Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
What a really stupid thing to say. He’s even worse than the last guy in some respects, at least Putin would be wary about how Trump might react to Ukraine being invaded.
£900k spent to tell the PM his bridge to Ireland plan was crackers? I'd have done it for a tenth of that.
I think I would've done it for a two hundredth!
Nah you have it the wrong way around. Do it for triple. Donate a third to the Tory party, and another third to a friend of the relevant cabinet minister.
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.
Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.
That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.
Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.
In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
@HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government
Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt
On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019
I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
The conservative party is in a full blown civil war, and you make such immature statements rather than join those of us who want to vote for the party and back toxic Boris being thrown out of office
I will still be voting Tory whether Boris or Sunak is leader, if Sunak is not leader you will no doubt be back to voting Labour or LD again next time
You go from bad to worse
I have said on here many times that as soon as Boris is gone I will rejoin the party and seek a conservative win in GE24
Why do you alienate those who should be on your side
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Biden is in many respects the most isolationist US President since Carter. Hence he withdrew US forces from Afghanistan, hence his comments on Ukraine. Plus he would not defend Taiwan either I expect, even despite the US and UK and Australia pact.
On Ukraine however he is correct, NATO will not go to war with Russia to defend a non NATO member
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.
Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.
That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.
Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.
In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
@HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government
Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt
On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019
I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
You are a SOCIALIST because you voted REMAIN in 2016.
So George Galloway is a Conservative because he voted Leave in 2016.
What a ridiculous post.
However respecting the Leave vote and backing Brexit is now a Conservative principle
I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.
One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
I am always fascinated by how much wealth he managed to amass at various times, without ever seemingly have ever really worked.
Books and leaflets, and briefly quite a bit from platforms like Patreon and Youtube before they all kicked him off.
Even before that he appears to have acquired a lot of money at various times (he got done for mortgage fraud at one point), but his YouTube stuff was definitely very lucrative.
Once you have a certain level of profile, it’s usually easy to find ways of raising money, even as the more traditional internet platforms kick you off.
ISTR one of these types, possibly in the States, that set themselves up a a legitimate business selling random but overpriced stuff on eBay or Amazon, and getting the message out through private group chats that this was the seller to ‘buy’ from, if you wanted to donate to him.
Well Alex Jones and alike isn't that still their MO. Loads of crappy supplements etc that they sell at massive mark-ups, some of the people buying are gullible idiots, others I am fairly sure they know that they are really just supporting him.
Back in the day when I was in the poker world, it became increasingly had to move money, one site first bought a bank and then used it process payments that claimed eye watering amounts of money transfers were actually purchases of golf balls....the sums were so large they would have been buying up half the bloody world market of golf balls if it were true.
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.
Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.
That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.
Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.
In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
@HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government
Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt
On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019
I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
You are a SOCIALIST because you voted REMAIN in 2016.
So George Galloway is a Conservative because he voted Leave in 2016.
What a ridiculous post.
However respecting the Leave vote and backing Brexit is now a Conservative principle
You are a SOCIALIST pretending to be a Tory.
No, a socialist is someone who wants state control of most of the economy, nothing to do with the EU or Brexit
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
What a really stupid thing to say. He’s even worse than the last guy in some respects, at least Putin would be wary about how Trump might react to Ukraine being invaded.
It seems like Biden buyer's remorse has well and truly set in...?
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.
Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.
That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.
Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.
In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
@HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government
Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt
On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019
I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
You are a SOCIALIST because you voted REMAIN in 2016.
So George Galloway is a Conservative because he voted Leave in 2016.
What a ridiculous post.
However respecting the Leave vote and backing Brexit is now a Conservative principle
Really? I thought the central tenet of the Conservative success as a multi-century election-winning machine was that the party's only principle is to have no fixed principles. I mean, it was a low-tax, low-inflation party once...
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.
Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.
That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.
Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.
In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
@HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government
Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt
On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019
I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
The conservative party is in a full blown civil war, and you make such immature statements rather than join those of us who want to vote for the party and back toxic Boris being thrown out of office
I will still be voting Tory whether Boris or Sunak is leader, if Sunak is not leader you will no doubt be back to voting Labour or LD again next time
You go from bad to worse
I have said on here many times that as soon as Boris is gone I will rejoin the party and seek a conservative win in GE24
Why do you alienate those who should be on your side
According to Jonathan Haidt, 'purity' is one of the three parameters of morality that is held ever more dearly the further to the conservative end of the political spectrum you go (and hardly at all by liberals). On that measure, HYUFD must be almost as right wing as they come. Almost as far right as Stalin and Lenin.
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.
Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.
That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.
Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.
In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
@HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government
Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt
On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019
I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
You are a SOCIALIST because you voted REMAIN in 2016.
So George Galloway is a Conservative because he voted Leave in 2016.
What a ridiculous post.
However respecting the Leave vote and backing Brexit is now a Conservative principle
I noted that last week much of the remaining press support for the PM came from the Revolutionary Communist wing of the Conservative Party.
Looks like reduction in cases have plateaued this week. Leon of Sri Lanka will be getting a wibble on about Omicron V2.
Reduction in cases BECAUSE of Plan B?
Now Plan B is scrapped, will cases skyrocket again?
Doesn't matter. ICU and ventilated patients MATTER. Already we have reached 50% off patients in hospital testing postive for covid are there for something else (not covid).
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Biden is in many respects the most isolationist US President since Carter. Hence he withdrew US forces from Afghanistan, hence his comments on Ukraine. Plus he would not defend Taiwan either I expect, even despite the US and UK and Australia pact.
On Ukraine however he is correct, NATO will not go to war with Russia to defend a non NATO member
I am not sure he knows what he is saying or doing most of the time.
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.
Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.
That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.
Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.
In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
@HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government
Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt
On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019
I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
You are a SOCIALIST because you voted REMAIN in 2016.
So George Galloway is a Conservative because he voted Leave in 2016.
What a ridiculous post.
However respecting the Leave vote and backing Brexit is now a Conservative principle
Really? I thought the central tenet of the Conservative success as a multi-century election-winning machine was that the parties only principle is to have no fixed principles. I mean, it was a low-tax, low-inflation party once...
It still is, certainly compared to Labour.
However if the Conservatives now tried to abandon Brexit they would be back to the 9% they got in the 2019 European elections and ReformUK would become the main right of centre party in the UK instead
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Tbf there’s quite a lot of not hearing the end of it on here after many of Biden’s comments, granted mostly from the no fan of Trump but guys.
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
There is not, as far as I am aware, any exemption in the law for threats by Whips.
Unless they are insane, keeping their threats inside the law would be important. And a number of Whips are and have been lawyers by trade.
I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.
One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
I am always fascinated by how much wealth he managed to amass at various times, without ever seemingly have ever really worked.
Books and leaflets, and briefly quite a bit from platforms like Patreon and Youtube before they all kicked him off.
Even before that he appears to have acquired a lot of money at various times (he got done for mortgage fraud at one point), but his YouTube stuff was definitely very lucrative.
Once you have a certain level of profile, it’s usually easy to find ways of raising money, even as the more traditional internet platforms kick you off.
ISTR one of these types, possibly in the States, that set themselves up a a legitimate business selling random but overpriced stuff on eBay or Amazon, and getting the message out through private group chats that this was the seller to ‘buy’ from, if you wanted to donate to him.
Well Alex Jones and alike isn't that still their MO. Loads of crappy supplements etc that they sell at massive mark-ups, some of the people buying are gullible idiots, others I am fairly sure they know that they are really just supporting him.
Back in the day when I was in the poker world, it became increasingly had to move money, one site first bought a bank and then used it process payments that claimed eye watering amounts of money transfers were actually purchases of golf balls....the sums were so large they would have been buying up half the bloody world market of golf balls if it were true.
Ha ha, that sounds like all the US$ Tether say they have in the bank
Alex Jones has been shut down by pretty much everyone, even Visa and Mastercard. Presumably at this point, he has a close relative put their name to his bank account, and his advertisers are sending him a pile of used Benjamins by courier every month!
The Cabinet must live up to their responsibilities the shop steward & conscience of the Tory right tells me. Our full conversation on the future of the Conservatives will be on Political Thinking tomorrow
It’s always a sadness when a Tory colleague leaves our Party. I’ve been a member since 1985. It feels like a bereavement. But there’s no point shouting abuse at the individual as the deed is done. Instead we should always ask 2qs: 1) why?; 2) how do we stop others going?
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
There is not, as far as I am aware, any exemption in the law for threats by Whips.
Unless they are insane, keeping their threats inside the law would be important. And a number of Whips are and have been lawyers by trade.
And if Beckham had gone to the police when he had a boot kicked into his face, would a football manager have been able to properly manage his dressing room ever again?
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
1. He doesn't seem stupid
2. There's a lot of wanna be worldly cynicism abvout this sort of thing. Like people saying All politicians lie, it's expected. It shouldn't be, and the way to keep it in check is come down on them like a t of b when they are caught out
3. It may always have been done like this, but sexual bullying, drunkenness on the job and industrial level expenses fraud were also business as usual in living memory. Time to stop.
4. NB also: it used allegedly to be *sexual* misdoings in the little black books, and that has loargely lost its bite. I don't go to gay bdsm clubs but if I did, and got outed, I would neither be embarrassed nor feel I had to resign from everything. So it is very credible the focus has moved from that sort of thing which doesn't matter and no longer works, to constituency funding which matters a lot.
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Biden is in many respects the most isolationist US President since Carter. Hence he withdrew US forces from Afghanistan, hence his comments on Ukraine. Plus he would not defend Taiwan either I expect, even despite the US and UK and Australia pact.
On Ukraine however he is correct, NATO will not go to war with Russia to defend a non NATO member
I am not sure he knows what he is saying or doing most of the time.
To suggest to Russia a little incursion seems OK is breathtakingly stupid
I am divorced from my wife and gave her all the assets, so I can't pay my legal bills.
One for the legal types - I thought that constructively and knowingly trying to hide assets like that doesn't work in UK law?
I am always fascinated by how much wealth he managed to amass at various times, without ever seemingly have ever really worked.
Books and leaflets, and briefly quite a bit from platforms like Patreon and Youtube before they all kicked him off.
Even before that he appears to have acquired a lot of money at various times (he got done for mortgage fraud at one point), but his YouTube stuff was definitely very lucrative.
Once you have a certain level of profile, it’s usually easy to find ways of raising money, even as the more traditional internet platforms kick you off.
ISTR one of these types, possibly in the States, that set themselves up a a legitimate business selling random but overpriced stuff on eBay or Amazon, and getting the message out through private group chats that this was the seller to ‘buy’ from, if you wanted to donate to him.
Well Alex Jones and alike isn't that still their MO. Loads of crappy supplements etc that they sell at massive mark-ups, some of the people buying are gullible idiots, others I am fairly sure they know that they are really just supporting him.
Back in the day when I was in the poker world, it became increasingly had to move money, one site first bought a bank and then used it process payments that claimed eye watering amounts of money transfers were actually purchases of golf balls....the sums were so large they would have been buying up half the bloody world market of golf balls if it were true.
Ha ha, that sounds like all the US$ Tether say they have in the bank
Alex Jones has been shut down by pretty much everyone, even Visa and Mastercard. Presumably at this point, he has a close relative put their name to his bank account, and his advertisers are sending him a pile of used Benjamins by courier every month!
Surprised he hasn't gone crypto....
As for Tether, man when they crumbles it is going to be a shit show. TBH, I have no idea why anybody is still holding it, there are now other much more "trustworthy" stable coins e.g. USDC, that is backed by the likes of Coinbase. Now it might all blow up, like the whole of crypto, but in world of crypto, Coinbase are at least a legit company.
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
What a really stupid thing to say. He’s even worse than the last guy in some respects, at least Putin would be wary about how Trump might react to Ukraine being invaded.
It seems like Biden buyer's remorse has well and truly set in...?
I wonder what would be said, if the Ukrainian President announced -
"Today I have to report a new nuclear accident. Some Ukrainian scientists have accidentally constructed nuclear weapons, which fell off the truck and accidentally attached themselves to medium range ballistic missiles. Which in turn have accidentally aimed themselves at Moscow. Sorry."
The Cabinet must live up to their responsibilities the shop steward & conscience of the Tory right tells me. Our full conversation on the future of the Conservatives will be on Political Thinking tomorrow
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Tbf there’s quite a lot of not hearing the end of it on here after many of Biden’s comments, granted mostly from the no fan of Trump but guys.
Even you cannot excuse such a crass statement by Biden surely
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
Civil service rules would only apply to civil servants, so not to whips. The law generally would apply to civil servants and whips equally.
I'm struggling to see why it would be a problem for parliamentary democracy to reduce the ability of whips to force through government business against the conscience of their MPs. It's not like they are short of other tools such as basic offer of being considered for government posts if the MP's behaviour is suitably compliant.
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
Legality matters because the whole point of the criminal law is that it applies to everyone equally. Whips, Princes of the royal blood, 10 Downing Street, Police Officers, PMs, MPs and all us plebs all have to keep the same standards of conduct in matters which have criminal sanctions. If that is not the case then Partygate is a nullity about nothing.
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Biden is in many respects the most isolationist US President since Carter. Hence he withdrew US forces from Afghanistan, hence his comments on Ukraine. Plus he would not defend Taiwan either I expect, even despite the US and UK and Australia pact.
On Ukraine however he is correct, NATO will not go to war with Russia to defend a non NATO member
I am not sure he knows what he is saying or doing most of the time.
To suggest to Russia a little incursion seems OK is breathtakingly stupid
Why have we got such pitiful leaders in the west
It is up there with I had no idea about the rules regarding parties, which are those rules I made....
Or of course the shop lifting laws brought in in a number of US cities. If you steal less than $x00s of stuff than the only punishment is the equivalent of a parking fine.....what do you mean people keep coming in with a calculator, walking out with a $1 less than the max, and then come back an hour later and do the same.
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
There is not, as far as I am aware, any exemption in the law for threats by Whips.
Unless they are insane, keeping their threats inside the law would be important. And a number of Whips are and have been lawyers by trade.
And if Beckham had gone to the police when he had a boot kicked into his face, would a football manager have been able to properly manage his dressing room ever again?
Nice set of Monoliths by the way.
I believe (@PBLawyers requested) that there is a whole body of law about assault and sports. As in people have be done for assault in sport, but not every physical contact in sport is an assault.
It’s always a sadness when a Tory colleague leaves our Party. I’ve been a member since 1985. It feels like a bereavement. But there’s no point shouting abuse at the individual as the deed is done. Instead we should always ask 2qs: 1) why?; 2) how do we stop others going?
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.
Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.
That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.
Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.
In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
@HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government
Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt
On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019
I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
The conservative party is in a full blown civil war, and you make such immature statements rather than join those of us who want to vote for the party and back toxic Boris being thrown out of office
I will still be voting Tory whether Boris or Sunak is leader, if Sunak is not leader you will no doubt be back to voting Labour or LD again next time
You go from bad to worse
I have said on here many times that as soon as Boris is gone I will rejoin the party and seek a conservative win in GE24
Why do you alienate those who should be on your side
According to Jonathan Haidt, 'purity' is one of the three parameters of morality that is held ever more dearly the further to the conservative end of the political spectrum you go (and hardly at all by liberals). On that measure, HYUFD must be almost as right wing as they come. Almost as far right as Stalin and Lenin.
Not sure conservative versus liberal makes sense for that line.
No debates about purity in the Labour Party, Momentum and the Judean People's Front. No siree.
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
Civil service rules would only apply to civil servants, so not to whips. The law generally would apply to civil servants and whips equally.
I'm struggling to see why it would be a problem for parliamentary democracy to reduce the ability of whips to force through government business against the conscience of their MPs. It's not like they are short of other tools such as basic offer of being considered for government posts if the MP's behaviour is suitably compliant.
Plus they could try winning MPs over by offering them policies they are comfortable with. I mean, they don't get elected in the first place by threatening the voters. What's different?
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Biden is in many respects the most isolationist US President since Carter. Hence he withdrew US forces from Afghanistan, hence his comments on Ukraine. Plus he would not defend Taiwan either I expect, even despite the US and UK and Australia pact.
On Ukraine however he is correct, NATO will not go to war with Russia to defend a non NATO member
I am not sure he knows what he is saying or doing most of the time.
To suggest to Russia a little incursion seems OK is breathtakingly stupid
Why have we got such pitiful leaders in the west
It is up there with I had no idea about the rules regarding parties, which are those rules I made....
Actually it is worse but the connection is not unreasonable
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.
Many thanks
There are some who say local by-elections don't matter. Those people are just party poopers.
When should Tory MPs wanting to remove Johnson make their move? My thoughts for @NewStatesman. In short, now is too early & after the May elections could be too late. The best opportunity likely to be after the publication of Sue Gray's report.
Plus, the moment when Boris Johnson makes a statement after the publication of the Gray report will be key. This is when his Conservative MPs should be brave enough to ask searching factual questions that he could be expected to answer.
Looks like reduction in cases have plateaued this week. Leon of Sri Lanka will be getting a wibble on about Omicron V2.
16/1 case figures by sample date, not final, have edged above the same number from the previous week. 17 & 18/1 are still marginally below, but could quite well show rises once fully populated.
There's obviously a rising infection bubble somewhere counteracting the downward trend elsewhere, be that schools or January return to work or something else.
I would probably have extended WfH advice until half term though tbh, or encouraged employers to be very laissez-faire on WfH for a few further weeks even having dropped the formal advice. And I, personally, am keen to get back in.
Long way to go to reach herd immunity......or is it as Leon says Omicron V2 ;-)
What is really disappointing is booster programme has totally ground to a halt. Only 67k in todays numbers.
Its not a surprise though. The most vulnerable have been done, and people can see the news about omicron, I wouldn't be worried. If they can, they should have their booster. Their loss if you don't.
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Tbf there’s quite a lot of not hearing the end of it on here after many of Biden’s comments, granted mostly from the no fan of Trump but guys.
Even you cannot excuse such a crass statement by Biden surely
As Herman Kahn pointed out, saying that you will not go to war, often makes war more likely.
What world leaders should be doing is setting out clear demarcations lines.
As a reactionary old fashioned type, what about a Guarantee for Poland?
Looks like reduction in cases have plateaued this week. Leon of Sri Lanka will be getting a wibble on about Omicron V2.
16/1 case figures by sample date, not final, have edged above the same number from the previous week. 17 & 18/1 are still marginally below, but could quite well show rises once fully populated.
There's obviously a rising infection bubble somewhere counteracting the downward trend elsewhere, be that schools or January return to work or something else.
I would probably have extended WfH advice until half term though tbh, or encouraged employers to be very laissez-faire on WfH for a few further weeks even having dropped the formal advice. And I, personally, am keen to get back in.
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.
Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.
That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.
Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.
In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
@HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government
Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt
On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019
I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
You are a SOCIALIST because you voted REMAIN in 2016.
So George Galloway is a Conservative because he voted Leave in 2016.
What a ridiculous post.
However respecting the Leave vote and backing Brexit is now a Conservative principle
Really? I thought the central tenet of the Conservative success as a multi-century election-winning machine was that the parties only principle is to have no fixed principles. I mean, it was a low-tax, low-inflation party once...
It still is, certainly compared to Labour.
However if the Conservatives now tried to abandon Brexit they would be back to the 9% they got in the 2019 European elections and ReformUK would become the main right of centre party in the UK instead
Sure, full rejoin might not be a smart policy. But what does "respecting the Leave vote" really mean: is Frost-level antipathy now needed to see off RefUK? Would CU/SM membership even have the salience to be a problem for the Tories in a few years, or could it be sold as a sensible economic policy to improve productivity, reduce border friction and red tape, and thus reduce taxes? None of that seems inherently unConservative.
The Cabinet must live up to their responsibilities the shop steward & conscience of the Tory right tells me. Our full conversation on the future of the Conservatives will be on Political Thinking tomorrow
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Tbf there’s quite a lot of not hearing the end of it on here after many of Biden’s comments, granted mostly from the no fan of Trump but guys.
Even you cannot excuse such a crass statement by Biden surely
As Herman Kahn pointed out, saying that you will not go to war, often makes war more likely.
What world leaders should be doing is setting out clear demarcations lines.
As a reactionary old fashioned type, what about a Guarantee for Poland?
The problem with clear demarcation lines is it weakens you with everything before the demarcation line, plus what happens if someone calls your bluff?
I thought the whole point nowadays was deliberate ambiguity. So we have nuclear weapons but won't say if or when we'd use them, so our potential enemies can't rule anything out?
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
Legality matters because the whole point of the criminal law is that it applies to everyone equally. Whips, Princes of the royal blood, 10 Downing Street, Police Officers, PMs, MPs and all us plebs all have to keep the same standards of conduct in matters which have criminal sanctions. If that is not the case then Partygate is a nullity about nothing.
Blackmail kind of does not apply equally, as it is based on did the person blackmailing believe they were doing something wrong or not, rather than would a reasonable person believe it was wrong.
Obviously advantageous for the unscrupulous, ideologues and sociopaths. Also known as whips.
And in practice we are learning more each day how little the law in general applies to the elite.
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.
Socially liberal voters like that who voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but Labour or LD since are unlikely to vote for even a Sunak led Tories unless he pursues a softer Brexit.
That would in turn mean hardline Leavers moving from Tory to RefUK and the redwall would still likely go Labour anyway.
Essentially it is unlikely the Tories can win again next time without repeating their coalition of 2019, certainly in terms of winning another Tory majority.
In some respects it would be better for the Tories to go into opposition than risk splitting that coalition even further and add leakage to RefUK to leakage already seen to Starmer Labour. Especially given it is unlikely even Sunak will win over 2015 Remainers who backed Cameron and have not voted Tory since
So you'd rather go into opposition rather than try and convince the likes of TSE and Richard Nabavi to vote Tory again? As a Labour supporter, that's good to know...
@HYUFD delights in telling people the conservative party do not want their votes unless they have a Little Englander right wing agenda, worship the Queen and the CoE, always vote conservative, and he has the same attitude as a Corbynista to purity of his views and actually prefers opposition to government
Of course he tries to dismiss that he voted for Plaid, and this conservative who actually lives in Wales has no such guilt
On the wider issue of Boris he has become so toxic not only with the public but now a full blown civil war in his party threatening to hand GE24 to labour much as Corbyn achieved for the conservatives in 2019
I can only hope that the conservatives mps defenestrate Boris next week and immediately start the process to appoint his successor, which seems would be Rishi as the best choice
I voted for every Tory on the ballot paper in Wales, you did not vote for the Tory candidate when you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001
You are a SOCIALIST because you voted REMAIN in 2016.
So George Galloway is a Conservative because he voted Leave in 2016.
What a ridiculous post.
However respecting the Leave vote and backing Brexit is now a Conservative principle
Really? I thought the central tenet of the Conservative success as a multi-century election-winning machine was that the parties only principle is to have no fixed principles. I mean, it was a low-tax, low-inflation party once...
It still is, certainly compared to Labour.
However if the Conservatives now tried to abandon Brexit they would be back to the 9% they got in the 2019 European elections and ReformUK would become the main right of centre party in the UK instead
Sure, full rejoin might not be a smart policy. But what does "respecting the Leave vote" really mean: is Frost-level antipathy now needed to see off RefUK? Would CU/SM membership even have the salience to be a problem for the Tories in a few years, or could it be sold as a sensible economic policy to improve productivity, reduce border friction and red tape, and thus reduce taxes? None of that seems inherently unConservative.
Long way to go to reach herd immunity......or is it as Leon says Omicron V2 ;-)
What is really disappointing is booster programme has totally ground to a halt. Only 67k in todays numbers.
Its not a surprise though. The most vulnerable have been done, and people can see the news about omicron, I wouldn't be worried. If they can, they should have their booster. Their loss if you don't.
For England and Scotland, the remaining numbers eligible for a 3rd shot are
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Tbf there’s quite a lot of not hearing the end of it on here after many of Biden’s comments, granted mostly from the no fan of Trump but guys.
Even you cannot excuse such a crass statement by Biden surely
I’ll leave the impotent bloviating to others, old sport.
Long way to go to reach herd immunity......or is it as Leon says Omicron V2 ;-)
What is really disappointing is booster programme has totally ground to a halt. Only 67k in todays numbers.
Its not a surprise though. The most vulnerable have been done, and people can see the news about omicron, I wouldn't be worried. If they can, they should have their booster. Their loss if you don't.
For England and Scotland, the remaining numbers eligible for a 3rd shot are
Looks like reduction in cases have plateaued this week. Leon of Sri Lanka will be getting a wibble on about Omicron V2.
16/1 case figures by sample date, not final, have edged above the same number from the previous week. 17 & 18/1 are still marginally below, but could quite well show rises once fully populated.
There's obviously a rising infection bubble somewhere counteracting the downward trend elsewhere, be that schools or January return to work or something else.
I would probably have extended WfH advice until half term though tbh, or encouraged employers to be very laissez-faire on WfH for a few further weeks even having dropped the formal advice. And I, personally, am keen to get back in.
What is interesting is how cross regional the flattening out is
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Tbf there’s quite a lot of not hearing the end of it on here after many of Biden’s comments, granted mostly from the no fan of Trump but guys.
Even you cannot excuse such a crass statement by Biden surely
I’ll leave the impotent bloviating to others, old sport.
Aren't we all bloviating impotently anytime we comment on anything?
I try at least to bloviate in small doses though, it's not healthy otherwise.
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Tbf there’s quite a lot of not hearing the end of it on here after many of Biden’s comments, granted mostly from the no fan of Trump but guys.
It's a false equivalence anyway. Trump put in doubt the US commitment to NATO. He withdrew US forces from Syria, ceding to Russia there.
These are actions that are way weaker on Russia than Biden putting his foot in his mouth.
Sure, we should want better leadership, but Biden is still much better than Trump.
The Led By Donkey's spoof of AC-12 interviewing Johnson has now had over 7million viewings.
Interesting, as one PBer dismissed it as over-long and unlikely to be popular IIRC.
If you are talking about me, I didn't say it was would be unpopular, I said IMO it was overlong and too serious, and that cassette boy was better.
But also how many times have we been here before about x million views on social media. There was the breathless reporting of such videos in the run up to the GE.
In this case, I think its irrelevant one way or another, as the story already has massive cut through. Nobody is unaware of this story and virtually nobody believes Boris had no idea about anything.
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Biden is in many respects the most isolationist US President since Carter. Hence he withdrew US forces from Afghanistan, hence his comments on Ukraine. Plus he would not defend Taiwan either I expect, even despite the US and UK and Australia pact.
On Ukraine however he is correct, NATO will not go to war with Russia to defend a non NATO member
I'm not sure he's quite lucid enough to have had that much of a thought process about it really.
One of the sad things is that if had a decent lawyer he would have got off, as mental health was a valid excuse. (Assuming that the meeting was proportionate and not a 300 person pensioner rave).
The Cabinet must live up to their responsibilities the shop steward & conscience of the Tory right tells me. Our full conversation on the future of the Conservatives will be on Political Thinking tomorrow
I thought shop stewards and consciences were two things the Tory Right hated?
Pretty clear from that contribution that Steve Baker thinks its over for Boris and, moreover, that it should be over.
And a brave move, putting at least a finger on the knife. Some kudos for him.
He's actually more interesting a character than merely his 'Brexit Hard Man' ridiculousness would suggest at first glance. I still remember him shocking over his stance on BLM.
The Cabinet must live up to their responsibilities the shop steward & conscience of the Tory right tells me. Our full conversation on the future of the Conservatives will be on Political Thinking tomorrow
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
What a really stupid thing to say. He’s even worse than the last guy in some respects, at least Putin would be wary about how Trump might react to Ukraine being invaded.
It seems like Biden buyer's remorse has well and truly set in...?
Maybe the 2024 election might be third time lucky, for the political parties not giving the American public the choice between death by fire and death by drowning?
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
Legality matters because the whole point of the criminal law is that it applies to everyone equally. Whips, Princes of the royal blood, 10 Downing Street, Police Officers, PMs, MPs and all us plebs all have to keep the same standards of conduct in matters which have criminal sanctions. If that is not the case then Partygate is a nullity about nothing.
Although in the case of blackmail, it's not quite so clearcut.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60 (1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
There is no "reasonable person" test for blackmail, as I understand it, so the belief of "reasonable grounds" or "proper means" is actually subject to the particular beliefs of the person charged with the offence.
Long way to go to reach herd immunity......or is it as Leon says Omicron V2 ;-)
What is really disappointing is booster programme has totally ground to a halt. Only 67k in todays numbers.
Its not a surprise though. The most vulnerable have been done, and people can see the news about omicron, I wouldn't be worried. If they can, they should have their booster. Their loss if you don't.
For England and Scotland, the remaining numbers eligible for a 3rd shot are
The Led By Donkey's spoof of AC-12 interviewing Johnson has now had over 7million viewings.
Interesting, as one PBer dismissed it as over-long and unlikely to be popular IIRC.
If you are talking about me, I didn't say it was would be unpopular, I said IMO it was overlong and too serious, and that cassette boy was better.
But also how many times have we been here before about x million views on social media. There was the breathless reporting of such videos in the run up to the GE.
In this case, I think its irrelevant one way or another, as the story already has massive cut through. Nobody is unaware of this story and virtually nobody believes Boris had no idea about anything.
It is certainly a video one has to settle down to watch.
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
Legality matters because the whole point of the criminal law is that it applies to everyone equally. Whips, Princes of the royal blood, 10 Downing Street, Police Officers, PMs, MPs and all us plebs all have to keep the same standards of conduct in matters which have criminal sanctions. If that is not the case then Partygate is a nullity about nothing.
Although in the case of blackmail, it's not quite so clearcut.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60 (1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
There is no "reasonable person" test for blackmail, as I understand it, so the belief of "reasonable grounds" or "proper means" is actually subject to the particular beliefs of the person charged with the offence.
Any actual criminal lawyers like to comment ?
IANAL but a whip will surely just say that long standing precedents meant they thought they were acting reasonably. Should be a sufficient defence?
Looks like reduction in cases have plateaued this week. Leon of Sri Lanka will be getting a wibble on about Omicron V2.
16/1 case figures by sample date, not final, have edged above the same number from the previous week. 17 & 18/1 are still marginally below, but could quite well show rises once fully populated.
There's obviously a rising infection bubble somewhere counteracting the downward trend elsewhere, be that schools or January return to work or something else.
I would probably have extended WfH advice until half term though tbh, or encouraged employers to be very laissez-faire on WfH for a few further weeks even having dropped the formal advice. And I, personally, am keen to get back in.
To what end? Cases don't really matter anymore.
To give a few more infection cycles to clear the decks a little more in the hospitals before risking the next rise. Yes, I'd also be looking very hard at the other side of the coin - i.e. could hospitals move to an infection control regime more akin to flu, is that sensible, to ease pressures.
Even having removed, I'd be more pushing a free choice line as a government for a few weeks, I wouldn't be pushing a "right, everyone, pile back in the office" line.
I seem to remember many of the same arguments were advanced for allowing the Germans to annexe the Sudetenland.
The dark side of my brain keeps wanting to suggest a policy where we sell out German interests
How about -
- Putin gets some bits of Ukraine - We support Russia in the Security Council - The sell us LNG at 50% of the world price. - They sell gas to Germany at 200% of the world price. - We get a cut of the extra money.
No involvement in war, cheap gas for Britain... what's not to like?
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
Legality matters because the whole point of the criminal law is that it applies to everyone equally. Whips, Princes of the royal blood, 10 Downing Street, Police Officers, PMs, MPs and all us plebs all have to keep the same standards of conduct in matters which have criminal sanctions. If that is not the case then Partygate is a nullity about nothing.
Although in the case of blackmail, it's not quite so clearcut.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60 (1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
There is no "reasonable person" test for blackmail, as I understand it, so the belief of "reasonable grounds" or "proper means" is actually subject to the particular beliefs of the person charged with the offence.
Any actual criminal lawyers like to comment ?
I don't think you need to be a criminal lawyer to know that just because an accused person thinks something was reasonable that doesn't make it reasonable in law!
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Tbf there’s quite a lot of not hearing the end of it on here after many of Biden’s comments, granted mostly from the no fan of Trump but guys.
Even you cannot excuse such a crass statement by Biden surely
As Herman Kahn pointed out, saying that you will not go to war, often makes war more likely.
What world leaders should be doing is setting out clear demarcations lines.
As a reactionary old fashioned type, what about a Guarantee for Poland?
The Romans understood
Si vis pacem, para bellum
If you want peace, prepare for war.
So far the only European countries taking this seriously appear to be the U.K. and a couple of Baltic states - raising the price to Russia of invasion.
Long way to go to reach herd immunity......or is it as Leon says Omicron V2 ;-)
What is really disappointing is booster programme has totally ground to a halt. Only 67k in todays numbers.
Its not a surprise though. The most vulnerable have been done, and people can see the news about omicron, I wouldn't be worried. If they can, they should have their booster. Their loss if you don't.
For England and Scotland, the remaining numbers eligible for a 3rd shot are
Still plenty of 50+ that definitely should be getting boosted.
The 50+ numbers are down to the equivalent numbers of those who aren't getting vaccinated in the first place etc etc
That being said, they are gradually ticking down....
Maybe I misunderstood you numbers. I thought those were eligible for a 3rd shot i.e those that had had 2 shots and now could get a booster? So they are in addition to the unvaccinated?
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
Legality matters because the whole point of the criminal law is that it applies to everyone equally. Whips, Princes of the royal blood, 10 Downing Street, Police Officers, PMs, MPs and all us plebs all have to keep the same standards of conduct in matters which have criminal sanctions. If that is not the case then Partygate is a nullity about nothing.
Although in the case of blackmail, it's not quite so clearcut.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60 (1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
There is no "reasonable person" test for blackmail, as I understand it, so the belief of "reasonable grounds" or "proper means" is actually subject to the particular beliefs of the person charged with the offence.
Any actual criminal lawyers like to comment ?
IANAL but a whip will surely just say that long standing precedents meant they thought they were acting reasonably. Should be a sufficient defence?
I am pretty sure that the threat of withdrawing public funds from a constituency to ensure the support of an MP would be considered unreasonable.
This goes however to the root of the problem of whips - something I have ranted about often enough in the past. Effectively the way the whips do their job even in the milder cases is through the bribery or blackmailing of our elected representatives. If an external party was to do the same thing they would be prosecuted. The same should apply to the parties. We need to break the power of the parties over MPs by massively curtailing the power of the whips and making far more of the Parliamentary decisions free votes. MPs are supposed to serve their constituents not the parties and it is about time we put a stop to this sort of borderline criminal behaviour.
The Led By Donkey's spoof of AC-12 interviewing Johnson has now had over 7million viewings.
Interesting, as one PBer dismissed it as over-long and unlikely to be popular IIRC.
It counts as a viewing whether you watch to the end or not!
It also auto-plays when you see the tweet. I have had it come up on my feed a load of times, even though I don't subscribe to them, and I watched it once, but I found it too long and rather boring. Where as I have watched the cassette boy one a number of times for the LOLs.
That been said, it is high likely lots of people have seen it.
Long way to go to reach herd immunity......or is it as Leon says Omicron V2 ;-)
What is really disappointing is booster programme has totally ground to a halt. Only 67k in todays numbers.
Its not a surprise though. The most vulnerable have been done, and people can see the news about omicron, I wouldn't be worried. If they can, they should have their booster. Their loss if you don't.
For England and Scotland, the remaining numbers eligible for a 3rd shot are
Still plenty of 50+ that definitely should be getting boosted.
The 50+ numbers are down to the equivalent numbers of those who aren't getting vaccinated in the first place etc etc
That being said, they are gradually ticking down....
Maybe I misunderstood you numbers. I thought those were eligible for a 3rd shot i.e those that had had 2 shots and now could get a booster? So they are in addition to the unvaccinated?
Yes - they are the numbers of people in each age group that have 2 shots, but not three.
What I meant was that when you get down to a few hundred K in a group, the rest seem to be "sticky".
There are some interesting gaps between 1st and 2nd jabs as well, IIRC.
Looks like reduction in cases have plateaued this week. Leon of Sri Lanka will be getting a wibble on about Omicron V2.
16/1 case figures by sample date, not final, have edged above the same number from the previous week. 17 & 18/1 are still marginally below, but could quite well show rises once fully populated.
There's obviously a rising infection bubble somewhere counteracting the downward trend elsewhere, be that schools or January return to work or something else.
I would probably have extended WfH advice until half term though tbh, or encouraged employers to be very laissez-faire on WfH for a few further weeks even having dropped the formal advice. And I, personally, am keen to get back in.
What is interesting is how cross regional the flattening out is
etc etc
Just eyeballing the numbers, I'd say Northern Ireland, Southern England & Midlands are up to 2-3 days ahead in curving up than London and Northern England, and that Wales and Scotland are showing less sign of this trend.
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Tbf there’s quite a lot of not hearing the end of it on here after many of Biden’s comments, granted mostly from the no fan of Trump but guys.
It's a false equivalence anyway. Trump put in doubt the US commitment to NATO. He withdrew US forces from Syria, ceding to Russia there.
These are actions that are way weaker on Russia than Biden putting his foot in his mouth.
Sure, we should want better leadership, but Biden is still much better than Trump.
Yes authoritarian nationalism as a mainstay of Western democracies is simply incompatible with a strong and united Western military alliance. Those on the right should understand they can have one but not both.
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
Legality matters because the whole point of the criminal law is that it applies to everyone equally. Whips, Princes of the royal blood, 10 Downing Street, Police Officers, PMs, MPs and all us plebs all have to keep the same standards of conduct in matters which have criminal sanctions. If that is not the case then Partygate is a nullity about nothing.
Although in the case of blackmail, it's not quite so clearcut.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60 (1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
There is no "reasonable person" test for blackmail, as I understand it, so the belief of "reasonable grounds" or "proper means" is actually subject to the particular beliefs of the person charged with the offence.
Any actual criminal lawyers like to comment ?
IANAL but a whip will surely just say that long standing precedents meant they thought they were acting reasonably. Should be a sufficient defence?
I am pretty sure that the threat of withdrawing public funds from a constituency to ensure the support of an MP would be considered unreasonable.
This goes however to the root of the problem of whips - something I have ranted about often enough in the past. Effectively the way the whips do their job even in the milder cases is through the bribery or blackmailing of our elected representatives. If an external party was to do the same thing they would be prosecuted. The same should apply to the parties. We need to break the power of the parties over MPs by massively curtailing the power of the whips and making far more of the Parliamentary decisions free votes. MPs are supposed to serve their constituents not the parties and it is about time we put a stop to this sort of borderline criminal behaviour.
It is also confirmation that this public spending was allocated for politics, rather than objective criteria, in the first place. Which is also bad.
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Tbf there’s quite a lot of not hearing the end of it on here after many of Biden’s comments, granted mostly from the no fan of Trump but guys.
Even you cannot excuse such a crass statement by Biden surely
As Herman Kahn pointed out, saying that you will not go to war, often makes war more likely.
What world leaders should be doing is setting out clear demarcations lines.
As a reactionary old fashioned type, what about a Guarantee for Poland?
The Romans understood
Si vis pacem, para bellum
If you want peace, prepare for war.
So far the only European countries taking this seriously appear to be the U.K. and a couple of Baltic states - raising the price to Russia of invasion.
I had thought that was also the motto of The Protectorate, but if anything it is a bit more robust if wiki is to be believed, and more along what Russia probably thinks.
He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?
Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law? If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?
And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”
I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.
I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.
So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
Legality matters because the whole point of the criminal law is that it applies to everyone equally. Whips, Princes of the royal blood, 10 Downing Street, Police Officers, PMs, MPs and all us plebs all have to keep the same standards of conduct in matters which have criminal sanctions. If that is not the case then Partygate is a nullity about nothing.
Although in the case of blackmail, it's not quite so clearcut.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60 (1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
There is no "reasonable person" test for blackmail, as I understand it, so the belief of "reasonable grounds" or "proper means" is actually subject to the particular beliefs of the person charged with the offence.
Any actual criminal lawyers like to comment ?
IANAL but a whip will surely just say that long standing precedents meant they thought they were acting reasonably. Should be a sufficient defence?
Didn't work for pawing the female colleagues/help. Didn't work for taking money.
Theo Bertram @theobertram · 3h When the expenses scandal broke, many in Westminster didn't realise it was indefensible. Everyone knows this how it has always worked, so what's the big deal? The public disagreed & what supercharged their anger was when they started to hear about the specific cases.
===
Personally, I'm not convinced by this argument in this case. But what do I know. I thought at the weekend that Johnson wont make the next PMQs.
Ukraine's President has just commented that he wants to remind the great powers that there are no minor incursions
Biden's idiotic comments really have hit home
Biden was supposed to be the boring steady hand on the levers of power (after the chaos of Trump). If Trump was making the sort of stupid comments Biden regularly does, we would never hear the end of it.
Tbf there’s quite a lot of not hearing the end of it on here after many of Biden’s comments, granted mostly from the no fan of Trump but guys.
Even you cannot excuse such a crass statement by Biden surely
It's not quite up there with April Glaspie, but close.
Long way to go to reach herd immunity......or is it as Leon says Omicron V2 ;-)
What is really disappointing is booster programme has totally ground to a halt. Only 67k in todays numbers.
Its not a surprise though. The most vulnerable have been done, and people can see the news about omicron, I wouldn't be worried. If they can, they should have their booster. Their loss if you don't.
For England and Scotland, the remaining numbers eligible for a 3rd shot are
Still plenty of 50+ that definitely should be getting boosted.
The 50+ numbers are down to the equivalent numbers of those who aren't getting vaccinated in the first place etc etc
That being said, they are gradually ticking down....
Maybe I misunderstood you numbers. I thought those were eligible for a 3rd shot i.e those that had had 2 shots and now could get a booster? So they are in addition to the unvaccinated?
Yes - they are the numbers of people in each age group that have 2 shots, but not three.
What I meant was that when you get down to a few hundred K in a group, the rest seem to be "sticky".
There are some interesting gaps between 1st and 2nd jabs as well, IIRC.
If I had to make a guess, perhaps it is people who went and got their xth shot while being a bit on the fence, then got COVID and now convinced themselves they must be immune and so don't need to continue to get any more shots.
Comments
I have said on here many times that as soon as Boris is gone I will rejoin the party and seek a conservative win in GE24
Why do you alienate those who should be on your side
On Ukraine however he is correct, NATO will not go to war with Russia to defend a non NATO member
Back in the day when I was in the poker world, it became increasingly had to move money, one site first bought a bank and then used it process payments that claimed eye watering amounts of money transfers were actually purchases of golf balls....the sums were so large they would have been buying up half the bloody world market of golf balls if it were true.
Now Plan B is scrapped, will cases skyrocket again?
There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?
The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
- The big case falls seems to be stopping. This means R is rising. The segmentation of R by age is interesting
- Hospital admissions. Down.
- Hospital MV beds. Down.
- In Hospital. Down.
- Deaths. Down.
However if the Conservatives now tried to abandon Brexit they would be back to the 9% they got in the 2019 European elections and ReformUK would become the main right of centre party in the UK instead
What is really disappointing is booster programme has totally ground to a halt. Only 67k in todays numbers.
Unless they are insane, keeping their threats inside the law would be important. And a number of Whips are and have been lawyers by trade.
Alex Jones has been shut down by pretty much everyone, even Visa and Mastercard. Presumably at this point, he has a close relative put their name to his bank account, and his advertisers are sending him a pile of used Benjamins by courier every month!
https://twitter.com/Simon4NDorset/status/1484161129958023168?s=20
Nice set of Monoliths by the way.
2. There's a lot of wanna be worldly cynicism abvout this sort of thing. Like people saying All politicians lie, it's expected. It shouldn't be, and the way to keep it in check is come down on them like a t of b when they are caught out
3. It may always have been done like this, but sexual bullying, drunkenness on the job and industrial level expenses fraud were also business as usual in living memory. Time to stop.
4. NB also: it used allegedly to be *sexual* misdoings in the little black books, and that has loargely lost its bite. I don't go to gay bdsm clubs but if I did, and got outed, I would neither be embarrassed nor feel I had to resign from everything. So it is very credible the focus has moved from that sort of thing which doesn't matter and no longer works, to constituency funding which matters a lot.
Why have we got such pitiful leaders in the west
As for Tether, man when they crumbles it is going to be a shit show. TBH, I have no idea why anybody is still holding it, there are now other much more "trustworthy" stable coins e.g. USDC, that is backed by the likes of Coinbase. Now it might all blow up, like the whole of crypto, but in world of crypto, Coinbase are at least a legit company.
"Today I have to report a new nuclear accident. Some Ukrainian scientists have accidentally constructed nuclear weapons, which fell off the truck and accidentally attached themselves to medium range ballistic missiles. Which in turn have accidentally aimed themselves at Moscow. Sorry."
I'm struggling to see why it would be a problem for parliamentary democracy to reduce the ability of whips to force through government business against the conscience of their MPs. It's not like they are short of other tools such as basic offer of being considered for government posts if the MP's behaviour is suitably compliant.
Or of course the shop lifting laws brought in in a number of US cities. If you steal less than $x00s of stuff than the only punishment is the equivalent of a parking fine.....what do you mean people keep coming in with a calculator, walking out with a $1 less than the max, and then come back an hour later and do the same.
by the way....
There will be a lot of things that can be used to attack a sitting Tory candidate.
No debates about purity in the Labour Party, Momentum and the Judean People's Front. No siree.
There are some who say local by-elections don't matter. Those people are just party poopers.
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/01/when-is-the-best-moment-for-tory-rebels-to-strike-against-boris-johnson
Plus, the moment when Boris Johnson makes a statement after the publication of the Gray report will be key. This is when his Conservative MPs should be brave enough to ask searching factual questions that he could be expected to answer.
https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1484204951144476674
There's obviously a rising infection bubble somewhere counteracting the downward trend elsewhere, be that schools or January return to work or something else.
I would probably have extended WfH advice until half term though tbh, or encouraged employers to be very laissez-faire on WfH for a few further weeks even having dropped the formal advice. And I, personally, am keen to get back in.
I wouldn't be worried. If they can, they should have their booster. Their loss if you don't.
What world leaders should be doing is setting out clear demarcations lines.
As a reactionary old fashioned type, what about a Guarantee for Poland?
I have little time for his politics, but he appears a pretty straight sort of guy (and not in the T Blair sense).
I thought the whole point nowadays was deliberate ambiguity. So we have nuclear weapons but won't say if or when we'd use them, so our potential enemies can't rule anything out?
Obviously advantageous for the unscrupulous, ideologues and sociopaths. Also known as whips.
And in practice we are learning more each day how little the law in general applies to the elite.
18 29 2,557,608
30 39 2,113,409
40 49 1,466,249
50 54 539,569
55 59 413,653
60 64 256,771
65 69 149,953
70 74 105,123
75 79 72,448
80+ 133,999
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/20/britain-russia-ukraine-border-dispute
What is interesting is how cross regional the flattening out is
etc etc
@kirkkorner
A 66-year-old man from Brockley was accosted by police for meeting friends at his allotment to break up the loneliness.
He ended up with a £100 fine.
https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1483705886480769048
I try at least to bloviate in small doses though, it's not healthy otherwise.
These are actions that are way weaker on Russia than Biden putting his foot in his mouth.
Sure, we should want better leadership, but Biden is still much better than Trump.
Personally I thought the cassette boy one was better.
Or does that only apply to what is said in the chamber or committee rooms formally?
But also how many times have we been here before about x million views on social media. There was the breathless reporting of such videos in the run up to the GE.
In this case, I think its irrelevant one way or another, as the story already has massive cut through. Nobody is unaware of this story and virtually nobody believes Boris had no idea about anything.
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1484206144096804864?s=20
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60
(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
There is no "reasonable person" test for blackmail, as I understand it, so the belief of "reasonable grounds" or "proper means" is actually subject to the particular beliefs of the person charged with the offence.
Any actual criminal lawyers like to comment ?
That being said, they are gradually ticking down....
...Have rethought. I'd better get used to being disconcerted.
Even having removed, I'd be more pushing a free choice line as a government for a few weeks, I wouldn't be pushing a "right, everyone, pile back in the office" line.
How about -
- Putin gets some bits of Ukraine
- We support Russia in the Security Council
- The sell us LNG at 50% of the world price.
- They sell gas to Germany at 200% of the world price.
- We get a cut of the extra money.
No involvement in war, cheap gas for Britain... what's not to like?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
If you want peace, prepare for war.
So far the only European countries taking this seriously appear to be the U.K. and a couple of Baltic states - raising the price to Russia of invasion.
This goes however to the root of the problem of whips - something I have ranted about often enough in the past. Effectively the way the whips do their job even in the milder cases is through the bribery or blackmailing of our elected representatives. If an external party was to do the same thing they would be prosecuted. The same should apply to the parties. We need to break the power of the parties over MPs by massively curtailing the power of the whips and making far more of the Parliamentary decisions free votes. MPs are supposed to serve their constituents not the parties and it is about time we put a stop to this sort of borderline criminal behaviour.
That been said, it is high likely lots of people have seen it.
What I meant was that when you get down to a few hundred K in a group, the rest seem to be "sticky".
There are some interesting gaps between 1st and 2nd jabs as well, IIRC.
Pax Quaeritur Bello
Peace is 'obtained' through war.
@theobertram
·
3h
When the expenses scandal broke, many in Westminster didn't realise it was indefensible. Everyone knows this how it has always worked, so what's the big deal? The public disagreed & what supercharged their anger was when they started to hear about the specific cases.
===
Personally, I'm not convinced by this argument in this case. But what do I know. I thought at the weekend that Johnson wont make the next PMQs.