I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
Back to covid, and it looks like another substantial fall in the real world. What the all-important Covid Perception Index says, well you’ll have to ask @stodge I guess.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
Complain about Thatcher, you men?
Not particularly, unless you have a better memory for similar money-for-influence scandals than I do.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
Come now, it was a major scandal - the first of the Blair years. People cared, which was why it was a scandal - but they were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially after the multitude of scandals during the Major government.
If it had happened seven or eight years later, it would have hurt Labour much more.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
Complain about Thatcher, you men?
Not particularly, unless you have a better memory for similar money-for-influence scandals than I do.
My point was people regularly complain about prominent politicians for far longer than two decades. We've seen examples of this just this week.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
Complain about Thatcher, you men?
Not particularly, unless you have a better memory for similar money-for-influence scandals than I do.
My point was people regularly complain about prominent politicians for far longer than two decades. We've seen examples of this just this week.
Ah, thanks. We do see people here complaining about William the Bastard's constitutional policy, for instance.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
Yes, you've mentioned it, what, eight times already this thread. It was a long time ago, the rules have been tightened up since, and owing to Iraq, pretty much everyone is contemptuous of Blair anyway.
There might be a more direct parallel with Blair accepting free holidays, and it was surely suspicious that Blair's records were deleted before the expenses scandal but I doubt you'll find anyone on the left who cares and an awful lot of voters won't even remember.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
Come now, it was a major scandal - the first of the Blair years. People cared, which was why it was a scandal - but they were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially after the multitude of scandals during the Major government.
If it had happened seven or eight years later, it would have hurt Labour much more.
As soon as Blair smirked at the camera the scandal was over. I wasn't able to vote in 97 but my young eyes could spot an evil tory in disguise.
Just such a hateful character.
At least BoJo has good hair and a sense of humour.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
Complain about Thatcher, you men?
Not particularly, unless you have a better memory for similar money-for-influence scandals than I do.
I thought he was just making a point that people still bang on about her so much (in fairness her praisers do it too). Saw a comment from a topical show just this week where there was no gag, just a hope she was in hell, presumably thinking that was a great point standing on its own.
I just dont get it. Very influential PM, but it was so long ago now. At least with Blair hes still making contributions to keep him relevant to a degree, though even then it's mostly not usually very much.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
Complain about Thatcher, you men?
Not particularly, unless you have a better memory for similar money-for-influence scandals than I do.
My point was people regularly complain about prominent politicians for far longer than two decades. We've seen examples of this just this week.
Ah, thanks. We do see people here complaining about William the Bastard's constitutional policy, for instance.
Watch: President Biden celebrated the House passage of a $1 trillion bill to repair and modernize the nation’s aging infrastructure, a key legislative goal. https://nyti.ms/3BSqGJ4
While other PBers are happily (or not) watching the cricket or defending the indefensible (or both, though that seems redundant to me) yours truly is happily
> reviewing my just-delivered copy of Almanac of American Politics 2022; btw I have been buying & collecting AAP since the premier 1972 edition published 50 years ago.
> crunching 2021 general Election Night precinct returns from King Co, WA; specifically analyzing & mapping initial, partial results for Seattle mayor, city attorney & city council at-large, also King Co Executive and Port of Seattle commissioners.
> and, when feeling like I need a break (frequently) tuning in to the "Get Smart" marathon on the el cheapo broadcast TV old sitcom channel.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
Complain about Thatcher, you men?
Not particularly, unless you have a better memory for similar money-for-influence scandals than I do.
My point was people regularly complain about prominent politicians for far longer than two decades. We've seen examples of this just this week.
Ah, thanks. We do see people here complaining about William the Bastard's constitutional policy, for instance.
Tough on saxons, tough on the causes of saxons.
Just ask anyone on PB from north of the Humber, too.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
Come now, it was a major scandal - the first of the Blair years. People cared, which was why it was a scandal - but they were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially after the multitude of scandals during the Major government.
If it had happened seven or eight years later, it would have hurt Labour much more.
As soon as Blair smirked at the camera the scandal was over. I wasn't able to vote in 97 but my young eyes could spot an evil tory in disguise.
Just such a hateful character.
At least BoJo has good hair and a sense of humour.
Has the biased BBC changed its PMQs camera angles in order to hide Boris's thinning locks?
Watch: President Biden celebrated the House passage of a $1 trillion bill to repair and modernize the nation’s aging infrastructure, a key legislative goal. https://nyti.ms/3BSqGJ4
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
Bernie was just part of the cut and thrust of political corruption. The sort of thing undertaken by both parties of Government. It was unedifying, very unedifying, and the embarrassment caused to the Labour Party was justified.
What we saw on Wednesday was in a different league. The party of Government attempted to hijack a key check and balance of Government probity either to protect a senior MP or more worryingly a pre-emptive strike to protect a Prime Minister. That is outrageous. It is ******* unacceptable. Wednesday is up there with the Profumo cover up, not Ecclestone.
Having been accused of spreading falsehoods on the last thread, I'd like to find out how bad my falsehoods are.
Does anybody know how many gas power plants get turned off because it's windy?
How much gas has not been burnt because of the wind?
I only ever of hear wind's "achievements" as a percentage of total energy produced. Currently, with such pathetic energy storage capacity, this is an irrelevant figure if we're not able to rely on wind enough to switch off the gas power plants.
The only stat that matters, while we don't have the storage, is how much less gas do we burn on a very windy day.
As a relevant aside, I presume our biomass plants can't even theoretically be switched on and off like gas?
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
Come now, it was a major scandal - the first of the Blair years. People cared, which was why it was a scandal - but they were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially after the multitude of scandals during the Major government.
If it had happened seven or eight years later, it would have hurt Labour much more.
As soon as Blair smirked at the camera the scandal was over. I wasn't able to vote in 97 but my young eyes could spot an evil tory in disguise.
Just such a hateful character.
At least BoJo has good hair and a sense of humour.
Sadly Boris has the morals of an alley cat on the make...
Canelo is a beast and dispatches his opponents without too much trouble. How he came to be a beast is of course a matter of debate and has contributed to the needle between the two fighters as Plant has not been backwards in coming forwards about doping.
But he is a beast nevertheless.
The best chance Plant has is, ironically, to do a Khan. Keep moving don't get caught up against the ropes jab and move and get shots away when he can. But the time will come when Canelo can unload or find the shot (a la Khan) and that will be the danger/it all over.
Plant is a great fighter to watch and very handy but I can't see past a Canelo victory.
Plant is 10.5 bf and I've had a fiver on it plus a fiver on the draw (40s) because I am greedy and don't like the 1.12 about Canelo.
Watch: President Biden celebrated the House passage of a $1 trillion bill to repair and modernize the nation’s aging infrastructure, a key legislative goal. https://nyti.ms/3BSqGJ4
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
Complain about Thatcher, you men?
Not particularly, unless you have a better memory for similar money-for-influence scandals than I do.
My point was people regularly complain about prominent politicians for far longer than two decades. We've seen examples of this just this week.
Ah, thanks. We do see people here complaining about William the Bastard's constitutional policy, for instance.
Only a few days ago! IIRC. Coupled with complaints about the treatment of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
Complain about Thatcher, you men?
Not particularly, unless you have a better memory for similar money-for-influence scandals than I do.
My point was people regularly complain about prominent politicians for far longer than two decades. We've seen examples of this just this week.
Ah, thanks. We do see people here complaining about William the Bastard's constitutional policy, for instance.
Am personally still shocked and appalled by Æthelred's unreadiness.
Boo, the BBC is biased! Reporting on a news story I don't like when they should be reporting on...
umm
A festival crush? Man U getting beaten? COMMIES TAKING OVER THE BMA! THAT'S THE ONE!
If you can't see the left-wing bias in the BBC you are brain dead.
I already know that I'm brain dead because people on the left tell me that I can't see the BBC's right-wing bias. I'm glad to have your respected second opinion on the matter.
Pro BBC types have no shame. Just the most regressive tax there is - but nevermind a few lefties don't like them so they must be unbiased.
Boo, the BBC is biased! Reporting on a news story I don't like when they should be reporting on...
umm
A festival crush? Man U getting beaten? COMMIES TAKING OVER THE BMA! THAT'S THE ONE!
If you can't see the left-wing bias in the BBC you are brain dead.
I already know that I'm brain dead because people on the left tell me that I can't see the BBC's right-wing bias. I'm glad to have your respected second opinion on the matter.
Pro BBC types have no shame. Just the most regressive tax there is - but nevermind a few lefties don't like them so they must be unbiased.
I want to see the license fee cancelled, as it happens. You're not very good at this are you?
I try my best.
I also want to see the license fee cancelled so we can agree on that at least.
Watch: President Biden celebrated the House passage of a $1 trillion bill to repair and modernize the nation’s aging infrastructure, a key legislative goal. https://nyti.ms/3BSqGJ4
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Not at all
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
The only way is down for cases now, the last virgin territory for Covid is gone and the fall is accelerating.
let us hope that hospitalisations and deaths also drop. Case numbers don't matter - so we're told - as long as the other two metrics are down.
What's the sweet spot of just enough people getting ill/dying to keep Boris in trouble, but not enough to make his haters feel like they're wishing bad on people?
You really are a piece of work. Nobody thinks that.
Don't be too harsh. He just has the biggest mancrush on "Boris". It's rather sweet.
Patronisation - Stage Three of the Seven stages of being stung by losing an internet ding dong has been reached
What stage is bothering to claim that you've won an internet ding dong?
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
Complain about Thatcher, you men?
Not particularly, unless you have a better memory for similar money-for-influence scandals than I do.
My point was people regularly complain about prominent politicians for far longer than two decades. We've seen examples of this just this week.
Ah, thanks. We do see people here complaining about William the Bastard's constitutional policy, for instance.
Only a few days ago! IIRC. Coupled with complaints about the treatment of the Pilgrimage of Grace.
OTOH we do have regular praise for the constitutional policies of Henry VIII, James VI and I, and Charles I. One would think that neither the Glorous Revolution nor the Enlightenment(s) had happened.
Watch: President Biden celebrated the House passage of a $1 trillion bill to repair and modernize the nation’s aging infrastructure, a key legislative goal. https://nyti.ms/3BSqGJ4
Without those Republicans backing it it would not have passed, 6 leftwing Democrats voted against and the Democrats have a majority of 8
Of course some of the six Democrats who voted nay, would have voted the other way IF not enough Republicans voted yea to ensure passage.
That's the way these things usually work on these kind of votes; leadership will allow a few members to take a hike, in order to assuage their conscience or (more like) appease their supporters, donor and constituencies.
Plus methinks that many of the Republicans who voted against the bill, actually wanted it to pass, and will be soon touting the goodies that their states & districts are gonna get. They just did NOT want to take the flack from You Know Who & etc. for voting for it.
BTW reckon this applies to most of the House GOP leadership. The way it's worked out, they get credit with the base for opposing Biden's bill, while NOT having to take the heat for actually defeating it.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
Come now, it was a major scandal - the first of the Blair years. People cared, which was why it was a scandal - but they were prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially after the multitude of scandals during the Major government.
If it had happened seven or eight years later, it would have hurt Labour much more.
As soon as Blair smirked at the camera the scandal was over. I wasn't able to vote in 97 but my young eyes could spot an evil tory in disguise.
Just such a hateful character.
At least BoJo has good hair and a sense of humour.
Has the biased BBC changed its PMQs camera angles in order to hide Boris's thinning locks?
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Not at all
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
Thank goodness we have the model of marital fidelity in Downing Street now, right?
John Major trying to take the moral high ground is relevant to his own behaviour
But Boris Johnson has something 7 children with 4 different women! If you want to bring sexual morality into this, you're just digging a still deeper ditch for Boris.
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
Thank goodness we have the model of marital fidelity in Downing Street now, right?
John Major trying to take the moral high ground is relevant to his own behaviour
But Boris Johnson has something 7 children with 4 different women! If you want to bring sexual morality into this, you're just digging a still deeper ditch for Boris.
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Not at all
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
Thank goodness we have the model of marital fidelity in Downing Street now, right?
John Major trying to take the moral high ground is relevant to his own behaviour
In stark contrast to Boris Johnson and his recent appeal for "natural justice"?
BTW, perhaps the funniest part of recent circus turn, was Jacob Rees-Mogg also pratting away that - when he's a walking, talking affront to the very concept.
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Not at all
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
There are degrees here.
Only on Mr J's side, if you assume he has a MA Oxon as well as that disappointing second in Greats.
Decent try by us in the cricket. Entertaining stuff and we were only about 10 yards from victory (ie the late wickets would have been sixes).
But, Roy is a big loss. I’d probably rather play India than NZ in the semi - we are a big game team and struggle against less glamorous opposition.
New Zealand, the reigning world Test champions and the team who should be joint ODI champions but for a really arcane rule, are less glamorous than India?
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
Thank goodness we have the model of marital fidelity in Downing Street now, right?
John Major trying to take the moral high ground is relevant to his own behaviour
But Boris Johnson has something 7 children with 4 different women! If you want to bring sexual morality into this, you're just digging a still deeper ditch for Boris.
BJ has an immaculate record in climbing out of ditches.
Having been accused of spreading falsehoods on the last thread, I'd like to find out how bad my falsehoods are.
Does anybody know how many gas power plants get turned off because it's windy?
How much gas has not been burnt because of the wind?
I only ever of hear wind's "achievements" as a percentage of total energy produced. Currently, with such pathetic energy storage capacity, this is an irrelevant figure if we're not able to rely on wind enough to switch off the gas power plants.
The only stat that matters, while we don't have the storage, is how much less gas do we burn on a very windy day.
As a relevant aside, I presume our biomass plants can't even theoretically be switched on and off like gas?
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Not at all
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
There are degrees here.
Only on Mr J's side, if you assume he has a MA Oxon as well as that disappointing second in Greats.
I really do think one reason John Major was not taken seriously by the media is that political journalism is dominated by Oxbridge types who looked down on Major (and Kinnock).
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
Thank goodness we have the model of marital fidelity in Downing Street now, right?
John Major trying to take the moral high ground is relevant to his own behaviour
But Boris Johnson has something 7 children with 4 different women! If you want to bring sexual morality into this, you're just digging a still deeper ditch for Boris.
I have just watched the advert and my conclusion is many will respond
He has resigned as an MP Angela
Has Claudia Webb, and how about the £249 you falsely claimed for Air pods Angela
Indeed. £107m contracts handed without tender to donors is exactly the same as £249 for Air Pods.
Paterson has paid with his job, Rayner tries to take the moral high while having been found out herself
Can you not see the hypocrisy
I don't like Rayner, but no, I can't.
Rayner's actions were not the frugal, careful with the taxpayers behaviour that I'd prefer to see, but it doesn't compare to selling yourself as an MP to the highest bidder.
I see that Big_G's outrage at the behaviour of Paterson didn't last long, and he's now moved on to consoling himself with imagining that Labour are just as bad. That sort of false equivalence is one of the things that allows corruption to flourish.
Yeah - they're all Pretty Straight Guys at Labour.
If you refuse to distinguish between bad and worse then you let the worse off the hook, and you can make a distinction without excusing the bad.
Just how worst was Blair when he accepted a 1M quid donation from Bernie?
IIRC that was to the party, not personally. But I agree a very bad look.
and he gave the money back.
Admittedly only after he had given Ecclestone the deal he wanted on tobacco advertising.
More swinging and missing than in a golf lesson for beginners at the moment.
I don’t recall many defending his behaviour at the time. It was pretty disgusting, and it was likely only public opinion that made him return the cash. How any of that justifies current day corruption is frankly beyond me.
Perhaps is just a way for the Big G tendency to continue voting for Boris while expressing contempt for him.
It doesn't justify the Paterson case.
I'm just saying that Blair's corruption was much, much worse than Paterson's
Because you expected better of the Vicar of St Albions?
No because lobbying is legal
Paying PM 1M GBP to change policy is not.
As anyone in F1 knew, Bernie was a very shrewd negotiator.
He managed to get his policy enacted by Tony, and didn’t have to pay a penny for it.
It was the most corrupt thing I've ever seen in politics and all it took from Tony was a smirk at the cameras.
IIRC, Bernie leaned Conservative. He felt the deal he did with the government was above board, and was a reasonable compromise to a difficult situation for the sport. A longer delay in enacting the tobacco sponsorship ban, in order to move onto other sponsorship was vital in a sport that has its heart in the UK. The ensuing scandal, by the papers and the Conservative opposition, turned him well and truly against both parties.
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
I don't care about the Bernie angle - I care about how little people cared about the corrupt practises of Tone.
That was two decades ago. Might as well complain about Lloyd George.
Complain about Thatcher, you men?
Not particularly, unless you have a better memory for similar money-for-influence scandals than I do.
My point was people regularly complain about prominent politicians for far longer than two decades. We've seen examples of this just this week.
Ah, thanks. We do see people here complaining about William the Bastard's constitutional policy, for instance.
Am personally still shocked and appalled by Æthelred's unreadiness.
I blame his advisers...
Soldier Freddy was never ready, But! Soldier Neddy, unlike Freddy Was always ready and steady,
That's why, When Soldier Neddy Is-outside-Buckingham-Palace-on-guard-in-the-pouring-wind-and-rain-being-steady-and-ready, Freddy is home in beddy.
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
Thank goodness we have the model of marital fidelity in Downing Street now, right?
John Major trying to take the moral high ground is relevant to his own behaviour
But Boris Johnson has something 7 children with 4 different women! If you want to bring sexual morality into this, you're just digging a still deeper ditch for Boris.
Watch: President Biden celebrated the House passage of a $1 trillion bill to repair and modernize the nation’s aging infrastructure, a key legislative goal. https://nyti.ms/3BSqGJ4
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Not at all
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
There are degrees here.
Not sure that helps. Major famously didn't have one and Boris has an Upper Second from Oxford.
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Not at all
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
There are degrees here.
Only on Mr J's side, if you assume he has a MA Oxon as well as that disappointing second in Greats.
I really do think one reason John Major was not taken seriously by the media is that political journalism is dominated by Oxbridge types who looked down on Major (and Kinnock).
Election 1992 was the only general election we have ever had in the UK when none of the Conservative, Labour or Liberal leaders went to Oxbridge.
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Not at all
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
There are degrees here.
Not sure Norma would agree
Personal moral failings affect the individuals involved. Professional moral failings affect us the public a lot more.
Bluntly, I dont think people should commit adultery, but unless it also affects professional matters it's not really my business as while people can fail in both, one does not make the other more likely.
Aaaaand back home. An evening of mixed emotions for the crowd, the Saffas won the match but were knocked out of the tournament, and England came close but missed out yet still went through.
Pretty much everyone wanted to see England stitch it up for SA to go through and Australia out. But we did see a hat-trick at the end!
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Not at all
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
There are degrees here.
Only on Mr J's side, if you assume he has a MA Oxon as well as that disappointing second in Greats.
I really do think one reason John Major was not taken seriously by the media is that political journalism is dominated by Oxbridge types who looked down on Major (and Kinnock).
Election 1992 was the only general election we have ever had in the UK when none of the Conservative, Labour or Liberal leaders went to Oxbridge.
Yes - I misread the article but he was a government whip in that period
Interestingly, only one former chief whip has ever become PM or even party leader - Edward Heath, Chief Whip under Eden and Macmillan and PM from 1970-74.
Pym, Whitelaw and John Silkin were all spoken of as possible future leaders but the closest any of them came was Whitelaw's second place to Thatcher in 1975.
Interestingly, only one former chief whip has ever become PM or even party leader - Edward Heath, Chief Whip under Eden and Macmillan and PM from 1970-74.
Pym, Whitelaw and John Silkin were all spoken of as possible future leaders but the closest any of them came was Whitelaw's second place to Thatcher in 1975.
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Not at all
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
There are degrees here.
Not sure Norma would agree
Personal moral failings affect the individuals involved. Professional moral failings affect us the public a lot more.
Bluntly, I dont think people should commit adultery, but unless it also affects professional matters it's not really my business as while people can fail in both, one does not make the other more likely.
Debate over relative morality of Boris Johnson versus John Major reminds me of a somewhat similar argument raised during the 1884 presidential election between Grover Cleveland and James G. Blaine.
Grover Cleveland (Democrat) was noted for his integrity as a public official, in particular waging war while governor of New York against Tammany Hall corruption in city AND state government. On the other hand, he'd publicly admitted to fathering a child out of wedlock (he was a bachelor, and may have taken the rap for a buddy). Thus the GOP taut - "Maw, Maw, where's my Paw?"
James G. Blaine (Republican) was by contrast a happily-married man noted for devotion to his family. On the other hand, he was also notorious for his corrupt dealings, for political and personal gain. In one memorable instance (the Mulligan Letter affair) he famously ended one piece of illicit correspondence with the request, "Kindly burn this letter". Thus the Democratic taunt - "James G. Blaine, James G. Blaine, continental liar from the State of Maine!"
So the question was, which was preferable - a leader whose public conduct was praiseworthy while his private conduct was not, or visa vera?
The verdict - a close one - was in favor of the former.
Would seen to me that John Major falls (broadly) into this same category?
On the other hand, Boris Johnson's conduct is questionable both publicly AND privately?
Interestingly, only one former chief whip has ever become PM or even party leader - Edward Heath, Chief Whip under Eden and Macmillan and PM from 1970-74.
Pym, Whitelaw and John Silkin were all spoken of as possible future leaders but the closest any of them came was Whitelaw's second place to Thatcher in 1975.
Boo, the BBC is biased! Reporting on a news story I don't like when they should be reporting on...
umm
A festival crush? Man U getting beaten? COMMIES TAKING OVER THE BMA! THAT'S THE ONE!
If you can't see the left-wing bias in the BBC you are brain dead.
Evidence item 1 M'Lud' (second time today from me) footage from 2016 substituted by BBC News Editors to protect Johnson from humiliation from misplacing the wreath at the Cenotaph in 2019.
P.S. My wife often claims I am brain dead, so you may have a point.
Interestingly, only one former chief whip has ever become PM or even party leader - Edward Heath, Chief Whip under Eden and Macmillan and PM from 1970-74.
Pym, Whitelaw and John Silkin were all spoken of as possible future leaders but the closest any of them came was Whitelaw's second place to Thatcher in 1975.
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
Thank goodness we have the model of marital fidelity in Downing Street now, right?
John Major trying to take the moral high ground is relevant to his own behaviour
But Boris Johnson has something 7 children with 4 different women! If you want to bring sexual morality into this, you're just digging a still deeper ditch for Boris.
I've also got one about five or six times the size. It's so big (*) that it takes up the living room, and it's only been assembled once. A Lego MOC (vaguely based on plans). I intended to take into the little 'uns school for them to play with, but Covid's intervened. Very, very expensive in terms of Lego. I have a very understanding wife ...
Interestingly, only one former chief whip has ever become PM or even party leader - Edward Heath, Chief Whip under Eden and Macmillan and PM from 1970-74.
Pym, Whitelaw and John Silkin were all spoken of as possible future leaders but the closest any of them came was Whitelaw's second place to Thatcher in 1975.
Is this the same PM who conducted an affair while he was chief whip?
You've lost the argument in favour of Johnson if you are claiming a politician has no credibility and thus should be silenced because he was unfaithful to his wife.
Not at all
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
No surprise, Major hates Brexit and loathes Boris and voted for Hunt in 2019
Not really a Tory, would you say?
No, he is still a Tory. I canvassed for him in 1997 in Tonbridge with a friend's mother, my first ever canvass and the first rally I ever attended was for Major in rural Gravesham in 1992 when he was on his soapbox.
Though I did not formally join the party until 1998 when Hague was leader
Comments
IMV that was a good argument. The issue was that Bernie had paid the Labour Party a million earlier in the year, and no-one realised, or cared, that it could be seen as a conflict of interest.
But apparently he has never forgiven the Tories ...
But, Roy is a big loss. I’d probably rather play India than NZ in the semi - we are a big game team and struggle against less glamorous opposition.
Gardaí were alerted by UK police to the suspect after Labour politician received phone call
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/man-arrested-in-cork-over-threat-to-kill-female-british-mp-1.4721714
If it had happened seven or eight years later, it would have hurt Labour much more.
Who is it?
There might be a more direct parallel with Blair accepting free holidays, and it was surely suspicious that Blair's records were deleted before the expenses scandal but I doubt you'll find anyone on the left who cares and an awful lot of voters won't even remember.
Just such a hateful character.
At least BoJo has good hair and a sense of humour.
I just dont get it. Very influential PM, but it was so long ago now. At least with Blair hes still making contributions to keep him relevant to a degree, though even then it's mostly not usually very much.
https://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle/status/1456843041378115584?s=20
https://twitter.com/NewDayForNJ/status/1456943369536655360?s=20
Without those Republicans backing it it would not have passed, 6 leftwing Democrats voted against and the Democrats have a majority of 8
> reviewing my just-delivered copy of Almanac of American Politics 2022; btw I have been buying & collecting AAP since the premier 1972 edition published 50 years ago.
> crunching 2021 general Election Night precinct returns from King Co, WA; specifically analyzing & mapping initial, partial results for Seattle mayor, city attorney & city council at-large, also King Co Executive and Port of Seattle commissioners.
> and, when feeling like I need a break (frequently) tuning in to the "Get Smart" marathon on the el cheapo broadcast TV old sitcom channel.
The Best of Get Smart (Season One) 1965 - 1966
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEGA7eyWeAA
ETA actually that might be a serious question.
What we saw on Wednesday was in a different league. The party of Government attempted to hijack a key check and balance of Government probity either to protect a senior MP or more worryingly a pre-emptive strike to protect a Prime Minister. That is outrageous. It is ******* unacceptable. Wednesday is up there with the Profumo cover up, not Ecclestone.
Does anybody know how many gas power plants get turned off because it's windy?
How much gas has not been burnt because of the wind?
I only ever of hear wind's "achievements" as a percentage of total energy produced. Currently, with such pathetic energy storage capacity, this is an irrelevant figure if we're not able to rely on wind enough to switch off the gas power plants.
The only stat that matters, while we don't have the storage, is how much less gas do we burn on a very windy day.
As a relevant aside, I presume our biomass plants can't even theoretically be switched on and off like gas?
Canelo - Plant
Canelo is a beast and dispatches his opponents without too much trouble. How he came to be a beast is of course a matter of debate and has contributed to the needle between the two fighters as Plant has not been backwards in coming forwards about doping.
But he is a beast nevertheless.
The best chance Plant has is, ironically, to do a Khan. Keep moving don't get caught up against the ropes jab and move and get shots away when he can. But the time will come when Canelo can unload or find the shot (a la Khan) and that will be the danger/it all over.
Plant is a great fighter to watch and very handy but I can't see past a Canelo victory.
Plant is 10.5 bf and I've had a fiver on it plus a fiver on the draw (40s) because I am greedy and don't like the 1.12 about Canelo.
I'll just say I didn't like either of them.
I also want to see the license fee cancelled so we can agree on that at least.
Boris is constantly attacked for his morals, and John Major is open to the same criticism
That's the way these things usually work on these kind of votes; leadership will allow a few members to take a hike, in order to assuage their conscience or (more like) appease their supporters, donor and constituencies.
Plus methinks that many of the Republicans who voted against the bill, actually wanted it to pass, and will be soon touting the goodies that their states & districts are gonna get. They just did NOT want to take the flack from You Know Who & etc. for voting for it.
BTW reckon this applies to most of the House GOP leadership. The way it's worked out, they get credit with the base for opposing Biden's bill, while NOT having to take the heat for actually defeating it.
https://www.lego.com/en-gb/product/bucket-wheel-excavator-42055
Or even more appropriately
https://www.amazon.co.uk/LEGO-Technic-8069-Backhoe-Loader/dp/B0042HOU6M
BTW, perhaps the funniest part of recent circus turn, was Jacob Rees-Mogg also pratting away that - when he's a walking, talking affront to the very concept.
It's a view...
It's plain as night and day that we burn less gas when the wind blows.
You can see the variation in biomass too. Like coal it's slower to ramp up and ramp down than gas, but it is done.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/john-major-had-affair-edwina-currie-178437.html
was never ready,
But! Soldier Neddy,
unlike Freddy
Was always ready
and steady,
That's why,
When Soldier Neddy
Is-outside-Buckingham-Palace-on-guard-in-the-pouring-wind-and-rain-being-steady-and-ready,
Freddy
is home in beddy.
Bluntly, I dont think people should commit adultery, but unless it also affects professional matters it's not really my business as while people can fail in both, one does not make the other more likely.
Pretty much everyone wanted to see England stitch it up for SA to go through and Australia out. But we did see a hat-trick at the end!
Pym, Whitelaw and John Silkin were all spoken of as possible future leaders but the closest any of them came was Whitelaw's second place to Thatcher in 1975.
Grover Cleveland (Democrat) was noted for his integrity as a public official, in particular waging war while governor of New York against Tammany Hall corruption in city AND state government. On the other hand, he'd publicly admitted to fathering a child out of wedlock (he was a bachelor, and may have taken the rap for a buddy). Thus the GOP taut - "Maw, Maw, where's my Paw?"
James G. Blaine (Republican) was by contrast a happily-married man noted for devotion to his family. On the other hand, he was also notorious for his corrupt dealings, for political and personal gain. In one memorable instance (the Mulligan Letter affair) he famously ended one piece of illicit correspondence with the request, "Kindly burn this letter". Thus the Democratic taunt - "James G. Blaine, James G. Blaine, continental liar from the State of Maine!"
So the question was, which was preferable - a leader whose public conduct was praiseworthy while his private conduct was not, or visa vera?
The verdict - a close one - was in favor of the former.
Would seen to me that John Major falls (broadly) into this same category?
On the other hand, Boris Johnson's conduct is questionable both publicly AND privately?
P.S. My wife often claims I am brain dead, so you may have a point.
Now joint bottom on points
I've also got one about five or six times the size. It's so big (*) that it takes up the living room, and it's only been assembled once. A Lego MOC (vaguely based on plans). I intended to take into the little 'uns school for them to play with, but Covid's intervened. Very, very expensive in terms of Lego. I have a very understanding wife ...
(*) Fnarr fnarr ...
If he did not know, he should have and needs to go
Though I did not formally join the party until 1998 when Hague was leader