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