUT resistant residents, backed by Living Rent activists, don't want to sell because asking price too low, and say council should never have let it get so bad they submit the building to Historic Environment Scotland to be listed HES unexpectedly say they're likely to list, which would make repairs even more expensive, and demolition potentially impossible council stops buying the remaining flats while they wait for a decision, in case they just have to sell what they can or write it off now residents will potentially be unable to sell at all https://x.com/antonhowes/status/2058854963954995357
Is is possible Nicola didn't know? I suppose if it was "only" £35k per year it is.
Sturgeon was deputy leader then leader from 2004 until 2023, Murrell was Chief Exec for virtually her entire tenure. Astonishing if she didn't realise there was something going on.
I can understand the treasurer Colin Beattie not being aware, but NS? Wow. I wonder what Murrell gets out of this not going to trial other than a lighter sentence. He has chosen not to let the dirty linen hang out to dry
John Swinney was deputy FM during Nicola's period as FM. The same period of time that Mr Murrell was up to his tricks.
Make your own minds up.
To be fair, given his track record is less than sparkling I can believe he probably was ignorant of what was going on.
But that's hardly a great look. It reminds me of a recent firm of solicitors being sued for negligence after their bungling over a wholly unnecessary indemnity was blamed for a major property deal collapsing. Their barrister's defence amounted to, 'yes, the solicitors are utter fucking cretins but it would have collapsed even if they weren't for other reasons.'
It may be true, but if you want to hold a responsible position it's not a great look...
Bear in mind that this activity must have been going on during the Salmond imbroglio. It's all extremely murky and smacks of extreme entitlement from all concerned to say the least. The SNP really needs to move on from this generation of politicians.
get flynn in and clear out the pigsty big time, real bunch of duff troughers at the top.
IF we moved to PR for local elections, it wouldn't make much difference.
At Westminster, however, we'd have, as we see in other countries, a period of interregnum between Government formation. Denmark voted on 24th March - two months on, they still don't have a new Government.
I remember the almost panic in 2010 when we went without a Government for four days - imagine four weeks or four months with the previous PM in a caretaker capacity.We are used to the instant certainty of rapid change - within 12-18 hours of the end of polling, we have a new Prime Minister and Government.
That's an advantage of the current system - we wouldn't have paralysis without a Government - we'd have the good old tradition of paralysis with a Government.
I broadly agree.
Some form of PR, or even full PR via party lists, for local elections actually makes a fair amount of sense. Local government is structurally much better suited to consensus and coalition politics anyway.
It just does not scale naturally to Westminster as it is currently structured and organised.
Westminster still operates culturally and procedurally on the assumption that:
one party governs one party opposes manifestos are quasi-contractual governments are expected to implement a coherent programme elections are mechanisms for choosing executives, not simply representative assemblies
Trying to graft permanent coalition politics onto that system without wider constitutional redesign could easily create instability and voter confusion rather than greater legitimacy.
Constitutional systems are ecosystems. Electoral systems cannot really be analysed in isolation from the institutions and political culture around them.
I don't see why local government is different to Westminster.
Because Westminster is not simply a representative chamber. It is also the mechanism by which the national executive is created and sustained.
Local government does not carry the same constitutional role, political expectations or concentration of sovereign authority.
That distinction matters because different electoral systems optimise for different things. PR systems tend to prioritise representational fairness and negotiated consensus, whereas Westminster historically prioritised decisive executive formation and clear electoral accountability.
You can absolutely argue the latter model should change, but that is a broader constitutional argument than simply “PR is fairer”.
If you have lots of parties, then no system, not FPTP or anything else, will deliver a majority in Parliament. The choice is not between clear majorities with FPTP versus messy coalitions with PR. No, the choice is between messy coalitions with FPTP and messy coalitions with PR, but at least with the latter the parties start with results representing their national support.
If you want decisive executive formation, you need to have a two-party system (or close thereto) when electing a parliament. But if the voters insist on voting for lots of different parties, it won’t happen.
Unless you stop electing a parliament and start directly electing the executive, e.g. with a President. If you are electing a single position, then you necessarily have decisive executive formation.
That's not true. It all depends on the FPTP vote efficiency. If you have 5 parties on an average of 20% each, then mathematically possible outcomes include: 1) Each party gets 100% of the vote in 20% of the seats, thus each party gets 20% of seats 2) Four parties get 100% of the vote each in 10% of the seats, and the rest divided equally across the other 60% of seats. Those 4 parties get 10% of seats each, the fifth party wins 60% of seats and a majority.
Obviously reality is messier than this, but the same principles hold true.
I come to you from my nicely air-conditioned London flat, to ask why don't we build all new builds with AC.
It is a pleasant 19 degrees here in the west of Scotland, why should we be forced to have a/c?
You don’t have to use it
On your bike, keep frying. Low 20's and beautiful here , stick your AC where the sun don't shine. Not happy with stealing our oil & Gas, electricity now and then forcing us to pay double or more for it. F*** right off.
Comments
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5556410#Comment_5556410
Reform see a post-locals bounce to an eight-point lead, Greens slip down
REF 29 (+3)
LAB 21 (+1)
CON 19 (-1)
LDEM 12 (-1)
GRN 12 (-3)
14th-21st May, 1,700 GB adults. Change on 29th-30th April
https://x.com/jlpartnerspolls/status/2058859510563737860
It is all aligning for Andy to rebuild the 2024 coalition with Zack giving up
I favour PR and dislike AV.
Mind, I'm a bit surprised the Scot Nat's and PC do.
Just legislate that we approve a railway and it can’t be challenged. It gets built and job done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat
I'd vaguely heard of these, but was unaware of just how extensive they were/are (an entire Saharan civilisation depended on them for centuries, for example).
I'll risk a Never Hurry a Murrell link since the BBC says it has only updated one minute ago:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cddp5gm0155t
I'm going to need a historical long read on this. Will this be covering all those (allegedly) dodgy front organisations associated with the Sindy campaign?
A leak, however, speaks to disenchanted allies, or pissed off staff. It echoes with the many, many people who have fallen out with Farage. A leak is a failing.
So far, most of what Farage has said about the £5 million has been demonstrably false or irrelevant. These are not defences against the breach of the code of conduct. They are attempts to establish a narrative in the minds of his supporters because he knows the story is damaging. Understanding what story Farage wants to tell is illuminating.
And that the way to identify what has happened or is happening is entirely to ignore what he says, and follow the evidence.
"Crosbie, of Edinburgh-based Black Chambers, says it does not matter what the accused’s purpose was, as long as it was dishonest.
He writes: “It also doesn’t matter whether the ‘borrowed’ funds were later repaid. In other words, the accused does not necessarily need to have gained anything.”"
The documents, which were released this morning, run to about 130 pages.
Our reporters are poring over them and we will bring you more details as we have them."
Pens! 130 pages of pens!
Even adding the LDs only gets Labour and the Greens to 45% combined, so Labour need some of that Burnham bounce to take voters from Reform not just the Greens
If you want decisive executive formation, you need to have a two-party system (or close thereto) when electing a parliament. But if the voters insist on voting for lots of different parties, it won’t happen.
Unless you stop electing a parliament and start directly electing the executive, e.g. with a President. If you are electing a single position, then you necessarily have decisive executive formation.
Farage clearly had no intention of making this £5 million bung public.
Russia is toxic to Reform and Farage. He was happy to take Putin's rubles when power was a pipe dream. Now the polling suggests maybe not, he is trying to erase those black marks. With all the lack of sophistication you'd expect. I don't believe for one minute that he was hacked by "the Russians". I do believe it shows why he is a lying arsehole though.
Britain - avoid this man and his fluffers.
Firstly, the moment you introduce a bill into Parliament, the issue becomes completely political. While it's down to the planning inspector, you can pretend it's a non-political process, even if the planning guidelines are comprehensively rigged so that they never veto a development that government really wants.
Second, the opposition pretty much has to oppose it, which raises the expectation that, when they take power, they will stop the project, causing all kinds of problems for contracts and compulsory purchase.
Thirdly, though you can't challenge the legislation direclty, you immediately challenge the government's process in deciding on the policy, for instance through leading to all kinds of intrusive information requirements that might show up embarassing things that governments would really rather not reveal.
Fourthly, the Lords might find a way to block it, especially if the legislation wasn't in the government's manifesto. That adds years onto the process.
So, overall, though a government might do this as an absolutely last resort, in practice there is are a number of reasons why it never happens.
I incline to well insulated and passive ventilation, with minimal heating for the short period it is needed in winter, and minimal air con for the corresponding short period it is needed in the winter.
So I'd support passive ventilation expectations, with the efficient A2A heating / cooling on top say with a Coefficient of Performance of at least 2.5, plus reasonably expensive energy as a behaviour control. That's how I've been running my home for the last 3-4 years now - just with a small portable A2A unit to cover the gaps. I'll install the real thing when the newish boiler dies, or if I want to get gas out completely.
(I have lived in about 6 or 7 flats in London, including single and dual aspect, but none of them built post-2000 - so I do not have direct experience of new, energy efficient flats, since we really raised our building standards from ~2010.)
Lucrative overseas students, who have helped universities subsidise UK students, fell by 10 per cent in 2025-26. This was the second successive annual decline as ministers tighten visa rules and economic turmoil in countries such as Nigeria reduces demand.
On Monday an annual survey by Universities UK, the umbrella body for higher education, found 38 per cent of the third of members that replied were carrying out compulsory redundancies, up from 11 per cent in 2024.
Some 79 per cent said they were making voluntary redundancies, the first time the question has been asked.
https://www.ft.com/content/ded7dfbd-de0d-477d-8d0c-b2a6d8acc5c2
It allows you to build far more flexibly than depending natural air flow, and works at higher temperatures.
It allows you to build far more flexibly than depending natural air flow, and works at higher temperatures.
I don't think he has the intellectual depth of Enoch Powell in his racism. It is more that he is gullible to what ever bit of rage bait that is circulating in the sewers of right wing social media. He has the intellectual backbone of a jelly fish combined with a narcissm that makes him lash out whenever someone points out his obvious ignorance.
Anyhow, the bottom line is that the quality of analysis and discussion improves considerably when he’s not around, so let’s enjoy it while we can?
"Now the [Iran] war is ending on disadvantageous terms for the United States. Trump’s old methods will be turned to a new task: trying to deceive the American people and the world into believing that the war he lost was really a big win, the biggest ever, so big you cannot believe it. He’s likely to discover that, indeed, nobody does believe it."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/05/why-trump-lost-iran/687291/?gift=SCYx-5scVta3-cr_IlgTye8jWLKOnxDO52dP5hDMay0
Examples?
Pope XIV says the church and Anthropic, will work together to "find the way for humanity, in this time of artificial intelligence."
flying leap to freedomslow descent down a hillside into Loch Ness...https://x.com/DMScotPol/status/2058858174388527153?s=20
Murrell had removed the tie he wore in court and had a blank expression on his face."
Strangest feeling someone else removed that tie. BBC so sweetly naive.
(Not that I am currently espoused.)
That motorhome would have paid for 170,000 election leaflets alone.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2058563554161172843?s=20
https://www.thelocal.com/20260525/incredible-milestone-reached-as-sweden-becomes-a-smoke-free-country
The motorhome - or more precisely its current value - would be treated as realisable property representing the benefit of criminal conduct.
Having sat unused in a police yard for over three years, it will have depreciated sharply, perhaps to less than half its original price.
As the victim of crime, the SNP also has a competing claim - but the Crown's interest takes priority.
In practice, Lord Young is likely to set a confiscation order reflecting the total benefit from the embezzlement - roughly £400,000 across all charges - and the motorhome's residual value would simply count toward satisfying that broader order.
It would most likely be sold, with the proceeds applied to the confiscation amount.
Either way, Peter Murrell won't be getting it back.
I don’t think he should have been banned. That’s my opinion.
If you don’t want this to happen then vote Reform.
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/2058868253183594576
The sound of a party in a panic.
And why did he not buy a duck house and a moat?
To me those purchases on expenses were every bit as unacceptable as anything Murrell has done (I can be definitive as he pled guilty), since they involved declarations of being required for Parliamentary purposes (or similar words).
Sometimes it wasn't done so arrogantly and there was an MP who got blasted by the Telegraph where they ignored his response where he was able to show he didn't start from a position of can I claim the maximum. It started with been an MP for 10+ years, I am allowed to expense kitchen refit, I have had a somebody design the refit, but I think some of the things won't be claim-able, I will paid for them myself, but would like clarity before we agree final design.
The UK smoker %, for example, is around 8.4% from here in 2026:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/smoking-rates-by-country
They have Sweden as 5.5% . The ONS have the UK at 10.6% in 2024.
So many of Britain's problems in a nutshell:
1952 council block falling apart, sewage leaking into flats, loose cladding, dangerous wiring
£48m bill to completely overhaul it and ensure it's habitable, so cheaper to demolish and rebuild
council evacuates most social tenants and tries to buy up a majority of flats to be able to demolish
BUT
resistant residents, backed by Living Rent activists, don't want to sell because asking price too low, and say council should never have let it get so bad
they submit the building to Historic Environment Scotland to be listed
HES unexpectedly say they're likely to list, which would make repairs even more expensive, and demolition potentially impossible
council stops buying the remaining flats while they wait for a decision, in case they just have to sell what they can or write it off
now residents will potentially be unable to sell at all
https://x.com/antonhowes/status/2058854963954995357
Of whom 7 have heard of Makerfield, and not many more of Rupert Lowe.
If you have 5 parties on an average of 20% each, then mathematically possible outcomes include:
1) Each party gets 100% of the vote in 20% of the seats, thus each party gets 20% of seats
2) Four parties get 100% of the vote each in 10% of the seats, and the rest divided equally across the other 60% of seats. Those 4 parties get 10% of seats each, the fifth party wins 60% of seats and a majority.
Obviously reality is messier than this, but the same principles hold true.