If a church makes a hamlet a village, and a cathedral makes a town a city, what makes a village a town?
In the case of Houghton, the post office. Combine a load of pit villages of varying sizes together and hey presto the postal "town" of Houghton-le-Spring. Was always glad I didn't live down the road as its postal address was: X Street Hetton-le-Hole Houghton-le-Spring DH4 XYZ
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
Blair might have shifted it but Johnson has taken it out and moved it to another building.
He's no David Lloyd George, actually I have a piece coming up soon that actually says Boris Johnson is the new David Lloyd George.
Lloyd George was a great orator, and though I have not read all his speeches rarely mentioned Peppa Pigland.
On topic, we absolutely should not make the mistake of assuming that Johnson would be safe if he faced, and defeated, a vote of no confidence among Tory MPs.
That rule exists to prevent a noisy minority from making continual trouble; it does not give a leader a 12-month free pass.
The rule lies within the control of the 1922 Committee and, as such, can be amended or repealed at the Committee's discretion at very short notice. In other words, if more than 50% openly want Johnson gone, they can force the issue if he proves intransigent.
In reality, events would probably force the PM's hand without the need for rule-tinkering. Theresa May won a Confidence vote among her MPs in December 2018. Six months later she was out.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
Blair might have shifted it but Johnson has taken it out and moved it to another building.
He's no David Lloyd George, actually I have a piece coming up soon that actually says Boris Johnson is the new David Lloyd George.
Lloyd George was a great orator, and though I have not read all his speeches rarely mentioned Peppa Pigland.
He did like to play 'hide the pork sausage' rather a lot.
If a church makes a hamlet a village, and a cathedral makes a town a city, what makes a village a town?
A population of over 10,000 but less than 100,000 and a church but not a cathedral
Sorry, but have to disagree; it's whether or not there's a long established market. Call at least one 'place' round here a village and, although it's population is about 6000, you'll find yourself shunned in the pub.
Edit; I've always regarded Epping as a small town.
In Italy, the news that politicians had been partying while they were in lockdown would be met with a shrug, and voters would simply go back to focusing on how to pay less tax. Despite the grief of the current political crisis, the fact of our being able to have it is actually a good thing.
England becomes more like Italy every day. Without the sun. Or the food. Or wine. Or architecture. Or the fine clothes, fragrances and bella figura. Or the azure sea and stunning coastline.
The only consultation we have is that we can still get the council, or a private sector service provider, to come out and fix some problem without our having to find out who their local manager, or sponsoring local politician, is, and give him or her (usually a him) a suitable Christmas ‘present’.
If a church makes a hamlet a village, and a cathedral makes a town a city, what makes a village a town?
In the case of Houghton, the post office. Combine a load of pit villages of varying sizes together and hey presto the postal "town" of Houghton-le-Spring. Was always glad I didn't live down the road as its postal address was: X Street Hetton-le-Hole Houghton-le-Spring DH4 XYZ
Chair of Sunderland Conservatives says Boris has to go. For this "atrocity".
HYUFD will be along to explain how the Chair of Sunderland Conservatives is actually not a True Tory and actually the red wall will only vote for Boris and actually where is Sunderland anyway actually.
Every MP in Sunderland is already Labour
Yeah, but the Tories in Sunderland are not much different to the Tories in Blyth and North Durham and Sedgefield and Redcar, etc.
They are significantly different to many of them, plenty of rural Tory voters in Sedgefield or North Durham for instance, no rural Tory voters in Sunderland
There are a lot, just not enough to give the Tories a seat in 2019 (or ever given that 2019 will be the high watermark for the Tory party now Boris has destroyed it).
There are no villages in any Sunderland seat
Laughable. There are no villages in "Houghton and Sunderland South"? I used to live there. Houghton-le-Spring is a village. Hetton-le-Hole. Shiney Row. Newbottle. New Herrington. And how do you know the farmers don't vote Tory?
You don't have talk some fact-free bollocks. Have you ever stopped and thought "I don't actually know anything at all about this, best to keep my comments specific"?
Generally a settlement with a population of 10-50,000 is a town, a settlement with a population of 100,000+ is a city, as is a settlement of 50-100,000 with a cathedral.
A settlement with a population of under 10,000 is only generally counted as a village
Houghton only has a population of 36k because they now include neighbouring settlements like Hetton and Newbottle into it.
I do appreciate your lecture on my former home that you have never visited though, very insightful.
And my town is made up of three separate villages, albeit ones built pretty much at the same time, with only one route between the three.
First line on Wikipedia: "Houghton-le-Spring is a town in the City of Sunderland."
A town in a city? How does that work? I've got a mate who lives in Houghton-le-Spring and I think he's always referred to it as a village, FWIW.
City of Sunderland is a Metropolitan District as well as being a city.
We have the same here with City of Bradford. Try telling the folk in Ilkley that they live in Bradford!
I think the Booths in Ilkley would sooner close than accept having to put Bradford down on it's address.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
Blair might have shifted it but Johnson has taken it out and moved it to another building.
He's no David Lloyd George, actually I have a piece coming up soon that actually says Boris Johnson is the new David Lloyd George.
Lloyd George was a great orator, and though I have not read all his speeches rarely mentioned Peppa Pigland.
He did like to play 'hide the pork sausage' rather a lot.
and he was a great exponent of "pork barrel politics" perhaps?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 56m Tory MP: “This is a shit show Dan. He's hanging by a thread. No one is comfortable any more. He cannot continue to dump on us. I think he's reached the tipping point tbh”. Fairly concise. And representative.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
Those are the standards of authoritarian regimes, of a Putin or a Xi, not of parliamentary democracies.
That's what struck me about the patsy minister sent out to the Commons today. He's the sort of toadying non-entity you get running things when loyalty to the leader, and the willingness to do and say anything are the only qualities that matter.
Anyone with any competence or principle has nothing to do with it, and the standard of governance suffers severely.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
Blair might have shifted it but Johnson has taken it out and moved it to another building.
He's no David Lloyd George, actually I have a piece coming up soon that actually says Boris Johnson is the new David Lloyd George.
Lloyd George was a great orator, and though I have not read all his speeches rarely mentioned Peppa Pigland.
He did like to play 'hide the pork sausage' rather a lot.
and he was a great exponent of "pork barrel politics" perhaps?
David L-G was someone I was taught to admire, but of whom my opinion has steadily gone, down, particularly as a result of his (political) conduct after WWI
If a church makes a hamlet a village, and a cathedral makes a town a city, what makes a village a town?
In the case of Houghton, the post office. Combine a load of pit villages of varying sizes together and hey presto the postal "town" of Houghton-le-Spring. Was always glad I didn't live down the road as its postal address was: X Street Hetton-le-Hole Houghton-le-Spring DH4 XYZ
Whether or not a parish council decides to style itself as a town council is entirely up to them, and carries no consequence other than its chair becomes a mayor.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
So... is Tonty Blair behind this?
lol of course not (but he did seem to enjoy a political renaissance in the early days of covid).
But there was the definite onset of rot in standards, even in his first term, a function of the massive majority and ego feeding media and public reception I suppose.
So you don't remember 1992 to 1997 then? You'll enjoy reading about it, let us know when you've had a little look and we can all have a laugh about your comment together.
As far as I can recall, Major himself didn’t get caught up in scandal, deceit or illegality (not counting Edwina!), even as those around him fell into a moral oblivion.
It was Blair and co who launched the age of spin, the Ecclestone affair being the first of many sordid episodes directly linked to No 10.
So the "onsest of rot in standards" is a statement only about leaders and once you've left out Major's affair. Right. I'm glad we've got your keen analysis down in black and white, without it, where would we be?
Hasn’t realised you carried such a candle for St Tony, sorry for besmirching his good name. What a needlessly aggressive chop you are.
I couldn’t personally care less about politicians’ sex lives but I grant you that the puritans among us might see that differently. It’s widely held that Major was basically an honourable man. Personally I think he was a cack PM and the British public agreed with that in 1997. But that’s not what we’re talking about
I mean, did you miss the bit earlier about where I said I protested against the Iraq war? And how I was mocked despite being right? I have no time for Blair, none at all, and I've never voted for him or his party. But the idea that Blair suddenly heralded a drop in political standards is one that can only really exist in total ignorance of what came immediately beforehand. That's just how things are. Does that mean Blair and Labour were shiny and fault-free? No. But that wasn't the charge. If you want to shift the goalposts to that, then that's a welcome correction from idiotic wrongness to fair comment. I'm happy to have helped you with that.
Has Jim Shannon delivered what will be seen as the fatal blow?
Families up and down the country went through similar. People literally died alone while these wankers sat in a garden and got pissed, hooting, no doubt, and braying, about what larks it was to break their own rules.
If a church makes a hamlet a village, and a cathedral makes a town a city, what makes a village a town?
A population of over 10,000 but less than 100,000 and a church but not a cathedral
Sorry, but have to disagree; it's whether or not there's a long established market. Call at least one 'place' round here a village and, although it's population is about 6000, you'll find yourself shunned in the pub.
Edit; I've always regarded Epping as a small town.
It can’t be that small if its militia is poised ready to subdue the coming Celtic uprising?
If a church makes a hamlet a village, and a cathedral makes a town a city, what makes a village a town?
In the case of Houghton, the post office. Combine a load of pit villages of varying sizes together and hey presto the postal "town" of Houghton-le-Spring. Was always glad I didn't live down the road as its postal address was: X Street Hetton-le-Hole Houghton-le-Spring DH4 XYZ
Whether or not a parish council decides to style itself as a town council is entirely up to them, and carries no consequence other than its chair becomes a mayor.
Blimey, don't tell our PC Chair! She will be getting her chains of office measured up PDQ
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
So... is Tonty Blair behind this?
lol of course not (but he did seem to enjoy a political renaissance in the early days of covid).
But there was the definite onset of rot in standards, even in his first term, a function of the massive majority and ego feeding media and public reception I suppose.
So you don't remember 1992 to 1997 then? You'll enjoy reading about it, let us know when you've had a little look and we can all have a laugh about your comment together.
As far as I can recall, Major himself didn’t get caught up in scandal, deceit or illegality (not counting Edwina!), even as those around him fell into a moral oblivion.
It was Blair and co who launched the age of spin, the Ecclestone affair being the first of many sordid episodes directly linked to No 10.
So the "onsest of rot in standards" is a statement only about leaders and once you've left out Major's affair. Right. I'm glad we've got your keen analysis down in black and white, without it, where would we be?
Hasn’t realised you carried such a candle for St Tony, sorry for besmirching his good name. What a needlessly aggressive chop you are.
I couldn’t personally care less about politicians’ sex lives but I grant you that the puritans among us might see that differently. It’s widely held that Major was basically an honourable man. Personally I think he was a cack PM and the British public agreed with that in 1997. But that’s not what we’re talking about
I mean, did you miss the bit earlier about where I said I protested against the Iraq war? And how I was mocked despite being right? I have no time for Blair, none at all, and I've never voted for him or his party. But the idea that Blair suddenly heralded a drop in political standards is one that can only really exist in total ignorance of what came immediately beforehand. That's just how things are. Does that mean Blair and Labour were shiny and fault-free? No. But that wasn't the charge. If you want to shift the goalposts to that, then that's a welcome correction from idiotic wrongness to fair comment. I'm happy to have helped you with that.
I would think it fair to say that Blair represented part of a downward slope. The serial resignations of Mandleson were quite something.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
Blair might have shifted it but Johnson has taken it out and moved it to another building.
He's no David Lloyd George, actually I have a piece coming up soon that actually says Boris Johnson is the new David Lloyd George.
Lloyd George was a great orator, and though I have not read all his speeches rarely mentioned Peppa Pigland.
He did like to play 'hide the pork sausage' rather a lot.
and he was a great exponent of "pork barrel politics" perhaps?
David L-G was someone I was taught to admire, but of whom my opinion has steadily gone, down, particularly as a result of his (political) conduct after WWI
The media was much more supine in those days so his corruption was really only noticed in retrospect.
If a church makes a hamlet a village, and a cathedral makes a town a city, what makes a village a town?
In the case of Houghton, the post office. Combine a load of pit villages of varying sizes together and hey presto the postal "town" of Houghton-le-Spring. Was always glad I didn't live down the road as its postal address was: X Street Hetton-le-Hole Houghton-le-Spring DH4 XYZ
Whether or not a parish council decides to style itself as a town council is entirely up to them, and carries no consequence other than its chair becomes a mayor.
Blimey, don't tell our PC Chair! She will be getting her chains of office measured up PDQ
I believe Ann Summers has a New Year sale on for Mayors of either or any gender. Very economical.
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 2h And remember as Ellis just said if the Met decides to launch an investigation the Gray investigation would be halted. So then presumably position would be PM/No 10 wouldn’t comment while that investigation went on. Which could take a long time.
===
This is his get out of jail card. The police investigate. We need the Met to hold off until Grey reports.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
So... is Tonty Blair behind this?
lol of course not (but he did seem to enjoy a political renaissance in the early days of covid).
But there was the definite onset of rot in standards, even in his first term, a function of the massive majority and ego feeding media and public reception I suppose.
So you don't remember 1992 to 1997 then? You'll enjoy reading about it, let us know when you've had a little look and we can all have a laugh about your comment together.
As far as I can recall, Major himself didn’t get caught up in scandal, deceit or illegality (not counting Edwina!), even as those around him fell into a moral oblivion.
It was Blair and co who launched the age of spin, the Ecclestone affair being the first of many sordid episodes directly linked to No 10.
So the "onsest of rot in standards" is a statement only about leaders and once you've left out Major's affair. Right. I'm glad we've got your keen analysis down in black and white, without it, where would we be?
Hasn’t realised you carried such a candle for St Tony, sorry for besmirching his good name. What a needlessly aggressive chop you are.
I couldn’t personally care less about politicians’ sex lives but I grant you that the puritans among us might see that differently. It’s widely held that Major was basically an honourable man. Personally I think he was a cack PM and the British public agreed with that in 1997. But that’s not what we’re talking about
I mean, did you miss the bit earlier about where I said I protested against the Iraq war? And how I was mocked despite being right? I have no time for Blair, none at all, and I've never voted for him or his party. But the idea that Blair suddenly heralded a drop in political standards is one that can only really exist in total ignorance of what came immediately beforehand. That's just how things are. Does that mean Blair and Labour were shiny and fault-free? No. But that wasn't the charge. If you want to shift the goalposts to that, then that's a welcome correction from idiotic wrongness to fair comment. I'm happy to have helped you with that.
Indeed. Blair's dissembling and duplicity with polish certainly made the public disillusioned. But Johnson and Trump have been surfing a wave of something much more extreme, and quite different - proud disillusion and cynicism, and to a certain extent, actually nihilism.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
Those are the standards of authoritarian regimes, of a Putin or a Xi, not of parliamentary democracies.
That's what struck me about the patsy minister sent out to the Commons today. He's the sort of toadying non-entity you get running things when loyalty to the leader, and the willingness to do and say anything are the only qualities that matter.
Anyone with any competence or principle has nothing to do with it, and the standard of governance suffers severely.
It’s good to see that the opposition in his local seat is making hay on the back of his risible performance in the House today.
Which he only had to do because our national leader decided that spending lunchtime inside his fridge would be the more comfortable choice.
Revolt coming from Scottish Tories on Downing St parties. Douglas Ross expected to do a broadcast round mid-afternoon amid "widespread anger" in the party. Sources say it will be a "straightforward response": "People need answers now. This can’t wait for an inquiry." https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1480850278467440644
Obvs not a real Tory either. Lacks the necessary mussel byssus glue level adherence to the party line. He'll be voting for independence next (albeit only for the SCons, not for the other inhabitants of Scotland).
Well, we'll see what he says. But he did resign as a minister over the Cummings trip and has form in going against the party line. He'd certainly never have prospered in the SNP which, as you know, doesn't encourage independent thinking.
If a church makes a hamlet a village, and a cathedral makes a town a city, what makes a village a town?
A population of over 10,000 but less than 100,000 and a church but not a cathedral
Sorry, but have to disagree; it's whether or not there's a long established market. Call at least one 'place' round here a village and, although it's population is about 6000, you'll find yourself shunned in the pub.
Edit; I've always regarded Epping as a small town.
Epping is a small town, as are Chigwell, Loughton, Buckhurst Hill, Waltham Abbey etc.
The villages in Epping Forest district are the likes of Roydon, North Weald Bassett, Magdalen Laver, Abridge, Roydon, Epping Upland, Theydon Bois, Fyfield etc.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 56m Tory MP: “This is a shit show Dan. He's hanging by a thread. No one is comfortable any more. He cannot continue to dump on us. I think he's reached the tipping point tbh”. Fairly concise. And representative.
If that tweet is accurate, 55 MPs are currently writing letters.
Revolt coming from Scottish Tories on Downing St parties. Douglas Ross expected to do a broadcast round mid-afternoon amid "widespread anger" in the party. Sources say it will be a "straightforward response": "People need answers now. This can’t wait for an inquiry." https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1480850278467440644
Obvs not a real Tory either. Lacks the necessary mussel byssus glue level adherence to the party line. He'll be voting for independence next (albeit only for the SCons, not for the other inhabitants of Scotland).
Well, we'll see what he says. But he did resign as a minister over the Cummings trip and has form in going against the party line. He'd certainly never have prospered in the SNP which, as you know, doesn't encourage independent thinking.
A nonsense comparison, given that Mr Johnson actively defenestrated a large chunk of the party.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
So... is Tonty Blair behind this?
lol of course not (but he did seem to enjoy a political renaissance in the early days of covid).
But there was the definite onset of rot in standards, even in his first term, a function of the massive majority and ego feeding media and public reception I suppose.
So you don't remember 1992 to 1997 then? You'll enjoy reading about it, let us know when you've had a little look and we can all have a laugh about your comment together.
As far as I can recall, Major himself didn’t get caught up in scandal, deceit or illegality (not counting Edwina!), even as those around him fell into a moral oblivion.
It was Blair and co who launched the age of spin, the Ecclestone affair being the first of many sordid episodes directly linked to No 10.
So the "onsest of rot in standards" is a statement only about leaders and once you've left out Major's affair. Right. I'm glad we've got your keen analysis down in black and white, without it, where would we be?
Hasn’t realised you carried such a candle for St Tony, sorry for besmirching his good name. What a needlessly aggressive chop you are.
I couldn’t personally care less about politicians’ sex lives but I grant you that the puritans among us might see that differently. It’s widely held that Major was basically an honourable man. Personally I think he was a cack PM and the British public agreed with that in 1997. But that’s not what we’re talking about
I mean, did you miss the bit earlier about where I said I protested against the Iraq war? And how I was mocked despite being right? I have no time for Blair, none at all, and I've never voted for him or his party. But the idea that Blair suddenly heralded a drop in political standards is one that can only really exist in total ignorance of what came immediately beforehand. That's just how things are. Does that mean Blair and Labour were shiny and fault-free? No. But that wasn't the charge. If you want to shift the goalposts to that, then that's a welcome correction from idiotic wrongness to fair comment. I'm happy to have helped you with that.
I would think it fair to say that Blair represented part of a downward slope. The serial resignations of Mandleson were quite something.
I prefer to see it as an accumulation of problems. The preceding government with the Conservatives in charge left the pile bigger than they found it. Labour did likewise. None of this is really controversial in any way. The only things that's controversial... no, stupid, in fact... is any sense that Blair arrived and there was an "onset of rot". Sleaze was literally the major (pun accidental) theme of the 97 election, and the public gave the Conservatives a kicking, in part because of sleaze. You don't have to be a Blair fan or Labour voter to remember this, you just needed to have been there.
Peter Walker @peterwalker99 · 1h One of the incidental but very eloquent lessons of all the tragic lockdown personal stories being recounted is that, in retrospect, forcing people to die, give birth or be gravely ill alone was wrong and inhuman, whatever the very genuine public health reasons.
===
It will be seen by historians as near medieval and barbaric in time. Ludicrous over reaction.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 56m Tory MP: “This is a shit show Dan. He's hanging by a thread. No one is comfortable any more. He cannot continue to dump on us. I think he's reached the tipping point tbh”. Fairly concise. And representative.
If that tweet is accurate, 55 MPs are currently writing letters.
Oh dear, just when you think Labour might be edging towards becoming a credible government-in-waiting again, they blow all that credibility on this utterly daft idea of cutting VAT on fuel - just about the most inefficient measure anyone could come up with to address the problem.
Might be a lousy idea to address the problem but it's good politics.
1. It hoists Boris and the Tory Brexiteers by their own putard after it was one of the key pledges they made as to why Brexit was a good idea.
2. It signals to the Red Wall that Labour in general and Starmer in particular have fundamentally accepted Brexit.
3. VAT on fuel has always been a controversial and hated tax from the day it was announced in Lamont's 1993 budget and very much coincided with John Major's government imploding... Not the only reason of course but the optics of that particular tax always looked dreadful after the recession and Major's ERM fiasco.
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 2h And remember as Ellis just said if the Met decides to launch an investigation the Gray investigation would be halted. So then presumably position would be PM/No 10 wouldn’t comment while that investigation went on. Which could take a long time.
===
This is his get out of jail card. The police investigate. We need the Met to hold off until Grey reports.
That's to put process ahead of politics.
Tory MPs will move against Johnson whatever the report or the Met says, *if* they regard the PM as sufficiently damaged goods that he has to go.
Johnson can run a smirk-excuse as much as he likes but if the public doesn't buy it then it won't protect him.
Chair of Sunderland Conservatives says Boris has to go. For this "atrocity".
HYUFD will be along to explain how the Chair of Sunderland Conservatives is actually not a True Tory and actually the red wall will only vote for Boris and actually where is Sunderland anyway actually.
Every MP in Sunderland is already Labour
Yeah, but the Tories in Sunderland are not much different to the Tories in Blyth and North Durham and Sedgefield and Redcar, etc.
They are significantly different to many of them, plenty of rural Tory voters in Sedgefield or North Durham for instance, no rural Tory voters in Sunderland
There are a lot, just not enough to give the Tories a seat in 2019 (or ever given that 2019 will be the high watermark for the Tory party now Boris has destroyed it).
There are no villages in any Sunderland seat
Laughable. There are no villages in "Houghton and Sunderland South"? I used to live there. Houghton-le-Spring is a village. Hetton-le-Hole. Shiney Row. Newbottle. New Herrington. And how do you know the farmers don't vote Tory?
You don't have talk some fact-free bollocks. Have you ever stopped and thought "I don't actually know anything at all about this, best to keep my comments specific"?
Generally a settlement with a population of 10-50,000 is a town, a settlement with a population of 100,000+ is a city, as is a settlement of 50-100,000 with a cathedral.
A settlement with a population of under 10,000 is only generally counted as a village
Houghton only has a population of 36k because they now include neighbouring settlements like Hetton and Newbottle into it.
I do appreciate your lecture on my former home that you have never visited though, very insightful.
And my town is made up of three separate villages, albeit ones built pretty much at the same time, with only one route between the three.
First line on Wikipedia: "Houghton-le-Spring is a town in the City of Sunderland."
A town in a city? How does that work? I've got a mate who lives in Houghton-le-Spring and I think he's always referred to it as a village, FWIW.
City of Sunderland is a Metropolitan District as well as being a city.
We have the same here with City of Bradford. Try telling the folk in Ilkley that they live in Bradford!
I think the Booths in Ilkley would sooner close than accept having to put Bradford down on it's address.
But Bradford has a Cathedral, but no Diocese or Bishop.
In Italy, the news that politicians had been partying while they were in lockdown would be met with a shrug, and voters would simply go back to focusing on how to pay less tax. Despite the grief of the current political crisis, the fact of our being able to have it is actually a good thing.
England becomes more like Italy every day. Without the sun. Or the food. Or wine. Or architecture. Or the fine clothes, fragrances and bella figura. Or the azure sea and stunning coastline.
Revolt coming from Scottish Tories on Downing St parties. Douglas Ross expected to do a broadcast round mid-afternoon amid "widespread anger" in the party. Sources say it will be a "straightforward response": "People need answers now. This can’t wait for an inquiry." https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1480850278467440644
Peter Walker @peterwalker99 · 1h One of the incidental but very eloquent lessons of all the tragic lockdown personal stories being recounted is that, in retrospect, forcing people to die, give birth or be gravely ill alone was wrong and inhuman, whatever the very genuine public health reasons.
===
It will be seen by historians as near medieval and barbaric in time. Ludicrous over reaction.
Not really - the last disease we were dealing with was Ebola which is very much a disease where keeping everyone away from someone who is ill / is dying makes perfect sense given the rate of recovery.
And while Covid isn't Ebola in the early days we didn't know that but we did by late April - and a few things could have changed.
In Italy, the news that politicians had been partying while they were in lockdown would be met with a shrug, and voters would simply go back to focusing on how to pay less tax. Despite the grief of the current political crisis, the fact of our being able to have it is actually a good thing.
England becomes more like Italy every day. Without the sun. Or the food. Or wine. Or architecture. Or the fine clothes, fragrances and bella figura. Or the azure sea and stunning coastline.
For some reason it is not letting me copy the relevant part (on p5) but the first national lockdown began in late March 2020 when all non essential high street businesses were closed; people were ordered to stay home, permitted to leave for essential purposes only such as buying food or medical reasons. From 13th May there was some relaxation of these rules with people being permitted to leave the house for outdoor recreation. On 1st June you were allowed into other peoples' houses but not overnight. People were permitted to meet outside in groups of up to 6 people.
To be honest the details of how severe lockdown was in that period had faded somewhat in my memory, possibly because, like Downing Street Staff, I was classified as an "essential worker" who was allowed to go to work (although I very rarely did during that time).
I am really not that clear what is being investigated here. Invites to 100 people to attend even a work related event, with alcohol, in a garden, is so far out of this that its hard to know where to start. The only relevant questions are (a) Did Boris authorise this and (b) even if that cannot be established did he condone it by, for example, turning up?
Where we go from there is unclear but Boris's obfuscation has really not helped. If he had held his hands up to either (a) or (b) or both with a mea culpa then it would not have been good but it would probably have been survivable. Lying about it and being found out is very probably not. I fear, because it has gone beyond tedious, that this will be yet another example where the cover up did more damage that the original error.
Chair of Sunderland Conservatives says Boris has to go. For this "atrocity".
HYUFD will be along to explain how the Chair of Sunderland Conservatives is actually not a True Tory and actually the red wall will only vote for Boris and actually where is Sunderland anyway actually.
Every MP in Sunderland is already Labour
Yeah, but the Tories in Sunderland are not much different to the Tories in Blyth and North Durham and Sedgefield and Redcar, etc.
They are significantly different to many of them, plenty of rural Tory voters in Sedgefield or North Durham for instance, no rural Tory voters in Sunderland
There are a lot, just not enough to give the Tories a seat in 2019 (or ever given that 2019 will be the high watermark for the Tory party now Boris has destroyed it).
There are no villages in any Sunderland seat
Laughable. There are no villages in "Houghton and Sunderland South"? I used to live there. Houghton-le-Spring is a village. Hetton-le-Hole. Shiney Row. Newbottle. New Herrington. And how do you know the farmers don't vote Tory?
You don't have talk some fact-free bollocks. Have you ever stopped and thought "I don't actually know anything at all about this, best to keep my comments specific"?
Generally a settlement with a population of 10-50,000 is a town, a settlement with a population of 100,000+ is a city, as is a settlement of 50-100,000 with a cathedral.
A settlement with a population of under 10,000 is only generally counted as a village
Houghton only has a population of 36k because they now include neighbouring settlements like Hetton and Newbottle into it.
I do appreciate your lecture on my former home that you have never visited though, very insightful.
And my town is made up of three separate villages, albeit ones built pretty much at the same time, with only one route between the three.
First line on Wikipedia: "Houghton-le-Spring is a town in the City of Sunderland."
A town in a city? How does that work? I've got a mate who lives in Houghton-le-Spring and I think he's always referred to it as a village, FWIW.
City of Sunderland is a Metropolitan District as well as being a city.
We have the same here with City of Bradford. Try telling the folk in Ilkley that they live in Bradford!
I think the Booths in Ilkley would sooner close than accept having to put Bradford down on it's address.
But Bradford has a Cathedral, but no Diocese or Bishop.
Complicated place
So much easier in Scotland. All the cathedrals are ex-cathedrals in terms of the established state religion, especially as rthe latter is now an ex-established state religion.
Sunak, Javid and Baker shortening in Next PM market. Gove lengthening.
Javid is Kendal from Succession. Superficially plausible successor who fundamentally lacks balls.
who is the creepy pervert one
Roman.
I meant in the cabinet
Can you narrow it down slightly?
who among all of the many the likely candidates was most like the sleazy pervert Roman in Successsion
Lol. The number one unquestioning fanboy of the creepy fat little man who was described by his QC as a "bully and sex pest" refers to another politician as "sleezy pervert". 😂😂😂😂😂😂
F*** off and keep doing it scumbag
Interesting how he, on the one hand is happy to continually have a go at you and how,you respond to some posters yet, on the other hand, is quite happy to troll and bait you for replies.
I think it is unfair to say I continually have a go at him, I just have a go at him when I notice he is either unnecessarily rude to others or writes a load of crap. That is of course most of his posts, which as I am not on here all the time I don't get the pleasure of taking the piss out of continually. Nice of you to defend him, though I can reassure you he doesn't deserve your kindness.
You are lying piece of crap. Stick to sucking others butt's on here it suits you better. People see you for what you are stalker.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
So... is Tonty Blair behind this?
lol of course not (but he did seem to enjoy a political renaissance in the early days of covid).
But there was the definite onset of rot in standards, even in his first term, a function of the massive majority and ego feeding media and public reception I suppose.
So you don't remember 1992 to 1997 then? You'll enjoy reading about it, let us know when you've had a little look and we can all have a laugh about your comment together.
As far as I can recall, Major himself didn’t get caught up in scandal, deceit or illegality (not counting Edwina!), even as those around him fell into a moral oblivion.
It was Blair and co who launched the age of spin, the Ecclestone affair being the first of many sordid episodes directly linked to No 10.
So the "onsest of rot in standards" is a statement only about leaders and once you've left out Major's affair. Right. I'm glad we've got your keen analysis down in black and white, without it, where would we be?
Hasn’t realised you carried such a candle for St Tony, sorry for besmirching his good name. What a needlessly aggressive chop you are.
I couldn’t personally care less about politicians’ sex lives but I grant you that the puritans among us might see that differently. It’s widely held that Major was basically an honourable man. Personally I think he was a cack PM and the British public agreed with that in 1997. But that’s not what we’re talking about
I mean, did you miss the bit earlier about where I said I protested against the Iraq war? And how I was mocked despite being right? I have no time for Blair, none at all, and I've never voted for him or his party. But the idea that Blair suddenly heralded a drop in political standards is one that can only really exist in total ignorance of what came immediately beforehand. That's just how things are. Does that mean Blair and Labour were shiny and fault-free? No. But that wasn't the charge. If you want to shift the goalposts to that, then that's a welcome correction from idiotic wrongness to fair comment. I'm happy to have helped you with that.
I would think it fair to say that Blair represented part of a downward slope. The serial resignations of Mandleson were quite something.
I prefer to see it as an accumulation of problems. The preceding government with the Conservatives in charge left the pile bigger than they found it. Labour did likewise. None of this is really controversial in any way. The only things that's controversial... no, stupid, in fact... is any sense that Blair arrived and there was an "onset of rot". Sleaze was literally the major (pun accidental) theme of the 97 election, and the public gave the Conservatives a kicking, in part because of sleaze. You don't have to be a Blair fan or Labour voter to remember this, you just needed to have been there.
It does crucially make a difference if you even make a public virtue of telling the truth. Johnson and Trump have made a public virtue of lying.
We're the ironic, the non-naive, we understand how fallen it all is. I can make my own brother a Lord, and continue laughing every allegation off. Public standards are for pompous elites, and hypocritical bien-pensants.
That is a potentially catastrophic dynamic for democracies.
Revolt coming from Scottish Tories on Downing St parties. Douglas Ross expected to do a broadcast round mid-afternoon amid "widespread anger" in the party. Sources say it will be a "straightforward response": "People need answers now. This can’t wait for an inquiry." https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1480850278467440644
Obvs not a real Tory either. Lacks the necessary mussel byssus glue level adherence to the party line. He'll be voting for independence next (albeit only for the SCons, not for the other inhabitants of Scotland).
Well, we'll see what he says. But he did resign as a minister over the Cummings trip and has form in going against the party line. He'd certainly never have prospered in the SNP which, as you know, doesn't encourage independent thinking.
A nonsense comparison, given that Mr Johnson actively defenestrated a large chunk of the party.
It’s an ‘SNP is an unthinking cult’ day. Worry ye not, an ‘SNP is in the throes of a civil war’ day will be around shortly.
Chair of Sunderland Conservatives says Boris has to go. For this "atrocity".
HYUFD will be along to explain how the Chair of Sunderland Conservatives is actually not a True Tory and actually the red wall will only vote for Boris and actually where is Sunderland anyway actually.
Every MP in Sunderland is already Labour
Yeah, but the Tories in Sunderland are not much different to the Tories in Blyth and North Durham and Sedgefield and Redcar, etc.
They are significantly different to many of them, plenty of rural Tory voters in Sedgefield or North Durham for instance, no rural Tory voters in Sunderland
There are a lot, just not enough to give the Tories a seat in 2019 (or ever given that 2019 will be the high watermark for the Tory party now Boris has destroyed it).
There are no villages in any Sunderland seat
Laughable. There are no villages in "Houghton and Sunderland South"? I used to live there. Houghton-le-Spring is a village. Hetton-le-Hole. Shiney Row. Newbottle. New Herrington. And how do you know the farmers don't vote Tory?
You don't have talk some fact-free bollocks. Have you ever stopped and thought "I don't actually know anything at all about this, best to keep my comments specific"?
Generally a settlement with a population of 10-50,000 is a town, a settlement with a population of 100,000+ is a city, as is a settlement of 50-100,000 with a cathedral.
A settlement with a population of under 10,000 is only generally counted as a village
Houghton only has a population of 36k because they now include neighbouring settlements like Hetton and Newbottle into it.
I do appreciate your lecture on my former home that you have never visited though, very insightful.
And my town is made up of three separate villages, albeit ones built pretty much at the same time, with only one route between the three.
First line on Wikipedia: "Houghton-le-Spring is a town in the City of Sunderland."
A town in a city? How does that work? I've got a mate who lives in Houghton-le-Spring and I think he's always referred to it as a village, FWIW.
City of Sunderland is a Metropolitan District as well as being a city.
We have the same here with City of Bradford. Try telling the folk in Ilkley that they live in Bradford!
I think the Booths in Ilkley would sooner close than accept having to put Bradford down on it's address.
But Bradford has a Cathedral, but no Diocese or Bishop.
Complicated place
It's part of the Archdeaconry of Bradford which is in the Diocese of Leeds following the 2013 re-organisation of the dioceses of Yorkshire's
Chair of Sunderland Conservatives says Boris has to go. For this "atrocity".
HYUFD will be along to explain how the Chair of Sunderland Conservatives is actually not a True Tory and actually the red wall will only vote for Boris and actually where is Sunderland anyway actually.
Every MP in Sunderland is already Labour
Yeah, but the Tories in Sunderland are not much different to the Tories in Blyth and North Durham and Sedgefield and Redcar, etc.
They are significantly different to many of them, plenty of rural Tory voters in Sedgefield or North Durham for instance, no rural Tory voters in Sunderland
There are a lot, just not enough to give the Tories a seat in 2019 (or ever given that 2019 will be the high watermark for the Tory party now Boris has destroyed it).
There are no villages in any Sunderland seat
Laughable. There are no villages in "Houghton and Sunderland South"? I used to live there. Houghton-le-Spring is a village. Hetton-le-Hole. Shiney Row. Newbottle. New Herrington. And how do you know the farmers don't vote Tory?
You don't have talk some fact-free bollocks. Have you ever stopped and thought "I don't actually know anything at all about this, best to keep my comments specific"?
Generally a settlement with a population of 10-50,000 is a town, a settlement with a population of 100,000+ is a city, as is a settlement of 50-100,000 with a cathedral.
A settlement with a population of under 10,000 is only generally counted as a village
Houghton only has a population of 36k because they now include neighbouring settlements like Hetton and Newbottle into it.
I do appreciate your lecture on my former home that you have never visited though, very insightful.
And my town is made up of three separate villages, albeit ones built pretty much at the same time, with only one route between the three.
First line on Wikipedia: "Houghton-le-Spring is a town in the City of Sunderland."
A town in a city? How does that work? I've got a mate who lives in Houghton-le-Spring and I think he's always referred to it as a village, FWIW.
City of Sunderland is a Metropolitan District as well as being a city.
We have the same here with City of Bradford. Try telling the folk in Ilkley that they live in Bradford!
I think the Booths in Ilkley would sooner close than accept having to put Bradford down on it's address.
But Bradford has a Cathedral, but no Diocese or Bishop.
Complicated place
Bradford still has a suffragen Bishop within the diocese of Leeds
In Italy, the news that politicians had been partying while they were in lockdown would be met with a shrug, and voters would simply go back to focusing on how to pay less tax. Despite the grief of the current political crisis, the fact of our being able to have it is actually a good thing.
England becomes more like Italy every day. Without the sun. Or the food. Or wine. Or architecture. Or the fine clothes, fragrances and bella figura. Or the azure sea and stunning coastline.
In Italy, the news that politicians had been partying while they were in lockdown would be met with a shrug, and voters would simply go back to focusing on how to pay less tax. Despite the grief of the current political crisis, the fact of our being able to have it is actually a good thing.
England becomes more like Italy every day. Without the sun. Or the food. Or wine. Or architecture. Or the fine clothes, fragrances and bella figura. Or the azure sea and stunning coastline.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
So... is Tonty Blair behind this?
lol of course not (but he did seem to enjoy a political renaissance in the early days of covid).
But there was the definite onset of rot in standards, even in his first term, a function of the massive majority and ego feeding media and public reception I suppose.
So you don't remember 1992 to 1997 then? You'll enjoy reading about it, let us know when you've had a little look and we can all have a laugh about your comment together.
As far as I can recall, Major himself didn’t get caught up in scandal, deceit or illegality (not counting Edwina!), even as those around him fell into a moral oblivion.
It was Blair and co who launched the age of spin, the Ecclestone affair being the first of many sordid episodes directly linked to No 10.
So the "onsest of rot in standards" is a statement only about leaders and once you've left out Major's affair. Right. I'm glad we've got your keen analysis down in black and white, without it, where would we be?
Hasn’t realised you carried such a candle for St Tony, sorry for besmirching his good name. What a needlessly aggressive chop you are.
I couldn’t personally care less about politicians’ sex lives but I grant you that the puritans among us might see that differently. It’s widely held that Major was basically an honourable man. Personally I think he was a cack PM and the British public agreed with that in 1997. But that’s not what we’re talking about
I mean, did you miss the bit earlier about where I said I protested against the Iraq war? And how I was mocked despite being right? I have no time for Blair, none at all, and I've never voted for him or his party. But the idea that Blair suddenly heralded a drop in political standards is one that can only really exist in total ignorance of what came immediately beforehand. That's just how things are. Does that mean Blair and Labour were shiny and fault-free? No. But that wasn't the charge. If you want to shift the goalposts to that, then that's a welcome correction from idiotic wrongness to fair comment. I'm happy to have helped you with that.
I would think it fair to say that Blair represented part of a downward slope. The serial resignations of Mandleson were quite something.
I prefer to see it as an accumulation of problems. The preceding government with the Conservatives in charge left the pile bigger than they found it. Labour did likewise. None of this is really controversial in any way. The only things that's controversial... no, stupid, in fact... is any sense that Blair arrived and there was an "onset of rot". Sleaze was literally the major (pun accidental) theme of the 97 election, and the public gave the Conservatives a kicking, in part because of sleaze. You don't have to be a Blair fan or Labour voter to remember this, you just needed to have been there.
Indeed. The main thing I remember was that Blair & Co. were big on the idea that -
1) Something considered to be legal. Sort of. If you squinted and turned your head just so. 2) Therefore it was legal. 3) Since it was legal, they were practically obligated to do it.
Sunak, Javid and Baker shortening in Next PM market. Gove lengthening.
Javid is Kendal from Succession. Superficially plausible successor who fundamentally lacks balls.
who is the creepy pervert one
Roman.
I meant in the cabinet
Can you narrow it down slightly?
who among all of the many the likely candidates was most like the sleazy pervert Roman in Successsion
Lol. The number one unquestioning fanboy of the creepy fat little man who was described by his QC as a "bully and sex pest" refers to another politician as "sleezy pervert". 😂😂😂😂😂😂
F*** off and keep doing it scumbag
Interesting how he, on the one hand is happy to continually have a go at you and how,you respond to some posters yet, on the other hand, is quite happy to troll and bait you for replies.
I think it is unfair to say I continually have a go at him, I just have a go at him when I notice he is either unnecessarily rude to others or writes a load of crap. That is of course most of his posts, which as I am not on here all the time I don't get the pleasure of taking the piss out of continually. Nice of you to defend him, though I can reassure you he doesn't deserve your kindness.
You are lying piece of crap. Stick to sucking others butt's on here it suits you better. People see you for what you are stalker.
I haven't "stalked" you, you absurd, rude and unpleasant little toad. What did I lie about, or is that just another knee-jerk response from the biggest jerk on PB? I take the piss out of you not just because you are an ignorant fool, but because you are an exceptionally obnoxious one. You think abuse is a form of debate. I have regularly seen you attempt to bully others you disagree with on here with your child like abuse. I'll offer you a deal; quit being an obnoxious arse and I will quit taking the rise out of you. Have a lovely day.
In Italy, the news that politicians had been partying while they were in lockdown would be met with a shrug, and voters would simply go back to focusing on how to pay less tax. Despite the grief of the current political crisis, the fact of our being able to have it is actually a good thing.
England becomes more like Italy every day. Without the sun. Or the food. Or wine. Or architecture. Or the fine clothes, fragrances and bella figura. Or the azure sea and stunning coastline.
A comment that could equally be applied to Sweden I would suggest.
In Italy, the news that politicians had been partying while they were in lockdown would be met with a shrug, and voters would simply go back to focusing on how to pay less tax. Despite the grief of the current political crisis, the fact of our being able to have it is actually a good thing.
England becomes more like Italy every day. Without the sun. Or the food. Or wine. Or architecture. Or the fine clothes, fragrances and bella figura. Or the azure sea and stunning coastline.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
So... is Tonty Blair behind this?
lol of course not (but he did seem to enjoy a political renaissance in the early days of covid).
But there was the definite onset of rot in standards, even in his first term, a function of the massive majority and ego feeding media and public reception I suppose.
So you don't remember 1992 to 1997 then? You'll enjoy reading about it, let us know when you've had a little look and we can all have a laugh about your comment together.
As far as I can recall, Major himself didn’t get caught up in scandal, deceit or illegality (not counting Edwina!), even as those around him fell into a moral oblivion.
It was Blair and co who launched the age of spin, the Ecclestone affair being the first of many sordid episodes directly linked to No 10.
So the "onsest of rot in standards" is a statement only about leaders and once you've left out Major's affair. Right. I'm glad we've got your keen analysis down in black and white, without it, where would we be?
Hasn’t realised you carried such a candle for St Tony, sorry for besmirching his good name. What a needlessly aggressive chop you are.
I couldn’t personally care less about politicians’ sex lives but I grant you that the puritans among us might see that differently. It’s widely held that Major was basically an honourable man. Personally I think he was a cack PM and the British public agreed with that in 1997. But that’s not what we’re talking about
I mean, did you miss the bit earlier about where I said I protested against the Iraq war? And how I was mocked despite being right? I have no time for Blair, none at all, and I've never voted for him or his party. But the idea that Blair suddenly heralded a drop in political standards is one that can only really exist in total ignorance of what came immediately beforehand. That's just how things are. Does that mean Blair and Labour were shiny and fault-free? No. But that wasn't the charge. If you want to shift the goalposts to that, then that's a welcome correction from idiotic wrongness to fair comment. I'm happy to have helped you with that.
I would think it fair to say that Blair represented part of a downward slope. The serial resignations of Mandleson were quite something.
I prefer to see it as an accumulation of problems. The preceding government with the Conservatives in charge left the pile bigger than they found it. Labour did likewise. None of this is really controversial in any way. The only things that's controversial... no, stupid, in fact... is any sense that Blair arrived and there was an "onset of rot". Sleaze was literally the major (pun accidental) theme of the 97 election, and the public gave the Conservatives a kicking, in part because of sleaze. You don't have to be a Blair fan or Labour voter to remember this, you just needed to have been there.
It does crucially make a difference if you even make a public virtue of telling the truth. Johnson and Trump have made a public virtue of lying.
We're the ironic, the non-naive, we understand how fallen it all is. I can make my own brother a Lord, and continue laughing every allegation off. Public standards are for pompous elites, and hypocritical bien-pensants.
That is a potentially catastrophic dynamic for democracies.
New labour came to power promising to end sleaze in government and within a short space of time we had the ‘cash for fag’ scandal. Of course there was sleaze, cash for questions for example, 92-97, but New labour promised a break from that.
In Italy, the news that politicians had been partying while they were in lockdown would be met with a shrug, and voters would simply go back to focusing on how to pay less tax. Despite the grief of the current political crisis, the fact of our being able to have it is actually a good thing.
England becomes more like Italy every day. Without the sun. Or the food. Or wine. Or architecture. Or the fine clothes, fragrances and bella figura. Or the azure sea and stunning coastline.
A comment that could equally be applied to Sweden I would suggest.
It also rather misses the vast improvement in English wine in the last two decades.
Sunak, Javid and Baker shortening in Next PM market. Gove lengthening.
Javid is Kendal from Succession. Superficially plausible successor who fundamentally lacks balls.
who is the creepy pervert one
Roman.
I meant in the cabinet
Can you narrow it down slightly?
who among all of the many the likely candidates was most like the sleazy pervert Roman in Successsion
Lol. The number one unquestioning fanboy of the creepy fat little man who was described by his QC as a "bully and sex pest" refers to another politician as "sleezy pervert". 😂😂😂😂😂😂
F*** off and keep doing it scumbag
Interesting how he, on the one hand is happy to continually have a go at you and how,you respond to some posters yet, on the other hand, is quite happy to troll and bait you for replies.
Yes Taz, he is a real pain in the butt, not interested in discussion , just constantly insulting me , very tedious. I keep thinking I should ignore it which is the sensible thing to do but at times I just have to say something. Obviously not a very nice person , fine having banter back and forward but he is just a pest.
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
So... is Tonty Blair behind this?
lol of course not (but he did seem to enjoy a political renaissance in the early days of covid).
But there was the definite onset of rot in standards, even in his first term, a function of the massive majority and ego feeding media and public reception I suppose.
So you don't remember 1992 to 1997 then? You'll enjoy reading about it, let us know when you've had a little look and we can all have a laugh about your comment together.
As far as I can recall, Major himself didn’t get caught up in scandal, deceit or illegality (not counting Edwina!), even as those around him fell into a moral oblivion.
It was Blair and co who launched the age of spin, the Ecclestone affair being the first of many sordid episodes directly linked to No 10.
So the "onsest of rot in standards" is a statement only about leaders and once you've left out Major's affair. Right. I'm glad we've got your keen analysis down in black and white, without it, where would we be?
Hasn’t realised you carried such a candle for St Tony, sorry for besmirching his good name. What a needlessly aggressive chop you are.
I couldn’t personally care less about politicians’ sex lives but I grant you that the puritans among us might see that differently. It’s widely held that Major was basically an honourable man. Personally I think he was a cack PM and the British public agreed with that in 1997. But that’s not what we’re talking about
I mean, did you miss the bit earlier about where I said I protested against the Iraq war? And how I was mocked despite being right? I have no time for Blair, none at all, and I've never voted for him or his party. But the idea that Blair suddenly heralded a drop in political standards is one that can only really exist in total ignorance of what came immediately beforehand. That's just how things are. Does that mean Blair and Labour were shiny and fault-free? No. But that wasn't the charge. If you want to shift the goalposts to that, then that's a welcome correction from idiotic wrongness to fair comment. I'm happy to have helped you with that.
I would think it fair to say that Blair represented part of a downward slope. The serial resignations of Mandleson were quite something.
I prefer to see it as an accumulation of problems. The preceding government with the Conservatives in charge left the pile bigger than they found it. Labour did likewise. None of this is really controversial in any way. The only things that's controversial... no, stupid, in fact... is any sense that Blair arrived and there was an "onset of rot". Sleaze was literally the major (pun accidental) theme of the 97 election, and the public gave the Conservatives a kicking, in part because of sleaze. You don't have to be a Blair fan or Labour voter to remember this, you just needed to have been there.
It does crucially make a difference if you even make a public virtue of telling the truth. Johnson and Trump have made a public virtue of lying.
We're the ironic, the non-naive, we understand how fallen it all is. I can make my own brother a Lord, and continue laughing every allegation off. Public standards are for pompous elites, and hypocritical bien-pensants.
That is a potentially catastrophic dynamic for democracies.
New labour came to power promising to end sleaze in government and within a short space of time we had the ‘cash for fag’ scandal. Of course there was sleaze, cash for questions for example, 92-97, but New labour promised a break from that.
Indeed, and even you fall short, what you profess to represent is still important. There's no realistic attempt to project anything other than cynicism with Johnson.
Lewis Goodall @lewis_goodall · 2h And remember as Ellis just said if the Met decides to launch an investigation the Gray investigation would be halted. So then presumably position would be PM/No 10 wouldn’t comment while that investigation went on. Which could take a long time.
===
This is his get out of jail card. The police investigate. We need the Met to hold off until Grey reports.
That's to put process ahead of politics.
Tory MPs will move against Johnson whatever the report or the Met says, *if* they regard the PM as sufficiently damaged goods that he has to go.
Johnson can run a smirk-excuse as much as he likes but if the public doesn't buy it then it won't protect him.
I hope you are right but I fear they will just look the other way and hope for the best.
“It means that if I’m meeting friends for lunch in a pub today, the primary [risk] is likely to be me transmitting it to my friends, or my friends transmitting it to me, rather than it being transmitted from someone on the other side of the room,”
In Italy, the news that politicians had been partying while they were in lockdown would be met with a shrug, and voters would simply go back to focusing on how to pay less tax. Despite the grief of the current political crisis, the fact of our being able to have it is actually a good thing.
England becomes more like Italy every day. Without the sun. Or the food. Or wine. Or architecture. Or the fine clothes, fragrances and bella figura. Or the azure sea and stunning coastline.
A comment that could equally be applied to Sweden I would suggest.
Had some decent meatballs with lingonberry sauce at IKEA last weekend tbf
Afzal Khan calls the PM a liar and the speaker decides to "let that one go".
An open door for PMQs tomorrow. Ask the question were you there yes or no? Get bluster. Get incandescent ranting of the kind Boris gives off when he's losing in. Then call him a liar. Just do it. When the lie is this egregious and so self-evident, time tocall a lie a lie and cope with the suspension if it's actually issued.
Actually Starmer being suspended for calling Johnson a liar over this would extend the coverage even further. So a good idea.
No, it would be a mistake for the LOTO to make himself the story, especially by behaviour not following the rules
There’s good reason for the rules on Parliamentary language - as we occasionally see here, and often see on other forums.
If one can’t make his point without using such unparliamentary language, then they shouldn’t be in Parliament.
There are always ways of saying that the minister has been untruthful, without expliticly using certain words.
It is one thing to have a PM who lies. It's quite another to have one who lies, knowing that the whole country knows that he's lying, and expecting everyone just to ignore the fact.
(Snip)
The 45 minutes claim didn't finish Blair off, and it can be argued that was far more disastrous for the country than a Downing Street party.
Silly non sequitur
Yes, the 45 minute claim was much, much worse than any lie Johnson has made.
To be clear: Boris should go. In fact, my position has always been that he was unsuitable to be PM. I was sadly proved correct.
But at least I don't try and excuse the inexcusable, as many do with Blair.
Blair shifted the Overton window on acceptable behaviour for a leader. And the debasement in politics has carried on from there.
So... is Tonty Blair behind this?
lol of course not (but he did seem to enjoy a political renaissance in the early days of covid).
But there was the definite onset of rot in standards, even in his first term, a function of the massive majority and ego feeding media and public reception I suppose.
So you don't remember 1992 to 1997 then? You'll enjoy reading about it, let us know when you've had a little look and we can all have a laugh about your comment together.
As far as I can recall, Major himself didn’t get caught up in scandal, deceit or illegality (not counting Edwina!), even as those around him fell into a moral oblivion.
It was Blair and co who launched the age of spin, the Ecclestone affair being the first of many sordid episodes directly linked to No 10.
So the "onsest of rot in standards" is a statement only about leaders and once you've left out Major's affair. Right. I'm glad we've got your keen analysis down in black and white, without it, where would we be?
Hasn’t realised you carried such a candle for St Tony, sorry for besmirching his good name. What a needlessly aggressive chop you are.
I couldn’t personally care less about politicians’ sex lives but I grant you that the puritans among us might see that differently. It’s widely held that Major was basically an honourable man. Personally I think he was a cack PM and the British public agreed with that in 1997. But that’s not what we’re talking about
I mean, did you miss the bit earlier about where I said I protested against the Iraq war? And how I was mocked despite being right? I have no time for Blair, none at all, and I've never voted for him or his party. But the idea that Blair suddenly heralded a drop in political standards is one that can only really exist in total ignorance of what came immediately beforehand. That's just how things are. Does that mean Blair and Labour were shiny and fault-free? No. But that wasn't the charge. If you want to shift the goalposts to that, then that's a welcome correction from idiotic wrongness to fair comment. I'm happy to have helped you with that.
I would think it fair to say that Blair represented part of a downward slope. The serial resignations of Mandleson were quite something.
I prefer to see it as an accumulation of problems. The preceding government with the Conservatives in charge left the pile bigger than they found it. Labour did likewise. None of this is really controversial in any way. The only things that's controversial... no, stupid, in fact... is any sense that Blair arrived and there was an "onset of rot". Sleaze was literally the major (pun accidental) theme of the 97 election, and the public gave the Conservatives a kicking, in part because of sleaze. You don't have to be a Blair fan or Labour voter to remember this, you just needed to have been there.
Indeed. The main thing I remember was that Blair & Co. were big on the idea that -
1) Something considered to be legal. Sort of. If you squinted and turned your head just so. 2) Therefore it was legal. 3) Since it was legal, they were practically obligated to do it.
I've often been intrigued by the illegality claim of the Iraq war. I wonder, if it were illegal, who is culpable? Blair, as leader, clearly is in the buck-stopping position, but surely it's not just him? What about the MPs who voted for it, and the defence bods and civil servants who drew up the dossiers and legislation and implemented the decisions? I'm a layman when it comes to law and I'd love to know who is theoretically on the hook for the sort of crime of waging a war of aggression and anything else that's been alleged.
More Conservative voters, even 2019 Conservative voters, do not think Boris should resign than think he should then
The trend is only going up. You’re at risk of alienating 40% of your 2019 voting population and you think that’s good?
As I said unless Labour are consistently 10%+ ahead there is no point replacing Boris. Especially as the membership might pick Truss over Sunak who would likely poll even worse
Revolt coming from Scottish Tories on Downing St parties. Douglas Ross expected to do a broadcast round mid-afternoon amid "widespread anger" in the party. Sources say it will be a "straightforward response": "People need answers now. This can’t wait for an inquiry." https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1480850278467440644
Obvs not a real Tory either. Lacks the necessary mussel byssus glue level adherence to the party line. He'll be voting for independence next (albeit only for the SCons, not for the other inhabitants of Scotland).
Well, we'll see what he says. But he did resign as a minister over the Cummings trip and has form in going against the party line. He'd certainly never have prospered in the SNP which, as you know, doesn't encourage independent thinking.
In Italy, the news that politicians had been partying while they were in lockdown would be met with a shrug, and voters would simply go back to focusing on how to pay less tax. Despite the grief of the current political crisis, the fact of our being able to have it is actually a good thing.
England becomes more like Italy every day. Without the sun. Or the food. Or wine. Or architecture. Or the fine clothes, fragrances and bella figura. Or the azure sea and stunning coastline.
A comment that could equally be applied to Sweden I would suggest.
It also rather misses the vast improvement in English wine in the last two decades.
Or the coastline of most of the South West. But it gets the point across: England = bad.
I hadn't realised just how early the US started offshoring their tech manufacturing.
https://www.eetimes.com/the-roots-of-silicon-valley-part-2-planar-technology-the-fairchildren/ ...With as many as 15,000 die now on a single wafer, assembly and test now outweighed wafer fab costs. Hence, the need to reduce labor costs as a matter of survival. After some early failed ventures, for example in Shiprock, N.M., at a Navajo reservation, along with early attempts at automation, offshoring test and assembly to Asia ultimately proved successful, at least in the short term. Bob Noyce, an investor in a small radio company in Hong Kong, suggested to Charlie Sporck that he and Jerry Levine scout the region.
They were attracted by the low labor cost, non-unionized facilities, western-educated technicians, good engineering schools, and tax incentives and other government subsidies. In 1963, Fairchild set up the industry’s first Far East assembly and test operation in a former shoe factory on the Kowloon side of Hong Kong. Other semiconductor manufacturers subsequently followed Fairchild to the Far East, primarily Malaysia...
Sunak, Javid and Baker shortening in Next PM market. Gove lengthening.
Javid is Kendal from Succession. Superficially plausible successor who fundamentally lacks balls.
who is the creepy pervert one
Roman.
I meant in the cabinet
Can you narrow it down slightly?
who among all of the many the likely candidates was most like the sleazy pervert Roman in Successsion
Lol. The number one unquestioning fanboy of the creepy fat little man who was described by his QC as a "bully and sex pest" refers to another politician as "sleezy pervert". 😂😂😂😂😂😂
F*** off and keep doing it scumbag
Interesting how he, on the one hand is happy to continually have a go at you and how,you respond to some posters yet, on the other hand, is quite happy to troll and bait you for replies.
I think it is unfair to say I continually have a go at him, I just have a go at him when I notice he is either unnecessarily rude to others or writes a load of crap. That is of course most of his posts, which as I am not on here all the time I don't get the pleasure of taking the piss out of continually. Nice of you to defend him, though I can reassure you he doesn't deserve your kindness.
You are lying piece of crap. Stick to sucking others butt's on here it suits you better. People see you for what you are stalker.
I haven't "stalked" you, you absurd, rude and unpleasant little toad. What did I lie about, or is that just another knee-jerk response from the biggest jerk on PB? I take the piss out of you not just because you are an ignorant fool, but because you are an exceptionally obnoxious one. You think abuse is a form of debate. I have regularly seen you attempt to bully others you disagree with on here with your child like abuse. I'll offer you a deal; quit being an obnoxious arse and I will quit taking the rise out of you. Have a lovely day.
I say again F*** off lowlife peddle your crap elsewhere.
Sunak, Javid and Baker shortening in Next PM market. Gove lengthening.
Javid is Kendal from Succession. Superficially plausible successor who fundamentally lacks balls.
who is the creepy pervert one
Roman.
I meant in the cabinet
Can you narrow it down slightly?
who among all of the many the likely candidates was most like the sleazy pervert Roman in Successsion
Lol. The number one unquestioning fanboy of the creepy fat little man who was described by his QC as a "bully and sex pest" refers to another politician as "sleezy pervert". 😂😂😂😂😂😂
F*** off and keep doing it scumbag
Interesting how he, on the one hand is happy to continually have a go at you and how,you respond to some posters yet, on the other hand, is quite happy to troll and bait you for replies.
Yes Taz, he is a real pain in the butt, not interested in discussion , just constantly insulting me , very tedious. I keep thinking I should ignore it which is the sensible thing to do but at times I just have to say something. Obviously not a very nice person , fine having banter back and forward but he is just a pest.
Sunak, Javid and Baker shortening in Next PM market. Gove lengthening.
Javid is Kendal from Succession. Superficially plausible successor who fundamentally lacks balls.
who is the creepy pervert one
Roman.
I meant in the cabinet
Can you narrow it down slightly?
who among all of the many the likely candidates was most like the sleazy pervert Roman in Successsion
Lol. The number one unquestioning fanboy of the creepy fat little man who was described by his QC as a "bully and sex pest" refers to another politician as "sleezy pervert". 😂😂😂😂😂😂
F*** off and keep doing it scumbag
Interesting how he, on the one hand is happy to continually have a go at you and how,you respond to some posters yet, on the other hand, is quite happy to troll and bait you for replies.
I think it is unfair to say I continually have a go at him, I just have a go at him when I notice he is either unnecessarily rude to others or writes a load of crap. That is of course most of his posts, which as I am not on here all the time I don't get the pleasure of taking the piss out of continually. Nice of you to defend him, though I can reassure you he doesn't deserve your kindness.
You are lying piece of crap. Stick to sucking others butt's on here it suits you better. People see you for what you are stalker.
I haven't "stalked" you, you absurd, rude and unpleasant little toad. What did I lie about, or is that just another knee-jerk response from the biggest jerk on PB? I take the piss out of you not just because you are an ignorant fool, but because you are an exceptionally obnoxious one. You think abuse is a form of debate. I have regularly seen you attempt to bully others you disagree with on here with your child like abuse. I'll offer you a deal; quit being an obnoxious arse and I will quit taking the rise out of you. Have a lovely day.
For some reason it is not letting me copy the relevant part (on p5) but the first national lockdown began in late March 2020 when all non essential high street businesses were closed; people were ordered to stay home, permitted to leave for essential purposes only such as buying food or medical reasons. From 13th May there was some relaxation of these rules with people being permitted to leave the house for outdoor recreation. On 1st June you were allowed into other peoples' houses but not overnight. People were permitted to meet outside in groups of up to 6 people.
To be honest the details of how severe lockdown was in that period had faded somewhat in my memory, possibly because, like Downing Street Staff, I was classified as an "essential worker" who was allowed to go to work (although I very rarely did during that time).
I am really not that clear what is being investigated here. Invites to 100 people to attend even a work related event, with alcohol, in a garden, is so far out of this that its hard to know where to start. The only relevant questions are (a) Did Boris authorise this and (b) even if that cannot be established did he condone it by, for example, turning up?
Where we go from there is unclear but Boris's obfuscation has really not helped. If he had held his hands up to either (a) or (b) or both with a mea culpa then it would not have been good but it would probably have been survivable. Lying about it and being found out is very probably not. I fear, because it has gone beyond tedious, that this will be yet another example where the cover up did more damage that the original error.
Even an absolute bounder would have fallen on his sword by now.
That Douglas Ross interview was a dagger in the chest from the Scottish Conservatives. Ruth Davidson walked Johnson down an unfriendly alley this morning, Ross delivered the stiletto on live tv just now. https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1480929414749773826
More Conservative voters, even 2019 Conservative voters, do not think Boris should resign than think he should then
The trend is only going up. You’re at risk of alienating 40% of your 2019 voting population and you think that’s good?
As I said unless Labour are consistently 10%+ ahead there is no point replacing Boris. Especially as the membership might pick Truss over Sunak who would likely poll even worse
Your dislike of Truss shining through and of course Boris should go
I just do not see how you can defend the indefensible but then you are either in denial or just blind in loyalty
Comments
That rule exists to prevent a noisy minority from making continual trouble; it does not give a leader a 12-month free pass.
The rule lies within the control of the 1922 Committee and, as such, can be amended or repealed at the Committee's discretion at very short notice. In other words, if more than 50% openly want Johnson gone, they can force the issue if he proves intransigent.
In reality, events would probably force the PM's hand without the need for rule-tinkering. Theresa May won a Confidence vote among her MPs in December 2018. Six months later she was out.
Edit; I've always regarded Epping as a small town.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_in_England
@DPJHodges
·
56m
Tory MP: “This is a shit show Dan. He's hanging by a thread. No one is comfortable any more. He cannot continue to dump on us. I think he's reached the tipping point tbh”. Fairly concise. And representative.
Anyone with any competence or principle has nothing to do with it, and the standard of governance suffers severely.
https://www.holytrinitygibraltar.org/
I have no time for Blair, none at all, and I've never voted for him or his party. But the idea that Blair suddenly heralded a drop in political standards is one that can only really exist in total ignorance of what came immediately beforehand. That's just how things are. Does that mean Blair and Labour were shiny and fault-free? No. But that wasn't the charge. If you want to shift the goalposts to that, then that's a welcome correction from idiotic wrongness to fair comment. I'm happy to have helped you with that.
Families up and down the country went through similar. People literally died alone while these wankers sat in a garden and got pissed, hooting, no doubt, and braying, about what larks it was to break their own rules.
Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall
·
2h
And remember as Ellis just said if the Met decides to launch an investigation the Gray investigation would be halted. So then presumably position would be PM/No 10 wouldn’t comment while that investigation went on. Which could take a long time.
===
This is his get out of jail card. The police investigate. We need the Met to hold off until Grey reports.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/stacey-abrams-will-miss-bidens-voting-rights-speech-in-georgia
Her excuse is probably b*llocks, the question is why is doing something that will be interpreted as a deliberate snub.
Which he only had to do because our national leader decided that spending lunchtime inside his fridge would be the more comfortable choice.
The villages in Epping Forest district are the likes of Roydon, North Weald Bassett, Magdalen Laver, Abridge, Roydon, Epping Upland, Theydon Bois, Fyfield etc.
I don't believe that is the case...
Should Boris Johnson resign over BYOB partygate?
🇬🇧All adults
Should 66%
Should not 24%
🌳2019 Con
Should 42%
Should not 45%
🌹2019 Lab
Should 85%
Should not 10%
1,040 UK adults, 11th Jan 2022 https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1480922753867911179/photo/1
You don't have to be a Blair fan or Labour voter to remember this, you just needed to have been there.
@peterwalker99
·
1h
One of the incidental but very eloquent lessons of all the tragic lockdown personal stories being recounted is that, in retrospect, forcing people to die, give birth or be gravely ill alone was wrong and inhuman, whatever the very genuine public health reasons.
===
It will be seen by historians as near medieval and barbaric in time. Ludicrous over reaction.
1. It hoists Boris and the Tory Brexiteers by their own putard after it was one of the key pledges they made as to why Brexit was a good idea.
2. It signals to the Red Wall that Labour in general and Starmer in particular have fundamentally accepted Brexit.
3. VAT on fuel has always been a controversial and hated tax from the day it was announced in Lamont's 1993 budget and very much coincided with John Major's government imploding... Not the only reason of course but the optics of that particular tax always looked dreadful after the recession and Major's ERM fiasco.
Tory MPs will move against Johnson whatever the report or the Met says, *if* they regard the PM as sufficiently damaged goods that he has to go.
Johnson can run a smirk-excuse as much as he likes but if the public doesn't buy it then it won't protect him.
Complicated place
- 66% say Boris Johnson should resign following latest revelations - +12 since their last poll at Christmas
- That includes 42% of 2019 Conservative voters (+9)
- https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1480923563351760905
And while Covid isn't Ebola in the early days we didn't know that but we did by late April - and a few things could have changed.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9068/CBP-9068.pdf
For some reason it is not letting me copy the relevant part (on p5) but the first national lockdown began in late March 2020 when all non essential high street businesses were closed; people were ordered to stay home, permitted to leave for essential purposes only such as buying food or medical reasons. From 13th May there was some relaxation of these rules with people being permitted to leave the house for outdoor recreation. On 1st June you were allowed into other peoples' houses but not overnight. People were permitted to meet outside in groups of up to 6 people.
To be honest the details of how severe lockdown was in that period had faded somewhat in my memory, possibly because, like Downing Street Staff, I was classified as an "essential worker" who was allowed to go to work (although I very rarely did during that time).
I am really not that clear what is being investigated here. Invites to 100 people to attend even a work related event, with alcohol, in a garden, is so far out of this that its hard to know where to start. The only relevant questions are (a) Did Boris authorise this and (b) even if that cannot be established did he condone it by, for example, turning up?
Where we go from there is unclear but Boris's obfuscation has really not helped. If he had held his hands up to either (a) or (b) or both with a mea culpa then it would not have been good but it would probably have been survivable. Lying about it and being found out is very probably not. I fear, because it has gone beyond tedious, that this will be yet another example where the cover up did more damage that the original error.
Is Boris Johnson still an asset to the Conservative Party?
🇬🇧All adults
Still an asset 25%
No longer an asset 64%
🌳2019 Con
Still an asset 45%
No longer an asset 45%
1,040 UK adults, 11th Jan 2022 https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1480924358927396864/photo/1
We're the ironic, the non-naive, we understand how fallen it all is. I can make my own brother a Lord, and continue laughing every allegation off. Public standards are for pompous elites, and hypocritical bien-pensants.
That is a potentially catastrophic dynamic for democracies.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/70/part/XII
Agree/disagree that it is one rule for the govt and another for everybody else:
🇬🇧All adults
Agree 83%
Disagree 5%
🌳2019 Con
Agree 74%
Disagree 9%
What are your thoughts on that poll - only 9% of 2019 are "true Tories" ?
1) Something considered to be legal. Sort of. If you squinted and turned your head just so.
2) Therefore it was legal.
3) Since it was legal, they were practically obligated to do it.
Agree/disagree that it is one rule for the govt and another for everybody else:
🇬🇧All adults
Agree 83%
Disagree 5%
🌳2019 Con
Agree 74%
Disagree 9%
1,040 UK adults, 11th Jan 2022 https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1480926455462866958/photo/1
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59948920
It is not for me
to say whether
I ate the plums
that were in the icebox.
As you know
Sue Grey
is investigating
this matter
We await
her conclusions
so sweet
and so cold
https://twitter.com/tds153/status/1480850326974517248?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/11/covid-loses-90-of-ability-to-infect-within-five-minutes-in-air-study?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I'm a layman when it comes to law and I'd love to know who is theoretically on the hook for the sort of crime of waging a war of aggression and anything else that's been alleged.
Perhaps HYUFD is one of their number ?
Big clunking fist, master of all he surveyed to figure of fun, to object of derision in a few short months.
https://www.eetimes.com/the-roots-of-silicon-valley-part-2-planar-technology-the-fairchildren/
...With as many as 15,000 die now on a single wafer, assembly and test now outweighed wafer fab costs. Hence, the need to reduce labor costs as a matter of survival. After some early failed ventures, for example in Shiprock, N.M., at a Navajo reservation, along with early attempts at automation, offshoring test and assembly to Asia ultimately proved successful, at least in the short term. Bob Noyce, an investor in a small radio company in Hong Kong, suggested to Charlie Sporck that he and Jerry Levine scout the region.
They were attracted by the low labor cost, non-unionized facilities, western-educated technicians, good engineering schools, and tax incentives and other government subsidies. In 1963, Fairchild set up the industry’s first Far East assembly and test operation in a former shoe factory on the Kowloon side of Hong Kong. Other semiconductor manufacturers subsequently followed Fairchild to the Far East, primarily Malaysia...
"We shouldn't have to wait until PMQs tomorrow. We should hear the answer now."
💥He adds: "If the PM has misled Parliament he must resign".
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1480928160623603714
In election terms however if Boris comes out of this with the Tories 10%+ behind then he would be in trouble but only if that occurs
@DPJHodges
·
21m
Have yet to find a Tory MP, Minister or Cabinet Minister who thinks Boris’s position is defensible or survivable.
https://twitter.com/Torcuil/status/1480929414749773826
The proportion who say that the govt. has 'let down' each of the following:
🇬🇧All adults
The public 86%
Those who've lost loved ones to covid 85%
NHS 83%
🌳2019 Con
The public 79%
Those who've lost loved ones to covid 77%
NHS 73%
1,040 UK adults, 11th Jan https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1480929618479792133/photo/1
I just do not see how you can defend the indefensible but then you are either in denial or just blind in loyalty