ml1dch

I don't think anyone is really arguing contrary to that position. Perfectly sound, and it's definitely not a bad thing that this is being raised in The Hague, whoever is bringing the case. The problem was with South Africa being described as "a beacon of hope and morality". Which is nonsense.

Looks like yesterday he went on This Morning to talk about anti-social behaviour, then met with Holocaust and Srebrenica survivors for Holocaust Memorial Day today, the day before that he was in Milton Keynes talking about knife crime, day before in the Commons for PMQs. Pretty normal LOTO stuff.

No running / no diving / no heavy petting / no thumping etc.

I was pretty confident that would be the case, mainly as @MakemineVanilla clearly isn't a massive wrong 'un. Even so, I feel its still a fairly sensible policy to have.

That might be the most insightful video in the world, but without a sentence or two of context as to what it's about first, there's no way I'm corrupting my YouTube algorithm with the sort of video that a guy with a Union Jack in his title talking about "British Democracy" could potentially be.

Oh, "senior party figures" is Simon Clarke. Imagine the state you've got yourself into for Simon Clarke to be someone whose opinions are considered important.

Tonight's "the polls will definitely close as we get closer to the election" news:

Also, take a quick glance at the polling for "rejoin EU" and "rejoin EU if required to adopt the Euro" and they are wildly different. The second of those points (whether we should / whether we would have to promise to / whether we actually would) is something with a lot of nuance - but you can bet now what the other side of any future "rejoin or not" campaign is going to be based around.

Nobody is disputing that they wouldn't welcome back a stable, united version of the UK back into the fold. And everything suggests that will happen within a couple of electoral cycles. But they will take the current (massively imbalanced in their favour anyway) relationship over constant accession / secession talks with every new government who sees it as an easy wedge issue to squeeze an extra half dozen seats out of Lancashire and Cumbria. And have whatever referendum you like. As long as you know what is in the Government's power to offer in the question that they ask.

Because it's not up the voters of the UK whether we are members or not. And while it is a subject that could be flipped every five years on the whim of an electorate that is happy to judge EU = good / bad as lazy shorthand for what they think of the Prime Minister of the day, they're comfortable leaving us to sort that shit out until there is consensus, one way or the other. There is no "referendum to go back in". There is plausibly something like "general election manifesto commitment to negotiate accession terms, subject to future confirmatory referendum". Probably in six or eleven years time. Don't hold your breath, either way.

We absolutely could not.

It's a glorious mess of a seat. It's only happening due to the resignation of the former (Labour) councillor after he was pictured consoling another former (Labour) councillor after he'd been found with child porn (the latter has since been convicted of said offence). Then the new Labour candidate goes on a big anti-trans rant online (not really popular with your average Labour council voter) so they suspend her. Then realise that there is no time to get a new candidate, so unsuspend her the day before the election. So the other guy, (16 years of being a Lib Dem councillor in the same ward and appearing to know everyone) decides that he may as well now be a Tory, having previously been a Labour councillor on top of his Lib Dem history. He stands on a Tory "we hate ULEZ" campaign, sweeping up the dozen Tories in Hackney, all his Lib Dem mates from the last two decades he's been a councillor and all the Labour voters upset at all the stuff in the first two paragraphs. Lib Dems, who normally share the seat with Labour drop to 3% of the vote because the guy that the Lib Dem voters have liked for twenty years now wears a blue tie. Labour mired in every scandal possible. Massive turnout too - 32% for a local council by-election, more than some parliamentary by-elections. It's silly that Iannuci didn't follow up TTOI with a Vicar Of Dibley / Yes, Minister type crossover thing about local government. Absolutely mental stuff.

It's not heresy, it's just pointless to say it. Given it can't be "reversed" even if there were the political will to do so.

Oh yes? Care to share the £169k per person arguments?

They are staying.

One for @bickster's "death of the Tory party" theory.

Brace yourself.

No, it's just to whine at the House Of Lords not to change his silly Rwanda bill.

If repeated at a General Election, would leave them on circa 30 seats.

Tory social media pricks: "is there any way that we could give him both a slightly cool anti-hero vibe while also using a slogan that makes him sound extremely competent at what he does?"

Yup. Never rule out any UK-voting-public craziness, but if you offered Labour the opportunity to fight the election-after-next with the Tories running on "we need to leave the ECHR" as their main policy they'd absolutely bite your hand off.

There is no possibility of that happening in this Parliament. I fully expect it'll form part of a Tory election manifesto at some point in the next decade, but it's not a 2024 issue to worry about.

All the stuff that Chindie said, but also they're not going to lose it unless something really odd happens. The number of people who voted for the amendment was almost certainly not enough to vote against the bill to make it fail. And if there is any risk, they'll just pull the vote and say how they've heard the voices of colleagues and know that there are changes they need to make etc, precisely to avoid the embarrassment.

Good lads, get that bill voted down.