Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Feb 16, 2026 9:31 pm

But the fact remains our side was about to do something but then was told it would lose in court. So it's not very good.

So it was therefore good not to go ahead and do it then? Nah - it was a U-TURN !!!! (even if there was actual precedent of similar having been done entirely legally).

You can talk about lions avoiding traps all you like, but fuck me, we were damned if we did, and damned if we didn’t.

The finance position is what you'd expect from the UK, given its position in financial services.

The tech position is more arguable, but the background there is that the EU has a poor record on tech. Ask Mario Draghi.

I think US tech will ditch Trump tomorrow if they have to.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 16, 2026 9:41 pm
So it was therefore good not to go ahead and do it then? Nah - it was a U-TURN !!!! (even if there was actual precedent of similar having been done entirely legally).

You can talk about lions avoiding traps all you like, but fuck me, we were damned if we did, and damned if we didn’t.

I'm rather confused about why it was going to be found to be unlawful, but the fact is the government could have presumably got this advice earlier. It looks bad.

But I don't really care. The important policy goes ahead, on unitarisation. We've got that in Herefordshire, and nobody says "bring back Leominster District Council".

It would be interesting to see a comparison between how many U-turns this government has made versus previous governments.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Feb 16, 2026 10:17 pm It would be interesting to see a comparison between how many U-turns this government has made versus previous governments.

I recall Cameron doing a lot of them. This article reckons the Coalition did 21 in its first 2 years, arguably more.

It could have usefully made some more too. The Lansley health act was later criticized by Jeremy Hunt, his successor. Osborne's economic policy ought to have been u-turned on too, but the media preferred to praise him for "sticking to the plan".

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nt-resolve

That many? I can only remember the one about forests.

Boiler wrote: ↑Mon Feb 16, 2026 8:42 pm Peterborough did the same due to a pending re-organisation of local government too.

Lots of councils did. The reason I singled out Cheltenham is that it is a LibDem council.

Be intriguing to know how many of these councils can potentially change hands.

Plymouth can’t

Democracy, like freedom, is one of those things it's good to weaponise. Once you've got it on your side, anyone against you is by default anti-democratic. Just keep bellowing it for the idiots.

Britain’s problems are home grown, self-inflicted by a sub-Marxist, class war-driven Labour Government with little grasp of economic reality.

Hang on, I thought Labour no longer represent the working class and should be listening to people who want to 'make everything here again' like we used to.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Feb 16, 2026 9:51 pm The finance position is what you'd expect from the UK, given its position in financial services.

The tech position is more arguable, but the background there is that the EU has a poor record on tech. Ask Mario Draghi.

I think US tech will ditch Trump tomorrow if they have to.

The past is a different country at the best of times and Draghi was speaking when a different paradigm existed in world affairs.
I may have been harsh on Starmer

UK bank bosses will hold their first meeting to establish a national alternative to Visa and Mastercard, amid growing fears over Donald Trump’s ability to turn off US-owned payment systems.
The City-funded, but government-backed, initiative has been under discussion for years. However, Trump’s recent threats against Nato allies over Greenland have amplified concerns that an over-reliance on US companies could put UK payments – and the wider economy – at risk.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... W3ZEHw-brA

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Feb 16, 2026 11:13 pm That many? I can only remember the one about forests.

Yeah, Cameron was notorious for it. You can see in that article that it was something he was put under pressure about.

But he got away with loads. Not increasing VAT was a classic, which was just accepted because "Labour's mess". Funnily enough the same principle didn't apply when Rachel Reeves increased taxes.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 16, 2026 8:38 pm
Not as clear cut as Davey might like.

Edit: Cheltenham is a LibDem run council - so according to Ed Davey - the LibDems are undemocratic too.

Excellent spot. Welwyn and Hatfield has the Lib Dems and Labour in coalition. Did the Lib Dems there not support the delay?

Tory-controlled Harlow was on there too. And Tory controlled Norfolk and Suffolk.

And Hastings (led by the Greens, though they might have not been in favour).

More on the cancellation requests here.

https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/govern ... 0-01-2026/

Famously straight talking Tory Essex's response was basically "we can't afford to hold the elections, but we're not calling for them to be postponed" either. Hardly the ringing call for democracy either. Seemed like they did in the end clarify they supported cancellation.

Where are the straight talking Essex men telling us that activist judges have thwarted the will of the people?

Oh look. This was the view of Green-led Hastings.

Hastings Borough Council and East Sussex County Council are two of 29 councils whose elections this May are to be postponed, at their request, by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. In HBC’s case, the request was backed by all four parties represented on the council, citing risks to its capacity to deliver the current local government reorganisation process and the cost burden given its stretched finances.

So Zack's more honest response might have been "we accept what seems to be the legal position but councils like Hastings will now have to spend a lot of money on elections that all parties accepted should be cancelled".

Schrodinger's council - simultaneously powerless in the face of central government; and the caaahncil, dedicated to persecuting you.

On the LG reorganisations, it's been said many times by people on all sides of the political spectrum that dissolving district councils would be the best way to increase efficiency, streamline decision making, and cut costs. However, under the coalition government it was explicitly ruled out as a savings measure by Eric Pickles, the LG minister.

Why? Maybe because it offered a quick and easy way out of the trap Cameron and co wanted local authorities to be in - basically begging central government for help or for special favours, or cutting loads of public sector jobs. Please note that was the opinion of the Tory council leader I worked for at the time. Also though, district councillor is a rather nice place to be, and nobody wants a load of ex-councillors moaning to the local press about how hard done by they've been.

Eric Pickles was one of the worst Cabinet ministers or recent years.

Terrible funding agreement and stopping councils raising money to compensate for it. No wonder everything fell to bits.

Interesting post elsewhere which sounds (at least) authoritative.

The F-35 isn't a US made fighter jet. There are three F‑35 Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) sites worldwide: Lockheed Martin's in Forth Worth, Leonardo's in Cameri, Italy, who handle the European FACO and Mitsubishi's in Nagoya, Japan, who handle the Japanese FACO. There are 1,900 suppliers including UK — rear fuselage, tails, avionics, Netherlands airframe components and doors, Norway pylons, airframe structures, Germany fuselage sections, Israel wings and special systems, Canada fuselage panels and structural parts, Italy FACO and targeting systems, radios, engine parts.
Europe’s plays a critical role in producing the F‑35 Stealth Fighter. Trying to portray it as a US made product that can magically be turned on and off remotely in flight is just arrant bollocks and a complete misunderstanding of the role of global supply chains. Exactly the kind of shallow analysis we'd expect from Trump.

I'm sure there are strategic problems with reliance on America for operations (as opposed to merely the size of the US military) but is it as big as it's sometimes portrayed?

Whilst I'm aware of the caveats - chiefly we are still three years out - I'm heartened to learn that Reform are no longer the bookies favourite to win the next election.
NB the discrepancy with the polls is explained by the different questions being answered; opinion pollsters are usually asking who would you vote for if there was an election tomorrow, whereas the bookies are looking at where the bets are being placed for the winner in three years time,

Well Miliband was PM for at least two years according to the polls.

If perception collides with reality Labour could easily hit 30% and the way the polling is split that could be fine.