Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
Morality doesn't get sleazier than that.
"Child abuse happened under Blair, always ha, always will, so what's your point?"
Sleazyness don't get much worse than Blair.
Well make your mind up, he was a "random example" 5 minutes ago. Which is it?
My OU tutor made in quite clear how whipper operations actually work.
I don't have a lot of time for Rishi - he's the plutocracy H Clinton warned us of.
Asking for a friend, can the children/grandchildren of immigrants to this country be considered plutocrats?
Rishi is a Winchester and Oxford educated, ex Goldman Sachs banker and son in law of a billionaire. He would be arguably the most elitist PM we have had since WW2.
Not that there is anything wrong with that of course
Erm, Home?
Not as rich as Sunak.
If you are going old elite than Home given he was from an aristocratic family, new elite Sunak
Ok, fair enough. Sunak has married into IT pluto elite I think?
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
No - in terms of menacing the constituency. See my post at the end of the last thread. Whips suggested that rebelling could lead to a loss of party financial support for my next election campaign, and that I was risking my promotion chances. They didn't suggest that Broxtowe would in any way be adversely affected.
I don't see why the party should in fact lavish support on habitual rebels, and it's unrealistic to think that if you rebel you'll be rewarded with a promotion, so both were I think legitimate arguments. If they'd suggested that a school in my area would suffer, that would have been a corrupt use of power.
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
You're not a very thorough reader, are you? I cover that in my first paragraph, using the word 'nefarious'.
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
Morality doesn't get sleazier than that.
"Child abuse happened under Blair, always ha, always will, so what's your point?"
Sleazyness don't get much worse than Blair.
Well make your mind up, he was a "random example" 5 minutes ago. Which is it?
My OU tutor made in quite clear how whipper operations actually work.
I believe him.
I doubt he knows anything about it better than 5th hand, and That's how it has always been does not mean That's how it ought to be for all time anyway.
I don't have a lot of time for Rishi - he's the plutocracy H Clinton warned us of.
Asking for a friend, can the children/grandchildren of immigrants to this country be considered plutocrats?
Rishi is a Winchester and Oxford educated, ex Goldman Sachs banker and son in law of a billionaire. He would be arguably the most elitist PM we have had since WW2.
Not that there is anything wrong with that of course
Erm, Home?
Not as rich as Sunak.
If you are going old elite than Home given he was from an aristocratic family, new elite Sunak
Ok, fair enough. Sunak has married into IT pluto elite I think?
Home of course took over as PM after the Profumo scandal from Macmillan and only lost to Wilson narrowly, with Labour getting a majority of just 4 in 1964.
Have any of you guys used Google Consumer Surveys? The thing is that for a £8, you can get 100 people to answer your chosen single question (and more people pro-rata). Like the polling companies, and unlike more crappy website polls, they try to make the sample demographically representative and do some weighting (though they almost don't put in the same degree of work as the pollsters).
100 people is not enough to get a quantative result, but it will answer 'which is better' if the gap is big enough. And £8 is low enough that you can even put one in for amusement value. For example, I was thinking it might be amusing to put in a poll like the one in the header, only with Johnson vs Jeremy Clarkson. Or Baldrick. If any of you are thinking of betting on the more obscure successor candidates, that don't show up in the work of real pollsters, might be worth a look. Although they don't do audience selection down to the level of party membership, sadly (you can ask a prequalifying question, but more than 1 question is for some reason much more expensive).
There are some weird terms - they don't want ordinary consumers using it so you have to warrant that you are a business. Not sure why. Push polling is not allowed, Pollitical polls also have to have an 'I'd rather not say' option.
(The reason I haven't put in a joke poll recently is that google can be a bit vicious about closing accounts if they think you have violated their terms, and I don't have a suitable business that might want the results. IE they take down your email as well. Although I think normally that's only if they think you are trying to pull a scam of some kind ).
But it can be oddly fun, because the results come in over the course of a few days, and even though you know the first 10 answers are not significant at all, it's surprisingly hard not to start speculating about the answer based on them.
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
No - in terms of menacing the constituency. See my post at the end of the last thread. Whips suggested that rebelling could lead to a loss of party financial support for my next election campaign, and that I was risking my promotion chances. They didn't suggest that Broxtowe would in any way be adversely affected.
I don't see why the party should in fact lavish support on habitual rebels, and it's unrealistic to think that if you rebel you'll be rewarded with a promotion, so both were I think legitimate arguments. If they'd suggested that a school in my area would suffer, that would have been a corrupt use of power.
However, giving money to Red Wall seats does seem to be part of this Government's playbook. You only have to look at the Town Centres that have received money from the Stronger Towns Fund to think hang on...
If this doesn't confirm Prince Andrew is a wrong 'un then I don't know what will?
As recently as 2015, Prince Andrew's ringtone was Clocks by Coldplay.
Only way it could have been worse is if it was a Radiohead track?
Don't know. Creep would seem quite apposite.
Indeed.
My daughter objects to my ringtone - Unforgiven by Apocalyptica.
Having any "ringtone" is a bit nokia 3310, isn't it? I just spend 50 seconds max when I get a new phone trying to find something relatively inoffensive in the menu
The key point though is 2019 Tory voters still prefer Johnson over Sunak.
The fact Sunak leads Starmer by just 1% as preferred PM, also means even Sunak would fail to win another Conservative majority at the next general election. All Sunak could hope to do would be to win most seats in a hung parliament but even then Starmer would likely become PM with SNP and LD support
Passes the plausibility sniff test. replacing Johnson with Sunak roughly unwinds the Paterson Plunge and Party Precipice in Conservative fortunes, and those are two things which bear Bozza's fingerprints and not Sunak's so much.
But it doesn't do much about the longer-term drift down by the Conservatives and up by Labour, because that's because, in various ways, the government's performance is distinctly "meh". Withered levelling up, pay rises being swallowed (and then some) by inflation, rubbish border control, tax rises on the way. And Sunak can't evade those- he's not that much of a new face who can make different big calls if he moves next door.
So that might be the grim calculation. Johnson probably loses big from here- it's hard for PM's to rebuild their reputation after a crash like this. And my sense if that the British public has mostly reached the stage of putting BoJo's pants through the shredder and then dumping the bits out the window, because they think he's a not very nice man at all. But Sunak can only be sure of resetting things to "close, honourable defeat". Better than "humiliating landslide", but is that enough?
If this doesn't confirm Prince Andrew is a wrong 'un then I don't know what will?
As recently as 2015, Prince Andrew's ringtone was Clocks by Coldplay.
Only way it could have been worse is if it was a Radiohead track?
Don't know. Creep would seem quite apposite.
Indeed.
My daughter objects to my ringtone - Unforgiven by Apocalyptica.
Having any "ringtone" is a bit nokia 3310, isn't it? I just spend 50 seconds max when I get a new phone trying to find something relatively inoffensive in the menu
I've had it for many years, created it myself instead of paying for it. It does stands out against other phones, and since it starts quietly and builds, it doesn't hammer the surroundings if I get to the phone in the first 30 seconds or so.
There's some similarity between this and some of the polling we saw in 2006/07 regarding Blair and Brown.
Rishi Sunak's position has strong similarities with that of Gordon Brown back in the day.
However, think that GB's biggest problem, was the Peter Principle. Did for him, as it did Sir Anthony Eden.
How Sunak performs viz-a-viz the dread PP, if (or is it when?) push comes to shove (for Boris), is an open question.
I can't see the comparison between Brown and Eden. Brown was a victim of Macmillan's events, dear boy, events in the shape of the global financial crisis.
Eden was master of his own demise via Suez and, to a lesser extent, the Buster Crabb affair.
Incredible moment, from where I'm sitting --- Britain is intervening significantly in Ukraine, on the edge of a major European war, with an arms lift -- but the British debate has never felt more insular or wrapped up in itself. Media and political London hardly noticing this.
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
Morality doesn't get sleazier than that.
"Child abuse happened under Blair, always ha, always will, so what's your point?"
Sleazyness don't get much worse than Blair.
So we once thought.
Blair won 2005 post most of the sleeze.
Blair was very good on the radio 4 at lunchtime. In a completely different class to these sleazeballs. Didn't even bother to criticize Johnson despite countless invitations to do so.
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
In my experience, bullying has always been part of the workplace. I've seen it continuously. The outing and condemnation of 'bullies' is typically just a performance for public consumption, like the outing of corruption in China. When Priti Patel was stitched up by the civil service it followed this playbook perfectly, she was no different to other Ministers in having tantrums at civil servants; the bullying allegations were perhaps an attempt by the civil service to exert some control over her. On this analysis, her continued presence is a consequence of changes in the balance of power, politically she was allowed to prevail as the government were at war with the civil service. Maybe we don't hear of such allegations anymore, because the civil service is seen as more compliant; senior heads have rolled over the last couple of years; and people are having lockdown 'work' parties together.
Having said all that, something has changed in the culture, particularly in the last five or so years, in that more egregious and aggressive forms of bullying are viewed as 'abuse' and are not tolerated.
That article is from last October - not sure why you're recycling it now?
Anyway, it's a lovely, uncritical, non-analytical and extraordinarily sycophantic paean to the wonders of Sunak; looks like it's written by one of his leadership campaign team.
ITV have just done a substantial hatchet job on the PM, including a discussion with a team of canvassers let by Andrew Bridgen. One of the canvassers, though, was still a Johnson loyalist.
"Stanley Johnson was in my local in Queens Park on Monday night, drinking a half of lager in an Estrella glass and eating cheese crisps. I mentioned to someone that it must be tense in the Johnson family at the moment, and was reminded of an incident here last summer when someone approached Stanley in the same pub to tell him that his son was a c*nt. To which Johnson Senior wearily replied, 'Yes, I know.'"
Brilliant
I don't think Jo Johnson thinks a lot of his brother either.
He did quit his government after all. But to be fair to Boris a peerage is a great make up present. I'd forgive him for a peerage.
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
In my experience, bullying has always been part of the workplace. I've seen it continuously. The outing and condemnation of 'bullies' is typically just a performance for public consumption, like the outing of corruption in China. When Priti Patel was stitched up by the civil service it followed this playbook perfectly, she was no different to other Ministers in having tantrums at civil servants; the bullying allegations were an attempt by the civil service to exert some control over her. Her continued presence is a consequence of changes in the balance of power, politically she was allowed to prevail as the government were at war with the civil service. Maybe we don't hear of such allegations anymore, because the civil service is seen as more compliant; senior heads have rolled over the last couple of years; and everyone is having lockdown parties together.
Having said all that, something has changed in the culture, particularly in the last five or so years, in that more egregious and aggressive forms of bullying are viewed as 'abuse' and are not tolerated.
You're a twat. You in 1932 Berlin: We hear this yadda yadda antisemitism shit every time. Herr Hitler is the latest in a long line, etc
PS I only said twat because it cost me £50 to site funds last time I used the expression complete and utter f------- c--- ETA I think I meant to be talking to briskin here, quoting seems foutu
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
In my experience, bullying has always been part of the workplace. I've seen it continuously. The outing and condemnation of 'bullies' is typically just a performance for public consumption, like the outing of corruption in China. When Priti Patel was stitched up by the civil service it followed this playbook perfectly, she was no different to other Ministers in having tantrums at civil servants; the bullying allegations were perhaps an attempt by the civil service to exert some control over her. On this analysis, her continued presence is a consequence of changes in the balance of power, politically she was allowed to prevail as the government were at war with the civil service. Maybe we don't hear of such allegations anymore, because the civil service is seen as more compliant; senior heads have rolled over the last couple of years; and people are having lockdown 'work' parties together.
Having said all that, something has changed in the culture, particularly in the last five or so years, in that more egregious and aggressive forms of bullying are viewed as 'abuse' and are not tolerated.
Quite right too. Time to stop condemning bullying, and encourage bullies instead.
I do feel sorry for you though, if your experience of workplaces is as you say. I must have been lucky; I've never been bullied, and have never bullied others. Despite working in the civil service for 20 years and other public sector for 20 years.
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
In my experience, bullying has always been part of the workplace. I've seen it continuously. The outing and condemnation of 'bullies' is typically just a performance for public consumption, like the outing of corruption in China. When Priti Patel was stitched up by the civil service it followed this playbook perfectly, she was no different to other Ministers in having tantrums at civil servants; the bullying allegations were an attempt by the civil service to exert some control over her. Her continued presence is a consequence of changes in the balance of power, politically she was allowed to prevail as the government were at war with the civil service. Maybe we don't hear of such allegations anymore, because the civil service is seen as more compliant; senior heads have rolled over the last couple of years; and everyone is having lockdown parties together.
Having said all that, something has changed in the culture, particularly in the last five or so years, in that more egregious and aggressive forms of bullying are viewed as 'abuse' and are not tolerated.
You're a twat. You in 1932 Berlin: We hear this yadda yadda antisemitism shit every time. Herr Hitler is the latest in a long line, etc
PS I only said twat because it cost me £50 to site funds last time I used the expression complete and utter f------- c---
I couldn't agree with you more. what a sad work experience he must have had. These days kids at primary schools are told exactly what to do if their parents or anyone else discomforts them. Let alone employers in the workplace. Things have changed!
Incredible moment, from where I'm sitting --- Britain is intervening significantly in Ukraine, on the edge of a major European war, with an arms lift -- but the British debate has never felt more insular or wrapped up in itself. Media and political London hardly noticing this.
Incredible moment, from where I'm sitting --- Britain is intervening significantly in Ukraine, on the edge of a major European war, with an arms lift -- but the British debate has never felt more insular or wrapped up in itself. Media and political London hardly noticing this.
One of the reasons I suspect for the degree of inattention is that senior politicians throughout Europe are finding it hard to know what to say. The EU is split and has neither forces nor policy, NATO does not want to be involved if it can help it, Germany is embarrassed, the UK would like it to be an EU issue please,the USA has East Asia concerns and has no intention of getting sucked in. Russia has already invaded part of Ukraine and the world kept spinning round.
Incredible moment, from where I'm sitting --- Britain is intervening significantly in Ukraine, on the edge of a major European war, with an arms lift -- but the British debate has never felt more insular or wrapped up in itself. Media and political London hardly noticing this.
Incredible moment, from where I'm sitting --- Britain is intervening significantly in Ukraine, on the edge of a major European war, with an arms lift -- but the British debate has never felt more insular or wrapped up in itself. Media and political London hardly noticing this.
One of the reasons I suspect for the degree of inattention is that senior politicians throughout Europe are finding it hard to know what to say. The EU is split and has neither forces nor policy, NATO does not want to be involved if it can help it, Germany is embarrassed, the UK would like it to be an EU issue please,the USA has East Asia concerns and has no intention of getting sucked in. Russia has already invaded part of Ukraine and the world kept spinning round.
It makes me proud to be British. Putin is getting a lesson on what happens when you poison British citizens.
Incredible moment, from where I'm sitting --- Britain is intervening significantly in Ukraine, on the edge of a major European war, with an arms lift -- but the British debate has never felt more insular or wrapped up in itself. Media and political London hardly noticing this.
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
In my experience, bullying has always been part of the workplace. I've seen it continuously. The outing and condemnation of 'bullies' is typically just a performance for public consumption, like the outing of corruption in China. When Priti Patel was stitched up by the civil service it followed this playbook perfectly, she was no different to other Ministers in having tantrums at civil servants; the bullying allegations were perhaps an attempt by the civil service to exert some control over her. On this analysis, her continued presence is a consequence of changes in the balance of power, politically she was allowed to prevail as the government were at war with the civil service. Maybe we don't hear of such allegations anymore, because the civil service is seen as more compliant; senior heads have rolled over the last couple of years; and people are having lockdown 'work' parties together.
Having said all that, something has changed in the culture, particularly in the last five or so years, in that more egregious and aggressive forms of bullying are viewed as 'abuse' and are not tolerated.
Quite right too. Time to stop condemning bullying, and encourage bullies instead.
I do feel sorry for you though, if your experience of workplaces is as you say. I must have been lucky; I've never been bullied, and have never bullied others. Despite working in the civil service for 20 years and other public sector for 20 years.
I don't think you intended to be sarcastic as it is not like you, I assume you mistyped your first sentence.
I've never actually been bullied, nor do I think I have done it myself, so I'm not asking for sympathy. I've just seen it continuously occur to other people. Perhaps the problem is that 'bullying', like 'abuse' is a nebulous term, it means different things to different people.
Have any of you guys used Google Consumer Surveys? The thing is that for a £8, you can get 100 people to answer your chosen single question (and more people pro-rata). Like the polling companies, and unlike more crappy website polls, they try to make the sample demographically representative and do some weighting (though they almost don't put in the same degree of work as the pollsters).
100 people is not enough to get a quantative result, but it will answer 'which is better' if the gap is big enough. And £8 is low enough that you can even put one in for amusement value. For example, I was thinking it might be amusing to put in a poll like the one in the header, only with Johnson vs Jeremy Clarkson. Or Baldrick. If any of you are thinking of betting on the more obscure successor candidates, that don't show up in the work of real pollsters, might be worth a look. Although they don't do audience selection down to the level of party membership, sadly (you can ask a prequalifying question, but more than 1 question is for some reason much more expensive).
There are some weird terms - they don't want ordinary consumers using it so you have to warrant that you are a business. Not sure why. Push polling is not allowed, Pollitical polls also have to have an 'I'd rather not say' option.
(The reason I haven't put in a joke poll recently is that google can be a bit vicious about closing accounts if they think you have violated their terms, and I don't have a suitable business that might want the results. IE they take down your email as well. Although I think normally that's only if they think you are trying to pull a scam of some kind ).
But it can be oddly fun, because the results come in over the course of a few days, and even though you know the first 10 answers are not significant at all, it's surprisingly hard not to start speculating about the answer based on them.
Do they do them by area if one wishes? Might be worth PB (which is a business, surely) do a constituency poll for £80 next time there's a close by-election.
Mind you, the big companies aren't that expensive either. I've commissioned several (national) polls for my day job from opinium, YouGov, etc. for a few hundred quid. One, in Scotland, showing strong disapproval of live animal exports from supporters of all parties, may have helped flip the SNP position (they were strongly pro-exports, until suddenly they weren't), though a Judicial Review we were doing may have helped too.
The key point though is 2019 Tory voters still prefer Johnson over Sunak.
The fact Sunak leads Starmer by just 1% as preferred PM, also means even Sunak would fail to win another Conservative majority at the next general election. All Sunak could hope to do would be to win most seats in a hung parliament but even then Starmer would likely become PM with SNP and LD support
Passes the plausibility sniff test. replacing Johnson with Sunak roughly unwinds the Paterson Plunge and Party Precipice in Conservative fortunes, and those are two things which bear Bozza's fingerprints and not Sunak's so much.
But it doesn't do much about the longer-term drift down by the Conservatives and up by Labour, because that's because, in various ways, the government's performance is distinctly "meh". Withered levelling up, pay rises being swallowed (and then some) by inflation, rubbish border control, tax rises on the way. And Sunak can't evade those- he's not that much of a new face who can make different big calls if he moves next door.
So that might be the grim calculation. Johnson probably loses big from here- it's hard for PM's to rebuild their reputation after a crash like this. And my sense if that the British public has mostly reached the stage of putting BoJo's pants through the shredder and then dumping the bits out the window, because they think he's a not very nice man at all. But Sunak can only be sure of resetting things to "close, honourable defeat". Better than "humiliating landslide", but is that enough?
Good argument. However it seems to me that Sunak has it unless one of two things happen: Tory MPs realise that the current government is tainted as a whole by the allegations, and the more senior the worse it is. So None Of The Above is the only answer.
And/or Sunak's shine comes off before Boris goes. And this could be soon, what with debt, tax, borrowing, inflation all at maximal levels.
It may be wise to accept silently that the next election is lost anyway, and that it is a good one for the Tories to lose, as among other things we need a moderate centre left coalition to set the post Brexit agenda, who can go and do things without either a headbanger wing stopping them, or the baggage of being the party that did Brexit.
And let Hunt or Tugendhat be the one who does the gracious losing.
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
In my experience, bullying has always been part of the workplace. I've seen it continuously. The outing and condemnation of 'bullies' is typically just a performance for public consumption, like the outing of corruption in China. When Priti Patel was stitched up by the civil service it followed this playbook perfectly, she was no different to other Ministers in having tantrums at civil servants; the bullying allegations were perhaps an attempt by the civil service to exert some control over her. On this analysis, her continued presence is a consequence of changes in the balance of power, politically she was allowed to prevail as the government were at war with the civil service. Maybe we don't hear of such allegations anymore, because the civil service is seen as more compliant; senior heads have rolled over the last couple of years; and people are having lockdown 'work' parties together.
Having said all that, something has changed in the culture, particularly in the last five or so years, in that more egregious and aggressive forms of bullying are viewed as 'abuse' and are not tolerated.
Quite right too. Time to stop condemning bullying, and encourage bullies instead.
I do feel sorry for you though, if your experience of workplaces is as you say. I must have been lucky; I've never been bullied, and have never bullied others. Despite working in the civil service for 20 years and other public sector for 20 years.
I worked in a private school for 15 years and I can confirm that bullying used to take place there. Obviously not physical, but psychological mainly. It was the usual power relationship. Sadly the management had the leverage because of the reference system and the headteacher mafia in the sector. There were many instances of unofficial phone calls between headteachers, irrespective of the contents of references.
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
In my experience, bullying has always been part of the workplace. I've seen it continuously. The outing and condemnation of 'bullies' is typically just a performance for public consumption, like the outing of corruption in China. When Priti Patel was stitched up by the civil service it followed this playbook perfectly, she was no different to other Ministers in having tantrums at civil servants; the bullying allegations were perhaps an attempt by the civil service to exert some control over her. On this analysis, her continued presence is a consequence of changes in the balance of power, politically she was allowed to prevail as the government were at war with the civil service. Maybe we don't hear of such allegations anymore, because the civil service is seen as more compliant; senior heads have rolled over the last couple of years; and people are having lockdown 'work' parties together.
Having said all that, something has changed in the culture, particularly in the last five or so years, in that more egregious and aggressive forms of bullying are viewed as 'abuse' and are not tolerated.
Quite right too. Time to stop condemning bullying, and encourage bullies instead.
I do feel sorry for you though, if your experience of workplaces is as you say. I must have been lucky; I've never been bullied, and have never bullied others. Despite working in the civil service for 20 years and other public sector for 20 years.
I worked in a private school for 15 years and I can confirm that bullying used to take place there. Obviously not physical, but psychological mainly. It was the usual power relationship. Sadly the management had the leverage because of the reference system and the headteacher mafia in the sector. There were many instances of unofficial phone calls between headteachers, irrespective of the contents of references.
There is one private school in Cannock. It provides around 10% of all Union casework in southern Staffordshire even though it only has about 25 staff.
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
The key point though is 2019 Tory voters still prefer Johnson over Sunak.
The fact Sunak leads Starmer by just 1% as preferred PM, also means even Sunak would fail to win another Conservative majority at the next general election. All Sunak could hope to do would be to win most seats in a hung parliament but even then Starmer would likely become PM with SNP and LD support
Passes the plausibility sniff test. replacing Johnson with Sunak roughly unwinds the Paterson Plunge and Party Precipice in Conservative fortunes, and those are two things which bear Bozza's fingerprints and not Sunak's so much.
But it doesn't do much about the longer-term drift down by the Conservatives and up by Labour, because that's because, in various ways, the government's performance is distinctly "meh". Withered levelling up, pay rises being swallowed (and then some) by inflation, rubbish border control, tax rises on the way. And Sunak can't evade those- he's not that much of a new face who can make different big calls if he moves next door.
So that might be the grim calculation. Johnson probably loses big from here- it's hard for PM's to rebuild their reputation after a crash like this. And my sense if that the British public has mostly reached the stage of putting BoJo's pants through the shredder and then dumping the bits out the window, because they think he's a not very nice man at all. But Sunak can only be sure of resetting things to "close, honourable defeat". Better than "humiliating landslide", but is that enough?
Good argument. However it seems to me that Sunak has it unless one of two things happen: Tory MPs realise that the current government is tainted as a whole by the allegations, and the more senior the worse it is. So None Of The Above is the only answer.
And/or Sunak's shine comes off before Boris goes. And this could be soon, what with debt, tax, borrowing, inflation all at maximal levels.
It may be wise to accept silently that the next election is lost anyway, and that it is a good one for the Tories to lose, as among other things we need a moderate centre left coalition to set the post Brexit agenda, who can go and do things without either a headbanger wing stopping them, or the baggage of being the party that did Brexit.
And let Hunt or Tugendhat be the one who does the gracious losing.
No such thing as a good election to lose. Sunak stopping the rot might salvage things just enough even if a big hit is taken. Surely worth trying for the tories
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
With all his many faults, I have never seen Lloyd George be accused of being a chimpanzee before.
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
Have any of you guys used Google Consumer Surveys? The thing is that for a £8, you can get 100 people to answer your chosen single question (and more people pro-rata). Like the polling companies, and unlike more crappy website polls, they try to make the sample demographically representative and do some weighting (though they almost don't put in the same degree of work as the pollsters).
100 people is not enough to get a quantative result, but it will answer 'which is better' if the gap is big enough. And £8 is low enough that you can even put one in for amusement value. For example, I was thinking it might be amusing to put in a poll like the one in the header, only with Johnson vs Jeremy Clarkson. Or Baldrick. If any of you are thinking of betting on the more obscure successor candidates, that don't show up in the work of real pollsters, might be worth a look. Although they don't do audience selection down to the level of party membership, sadly (you can ask a prequalifying question, but more than 1 question is for some reason much more expensive).
There are some weird terms - they don't want ordinary consumers using it so you have to warrant that you are a business. Not sure why. Push polling is not allowed, Pollitical polls also have to have an 'I'd rather not say' option.
(The reason I haven't put in a joke poll recently is that google can be a bit vicious about closing accounts if they think you have violated their terms, and I don't have a suitable business that might want the results. IE they take down your email as well. Although I think normally that's only if they think you are trying to pull a scam of some kind ).
But it can be oddly fun, because the results come in over the course of a few days, and even though you know the first 10 answers are not significant at all, it's surprisingly hard not to start speculating about the answer based on them.
Do they do them by area if one wishes? Might be worth PB (which is a business, surely) do a constituency poll for £80 next time there's a close by-election.
Mind you, the big companies aren't that expensive either. I've commissioned several (national) polls for my day job from opinium, YouGov, etc. for a few hundred quid. One, in Scotland, showing strong disapproval of live animal exports from supporters of all parties, may have helped flip the SNP position (they were strongly pro-exports, until suddenly they weren't), though a Judicial Review we were doing may have helped too.
I'm not sure about the Google option. If it is the same one, they have them on YouTube before the music video starts and I usually hit any old answer just to click straight through
Late to the party, but on whipping (in politics, of course). If Wragg is right, it stinks, but Whips have often used nefarious means to get their way; although threats to local funding seem beyond the pale.
But my view is that this is part of a wider culture in the current government: not blackmail, but bullying. And the bullying starts at the top. I think Boris is a bully. Cummings is/was a bully. Patel is a known bully. There will be others. They bully civil servants, driving quite a few out of the job. They bully SPADs that they turn against. And, following their lead, the Whips bully MPs with a nod and a wink from No. 10 - most notably over Paterson, and now over the PM's future. I suspect this bullying is alienating quite a few MPs, and they're getting sick of it.
So, my theory is that the bullying culture emanating from No. 10 is much more damaging to good governance than the (alleged) drinking culture.
Blah Blah
Blackmail has been part of the Whipping playbook for decades - nobody complained when it was, to pick a random example - Blair.
In my experience, bullying has always been part of the workplace. I've seen it continuously. The outing and condemnation of 'bullies' is typically just a performance for public consumption, like the outing of corruption in China. When Priti Patel was stitched up by the civil service it followed this playbook perfectly, she was no different to other Ministers in having tantrums at civil servants; the bullying allegations were perhaps an attempt by the civil service to exert some control over her. On this analysis, her continued presence is a consequence of changes in the balance of power, politically she was allowed to prevail as the government were at war with the civil service. Maybe we don't hear of such allegations anymore, because the civil service is seen as more compliant; senior heads have rolled over the last couple of years; and people are having lockdown 'work' parties together.
Having said all that, something has changed in the culture, particularly in the last five or so years, in that more egregious and aggressive forms of bullying are viewed as 'abuse' and are not tolerated.
Quite right too. Time to stop condemning bullying, and encourage bullies instead.
I do feel sorry for you though, if your experience of workplaces is as you say. I must have been lucky; I've never been bullied, and have never bullied others. Despite working in the civil service for 20 years and other public sector for 20 years.
I worked in a private school for 15 years and I can confirm that bullying used to take place there. Obviously not physical, but psychological mainly. It was the usual power relationship. Sadly the management had the leverage because of the reference system and the headteacher mafia in the sector. There were many instances of unofficial phone calls between headteachers, irrespective of the contents of references.
That's private schools for you - hotbeds of bullying. The state sector - not so much. And I'm being serious - management wouldn't get away with it, especially if you were in one of the teacher unions. HR practices are more 'modern' than in private schools, as well.
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
Pops in to sample conversation.
Frowns.
Pops off again.
Lloyd George was famous for the way he frequently popped in and popped off, of course.
Have any of you guys used Google Consumer Surveys? The thing is that for a £8, you can get 100 people to answer your chosen single question (and more people pro-rata). Like the polling companies, and unlike more crappy website polls, they try to make the sample demographically representative and do some weighting (though they almost don't put in the same degree of work as the pollsters).
100 people is not enough to get a quantative result, but it will answer 'which is better' if the gap is big enough. And £8 is low enough that you can even put one in for amusement value. For example, I was thinking it might be amusing to put in a poll like the one in the header, only with Johnson vs Jeremy Clarkson. Or Baldrick. If any of you are thinking of betting on the more obscure successor candidates, that don't show up in the work of real pollsters, might be worth a look. Although they don't do audience selection down to the level of party membership, sadly (you can ask a prequalifying question, but more than 1 question is for some reason much more expensive).
There are some weird terms - they don't want ordinary consumers using it so you have to warrant that you are a business. Not sure why. Push polling is not allowed, Pollitical polls also have to have an 'I'd rather not say' option.
(The reason I haven't put in a joke poll recently is that google can be a bit vicious about closing accounts if they think you have violated their terms, and I don't have a suitable business that might want the results. IE they take down your email as well. Although I think normally that's only if they think you are trying to pull a scam of some kind ).
But it can be oddly fun, because the results come in over the course of a few days, and even though you know the first 10 answers are not significant at all, it's surprisingly hard not to start speculating about the answer based on them.
Do they do them by area if one wishes? Might be worth PB (which is a business, surely) do a constituency poll for £80 next time there's a close by-election.
Mind you, the big companies aren't that expensive either. I've commissioned several (national) polls for my day job from opinium, YouGov, etc. for a few hundred quid. One, in Scotland, showing strong disapproval of live animal exports from supporters of all parties, may have helped flip the SNP position (they were strongly pro-exports, until suddenly they weren't), though a Judicial Review we were doing may have helped too.
I'm not sure about the Google option. If it is the same one, they have them on YouTube before the music video starts and I usually hit any old answer just to click straight through
Looking through the Wikipedia pages of old polls, I note that PB did commission a number of polls in the early days.
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
So Lloyd George Knew my Mother is the key point?
Couldn't possibly comment (I may be missing an allusion there, however).
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
With all his many faults, I have never seen Lloyd George be accused of being a chimpanzee before.
As well as Spartacus, we are all chimpanzees (albeit rather juvenile, hairless and skinny ones).
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
Pops in to sample conversation.
Frowns.
Pops off again.
Are you feeling left out? If it helps, thanks to Big Bang I can relate rabbits to the conversation. Apparently rabbits one of the few mammals whose scrotum is in front of the penis.
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
So Lloyd George Knew my Mother is the key point?
Couldn't possibly comment (I may be missing an allusion there, however).
Lloyd George knew my father is a traditional reference to nepotism. There is even a song about it. Remarkably, it is also (though via a descendent of that Lloyd George) how a current minister got his big break. (Hint: Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
Lloyd George knew my father Father knew Lloyd George Lloyd George knew my father Father knew Lloyd George
Have any of you guys used Google Consumer Surveys? The thing is that for a £8, you can get 100 people to answer your chosen single question (and more people pro-rata). Like the polling companies, and unlike more crappy website polls, they try to make the sample demographically representative and do some weighting (though they almost don't put in the same degree of work as the pollsters).
100 people is not enough to get a quantative result, but it will answer 'which is better' if the gap is big enough. And £8 is low enough that you can even put one in for amusement value. For example, I was thinking it might be amusing to put in a poll like the one in the header, only with Johnson vs Jeremy Clarkson. Or Baldrick. If any of you are thinking of betting on the more obscure successor candidates, that don't show up in the work of real pollsters, might be worth a look. Although they don't do audience selection down to the level of party membership, sadly (you can ask a prequalifying question, but more than 1 question is for some reason much more expensive).
There are some weird terms - they don't want ordinary consumers using it so you have to warrant that you are a business. Not sure why. Push polling is not allowed, Pollitical polls also have to have an 'I'd rather not say' option.
(The reason I haven't put in a joke poll recently is that google can be a bit vicious about closing accounts if they think you have violated their terms, and I don't have a suitable business that might want the results. IE they take down your email as well. Although I think normally that's only if they think you are trying to pull a scam of some kind ).
But it can be oddly fun, because the results come in over the course of a few days, and even though you know the first 10 answers are not significant at all, it's surprisingly hard not to start speculating about the answer based on them.
Do they do them by area if one wishes? Might be worth PB (which is a business, surely) do a constituency poll for £80 next time there's a close by-election.
Mind you, the big companies aren't that expensive either. I've commissioned several (national) polls for my day job from opinium, YouGov, etc. for a few hundred quid. One, in Scotland, showing strong disapproval of live animal exports from supporters of all parties, may have helped flip the SNP position (they were strongly pro-exports, until suddenly they weren't), though a Judicial Review we were doing may have helped too.
They do do them by area, but not down to the level of constituencies. Areas like 'East Midlands' or 'Scotland'
Have any of you guys used Google Consumer Surveys? The thing is that for a £8, you can get 100 people to answer your chosen single question (and more people pro-rata). Like the polling companies, and unlike more crappy website polls, they try to make the sample demographically representative and do some weighting (though they almost don't put in the same degree of work as the pollsters).
100 people is not enough to get a quantative result, but it will answer 'which is better' if the gap is big enough. And £8 is low enough that you can even put one in for amusement value. For example, I was thinking it might be amusing to put in a poll like the one in the header, only with Johnson vs Jeremy Clarkson. Or Baldrick. If any of you are thinking of betting on the more obscure successor candidates, that don't show up in the work of real pollsters, might be worth a look. Although they don't do audience selection down to the level of party membership, sadly (you can ask a prequalifying question, but more than 1 question is for some reason much more expensive).
There are some weird terms - they don't want ordinary consumers using it so you have to warrant that you are a business. Not sure why. Push polling is not allowed, Pollitical polls also have to have an 'I'd rather not say' option.
(The reason I haven't put in a joke poll recently is that google can be a bit vicious about closing accounts if they think you have violated their terms, and I don't have a suitable business that might want the results. IE they take down your email as well. Although I think normally that's only if they think you are trying to pull a scam of some kind ).
But it can be oddly fun, because the results come in over the course of a few days, and even though you know the first 10 answers are not significant at all, it's surprisingly hard not to start speculating about the answer based on them.
Do they do them by area if one wishes? Might be worth PB (which is a business, surely) do a constituency poll for £80 next time there's a close by-election.
Mind you, the big companies aren't that expensive either. I've commissioned several (national) polls for my day job from opinium, YouGov, etc. for a few hundred quid. One, in Scotland, showing strong disapproval of live animal exports from supporters of all parties, may have helped flip the SNP position (they were strongly pro-exports, until suddenly they weren't), though a Judicial Review we were doing may have helped too.
I'm not sure about the Google option. If it is the same one, they have them on YouTube before the music video starts and I usually hit any old answer just to click straight through
Yeah they record how quickly the respondent answers, so they can filter out people like you
Needs to be £21 a week by now, surely the poorest in society should get the same triple lock that we offer the richest cohort?
The triple lock for pensioners was broken, despite it being a manifesto commitment.
Suspended for 2 years, not broken, and in those 2 years it will be very high inflation so 5% rises likely. Why not the same for poorer UC claimants?
They don't vote Tory, unlike pensioners.
But either way the £20 has been more than returned to anyone on UC who is working thanks to the cut in the taper rate.
Anyone who isn't, should get a job.
That's vile
Or should I simply state that you, Phillip, are vile
It's vile to think people who aren't working should get a job? When we have full employment, record employment, major vacancies and companies eager to recruit?
I'm quite prepared to accept that epithet from you.
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
So Lloyd George Knew my Mother is the key point?
Couldn't possibly comment (I may be missing an allusion there, however).
Lloyd George knew my father is a traditional reference to nepotism. There is even a song about it. Remarkably, it is also (though via a descendent of that Lloyd George) how a current minister got his big break. (Hint: Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
Lloyd George knew my father Father knew Lloyd George Lloyd George knew my father Father knew Lloyd George
Aah, thank you: the things one learns on PB (in this case one of the nicer things).
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
So Lloyd George Knew my Mother is the key point?
Couldn't possibly comment (I may be missing an allusion there, however).
Lloyd George knew my father is a traditional reference to nepotism. There is even a song about it. Remarkably, it is also (though via a descendent of that Lloyd George) how a current minister got his big break. (Hint: Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
Lloyd George knew my father Father knew Lloyd George Lloyd George knew my father Father knew Lloyd George
Aah, thank you: the things one learns on PB (in this case one of the nicer things).
The key point though is 2019 Tory voters still prefer Johnson over Sunak.
The fact Sunak leads Starmer by just 1% as preferred PM, also means even Sunak would fail to win another Conservative majority at the next general election. All Sunak could hope to do would be to win most seats in a hung parliament but even then Starmer would likely become PM with SNP and LD support
Passes the plausibility sniff test. replacing Johnson with Sunak roughly unwinds the Paterson Plunge and Party Precipice in Conservative fortunes, and those are two things which bear Bozza's fingerprints and not Sunak's so much.
But it doesn't do much about the longer-term drift down by the Conservatives and up by Labour, because that's because, in various ways, the government's performance is distinctly "meh". Withered levelling up, pay rises being swallowed (and then some) by inflation, rubbish border control, tax rises on the way. And Sunak can't evade those- he's not that much of a new face who can make different big calls if he moves next door.
So that might be the grim calculation. Johnson probably loses big from here- it's hard for PM's to rebuild their reputation after a crash like this. And my sense if that the British public has mostly reached the stage of putting BoJo's pants through the shredder and then dumping the bits out the window, because they think he's a not very nice man at all. But Sunak can only be sure of resetting things to "close, honourable defeat". Better than "humiliating landslide", but is that enough?
After a couple of frenetic days, it seems quieter tonight. Has the Prime Minister ridden out the storm of criticism or are we all awaiting the Gray report with breath most bated?
Reading all the reports of businesses "calling staff back to desks", not a single one is suggesting 100% office based work as the way forward. All are talking hybrid with 50% office work and 50% home work and that's the way of the future or the "new normal" as it is termed.
Looking at today's release of passenger transport numbers, national rail passenger numbers are just over half pre-Covid and London Underground at just under half pre-Covid. We are told there has been a "rush" back today but the truth is much more prosaic - a small increase but still a long way off pre-Covid days.
After a couple of frenetic days, it seems quieter tonight. Has the Prime Minister ridden out the storm of criticism or are we all awaiting the Gray report with breath most bated?
Reading all the reports of businesses "calling staff back to desks", not a single one is suggesting 100% office based work as the way forward. All are talking hybrid with 50% office work and 50% home work and that's the way of the future or the "new normal" as it is termed.
Looking at today's release of passenger transport numbers, national rail passenger numbers are just over half pre-Covid and London Underground at just under half pre-Covid. We are told there has been a "rush" back today but the truth is much more prosaic - a small increase but still a long way off pre-Covid days.
I was amused to note the roads round here were much quieter today than they were yesterday.
I suspect as much as anything that was due to the heavy ice most people had to clear, but it was still ironic,
Keep thinking about govt threatening to withhold £ for a high school in Radcliffe, which has been *desperate* for one for years. The freewheeling contempt. It’s the same feeling I had when I watched Jacob Rees Mogg’s comments about Douglas Ross. You see how you’re seen https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1484276627504783365
If all that the critics of Sunak can muster at this point is to damn him with faint praise, I'd say the Tories would be daft not to elect him. Though financially I'd prefer Liz Truss...
That's a bit weird. I'm of the view that the more potential sources of energy you have, the better.
Yes, I thought it was a bit strange too.
I had a brief look at the decision letter - https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/south-east/aquind-interconnector/ - and the crux of the matter seems to be that an alternative route, connecting to a different substation on the English side, is thought to be less disruptive, and therefore preferable. Not sure what the detailed differences are between the two, but if there is a different route that is markedly better than the other then I can see the sense in refusing this application to encourage one for the other route.
That's a bit weird. I'm of the view that the more potential sources of energy you have, the better.
Yes, I thought it was a bit strange too.
I had a brief look at the decision letter - https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/south-east/aquind-interconnector/ - and the crux of the matter seems to be that an alternative route, connecting to a different substation on the English side, is thought to be less disruptive, and therefore preferable. Not sure what the detailed differences are between the two, but if there is a different route that is markedly better than the other then I can see the sense in refusing this application to encourage one for the other route.
The Russian connection might also be an issue in the current environment.
That's a bit weird. I'm of the view that the more potential sources of energy you have, the better.
Yes, I thought it was a bit strange too.
I had a brief look at the decision letter - https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/south-east/aquind-interconnector/ - and the crux of the matter seems to be that an alternative route, connecting to a different substation on the English side, is thought to be less disruptive, and therefore preferable. Not sure what the detailed differences are between the two, but if there is a different route that is markedly better than the other then I can see the sense in refusing this application to encourage one for the other route.
The Russian connection might also be an issue in the current environment.
If the connections for a cable between Britain and France are in Russia, they've advanced a lot further and faster than I thought.
There's some similarity between this and some of the polling we saw in 2006/07 regarding Blair and Brown.
Rishi Sunak's position has strong similarities with that of Gordon Brown back in the day.
However, think that GB's biggest problem, was the Peter Principle. Did for him, as it did Sir Anthony Eden.
How Sunak performs viz-a-viz the dread PP, if (or is it when?) push comes to shove (for Boris), is an open question.
I can't see the comparison between Brown and Eden. Brown was a victim of Macmillan's events, dear boy, events in the shape of the global financial crisis.
Eden was master of his own demise via Suez and, to a lesser extent, the Buster Crabb affair.
Chuchill thought Eden just was NOT up to the job of replacing him. And he was right.
If this doesn't confirm Prince Andrew is a wrong 'un then I don't know what will?
As recently as 2015, Prince Andrew's ringtone was Clocks by Coldplay.
Only way it could have been worse is if it was a Radiohead track?
Don't know. Creep would seem quite apposite.
Indeed.
My daughter objects to my ringtone - Unforgiven by Apocalyptica.
Mine is that classic Blue Oyster Cult: Don't Fear the Reaper.
Oh God, I've got that guitar riff bouncing around my head now. It's gonna be there for days. Thanks @Foxy!
The medical students and junior doctors are too young to get the joke, but the intro is good as a ring tone as it starts slowly and builds, rather than starts full on.
Comments
I believe him.
I don't see why the party should in fact lavish support on habitual rebels, and it's unrealistic to think that if you rebel you'll be rewarded with a promotion, so both were I think legitimate arguments. If they'd suggested that a school in my area would suffer, that would have been a corrupt use of power.
My daughter objects to my ringtone - Unforgiven by Apocalyptica.
Sunak may therefore end up the new Home anyway
100 people is not enough to get a quantative result, but it will answer 'which is better' if the gap is big enough. And £8 is low enough that you can even put one in for amusement value. For example, I was thinking it might be amusing to put in a poll like the one in the header, only with Johnson vs Jeremy Clarkson. Or Baldrick. If any of you are thinking of betting on the more obscure successor candidates, that don't show up in the work of real pollsters, might be worth a look. Although they don't do audience selection down to the level of party membership, sadly (you can ask a prequalifying question, but more than 1 question is for some reason much more expensive).
There are some weird terms - they don't want ordinary consumers using it so you have to warrant that you are a business. Not sure why. Push polling is not allowed, Pollitical polls also have to have an 'I'd rather not say' option.
(The reason I haven't put in a joke poll recently is that google can be a bit vicious about closing accounts if they think you have violated their terms, and I don't have a suitable business that might want the results. IE they take down your email as well. Although I think normally that's only if they think you are trying to pull a scam of some kind ).
But it can be oddly fun, because the results come in over the course of a few days, and even though you know the first 10 answers are not significant at all, it's surprisingly hard not to start speculating about the answer based on them.
The Chancellor makes his colleagues look like pygmies
BY WILL LLOYD"
https://unherd.com/2021/10/why-rishi-sunak-will-win/
But it doesn't do much about the longer-term drift down by the Conservatives and up by Labour, because that's because, in various ways, the government's performance is distinctly "meh". Withered levelling up, pay rises being swallowed (and then some) by inflation, rubbish border control, tax rises on the way. And Sunak can't evade those- he's not that much of a new face who can make different big calls if he moves next door.
So that might be the grim calculation. Johnson probably loses big from here- it's hard for PM's to rebuild their reputation after a crash like this. And my sense if that the British public has mostly reached the stage of putting BoJo's pants through the shredder and then dumping the bits out the window, because they think he's a not very nice man at all. But Sunak can only be sure of resetting things to "close, honourable defeat". Better than "humiliating landslide", but is that enough?
I'm also, despite not being a huge witchfinder, comfortable with the idea that references to Sunak's height indirectly allude to his race
Eden was master of his own demise via Suez and, to a lesser extent, the Buster Crabb affair.
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1484235987781828610?s=20
https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1484201487723110404
Having said all that, something has changed in the culture, particularly in the last five or so years, in that more egregious and aggressive forms of bullying are viewed as 'abuse' and are not tolerated.
Anyway, it's a lovely, uncritical, non-analytical and extraordinarily sycophantic paean to the wonders of Sunak; looks like it's written by one of his leadership campaign team.
One of the canvassers, though, was still a Johnson loyalist.
Radical I know.
PS I only said twat because it cost me £50 to site funds last time I used the expression complete and utter f------- c---
ETA I think I meant to be talking to briskin here, quoting seems foutu
I do feel sorry for you though, if your experience of workplaces is as you say. I must have been lucky; I've never been bullied, and have never bullied others. Despite working in the civil service for 20 years and other public sector for 20 years.
Although Lloyd George was famous for the size of - other things...
One of the reasons I suspect for the degree of inattention is that senior politicians throughout Europe are finding it hard to know what to say. The EU is split and has neither forces nor policy, NATO does not want to be involved if it can help it, Germany is embarrassed, the UK would like it to be an EU issue please,the USA has East Asia concerns and has no intention of getting sucked in. Russia has already invaded part of Ukraine and the world kept spinning round.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/17385033/plan-to-stop-kids-being-back-into-masks?utm_source=sharebar_app&utm_medium=sharebar_app&utm_campaign=sharebar_app_article
I've never actually been bullied, nor do I think I have done it myself, so I'm not asking for sympathy. I've just seen it continuously occur to other people. Perhaps the problem is that 'bullying', like 'abuse' is a nebulous term, it means different things to different people.
Mind you, the big companies aren't that expensive either. I've commissioned several (national) polls for my day job from opinium, YouGov, etc. for a few hundred quid. One, in Scotland, showing strong disapproval of live animal exports from supporters of all parties, may have helped flip the SNP position (they were strongly pro-exports, until suddenly they weren't), though a Judicial Review we were doing may have helped too.
And/or Sunak's shine comes off before Boris goes. And this could be soon, what with debt, tax, borrowing, inflation all at maximal levels.
It may be wise to accept silently that the next election is lost anyway, and that it is a good one for the Tories to lose, as among other things we need a moderate centre left coalition to set the post Brexit agenda, who can go and do things without either a headbanger wing stopping them, or the baggage of being the party that did Brexit.
And let Hunt or Tugendhat be the one who does the gracious losing.
This has nothing at all to do with the fact that Carole is my slightly guilty crush.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/why-chimpanzees-have-big-testes--and-mandrills-have-small-ones-65743
"Chimpanzees and bonobos, which for the most part lack ornamentation, are by nature promiscuous species, females typically mating with multiple males. This means that within the female reproductive system, there’s competition among sperm to fertilize the egg. To secure better chances of outcompeting the gametes of rival males, it pays off to produce more sperm, and growing larger testes is one way to do that, Lüpold explains."
Again.
All through the pandemic those on other benefits were ignored.
What is it with Sunak?
If you don't like how things are VOTE
Noted.
I’ll “split”.
Frowns.
Pops off again.
Anyone who isn't, should get a job.
Lloyd George knew my father
Father knew Lloyd George
Lloyd George knew my father
Father knew Lloyd George
Or should I simply state that you, Phillip, are vile
I'm quite prepared to accept that epithet from you.
No10 ‘offered to ease Covid rules for Prince Philip’s funeral but Queen declined because it wouldn’t be fair’
After a couple of frenetic days, it seems quieter tonight. Has the Prime Minister ridden out the storm of criticism or are we all awaiting the Gray report with breath most bated?
Reading all the reports of businesses "calling staff back to desks", not a single one is suggesting 100% office based work as the way forward. All are talking hybrid with 50% office work and 50% home work and that's the way of the future or the "new normal" as it is termed.
Looking at today's release of passenger transport numbers, national rail passenger numbers are just over half pre-Covid and London Underground at just under half pre-Covid. We are told there has been a "rush" back today but the truth is much more prosaic - a small increase but still a long way off pre-Covid days.
I suspect as much as anything that was due to the heavy ice most people had to clear, but it was still ironic,
2 goals for Jota and that's a deserved second.
https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1484276627504783365
I had a brief look at the decision letter - https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/south-east/aquind-interconnector/ - and the crux of the matter seems to be that an alternative route, connecting to a different substation on the English side, is thought to be less disruptive, and therefore preferable. Not sure what the detailed differences are between the two, but if there is a different route that is markedly better than the other then I can see the sense in refusing this application to encourage one for the other route.
Ditto Blair with Brown.
Other than pointless (free) culture war gestures, he has nothing left.