On topic: The ever-perceptive @AlastairMeeks has I think got this right in a tweet:
An exclusive preview of the Sue Gray report.
It will say: there were parties The PM attended one or more He was, it seems, told what was going on but tells me he didn't appreciate what was said There should not have been parties
MPs can decide now what they want to do next.
The only thing which I'd add is that it's of course possible that she will have found one or more emails which directly contradict the PM's account of things, and that would make it harder for Tory MPs to find excuses for Boris.
Hope you're right. That's at the bleaker end for Johnson. What I more fear and expect is a different 3rd line. "The PM says he was not informed and I found no hard evidence proving otherwise".
Given him surviving is a 50/50 imo, I think that's the value bet at current prices.
himself is hardly yo be expected Pesto saying Gray has the email, is good news. Even if not true.
He says she has an email to the PM's principal private secretary. That is not an email to the PM.
Yes
Ever since primary school I have generally come quite high up the upper quartile in reading and comprehension tests
Cummings has never claimed an email to Johnson himself exists
An email to the PM himself is hardly to be expected. What would it say? 'Dear PM, this Party appears to be against the rules which you yourself have made...'
It would be one senior official to another on the entirely reasonable assumption that said official will warn the PM as he or she sees fit. The ball is then very much in the court of the PM's secretary. My guess is that it would be raised briefly with the PM and if, say, the PM indicates, implicitly or otherwise, that said party will go ahead the official in question then demurs, making the appropriate diary note of the fact. Absent such a note, the official would of course now be in deep doo-doo with every prospect of the sack pending, and only the prospect of an easy well-paid job and peerage at some future date to soften the blow.
Surely attributable proof for Ms Gray is testimony from the half a dozen people plus who, having sent or received these emails would have had a brief conversation with the PM. If they didn't inform the PM, what was their function or where was he that they couldn't brief him?
The absurdity of Johnson's defence is mind boggling to the point that the only one of the 67 million citizens of the UK that believe Johnson was kept in the dark about parties is Johnson himself. Perhaps he is correct and he was not briefed, because the assumption was made that having been party to constructing the rules he might have remembered why they were made, and what (roughly) they stated.
I have no fucking idea who Sue Gray is but she is neither going to topple nor save the FLSOJ. She's going to leave enough ambiguity in her report so that the Drones Club of tory MPs have sufficient justification for either.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
To be fair to those stories, at least they explain what was going on.
Liverpool did not come clean. Had they done, then there wouldn't be suspicions around just exactly why they were getting their players tested with a dodgy company.
Now you're just being silly.
If its OK for the BMJ to use the term 'false negative' with respect to faulty negatives I see no reason why its remotely absurd for Jurgen Klopp to use the term 'false positives'.
Are you seriously going to try to hold Klopp to a higher standard of medical terminological usage than the BMJ?
The BMJ headline is:
Covid-19: PCR testing is suspended at private laboratory after high rate of false negatives
That is, they are implying the statistical definition of what a false negative is and saying "something's wrong here".
Simply saying "we had a load of false positives" implies simple (very) bad luck. Now, they're obviously not to blame for their chosen provider of PCR tests f****** up, but I think it would have been really helpful if Liverpool had explained what had gone on.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
No, I don't. That's literally the opposite of what I said.
I'd be perfectly happy to see the BBC go behind a paywall and if it did I wouldn't use it, unless I chose to pay for it.
However right now I am compelled by law to pay for it whether I want to or not, and I do not consider it a valuable service. I don't pay £16 a month for any website and I would not find it valuable to pay that for the BBC site.
The Athletic etc would be a much better value for money if I were to choose one to pay for.
SRAM eTap uses ANT+, Shimano Di2 (12 speed only) uses their own undisclosed proprietary protocol and Campag EPS is still 100% wired because SRAM and Shimano would crush them with patent infringements.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
No, I don't. That's literally the opposite of what I said.
I'd be perfectly happy to see the BBC go behind a paywall and if it did I wouldn't use it, unless I chose to pay for it.
However right now I am compelled by law to pay for it whether I want to or not, and I do not consider it a valuable service. I don't pay £16 a month for any website and I would not find it valuable to pay that for the BBC site.
The Athletic etc would be a much better value for money if I were to choose one to pay for.
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.
If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.
I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.
I've voted in six general elections. In only 2017 and 2019 have I voted for the same party twice in a row. Both main parties need people like me. Starmer's got his chance, now, to make a pitch and I'll be listening with the expectation that if he doesn't actively put me off, I'll be switching. The Tories need to hurry up and resolve the current mess as every day just lowers the barrier to switching...
On topic: The ever-perceptive @AlastairMeeks has I think got this right in a tweet:
An exclusive preview of the Sue Gray report.
It will say: there were parties The PM attended one or more He was, it seems, told what was going on but tells me he didn't appreciate what was said There should not have been parties
MPs can decide now what they want to do next.
The only thing which I'd add is that it's of course possible that she will have found one or more emails which directly contradict the PM's account of things, and that would make it harder for Tory MPs to find excuses for Boris.
Hope you're right. That's at the bleaker end for Johnson. What I more fear and expect is a different 3rd line. "The PM says he was not informed and I found no hard evidence proving otherwise".
Given him surviving is a 50/50 imo, I think that's the value bet at current prices.
himself is hardly yo be expected Pesto saying Gray has the email, is good news. Even if not true.
He says she has an email to the PM's principal private secretary. That is not an email to the PM.
Yes
Ever since primary school I have generally come quite high up the upper quartile in reading and comprehension tests
Cummings has never claimed an email to Johnson himself exists
An email to the PM himself is hardly to be expected. What would it say? 'Dear PM, this Party appears to be against the rules which you yourself have made...'
It would be one senior official to another on the entirely reasonable assumption that said official will warn the PM as he or she sees fit. The ball is then very much in the court of the PM's secretary. My guess is that it would be raised briefly with the PM and if, say, the PM indicates, implicitly or otherwise, that said party will go ahead the official in question then demurs, making the appropriate diary note of the fact. Absent such a note, the official would of course now be in deep doo-doo with every prospect of the sack pending, and only the prospect of an easy well-paid job and peerage at some future date to soften the blow.
The absurdity of Johnson's defence is mind boggling to the point that the only one of the 67 million citizens of the UK that believe Johnson was kept in the dark about parties is Johnson himself.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Is DRoss still nominally a Conservative? Because he seems to be an opposition spokesman these days. What does he and Wragg and Davies and the others have to do to get Ken Clark'd out of the party?
Ken Clarke voted against the Conservative three line whip on a Commons vote termed a confidence vote.
No different whatsoever to John Major expelling Rupert Allason.
Although none of Major's "bastards" went as far as Clarke did in voting in the Opposition lobbies in the confidence vote.
I may be misremembering, but I thought that under the FTPA which I think held at the time, only an explicit confidence vote under that Act could be considered a confidence vote, in the sense of triggering a dissolution of Parliament. So it might have been "termed" a confidence vote, but it wasn't one. Apologies if I've remembered this wrong, it feels like a different era lost in the mists of time now (when the Tory party could provide a home for honest and sane MPs).
Under the terms of the FTPA an explicit vote must be held to call the election, or an explicit confidence vote, but nothing in the FTPA prevents the government of the day determining something to be a matter of confidence. Simply the consequences of losing the vote were changed by the FTPA.
Following the government losing the vote it had deemed a confidence measure (which is what got Clarke etc expelled) an early election vote was immediately tabled as per the FTPA. But the Opposition chose to reject the election.
On topic: The ever-perceptive @AlastairMeeks has I think got this right in a tweet:
An exclusive preview of the Sue Gray report.
It will say: there were parties The PM attended one or more He was, it seems, told what was going on but tells me he didn't appreciate what was said There should not have been parties
MPs can decide now what they want to do next.
The only thing which I'd add is that it's of course possible that she will have found one or more emails which directly contradict the PM's account of things, and that would make it harder for Tory MPs to find excuses for Boris.
Hope you're right. That's at the bleaker end for Johnson. What I more fear and expect is a different 3rd line. "The PM says he was not informed and I found no hard evidence proving otherwise".
Given him surviving is a 50/50 imo, I think that's the value bet at current prices.
Pesto saying Gray has the email, is good news. Even if not true.
He says she has an email to the PM's principal private secretary. That is not an email to the PM.
Yes
Ever since primary school I have generally come quite high up the upper quartile in reading and comprehension tests
Cummings has never claimed an email to Johnson himself exists
I was simply pointing out that such an email or one saying "I've told the PM and he still wants it to go ahead" would be a smoking gun. In their absence we're back to making assumptions or relying on what the PPS now says he said at the time and what the PM now says he understood his PPS to be telling him etc.
To my mind the Gray report is largely irrelevant to the issue of whether the PM is fit to do his role as Tory MPs already have ample evidence on which to base their judgment.
My view is that neither the PM nor some of his staff paid any real regard to the rules, except intermittently (at best) and assumed that they'd either never be caught or no-one would care. They were wrong on the latter and are now very very sorry indeed that they've been caught.
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.
If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.
I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.
All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".
If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
No we do not need people like you.
We won majorities in 2015 and 2019 without you. You have no Tory or Conservative principles either as far as I can see!
Late to the party today(or is it a work event?). Local by-elections today; 2xLab in Charnwood, Con defence in East Lindsey, Lab defence in East Lothian, and Con elected as Yorkshire in Selby.
On topic: The ever-perceptive @AlastairMeeks has I think got this right in a tweet:
An exclusive preview of the Sue Gray report.
It will say: there were parties The PM attended one or more He was, it seems, told what was going on but tells me he didn't appreciate what was said There should not have been parties
MPs can decide now what they want to do next.
The only thing which I'd add is that it's of course possible that she will have found one or more emails which directly contradict the PM's account of things, and that would make it harder for Tory MPs to find excuses for Boris.
Hope you're right. That's at the bleaker end for Johnson. What I more fear and expect is a different 3rd line. "The PM says he was not informed and I found no hard evidence proving otherwise".
Given him surviving is a 50/50 imo, I think that's the value bet at current prices.
Pesto saying Gray has the email, is good news. Even if not true.
He says she has an email to the PM's principal private secretary. That is not an email to the PM.
Yes
Ever since primary school I have generally come quite high up the upper quartile in reading and comprehension tests
Cummings has never claimed an email to Johnson himself exists
I was simply pointing out that such an email or one saying "I've told the PM and he still wants it to go ahead" would be a smoking gun. In their absence we're back to making assumptions or relying on what the PPS now says he said at the time and what the PM now says he understood his PPS to be telling him etc.
To my mind the Gray report is largely irrelevant to the issue of whether the PM is fit to do his role as Tory MPs already have ample evidence on which to base their judgment.
My view is that neither the PM nor some of his staff paid any real regard to the rules, except intermittently (at best) and assumed that they'd either never be caught or no-one would care. They were wrong on the latter and are now very very sorry indeed that they've been caught.
Even though it's clear that everyone in No 10 should be fired (preferably into the sun) for being grade A idiots I still don't see there being enough there to force 54 Tory MPs to do the necessary.
So Boris will continue to live on destroying the Tory party for a while longer.
Although this will be spun by some anti-vaxxer / anti-lockdown people as evidence that lockdowns or vaccinations weren't needed, yadda yadda yadda, which is nonsense.
It does again put into perspective the real risk assessment of COVID, especially when vaccinated i.e. fit and healthy and vaccinated, you really need to be worrying about that bus that could kill you*. And yes obviously most older people have some underlying condition, so it isn't a clear well its only really old really sick people, and thus only ~20k "real" deaths (which I think Farage is now trying to spin).
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.
If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.
I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.
All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".
If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
No we do not need people like you.
We won majorities in 2015 and 2019 without you. You have no Tory or Conservative principles either as far as I can see!
I see; no doubt Farooq'd be willing to vote PC if he lived in Wales, I'm sure, and to demand an English parliament if he lived in England.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
This is all beginning to look very, very, very bad for the Conservative Party. It's beginning to eclipse 1992-7 and that's saying something.
This is not a partisan message. I thought Corbyn was a disgusting anti-semitic misogynist who made Labour pure poison to the electorate.
But the news coming out today is appalling all round for the tories. If they don't get rid of Johnson very soon and very clinically they're in deep trouble come 2024. I think the damage may already be irreparable.
The question is: is this Black Wednesday or Andy Coulson? Both caused a massive media storm at the time (the latter perhaps more so), had Labour thinking it had been given a deliverance, and looked to topple a prime minister. But one had no lasting political significance whatsoever.
The scandal is specifically a Johnson scandal as we speak. I don't think it has holed the party yet. The longer they hang on to him the more damage he could do to the party.
SRAM eTap uses ANT+, Shimano Di2 (12 speed only) uses their own undisclosed proprietary protocol and Campag EPS is still 100% wired because SRAM and Shimano would crush them with patent infringements.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
I love you HY. You are the ideal opponent. You really go the extra mile to make prospective supporters flee in the opposite direction. It is a pleasure to see you in action.
Farooq has never expressed a single conservative view on here as far as I can see, it would not be a Conservative party if he ever voted for it
I’m centre-right, and indeed have served as a councillor for a centre-right party. Go on, just as a wee exercise, try to persuade me to vote Scottish Conservative and Unionist.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, obviously you are never going to vote for a Unionist party
Huh?
I was not born a member of the SNP. I chose to become one as an adult. I could choose to cease that membership at any time. Persuade me.
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.
If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.
I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.
All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".
If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
No we do not need people like you.
We won majorities in 2015 and 2019 without you. You have no Tory or Conservative principles either as far as I can see!
I see; no doubt Farooq'd be willing to vote PC if he lived in Wales, I'm sure, and to demand an English parliament if he lived in England.
I voted for every Tory candidate on the ballot paper in Wales and most Tory voters back an English parliament and EVEL within the Union.
Tory principles are support for the monarchy the Church of England as the established Church, generally lower taxes, choice in public services, the Union, strong defence, respecting the EU referendum result and now backing Brexit etc.
If you do not back most of those you are not a Tory and not a Conservative
It looks remarkable like no-one wishes to do the necessary - as it's clear everyone (Steve Baker, David Davis) is looking for someone else to do it.
What more was DD supposed to do? One assumes he is giving BJ a chance to fall on his sword. That he has said emphatically he will not even if the confidence vote is called, then he should be sending his letter in. There are not many days of headlines like today’s that a party can take before anyone running under that banner becomes unelectable indefinitely. Go ask the Lim Dems about that.
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.
If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.
I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.
All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".
If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
No we do not need people like you.
We won majorities in 2015 and 2019 without you. You have no Tory or Conservative principles either as far as I can see!
I see; no doubt Farooq'd be willing to vote PC if he lived in Wales, I'm sure, and to demand an English parliament if he lived in England.
I voted for every Tory candidate on the ballot paper in Wales and most Tory voters back an English parliament and EVEL within the Union.
Tory principles are support for the monarchy the Church of England as the established Church, generally lower taxes, the Union, strong defence, respecting the EU referendum result and now backing Brexit etc.
If you do not back most of those you are not a Tory and not a Conservative
Neither EVEL nor an English parliament is Conservative and Unionist Party policy. Ad you are ferociously supporting an administration which doesn't decrease taxes except for the elderly, which weakens defence, and which is wrecking the union.
Although this will be spun by some anti-vaxxer / anti-lockdown people as evidence that lockdowns or vaccinations weren't needed, yadda yadda yadda, which is nonsense.
It does again put into perspective the real risk assessment of COVID, especially when vaccinated i.e. fit and healthy and vaccinated, you really need to be worrying about that bus that could kill you*. And yes obviously most older people have some underlying condition, so it isn't a clear well its only really old really sick people, and thus only ~20k "real" deaths (which I think Farage is now trying to spin).
But as I said yesterday, I think the daily dashboard update has really warped a lot of people perception of risk.
"Solely attributable" - as in perfectly well, just died of COVID.
Well, the problem there is that diseases are really quite rude about who they kill. They attack people who are already not in perfect health as if it was their right to do so.....
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
No, I don't. That's literally the opposite of what I said.
I'd be perfectly happy to see the BBC go behind a paywall and if it did I wouldn't use it, unless I chose to pay for it.
However right now I am compelled by law to pay for it whether I want to or not, and I do not consider it a valuable service. I don't pay £16 a month for any website and I would not find it valuable to pay that for the BBC site.
The Athletic etc would be a much better value for money if I were to choose one to pay for.
"I DON"T PAY FOR ANY WEBSITE AND WOULDN"T PAY THAT FOR THE BBC
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.
If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.
I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.
All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".
If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
No we do not need people like you.
We won majorities in 2015 and 2019 without you. You have no Tory or Conservative principles either as far as I can see!
I see; no doubt Farooq'd be willing to vote PC if he lived in Wales, I'm sure, and to demand an English parliament if he lived in England.
I voted for every Tory candidate on the ballot paper in Wales and most Tory voters back an English parliament and EVEL within the Union.
Tory principles are support for the monarchy the Church of England as the established Church, generally lower taxes, the Union, strong defence, respecting the EU referendum result and now backing Brexit etc.
If you do not back most of those you are not a Tory and not a Conservative
Neither EVEL nor an English parliament is Conservative and Unionist Party policy. Ad you are ferociously supporting an administration which doesn't decrease taxes except for the elderly, which weakens defence, and which is wrecking the union.
EVEL was Tory policy and will be again.
Income tax and inheritance tax has not risen under this government.
We have joined a defensive agreement with the USA and Australia.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
On topic: The ever-perceptive @AlastairMeeks has I think got this right in a tweet:
An exclusive preview of the Sue Gray report.
It will say: there were parties The PM attended one or more He was, it seems, told what was going on but tells me he didn't appreciate what was said There should not have been parties
MPs can decide now what they want to do next.
The only thing which I'd add is that it's of course possible that she will have found one or more emails which directly contradict the PM's account of things, and that would make it harder for Tory MPs to find excuses for Boris.
Hope you're right. That's at the bleaker end for Johnson. What I more fear and expect is a different 3rd line. "The PM says he was not informed and I found no hard evidence proving otherwise".
Given him surviving is a 50/50 imo, I think that's the value bet at current prices.
himself is hardly yo be expected Pesto saying Gray has the email, is good news. Even if not true.
He says she has an email to the PM's principal private secretary. That is not an email to the PM.
Yes
Ever since primary school I have generally come quite high up the upper quartile in reading and comprehension tests
Cummings has never claimed an email to Johnson himself exists
An email to the PM himself is hardly to be expected. What would it say? 'Dear PM, this Party appears to be against the rules which you yourself have made...'
It would be one senior official to another on the entirely reasonable assumption that said official will warn the PM as he or she sees fit. The ball is then very much in the court of the PM's secretary. My guess is that it would be raised briefly with the PM and if, say, the PM indicates, implicitly or otherwise, that said party will go ahead the official in question then demurs, making the appropriate diary note of the fact. Absent such a note, the official would of course now be in deep doo-doo with every prospect of the sack pending, and only the prospect of an easy well-paid job and peerage at some future date to soften the blow.
The absurdity of Johnson's defence is mind boggling to the point that the only one of the 67 million citizens of the UK that believe Johnson was kept in the dark about parties is Johnson himself.
That's got to be it, if Baker is calling it then he's lost the Brexit Spartans who got him the job.
There's a very ominous phrase in the second sentence on the video: "we didn't make Boris Johnson prime minister for..."
Yes, that's what's key here. Steve Baker made Boris, he put Boris into Number 10. He's a huge player within the party, the true power behind the throne. Let's remember that it was Baker who prevented us going into lockdown over Xmas, not the Cabinet.
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.
If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.
I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.
All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".
If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
No we do not need people like you.
We won majorities in 2015 and 2019 without you. You have no Tory or Conservative principles either as far as I can see!
I see; no doubt Farooq'd be willing to vote PC if he lived in Wales, I'm sure, and to demand an English parliament if he lived in England.
I voted for every Tory candidate on the ballot paper in Wales and most Tory voters back an English parliament and EVEL within the Union.
Tory principles are support for the monarchy the Church of England as the established Church, generally lower taxes, choice in public services, the Union, strong defence, respecting the EU referendum result and now backing Brexit etc.
If you do not back most of those you are not a Tory and not a Conservative
You’re backing a bloke who has raised taxes to their highest post war level, who has converted to Catholicism while in office, who has nationalised the railways, has neutered our military, has drawn a customs border down the Irish Sea and who had to be restrained by his advisors from going to see the Queen when he was coming down with covid. Oh, and you personally voted against Brexit.
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.
If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.
I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.
All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".
If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
No we do not need people like you.
We won majorities in 2015 and 2019 without you. You have no Tory or Conservative principles either as far as I can see!
I see; no doubt Farooq'd be willing to vote PC if he lived in Wales, I'm sure, and to demand an English parliament if he lived in England.
I voted for every Tory candidate on the ballot paper in Wales and most Tory voters back an English parliament and EVEL within the Union.
Tory principles are support for the monarchy the Church of England as the established Church, generally lower taxes, the Union, strong defence, respecting the EU referendum result and now backing Brexit etc.
If you do not back most of those you are not a Tory and not a Conservative
Neither EVEL nor an English parliament is Conservative and Unionist Party policy. Ad you are ferociously supporting an administration which doesn't decrease taxes except for the elderly, which weakens defence, and which is wrecking the union.
EVEL was Tory policy and will be again.
Income tax and inheritance tax has not risen under this government.
We have joined a defensive agreement with the USA and Australia.
The government is still refusing an indyref2
AUKUS isn't a defensive agreement - it's about tech transfer.
On topic: The ever-perceptive @AlastairMeeks has I think got this right in a tweet:
An exclusive preview of the Sue Gray report.
It will say: there were parties The PM attended one or more He was, it seems, told what was going on but tells me he didn't appreciate what was said There should not have been parties
MPs can decide now what they want to do next.
The only thing which I'd add is that it's of course possible that she will have found one or more emails which directly contradict the PM's account of things, and that would make it harder for Tory MPs to find excuses for Boris.
Hope you're right. That's at the bleaker end for Johnson. What I more fear and expect is a different 3rd line. "The PM says he was not informed and I found no hard evidence proving otherwise".
Given him surviving is a 50/50 imo, I think that's the value bet at current prices.
Pesto saying Gray has the email, is good news. Even if not true.
He says she has an email to the PM's principal private secretary. That is not an email to the PM.
Yes
Ever since primary school I have generally come quite high up the upper quartile in reading and comprehension tests
Cummings has never claimed an email to Johnson himself exists
I was simply pointing out that such an email or one saying "I've told the PM and he still wants it to go ahead" would be a smoking gun. In their absence we're back to making assumptions or relying on what the PPS now says he said at the time and what the PM now says he understood his PPS to be telling him etc.
To my mind the Gray report is largely irrelevant to the issue of whether the PM is fit to do his role as Tory MPs already have ample evidence on which to base their judgment.
My view is that neither the PM nor some of his staff paid any real regard to the rules, except intermittently (at best) and assumed that they'd either never be caught or no-one would care. They were wrong on the latter and are now very very sorry indeed that they've been caught.
Even though it's clear that everyone in No 10 should be fired (preferably into the sun) for being grade A idiots I still don't see there being enough there to force 54 Tory MPs to do the necessary.
So Boris will continue to live on destroying the Tory party for a while longer.
Worth noting that last week Cummings said that he knew of 2 Downing Street people who told the PM that the party was problematic. That is different to saying his PPS knew and so the PM must have known.
Was the PM told this directly by 2 Downing Street staff? If so, who and do they back what Cummings alleges they said?
I appreciate that this is getting into the weeds but this is the sort of detail that is needed when you are doing a proper investigation - one which might lead to disciplinary action etc.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
No, I don't. That's literally the opposite of what I said.
I'd be perfectly happy to see the BBC go behind a paywall and if it did I wouldn't use it, unless I chose to pay for it.
However right now I am compelled by law to pay for it whether I want to or not, and I do not consider it a valuable service. I don't pay £16 a month for any website and I would not find it valuable to pay that for the BBC site.
The Athletic etc would be a much better value for money if I were to choose one to pay for.
"I DON"T PAY FOR ANY WEBSITE AND WOULDN"T PAY THAT FOR THE BBC
(unemployed graduate aged 42)
He didn't say that. He said he doesn't pay £16/month for any website, which is quite a bit.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
Although this will be spun by some anti-vaxxer / anti-lockdown people as evidence that lockdowns or vaccinations weren't needed, yadda yadda yadda, which is nonsense.
It does again put into perspective the real risk assessment of COVID, especially when vaccinated i.e. fit and healthy and vaccinated, you really need to be worrying about that bus that could kill you*. And yes obviously most older people have some underlying condition, so it isn't a clear well its only really old really sick people, and thus only ~20k "real" deaths (which I think Farage is now trying to spin).
But as I said yesterday, I think the daily dashboard update has really warped a lot of people perception of risk.
"Solely attributable" - as in perfectly well, just died of COVID.
Well, the problem there is that diseases are really quite rude about who they kill. They attack people who are already not in perfect health as if it was their right to do so.....
That's what i was saying. But the likes of Pagel are still banging on about COVID as if it is a huge risk to every member of society and it really isn't. It was always heavily skewed to older people, but with vaccination and milder strain, if you are fit and healthy and vaccinated it really shouldn't be keeping you awake at night.
That isn't to say COVID is a done deal, more I think there does need to be some public education about the real risks, as i think there are some massivr warped views driven by scary numbers reported every day via the dashboard updates.
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
I love you HY. You are the ideal opponent. You really go the extra mile to make prospective supporters flee in the opposite direction. It is a pleasure to see you in action.
Farooq has never expressed a single conservative view on here as far as I can see, it would not be a Conservative party if he ever voted for it
I’m centre-right, and indeed have served as a councillor for a centre-right party. Go on, just as a wee exercise, try to persuade me to vote Scottish Conservative and Unionist.
You are a Scottish Nationalist, obviously you are never going to vote for a Unionist party
Huh?
I was not born a member of the SNP. I chose to become one as an adult. I could choose to cease that membership at any time. Persuade me.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
Bollocks.
They should pay up if they choose to use the Ritz, not because they're using a service they're compelled to pay for whether they want to use it or not.
If I were compelled to pay for Starbucks every time I went to a shopping centre its in, even if I was shopping at other shops, and in exchange I could collect a coffee without extra charge, then I'd go and collect my coffee since I had paid for it - but that doesn't mean that I'd choose to frequent Starbucks had the compulsion not been there.
The fact I watch almost zero BBC TV despite paying my licence fee, as its the law, is because I view the BBC as crap not due to any ideology. In the past I used to watch a lot more BBC than I do now, and still then thought the licence fee should be abolished, but that was due to philosophy not quality.
The BBC really has lost the quality now. The age of good TV, or even good sports or news analysis, being on the BBC is really in the past now.
Sites like this provide much better political analysis than the BBC does. Sites like The Athletic provides much better sporting analysis than the BBC does. Sites like Netflix provide much better dramas, movies and other TV than the BBC does.
The BBC is just wayward, lost and rather third rate shit nowadays.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
Bollocks.
They should pay up if they choose to use the Ritz, not because they're using a service they're compelled to pay for whether they want to use it or not.
If I were compelled to pay for Starbucks every time I went to a shopping centre its in, even if I was shopping at other shops, and in exchange I could collect a coffee without extra charge, then I'd go and collect my coffee since I had paid for it - but that doesn't mean that I'd choose to frequent Starbucks had the compulsion not been there.
The fact I watch almost zero BBC TV despite paying my licence fee, as its the law, is because I view the BBC as crap not due to any ideology. In the past I used to watch a lot more BBC than I do now, and still then thought the licence fee should be abolished, but that was due to philosophy not quality.
The BBC really has lost the quality now. The age of good TV, or even good sports or news analysis, being on the BBC is really in the past now.
Sites like this provide much better political analysis than the BBC does. Sites like The Athletic provides much better sporting analysis than the BBC does. Sites like Netflix provide much better dramas, movies and other TV than the BBC does.
The BBC is just wayward, lost and rather third rate shit nowadays.
You used the BBC and are now whining about having to pay for it.
I would respect you a lot more if you didn't use it at all.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
But he is paying the license fee?
And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
No, because its the law.
You're arse over tit. People using what they've paid for because they're compelled to do so is not a justification for compelling them to do so.
Make it optional and let people choose. That's all I've ever said. I've never said abolish the BBC, just make it free choice.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
But he is paying the license fee?
And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
No, because its the law.
You're arse over tit. People using what they've paid for because they're compelled to do so is not a justification for compelling them to do so.
Make it optional and let people choose. That's all I've ever said. I've never said abolish the BBC, just make it free choice.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
But he is paying the license fee?
And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
So what are you going on about with your Ritz analogy?
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.
If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.
I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.
All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".
If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
No we do not need people like you.
We won majorities in 2015 and 2019 without you. You have no Tory or Conservative principles either as far as I can see!
I see; no doubt Farooq'd be willing to vote PC if he lived in Wales, I'm sure, and to demand an English parliament if he lived in England.
I voted for every Tory candidate on the ballot paper in Wales and most Tory voters back an English parliament and EVEL within the Union.
Tory principles are support for the monarchy the Church of England as the established Church, generally lower taxes, choice in public services, the Union, strong defence, respecting the EU referendum result and now backing Brexit etc.
If you do not back most of those you are not a Tory and not a Conservative
You’re backing a bloke who has raised taxes to their highest post war level, who has converted to Catholicism while in office, who has nationalised the railways, has neutered our military, has drawn a customs border down the Irish Sea and who had to be restrained by his advisors from going to see the Queen when he was coming down with covid. Oh, and you personally voted against Brexit.
Awkward…
He has delivered Brexit, he still supports the Church of England not the Roman Catholic Church as the English established Church.
There are still private train companies, the top income tax rate and inheritance tax rates for instance are still lower than the last Labour government under Brown
“We operate in this country on the basis that publishers bear responsibility for what is published on their platforms, which is why we have such red-hot editors at the Observer”, Carole said, noting that Ted ultimately bears legal responsibility for what it publishes.
She should get together with the PM, they have a lot in common.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
But he is paying the license fee?
And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
No, because its the law.
You're arse over tit. People using what they've paid for because they're compelled to do so is not a justification for compelling them to do so.
Make it optional and let people choose. That's all I've ever said. I've never said abolish the BBC, just make it free choice.
You used the BBC just now. You are a BBC user.
I'm also a PB.com user but I'm not compelled by law to pay £16 a month to Mike Smithson, am I?
Being a user is not justification for making it legally mandatory to pay, whether you're a user or not.
Make it free to choose. I might choose to pay for the BBC, and if I do, then that is my own free choice.
Baker may be many things, but an idiot is certainly not one of them.
Weren't we told the other day by an eminent poster that Baker is good at maths? So if he thinks it's checkmate and he can count to 54 then maybe there's something in it.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
But he is paying the license fee?
And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
So what are you going on about with your Ritz analogy?
Oh god life's too short to go chasing after Ritz analogies.
“We operate in this country on the basis that publishers bear responsibility for what is published on their platforms, which is why we have such red-hot editors at the Observer”, Carole said, noting that Ted ultimately bears legal responsibility for what it publishes.
She should get together with the PM, they have a lot in common.
So hold on, her argument is she talked a load of bullshit, but TED should have corrected her bullshit? And that she regularly tries to publish bullshit in the Observer, but the editors correct it, or more commonly they have apologised after the fact for her bullshit.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
But he is paying the license fee?
And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
No, because its the law.
You're arse over tit. People using what they've paid for because they're compelled to do so is not a justification for compelling them to do so.
Make it optional and let people choose. That's all I've ever said. I've never said abolish the BBC, just make it free choice.
You used the BBC just now. You are a BBC user.
I'm also a PB.com user but I'm not compelled by law to pay £16 a month to Mike Smithson, am I?
Being a user is not justification for making it legally mandatory to pay, whether you're a user or not.
Make it free to choose. I might choose to pay for the BBC, and if I do, then that is my own free choice.
Was it a huge surprise to you that there is a licence fee?
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
But he is paying the license fee?
And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
So what are you going on about with your Ritz analogy?
Oh god life's too short to go chasing after Ritz analogies.
It just doesn't make any sense, unless you thought he wasn't paying?
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
But he is paying the license fee?
And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
No, because its the law.
You're arse over tit. People using what they've paid for because they're compelled to do so is not a justification for compelling them to do so.
Make it optional and let people choose. That's all I've ever said. I've never said abolish the BBC, just make it free choice.
You used the BBC just now. You are a BBC user.
I'm also a PB.com user but I'm not compelled by law to pay £16 a month to Mike Smithson, am I?
Being a user is not justification for making it legally mandatory to pay, whether you're a user or not.
Make it free to choose. I might choose to pay for the BBC, and if I do, then that is my own free choice.
Was it a huge surprise to you that there is a licence fee?
What are you talking about?
Its wrong to me that there is a licence fee. Absolutely wrong.
I choose to watch live Sport, which I pay for. That should categorically not mean having to pay for Gary Linekar to review the sport I've paid for, later that night, on a show and a channel I don't watch.
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.
If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.
I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.
All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".
If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
No we do not need people like you.
We won majorities in 2015 and 2019 without you. You have no Tory or Conservative principles either as far as I can see!
I see; no doubt Farooq'd be willing to vote PC if he lived in Wales, I'm sure, and to demand an English parliament if he lived in England.
I voted for every Tory candidate on the ballot paper in Wales and most Tory voters back an English parliament and EVEL within the Union.
Tory principles are support for the monarchy the Church of England as the established Church, generally lower taxes, choice in public services, the Union, strong defence, respecting the EU referendum result and now backing Brexit etc.
If you do not back most of those you are not a Tory and not a Conservative
You’re backing a bloke who has raised taxes to their highest post war level, who has converted to Catholicism while in office, who has nationalised the railways, has neutered our military, has drawn a customs border down the Irish Sea and who had to be restrained by his advisors from going to see the Queen when he was coming down with covid. Oh, and you personally voted against Brexit.
Awkward…
He has delivered Brexit, he still supports the Church of England not the Roman Catholic Church as the English established Church.
There are still private train companies, the top income tax rate and inheritance tax rates for instance are still lower than the last Labour government under Brown
All good reasons to vote against them. In fact, that list has reminded me why I never have, and never will, vote Tory!
Mr Maugham points out significance of Mr Wakeford's interview outside HoC in re threats/blackmail:
"This is important because there was a question about whether the police could use William Wragg's evidence because of a doctrine called Parliamentary privilege. No such difficulty arises in respect of this evidence."
Although this will be spun by some anti-vaxxer / anti-lockdown people as evidence that lockdowns or vaccinations weren't needed, yadda yadda yadda, which is nonsense.
It does again put into perspective the real risk assessment of COVID, especially when vaccinated i.e. fit and healthy and vaccinated, you really need to be worrying about that bus that could kill you*. And yes obviously most older people have some underlying condition, so it isn't a clear well its only really old really sick people, and thus only ~20k "real" deaths (which I think Farage is now trying to spin).
But as I said yesterday, I think the daily dashboard update has really warped a lot of people perception of risk.
"Solely attributable" - as in perfectly well, just died of COVID.
Well, the problem there is that diseases are really quite rude about who they kill. They attack people who are already not in perfect health as if it was their right to do so.....
That's what i was saying. But the likes of Pagel are still banging on about COVID as if it is a huge risk to every member of society and it really isn't. It was always heavily skewed to older people, but with vaccination and milder strain, if you are fit and healthy and vaccinated it really shouldn't be keeping you awake at night.
That isn't to say COVID is a done deal, more I think there does need to be some public education about the real risks, as i think there are some massivr warped views driven by scary numbers reported every day via the dashboard updates.
I agree that no one should be being kept awake at night by worrying about COVID. However, 1 issue to bear in mind is that you might not know you have an underlying condition until it’s too late.
I am being kept awake at night by feverishly checking the news, Twitter and PB to see if the Govt has fallen yet.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
Bollocks.
They should pay up if they choose to use the Ritz, not because they're using a service they're compelled to pay for whether they want to use it or not.
If I were compelled to pay for Starbucks every time I went to a shopping centre its in, even if I was shopping at other shops, and in exchange I could collect a coffee without extra charge, then I'd go and collect my coffee since I had paid for it - but that doesn't mean that I'd choose to frequent Starbucks had the compulsion not been there.
The fact I watch almost zero BBC TV despite paying my licence fee, as its the law, is because I view the BBC as crap not due to any ideology. In the past I used to watch a lot more BBC than I do now, and still then thought the licence fee should be abolished, but that was due to philosophy not quality.
The BBC really has lost the quality now. The age of good TV, or even good sports or news analysis, being on the BBC is really in the past now.
Sites like this provide much better political analysis than the BBC does. Sites like The Athletic provides much better sporting analysis than the BBC does. Sites like Netflix provide much better dramas, movies and other TV than the BBC does.
The BBC is just wayward, lost and rather third rate shit nowadays.
How can you be so sure that the BBC is as terrible as you say, if you rarely, if ever, watch it?
Especially given the variety of channels and output.
Erm.....just the one tiny technical detail.....Frost is not an MP...?
But if he were, He'd be a contendah, right enough.
They want BoZo to appoint him Chief of Staff.
And let him run everything.
The government are certainly looking on the sleazy side at the moment. If I didn't know the exceptionally talent filled BBC better I might wonder whether they were using their reputation for impartiality and probity to their own advantage.
Regarding masking – my son's headmaster has just written to all parents saying that they are keeping the masks in classrooms due to local authority guidance. Is this commonplace? Seems ludicrous to me that the rule is dropped but schools keep it anyway!
Gold plating.
The law is the lowest common denominator. Councils can go above and beyond that, while individual schools can go above and beyond local authority rules.
Lancashire County Council have been doing this all along on the grounds that they have higher case rates in Lancashire, despite the fact high case rates were only in certain parts of Lancashire.
Yes, this is all too common. It's not that the whole public sector is wildly pro-mask - though you do sometimes get that impression - but almost by definition local authorities' public health teams are pro-mask; and they tend to get to call the shots in these cases.
Further to this - just heard from my daughter's school that while masks will no longer be required in classrooms, they still want them to wear them when walking around the school, in 'unstructured times', in communal areas, when queueing for lunch and (though this seems to be well beyond their powers) on public transport.
Mr Maugham points out significance of Mr Wakeford's interview outside HoC in re threats/blackmail:
"This is important because there was a question about whether the police could use William Wragg's evidence because of a doctrine called Parliamentary privilege. No such difficulty arises in respect of this evidence."
Mr Wakeford can thank Mr Wragg for allowing him an excuse for every single vote Mr Wakeford has made in Parliament that the local Labour party dislikes.
I voted xyz because otherwise we weren't getting that high school
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
But he is paying the license fee?
And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
No, because its the law.
You're arse over tit. People using what they've paid for because they're compelled to do so is not a justification for compelling them to do so.
Make it optional and let people choose. That's all I've ever said. I've never said abolish the BBC, just make it free choice.
You used the BBC just now. You are a BBC user.
I'm also a PB.com user but I'm not compelled by law to pay £16 a month to Mike Smithson, am I?
Being a user is not justification for making it legally mandatory to pay, whether you're a user or not.
Make it free to choose. I might choose to pay for the BBC, and if I do, then that is my own free choice.
Was it a huge surprise to you that there is a licence fee?
What are you talking about?
Its wrong to me that there is a licence fee. Absolutely wrong.
I choose to watch live Sport, which I pay for. That should categorically not mean having to pay for Gary Linekar to review the sport I've paid for, later that night, on a show and a channel I don't watch.
When the BBC actually did show live sport, you could almost make a half-hearted argument for it. (Every Satuday afternoon used to be spent lazily in front of Grandstand in my youth.) The license fee has always been steep, but in those days you got something for it. But as the BBC does more and more it produces less and less of any value.
Regarding masking – my son's headmaster has just written to all parents saying that they are keeping the masks in classrooms due to local authority guidance. Is this commonplace? Seems ludicrous to me that the rule is dropped but schools keep it anyway!
Gold plating.
The law is the lowest common denominator. Councils can go above and beyond that, while individual schools can go above and beyond local authority rules.
Lancashire County Council have been doing this all along on the grounds that they have higher case rates in Lancashire, despite the fact high case rates were only in certain parts of Lancashire.
Yes, this is all too common. It's not that the whole public sector is wildly pro-mask - though you do sometimes get that impression - but almost by definition local authorities' public health teams are pro-mask; and they tend to get to call the shots in these cases.
Further to this - just heard from my daughter's school that while masks will no longer be required in classrooms, they still want them to wear them when walking around the school, in 'unstructured times', in communal areas, when queueing for lunch and (though this seems to be well beyond their powers) on public transport.
That makes sense as the rules in communal areas continue for another week - it's only in teaching environments (i.e. classrooms) that today's rules apply to.
It's a sad, but also richly entertaining, day when a senior Tory backbencher encourages his colleagues to go to the Metropolitan Police and seek a criminal charge of blackmail against government ministers.
I am not entertained. I'm extremely worried. This has the risk of turning into a generation-level crisis. I think I'm just about done with the Conservatives for life now. I don't see a way back for me now. Previously I thought it was just a case of we needed to get Boris and his small group toxic idiots out, but it's much more profound now.
The idea that you would ever vote Conservative ever is ludicrous anyway
That depends. If you're talking about looking forward from here, then, yes, that's the point I'm getting to, so you merely agree with me.
If you're talking about the past, then no, you're wrong, because I have voted Conservative in the past.
I don't need you to decide on my purity because I am proud of being a floating voter. Luckily there are multiple parties out there who are acceptable to my tastes. Perhaps I'm just being greedy in wanting the Conservative party to return to being one of them.
Did you vote Conservative in 2015 or 2019 when the Conservatives won a UK majority? If no your views are irrelevant for Tories as you will almost never vote Tory anyway
The number of people who ALWAYS vote Conservative is too small for you to win an election. You NEED people who, like me, switch their votes. The more switchers you alienate, the harder it is for you to win. That's just the truth.
All I'm saying is, this current behaviour, this PM, alienates me. And it feels like it's solidifying from a "ugh, not this guy, maybe next time" to "never, ever again".
If other people feel the same way as me, you're doomed. If I'm fairly "out there", then you can relax and not worry about my opinion. It is, in that case, as you say, irrelevant. The polling suggest that it's probably closer to column A than column B, but you do you.
HYUFD seems to be assuming that the Tories can win next time by simply reassembling the coalition of voters who won them the last election. But it's far from certain they'll be able to. For one, the 2019 Tory majority was heavily dependent on socially conservative yet economically left wing working class voters who lived in the North of England. Even if BJ is replaced before then, it really is far from certain the Conservatives will be able to retain enough of these voters to remain in power. Which means they need to be able to reach out to other voters in different parts of the UK... you know, such as socially liberal voters who voted to remain in the UK yet were more than happy to vote for David Cameron (but are now appalled at seeing the likes of JRM and Dorries in the Cabinet). By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
If its good enough to use the term false by the British Medical Journal, British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and The Guardian then I fail to see why Liverpool Football Club should be held to a higher standard.
How do you know it was used by the BBC.
Because I put false negative Covid into Google and those were a sample of the results returned by Google.
I didn't have bookmarked articles by the Guardian, BBC, Reuters and BMJ that I read months ago and just happened to have the links to for this conversation.
Hmm. Did you look on the bbc website to verify?
For all four I clicked the links to go to the page then copied the URL.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
OK just good to know that you believe the BBC offers you a valuable service. And you want to take a free ride on those willing to pay.
When the BBC stops taking a free ride by charging people for watching other channels, you can complain!
Really. If the Ritz had a legal entitlement to charge people for staying in other hotels, would you really expect anyone who took advantage of a free event at the Ritz to feel guilty about it?
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
If they went to the Ritz then they are enjoying the Ritz's services and should pay up.
But he is paying the license fee?
And rightly so because he uses the BBC.
So what are you going on about with your Ritz analogy?
Oh god life's too short to go chasing after Ritz analogies.
But it just shows how ludicrous the set up is: you buy a season ticket for a ritz bedroom, which you have to show to book a bedroom in any other hotel in the country, but food is free.
I don't watch telly, don't pay for a licence, and cakle with maniacal glee as I listen to literally hours a day of free r2/4/Cornwall, in between visits to the website
Interesting that the head of RTE in Ireland has today said the licence fee is broken and has begged for an alternative funding model.
Successfully defending the licence fee now looks like it would be a pyrrhic victory that would lead to the decline of the BBC its defenders want to avoid. All those who like the BBC need to find a future way of funding it that will survive the digital revolution.
The question of whether it's legitimate or not is neither here nor there. It just doesn't work.
Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
Ah, I see she's being targeted because she's a woman.
I think she'll win. There aren't many less attractive characters than the plaintiff. These days he juries use their prejudices and here there can be only one winner
Comments
Covid-19: PCR testing is suspended at private laboratory after high rate of false negatives
That is, they are implying the statistical definition of what a false negative is and saying "something's wrong here".
Simply saying "we had a load of false positives" implies simple (very) bad luck. Now, they're obviously not to blame for their chosen provider of PCR tests f****** up, but I think it would have been really helpful if Liverpool had explained what had gone on.
Why shouldn't I? I don't boycott the BBC I just think its pretty crap in general and not worth the licence fee that I am compelled by law to pay (and I have paid it).
I do pay use the BBC News and BBC Sport websites. If they were made subscriber-only and the licence fee were optional, I doubt I'd pay for them. But if I did at least it'd be by choice.
I'd be perfectly happy to see the BBC go behind a paywall and if it did I wouldn't use it, unless I chose to pay for it.
However right now I am compelled by law to pay for it whether I want to or not, and I do not consider it a valuable service. I don't pay £16 a month for any website and I would not find it valuable to pay that for the BBC site.
The Athletic etc would be a much better value for money if I were to choose one to pay for.
https://twitter.com/_Abzino2/status/1484110184276705283
We've deployed some really quite old Swedish equipment to the Ukraine. Any thoughts?
The Tories need people like me too.
https://bbc.in/3GO9SWX https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1484171194639302659/video/1
Following the government losing the vote it had deemed a confidence measure (which is what got Clarke etc expelled) an early election vote was immediately tabled as per the FTPA. But the Opposition chose to reject the election.
So the FTPA was upheld.
To my mind the Gray report is largely irrelevant to the issue of whether the PM is fit to do his role as Tory MPs already have ample evidence on which to base their judgment.
My view is that neither the PM nor some of his staff paid any real regard to the rules, except intermittently (at best) and assumed that they'd either never be caught or no-one would care. They were wrong on the latter and are now very very sorry indeed that they've been caught.
We won majorities in 2015 and 2019 without you. You have no Tory or Conservative principles either as far as I can see!
Ms Sturgeon demanding investigations into blackmail [edit].
(But just look who else is wanting an investigation. A Tory MSP.)
So Boris will continue to live on destroying the Tory party for a while longer.
It does again put into perspective the real risk assessment of COVID, especially when vaccinated i.e. fit and healthy and vaccinated, you really need to be worrying about that bus that could kill you*. And yes obviously most older people have some underlying condition, so it isn't a clear well its only really old really sick people, and thus only ~20k "real" deaths (which I think Farage is now trying to spin).
Campbell Video - Freedom of information "revelation" on deaths from COVID among those with no underlying conditions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHvwWWcjYw
* I am obviously being a bit hyperbolic.
But as I said yesterday, I think the daily dashboard update has really warped a lot of people perception of risk.
.
Now I am imagining the Ukrainian army driving around in BRDM-2 with custom wheels, gearboxes, engines and NOS
Or not...
You really can see how little sense that makes, can't you?
Tory principles are support for the monarchy the Church of England as the established Church, generally lower taxes, choice in public services, the Union, strong defence, respecting the EU referendum result and now backing Brexit etc.
If you do not back most of those you are not a Tory and not a Conservative
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10422629/Boriss-personal-ratings-dive-MINUS-39-poll.html
Well, the problem there is that diseases are really quite rude about who they kill. They attack people who are already not in perfect health as if it was their right to do so.....
(unemployed graduate aged 42)
But if he were, He'd be a contendah, right enough.
Income tax and inheritance tax has not risen under this government.
We have joined a defensive agreement with the USA and Australia.
The government is still refusing an indyref2
Johnson believing what he said himself.
Awkward…
And let him run everything.
And your other points are quibbles.
Was the PM told this directly by 2 Downing Street staff? If so, who and do they back what Cummings alleges they said?
I appreciate that this is getting into the weeds but this is the sort of detail that is needed when you are doing a proper investigation - one which might lead to disciplinary action etc.
Which is not what anyone really wants here.
That isn't to say COVID is a done deal, more I think there does need to be some public education about the real risks, as i think there are some massivr warped views driven by scary numbers reported every day via the dashboard updates.
https://twitter.com/rebecca_vincent/status/1483728248752201730
They should pay up if they choose to use the Ritz, not because they're using a service they're compelled to pay for whether they want to use it or not.
If I were compelled to pay for Starbucks every time I went to a shopping centre its in, even if I was shopping at other shops, and in exchange I could collect a coffee without extra charge, then I'd go and collect my coffee since I had paid for it - but that doesn't mean that I'd choose to frequent Starbucks had the compulsion not been there.
The fact I watch almost zero BBC TV despite paying my licence fee, as its the law, is because I view the BBC as crap not due to any ideology. In the past I used to watch a lot more BBC than I do now, and still then thought the licence fee should be abolished, but that was due to philosophy not quality.
The BBC really has lost the quality now. The age of good TV, or even good sports or news analysis, being on the BBC is really in the past now.
Sites like this provide much better political analysis than the BBC does.
Sites like The Athletic provides much better sporting analysis than the BBC does.
Sites like Netflix provide much better dramas, movies and other TV than the BBC does.
The BBC is just wayward, lost and rather third rate shit nowadays.
I would respect you a lot more if you didn't use it at all.
You're arse over tit. People using what they've paid for because they're compelled to do so is not a justification for compelling them to do so.
Make it optional and let people choose. That's all I've ever said. I've never said abolish the BBC, just make it free choice.
There are still private train companies, the top income tax rate and inheritance tax rates for instance are still lower than the last Labour government under Brown
“We operate in this country on the basis that publishers bear responsibility for what is published on their platforms, which is why we have such red-hot editors at the Observer”, Carole said, noting that Ted ultimately bears legal responsibility for what it publishes.
She should get together with the PM, they have a lot in common.
Being a user is not justification for making it legally mandatory to pay, whether you're a user or not.
Make it free to choose. I might choose to pay for the BBC, and if I do, then that is my own free choice.
Its wrong to me that there is a licence fee. Absolutely wrong.
I choose to watch live Sport, which I pay for. That should categorically not mean having to pay for Gary Linekar to review the sport I've paid for, later that night, on a show and a channel I don't watch.
"This is important because there was a question about whether the police could use William Wragg's evidence because of a doctrine called Parliamentary privilege. No such difficulty arises in respect of this evidence."
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1484158739078946824?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1484158739078946824|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/jan/20/boris-johnson-conservatives-tory-labour-latest-updates
I am being kept awake at night by feverishly checking the news, Twitter and PB to see if the Govt has fallen yet.
Especially given the variety of channels and output.
I voted xyz because otherwise we weren't getting that high school
(Every Satuday afternoon used to be spent lazily in front of Grandstand in my youth.)
The license fee has always been steep, but in those days you got something for it.
But as the BBC does more and more it produces less and less of any value.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60068612
By taking HYUFD's advice, the Tories just make it much easier for Starmer to win the next election.
I don't watch telly, don't pay for a licence, and cakle with maniacal glee as I listen to literally hours a day of free r2/4/Cornwall, in between visits to the website
Successfully defending the licence fee now looks like it would be a pyrrhic victory that would lead to the decline of the BBC its defenders want to avoid. All those who like the BBC need to find a future way of funding it that will survive the digital revolution.
The question of whether it's legitimate or not is neither here nor there. It just doesn't work.