General Election 2024?

[Toast 15,532]

43 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

That rather depends on what you use as a basis. Civil list v tourism or etc etc.

But anyway, I'm not about to get into any sort of argy-bargy with you about the monarchy. We're on opposite sides of the fence on that one ;).

 

And of course it's not my captions it's just a gag. I'd have put a source of inherited land income or some other of the advantages they enjoy.

 

The Sovereign Grant (formerly the civil list) comes out of the Crown Estate revenue. Some (the BBC for one) disingenuously claim that it's public money, which is only technically true as it's paid after the revenues are paid into the Treasury.  It's currently 25% which is higher than normal as it has to cover the cost of the renovations at Buckingham Palace.  Anyway you can look it all up on the CrownEstate website. 

 

The monarchy pretty much pays for itself as the monarch and heir have income from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.  The only call on the taxpayer's wallet is royal security, which costs each of us about £1.50 a year.  Most people are under the false impression that we pay for everything, and this lie is spread by the anti-monarchist media.  People naturally believe what they are told and innocently pass on the disinformation.

 

Income from tourism is incidental and I don't know how it would be quantified.  All in all the monarchy is a good deal and earns us respect while politicians often let us down.

[En Passant 3,333]

My principle problem with them isn't even financial (at least not directly), it's that they are the pinnacle of the class system and in my view as long as they persist, it will too.

I have a problem with 'heriditary' anything.

 

But this isn't the place so I'll bow out on it here. We can take it up again in Royalty or Royals, (not sure of the exact thread) if you'd like. Or of course you can respond here, but I don't want to hijack this thread more than I have already.

 

[RoverAndOut 4,216]

14 hours ago, En Passant said:

NB. Glad to see you got through yesterday somehow on apparently zero sleep .

 

Thanks very much! I definitely closed my eyes on and off between 5.30 and 6.30 but didn't really sleep as I was eagerly awaiting Trussterfuck's fate. Left for school at 7.15 and muddled through OK until around 1pm when I crashed a bit and had to stay sat in the chair vaguely keeping an eye on some Year 8s. Last lesson the kids were feral, which was a challenge but I survived! No rest for the wicked, however, as I immediately headed for the railway station on Friday afternoon to catch a train down to London to camp in the Wimbledon Queue. Got pissed wet through and had around 5 hours of relatively decent sleep from midnight (I'd  been awake around 40 hours at that point!) to about 5am (when they start waking you up). It's now midnight today and I'm settling down again before going home tomorrow. So I'm at about 5 hours sleep in the last 59. Strangely lucid but time to sleep now... 

[Redrumours 843]

On 09/06/2024 at 16:31, Sly Ronnie said:

 

4:06hrs when he gets his declaration.

 

On 09/06/2024 at 14:54, The Old Crem said:

It be whatever time Richmond and Northallerton declares. He won’t speak publicly before that - just as Starmer won’t speak publicly until Holborn and St Pancras declares. The main two party leaders never give interviews on election night. 
 

So it will be up to people like Dowden and Cleverly to give the main Tory interviews. 

You two were closest 4.48am. At his count but he had apparrently called Starmer earlier.

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,695]

Nice tweet from Ed Davey

 

 

[Bibliogryphon 9,128]

Regarding who will lead the Tories now that Hunt has ruled himself out. 

 

I think they will need to go for someone who is not closely associated with the previous Government.

A large initial field will be unlikely because there are only 131 people to nominate.

Interesting that Jenrick is on BBC and Braverman is on GB News this morning.

 

The ideal candidate at the moment is someone who will hold Starmer to account at PMQs on policy and substance 

[The Old Crem 3,371]

27 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

Regarding who will lead the Tories now that Hunt has ruled himself out. 

 

I think they will need to go for someone who is not closely associated with the previous Government.

A large initial field will be unlikely because there are only 131 people to nominate.

Interesting that Jenrick is on BBC and Braverman is on GB News this morning.

 

The ideal candidate at the moment is someone who will hold Starmer to account at PMQs on policy and substance 

Even less. The Tories only won 121 seats and the new chair of the 1922 Committee (Whoever he or she is) is not allowed to nominate, 
 

Jenrick would be interesting as he wants to do an hardline anti immigration but also a more pro house building platform like the right are doing in New Zealand and hoping to do after the next election in Canada. But I’m not sure Tory members are keen on the house building platform. 

[The Old Crem 3,371]

Already an accusation on social media about one of the new Labour MP’s. 

[Brad252 630]

1 hour ago, Bibliogryphon said:

Regarding who will lead the Tories now that Hunt has ruled himself out. 

 

I think they will need to go for someone who is not closely associated with the previous Government.

A large initial field will be unlikely because there are only 131 people to nominate.

Interesting that Jenrick is on BBC and Braverman is on GB News this morning.

 

The ideal candidate at the moment is someone who will hold Starmer to account at PMQs on policy and substance 

History shows the next Tory PM is likely to not even be in Parliament yet. Every PM who came to power via an election since 1997 entered Parliament via the election after the election that party last lost power in:

 

-Blair became an MP in 1983 (as did Brown as it happens).

-Cameron in 2001.

-Starmer in 2015.

 

Entering Parliament in an election after the one your party lost power in pretty much guarantees one had nothing to do with the previous government.

[Toast 15,532]

25 minutes ago, The Old Crem said:

Already an accusation on social media about one of the new Labour MP’s. 

 

Thanks for telling us  ..... nothing.

[Bibliogryphon 9,128]

Also seen a suggestion on X that at least one reform candidate was a paper only candidate 

[RoverAndOut 4,216]

2 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

Also seen a suggestion on X that at least one reform candidate was a paper only candidate 

 

As in, not a real person?

[En Passant 3,333]

23 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

As in, not a real person?

 

I paused for thought on that too. And wiki didn't really enlighten me a great deal either (at least in respect of one specific Reform candidate being one).

I mean in this specific election weren't they nearly all a paper candidate? Their prospect of actually winning in most instances was incredibly low.

It seems to me, somewhat simplistically I suppose (for now anyway, need more information and thought on it), that their main Raison D' être was to run a spoiler campaign on the Tories to prove a point for some kind of proper challenge further down the line.

They only got 4 seats on 4M vote because in most places they split the Tory vote and allowed Labour even more gains. It seems remarkably unlikely they can't have known this beforehand.

[Handrejka 1,869]

32 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

Also seen a suggestion on X that at least one reform candidate was a paper only candidate 

Raymond Peters? 

This is in the constituency I grew up in so I am always to see what is going on there. 

[The Old Crem 3,371]

4 hours ago, Toast said:

 

Thanks for telling us  ..... nothing.

The new baby of the house Sam Carling. Being accused of catfishing someone while at School. 

[Bibliogryphon 9,128]

1 hour ago, Handrejka said:

Raymond Peters? 

This is in the constituency I grew up in so I am always to see what is going on there. 

No as I understand it this was North Northumberland.  The are no photographs or social media footprint for the alleged candidate and they were not at the count.

 

It is possible that they are real enough for data verification purposes but did not campaign or expect to win

[The Old Crem 3,371]

7 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

No as I understand it this was North Northumberland.  The are no photographs or social media footprint for the alleged candidate and they were not at the count.

 

It is possible that they are real enough for data verification purposes but did not campaign or expect to win

Both of those are being mentioned on social media. 

[Handrejka 1,869]

7 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

No as I understand it this was North Northumberland.  The are no photographs or social media footprint for the alleged candidate and they were not at the count.

 

It is possible that they are real enough for data verification purposes but did not campaign or expect to win

It's the same story with Mr Peters, no photo, no social media,  e-mails unanswered, neither he nor his agent were at the count.  It seems like there may be a few cases.

[The Old Crem 3,371]

Surely Reform were not that stupid to put made up people? 

[Toast 15,532]

Quote

North Northumberland

 

There's a coincidence!  The friend I went to the gig with on election day,  that's her constituency. 

[Bibliogryphon 9,128]

1 hour ago, Toast said:

 

There's a coincidence!  The friend I went to the gig with on election day,  that's her constituency. 

I was there on holiday

[gcreptile 10,508]

On 05/07/2024 at 09:27, gcreptile said:

If this was done with proportional representation Labour would probably lead a LAB-LIB government.

Looks like France is also heading for such a LAB-LIB government. Accidental win for the centre-left.

[En Passant 3,333]

17 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

Looks like France is also heading for such a LAB-LIB government. Accidental win for the centre-left.

 

Looking like fabulous news from over the channel.

 

Also just read that James Timpson has been made prisons minister:

 

"Timpson, 52, has argued that only a third of prisoners should definitely be in custody, saying in a TV interview earlier this year that “the UK is addicted to sentencing and punishment"”

 

Perhaps he'll have the power to finally fix the ignominy of existing IPP's.

It's been a good weekend so far for my money.

Amusing that a man whose money comes from a from key-cutting family business should be in charge of prisons....

 

[Sleepiestpeep 130]

3 hours ago, Handrejka said:

It's the same story with Mr Peters, no photo, no social media,  e-mails unanswered, neither he nor his agent were at the count.  It seems like there may be a few cases.

There's a Glasgow reform candidate, Helen Burns, being discussed in the same way over on reels/tiktok.

 

Finding it particularly fascinating that two of the candidates I've seen this accusation for make up part of reform's already pitifully small pool of female candidates...

[Toast 15,532]

I'll have to check on ours, also a female. A local online magazine ran a feature where they asked each of the 7 candidates to answer 15 questions.  Reform was the only one not to reply.